Matt Gives Atheists A Bad Name | Fallon-(CA) | Atheist Experience 25.31
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2024
- The Atheist Experience 25.31 for August 1, 2021 with Matt Dillahunty and @Phil Ferguson.
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a RUclips member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in 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...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Matt talks straight and doesn't let callers get by without defending their argument. I like it, I am sick of all the talk without ever getting to a point. No one can answer yes or no, but has to give a sermon that lasts beyond the memory of the question. Adults shouldn't need to be coddled like a baby.
👏👏👏👍
Being blunt is different than being an asshole.
@@pnut3844able
Being an asshole is different than killing people as witches and defending slavery.
Will go outside one day and all u see is grown ass people getting hurt over petty stuff
@@pnut3844able no it isn’t , it’s being an asshole when u get offended (acting like a bitch) u be alright Ryan
"Fallon, what questions don't I answer?"
(Fallon proceeds not to answer question)
Phil makes a great anger translator for Matt.
Yes! He immediately clocked an approach that didn't work and pivoted, and when it worked he took charge for that portion of the discussion. Perfect intermediary.
I think this is my first time seeing Phil. From his demeanor and voice, I can't not see Eric's future self.
Totally 👍
Yeah-- he was great. I'd say make him full-time moderator! :)
That's exactly what I was thinking!
Phil, you really handled this call so eloquently, it was impressive!
I appreciate Matt's no nonsense approach to discussion.
I agree. I like that he gets callers to the point. I despise the ramblers. I’ll tell GET TO THE POINT.
I like when Matt is paired with someone that balances him out. Good cop bad cop is still used for a reason, it's effective.
@Jim Jones I’d rather not have an answer than pretend I do.
@Jim Jones funny. According to your brand of cult, answers to everything is "god," who you all believe to exist but can't prove he exist, and you think reason is on your side? Common sense doesn't even exist with you lot.
@Jim Jones Same sad copy paste, same condescending attitude, different day/thread.
Got to love a caller who rings in to specifically accuse a host of not answering questions, then repeatedly dodging the simple question of “when have I done that?” in excess of 3 or 4 times.
Bottom line,..Matt played a big part in me becoming an Atheist!! For that, I’m grateful..!
Why do I feel like I'm watching couple's therapy where Phil is the therapist?
Spot on! 😆
It's not arrogant to call out dishonesty and timewasters...
Otangelo, and Canadian Catholic, we are looking at you
Yeah he’s incredibly willing and able, IF the guest demonstrates willingness as well. The fact that Matt stomps guests who are being punks or pompous is ok by me
I am so glad that Otangelo is perma banned finally. Matt was entirely too generous with him.
I'd like to add "Darth Dawkins" and "Mark of the Stone Church," Austin TX.
@@scipioafricanus5871
Except that their arguments are so bad as to have become emblematic. It's useful to see them. Once anyway. Once is probably enough.
Best thumbnail ever.
I just started the video, and that thumbnail has got me simultaneously thrilled and terrified.
Was going to say the same thing 😂 That thumbnail is GOLD!
Terminator Homer Simpson
Especially for this channel
I want it on a t-shirt...
That's on you for expecting one dude to represent all atheists.
Yep
Fallon is typical of human reactions. Strong on the feelings they feel and low on rational analysis of what actually occurred.
"I didn't like your attitude" Doesn't make Her wrong even. She simply is not prepared to articulate her complaint.
I love that statement
"Very few people are deconverted during a conversation."
Its always discouraging when talking to theists because it feels somewhat like screaming into a void at times. But it helps to remember this fact, just because it seems like the person is rooted into an ideology or faith system and refuse to budge doesn't mean they won't leave that conversation with something of value. It helps to remind me that talks like those had on AXP are worth it. Also try to remember to play a little devils advocate every now and then, its fun and healthy for your positions to take a outside perspective.
Expecting someone who has been indoctrinated by their parents, family members, relatives, friends, classmates, movies, televisions, books and the majority of the society chemotherapy
Thing is, the best way to get them to leave the conversation with something valuable is to take the exact opposite of Matt’s approach. Matt’s style of ‘discussion’ only causes the other person to close themselves off and become resentful.
Watch Anthony Magnabosco for some examples of the opposite of Matt’s approach. Conversations that ACTUALLY deconvert theists.
@@karlkalina3022 The thing is Matt has never set out to "deconvert" anyone, and neither would I. For some people unapologetic calling out of bullshit IS the final thread being pulled. To go to someone like Matt and say "If you were only nicer you would deconvert more Theists" is pointless. There are mountains of evidence that Matt's approach does work on a good number of people, and to those it doesn't work on they may find someone else to listen to. But as long as that thread is pulled, it may begin a cascade of questions the Theist had never considered in their religious echo chambers. Just a thought man, if you don't appreciate Matt's approach it's as simple as saying he isn't yours or everyone's cup of tea. But to insinuate that his method is ineffective just flies in the face of the evidence.
@@freemind1923 I don't quite follow the chemotherapy part, but as to the rest I would say I don't expect anything. I go into a conversation or debate knowing its unlikely anyone will be changing their minds then and there. But I give the facts to the best of my ability and leave with a sliver of hope.
@@Freqsheux I was actually intending to write something to support you but I don't know what happened my comment before I hit the enter button. It was meant to be something as below as far was I remember:
"Expecting someone to deconvert after a 15-20 minutes debate with atheists; who has been indoctrinated by their parents, family members, relatives, friends, classmates, movies, televisions, books and the majority the society since the moment he / she was born is the same thing as expecting someone to get rid of cancer at the end of the first chemotherapy session"
Some people start thinking when they listen to Harris, some when they listen to Hitch, others when Matt argues. I am glad they are not all the same and each has a different style.
You took the time and effort to call in and accuse Matt of something and not have one example of what you’re accusing him with. Brilliant!
Absolutely brilliant 😅
Shifting the goalposts. She had examples but not specific examples.
@@404_profile_not_found “Shifting the goalposts”
Do you think accusing someone of something and not providing a single specific example is the norm?
Everyone I have ever spoken to about this issue has the implicit understanding that the person making the accusation needs to provide evidence of what they are claiming.
This is only shifting the goalposts if you think the norm is to make accusations without evidence and for people to just magically know what you are talking about. Which would be quite the fete… if the accuser themselves can’t think of a specific example I don’t see why the person being accused would be expected to know.
“She had examples but not specific examples”
I try not to be rude, but that is one of the silliest things I’ve heard in a while.
Try going to a casino with that mentality. “I definitely won that last round of roulette. I landed on red… I just didn’t land on a specific number. I can’t provide any evidence that is relevant but trust me, I won!”
If she provided examples that weren’t specific then she didn’t provide examples… she made generalisations and offered her personal feelings about what she heard over several conversations.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih "If she provided examples that weren’t specific then she didn’t provide examples"
Wrong. Non-specific examples are still EXAMPLES by definition. And when you say, "they're not specific examples so they dont count" is shifting the goalposts.
A generalized example is still an example. For instance, a statistician can say, "So-and-so has been engaging in detrimental behaviour that will lower their life expectancy by *smoking, drinking alcohol and doing drugs* 30% of their time" is still giving examples of detrimental behaviour - BUT NOT CITE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, like "on May 31st so-and-so drank 20 oz of vodka" - and their assessment is still backed up by statistics even if they don't have those numbers in front of them. So yes, she gave examples of when Matt skips questions, not specific examples of WHAT questions.
@@404_profile_not_found Your example would work if she rang in and gave statistics and was able to show the data backing them up when asked.
As it stands your example here has absolutely nothing of importance in common with this call. For starters she didn’t call in citing statistics of how often Matt does this. So right off the bat the example you have is not at all like what she did.
And crucial is the reason she didn’t have statistics… because she didn’t do an analysis of what Matt has said and when. Which brings us neatly back to the starting position. She has given no examples.
Or to put it another way… the only way to get statistics is to analyse individual instances and categorise them. That’s true even in your example… the only way to get your 30% number is to look at specific instances like “31st May”. So I’m left confused why you think what you said here is relevant. The fact remains she did not call in with statistics backed by specifics. She didn’t even have a single specific example she was able to cite.
If Matt gives atheists a bad name then I'm not sure I want a good name.
Hi. I'm not an atheist, but I don't judge all atheists by one individual, or even a number of individuals. People who do that have lost their ability to discriminate.
@@archiesimpson5172 how dare you. Whatever denomination you subscribe to is obviously the devil in disguise. anyone who preaches acceptance and tolerance is literally hitler (j/k)
Water Lily is a pretty good name
I couldn't be a host on AXP or any of the related shows, I would be screaming and cursing at every ignorant theist.
Me too Keith, me too.
What gets me is that these religious morons say they've watched the show for a while, and then they come up the exact same stupid questions.
Then they actually they are on to something when they ask these same stupid questions.
@Gods Servant While you’re stating the obvious, you know what else? Water is wet and fire is hot!😱🤦🏼♂️
@Gods Servant Indeed, that’s why I felt it prudent to inform you that water is wet, and fire is in fact hot! You know, just for future reference in case you’re not sure which is which. I couldn’t assume that you already knew.
@Gods Servant Well, your first post here, 54 minutes ago, wasn’t addressed to anyone.
Fortunately though, I do control the mind of the person to which your last post was addressed.
Matt doesn’t give atheists a bad name. People who are inclined to give atheists bad names may point to Matt as an example of atheists being bad. But that’s a fallacy for two reasons. 1. Matt’s not bad and 2. Matt’s not all atheists. I criticize Matt all the time because I think he says and does things that are counter to his goals; but I believe he is in a unique position because of the massive amount of time and number of calls he’s dealt with. He’s not bad, he’s fantastic. I’m so grateful for his directness and power. I thought I was free thinking until Matt’s style shook me loose from some deeply buried hangups; hangups based on guilt. Matt just needs to bear in mind that these shows do not have the purpose of satisfying Matt’s needs and wants. It’s not personal. “On-air Matt” represents a concept that callers are trying to deal with. Change is hard and often painful. People try to blame Matt because they don’t want the truth to be true.
"giving bad name" is a false generalization fallacy
Matt is very patient if he detects sincerity, effort, and they’re responding. But when Matt sees lying, laziness, and they’re ignoring you & repeating talking points, Matt does go a bit wild but I enjoy it, and I think it’s usually deserved.
@@Sprite_525 I agree.
Screw that I wouldn’t be an atheist if I hadn’t stumbled across Matt’s videos.
This is true for me, also. His old videos are fantastic. His new ones, not so much.
@@RichD746 Richard Beyer: "Matt, you changed, man!"
@@scipioafricanus5871 Basically. I’ve reached out a couple times, but rather he didn’t reply. He seem constantly on edge now.
@@RichD746 I mean, he is CONSTANTLY battling the same tired argument and apologetics. Would definitely tire you out over a few years.
@@EustaBAracer This is true. And I agree it would get cumbersome after a while. But he can’t forget what he said years ago is that he doesn’t do this to change the callers mind, it’s for the listeners to hear a rational argument and start questioning and thinking about the topic. If I was a religious listener, and all I hear of swearing and hang ups, I’m moving on….while keeping my existing thought process.
Thanks Matt , I owe you so very much for teaching me how to use logic and reason correctly.
You're the Best.
Matt... I love your approach 10000%... you are just arsome .. your response is just perfect... please do not change a thing....
The show is fantastic.
@@neutrinoexpert825 not much of a proof for your claim, there.
@@neutrinoexpert825 Case not closed. There are plenty of reasons why 3 people wouldn't get an answer. I for one wouldn't get through because I'm fast asleep at 3 A.M., and I am also not going to set an alarm to test it. Instead, you could explain who all these guests are that do call in and where they get those and some evidence would be nice. Like copies or screenshots of emails, discord messages, anything. Just saying a thing doesn't happen and saying it's proof that it's all fake and completely ignoring how much effort would have to be put in to manufacture literally hundreds of thousands conversations and thousands of callers, is a bit stupid, considering the planet is a globe and there are time zones and shit and you're suggesting thousands of people being in on a conspiracy only you know about.
So how do you know that and don't say you tried calling and got no answer. That's an anecdote, that is not enough evidence to close the case. For starters it's a claim that you didn't even back up, so now you're back to zero evidence.
@@neutrinoexpert825
Okay answer this then.
If the show only have their call in open for about an hour and they can only take let's say 5 calls out of fifty that got in out of let's say 1000 calls per show and you are the 1001st or just even the 200th one. How does that constitute the show being fake? How exactly does your exception become the rule!?
@@neutrinoexpert825
Except you're a Troll and the one with literally no Evidence. "Proof" is mathematics btw.
It’s funny how she did what she was saying callers did… by saying what the callers did.
“They’re just so married to the point that they called in for”
Yeah, just like you evidently
Exactly!
Ok I am a big matt fan.... but I kind of see her point... I think he could be more Zen. In this case.... Matt also kind of did what she had a problem with. He didn't get to the bigger point of the call by getting mad ("triggered") about a smaller point ("Matt doesn't answer questions"). Is she right about this? No. But luckily Phil redirected us back on point.
The thing is.... I think she had a semi valid point mayyybe about giving off "angry atheist" vibes being a bad rhetorical strategy/ PR strategy but she is being pretty unilateraly mocked and dismissed. IDK.... Seems like no credence is being given to the point at all.
@@computerflight2145 this is because she is arguing from an initially prejudiced standpoint and hypocritically did exactly what she criticised him for.
@John Wood Your question is stupid because whether or not you are right... and I dont really wanna argue it.... You asked me what point she was making which I clearly discussed in my comment (check the part after “She had a semi valid point about....). If you disagree with me... explain that but dont ask a question I clearly answered in my first post...
Matt's logic and arrogance pushed the boundaries, across the globe. It helped some of us. Thank you.
It's not always a good thing though sometimes he is just being a dick
Matt, "you give atheist a bad name ". You play your part and you play your game.. you give atheists a bad name. Haha Haha.
Impossible to read it without hearing Bon Jovi in my head hahaha
Matt helped tremendously in my deconversion. Still does, in fact.
😂 I love me some matt, but he knows he has an anger issue 😂
Yup unlike the early days I guess it was bound to come out robots over humans
Damn right he does. He'll say otherwise. I'm sure we can find episodes where he declares he doesn't get angry.
I watched the stream from which this call was clipped but I had to drop in to say how AWESOME the thumbnail for this video looks... Whoever put that together deserved a whole heap of recognition for it. Looks like Matt is assuming his ultimate form.
Everybody is so thin-skinned anymore, I appreciate Matt holding people accountable to their statements and dishonesty. CHristian = snowflake
Matt cried over Richard Dawkins' Tweet.
"Other people are the snowflakes! Not Matt!"
My thick-skulled brain gets messed up when people use anymore to mean nowadays, I need to pause and reread when that happens (seems more often anymore than a decade ago).
Nothing personal, language changes.
Are people more thin skinned, or are we all choosing to expose ourselves to an ocean of opinions? I can only speak for myself. I noticed that I actually feel better on the weekends when I am not plugged into social media .
During the week, when being on social media is an expectation of my employment, I feel a little more abraded and raw. And it's not even as if I'm fighting with people online. It's just from reading all the chatter, which is so unfiltered and more readily nasty.
Matt can come across as harsh sometimes, but I think it's because he's used to debating professionals that will Gish Gallop you if you let them. So you have to cut them off as soon as they mention a fallacy.
And he should understand that is not how the average person has a discussion. I bet matt wouldn't have became atheist, if he had encounterd someone as arrogant as him , instead of his atheist friend when he was younger.
@@privateprivate1865 that’s seriously doesn’t make any sense
@@privateprivate1865 I agree. I love Matt and he’s clearly very well prepared to handle a certain kind of more “serious” apologist who will naturally resort to games like gish gallop. However, and I know it’s hard, but most of Matt’s logical arguments are so many steps ahead of the average religious caller that they regularly cease to be useful. And Matt doesn’t take the time necessary to get those callers up to speed on what exactly they’re actually talking about, so they end up getting more confused and everyone gets frustrated and nothing is accomplished.
Of course, Matt is under no obligation to coddle his callers and rigorously hold their hands through it all, but if his intention is to actually change minds, then, unfortunately, he simply has to put in more of an effort.
@@joratto2833 exactly! And we'll said!
@@joratto2833
Sorry but your run through of Matt is neither fair nor accurate. I, like Matt and like literaly anyone else, are and get Frustrated by people whom refuse to argue the point in question, whom refuse to argue honestly, that just want to move on to the next point and not acknowledge that their initial point(s) have been refuted. People who keep repeating themselves and don't grasp that we've come up with something that refutes their argument and just moves on to another analogy that's the same as the one before.
Phil is able to control the conversation. Kudos to him. I also agree that Matt sometimes seem abrasive, but he needs to be, based on many callers.
I love this matt & phil combo its like good cop/bad cop
Damn Phil. Where have you been? What a mediator. This guy is smooth as silk. He is the voice of the rest of us. What a resource. This was a great call
I really really love the show. Thank you Matt and team.
If you don’t like how Matt talks to people you can simply ignore the show and not watch when he’s on because there’s people who definitely love Matt and his style of no bs conversation
I get what her core argument was. There are times where people call in with arguments I never heard or don’t know the arguments against. What sometime happens is Matt doesn’t let the pre supps or flawed arguments get that far and he as no obligation to. Think the caller wants Matt to do more “for the sake of argument” and concede points but what good does that do if the argument is flawed to begin with
Matt has never not answered a question what gets him mad is when callers refuse to answer questions , deflect or answer a question with a question
Nailed it!
Some people take "I don't know" as not answering a question and I think that may be part of the issue.
@@dandotvid I don’t know is the only legitimate answer to a question you don’t know the answer about like how the universe started as no one does know as of yet
I love Matt's shpeel at 12:30. I perfectly encapsulates the difficulty the hosts go through trying to teach and get through to people while also keeping the show interesting. Sure, he could to sit quietly waiting "his turn" while a caller preachers for 20 minutes and then try to break down their points one by one. The MIGHT get a couple callers to say "Yeah, you've got a point, I'll think about that", but I'd bet that a vast majority of the time, they wouldn't be reached no matter how long the conversation is.
Matt knows when to cut them loose.
Does Matt get too angry? In my opinion, yes. Does Matt become too offensive or insulting at times? In my opinion, yes.
Anyways........
Matt is still dope as hell and the most intelligent being I've ever listened to.
Bingo. No one is perfect. I would probably do a worse job than he does and burst into flames myself.
I don’t think there’s any one of us who have not at sometime or other either disagreed with Matt, or felt that he was a little out of line. I don’t think there’s too many of us who could put up with all those luny tics for that many years either.
Something else not many have broached is Matt putting up with the huge number of callers pushing the same argument. “I believe in god because it says in my bible.......” Ditto for various other arguments, I.e. the universe.
I think Matt is pretty chill for someone who argue with a bunch of people on a daily basis
A honest I don't know is better than lying to one's self and others claiming you do have the answers when no one does.
Thats the point. It's time for him to move. Hes been doing this for too long.
@@shanesimpson3455 You don't know that nobody knows. Maybe someone in the world does know. They just cant prove their perspective and personal experience to you. There's no way to prove or disprove it. I'm not religious but I've had hundreds of strange experiences that just can't be coincidental. Im not skeptical enough to dismiss it nor am I naive enough to believe it 100%.
@@truman5838 Time to believe it! is when its proven!
Nice caller and it's good to get it out there how complex it is to host a live and unscripted show
Matt Dilluhunty for me, has been equal to any of the great sceptics/atheists of the last 2000 yrs. Keep going Matt. Keep being Matt.
Oh please. He meets or exceeds someone like Robert G. Ingersoll?
They were really taking it easy with her. I wonder if she realizes that.
Matt is fine. If viewers want a more "relaxed" and "empathetic" approach, I recommend Talk Heathen. AXP, Talk Heathen, Truth Wanted, the hosts take different approaches. Talk Heathen, to me, seems the more "G rated" talkshow, which, I like. It's my personal fave, if I had to pick one, I tend to appreciate empathy - yet done in a stern and stoic manner. All the shows, though, offer deep discussion, ponderous questions, and lots of fact based, often eye-opening, takes on religion, or just life in general.
Matt isn't fine. There's one problem with what you say... Talk Heathen doesn't have Matt. Matt has a way of finding the root cause right away, which very few people can do. Every single other host never seems to get to the root of things. Matt finds the root right away, and presents that argument. The only problem I have is how mean he is. That's it. He doesn't have to be that mean doing it. He has the skills to find the root, which others don't seem to have it, but then he gets angry because he's heard it so many times.
So yeah I understand your point, but those other shows don't have people who can find the root of the issue. They dance all around, and never really provide totally sound arguments because they have problems finding the root from the callers.
Matt is the best at cutting through fallacious arguments. I think much more so than Talk Heathen
MATT IS A BEAST... BUT ONLY WHEN HE HAS TO BE. HE IS CERTAINLY ONE OF MY FAVORITE HOST.
Matt gives theists a bad name, not to mention a hard time, ha ha.
PS. I think the rad bag has gone on holidays. Yay.
Matt is getting better at remaining patient just like he said in this video and that's really all that matters. In the past if he had a short fuse it was because he was dealing with asshole callers. Sometimes here and there he's been an asshole himself. He's a human being and anybody in his position would do the same or even worse. Therefore, I don't blame him at all. Seeing how he's calmed down over the years and is better able to articulate and argue his point through questioning has shown that he's become more proficient at what he does. Love seeing him keep going for 16 years now. Keep it up Matt.
Matt Dillahunty-human, atheist, call in show host-searching for a way to get believers to think critically. Then an accidental overdose of theist stupidity alters his body chemistry. And now, when Matt grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs.
He is driven by rage and pursued by whiny theists.
Dillahunty: “Mr. Hovind/Ken Ham, etc, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
Matt: "How you doin?"
Fallon: "I'm good, how are you?"
Matt: "Well I guess that's up to you really."
Translates to "Well seeing as you've taken it upon yourself to decide which feelings and moods are valid, in the case of saying I give atheists a bad name because of my (invalid?) anger, then why don't you tell me how you think I'm supposed to feel right now?"
First blood 5 words into the convo.
I've watched AXP and Matt for 4-5 years. Yes... He will stomp on a caller who doesn't want to answer questions directly. He won't abide a dishonest caller and many theist apologists are dishonest.
But it rare that he crucifies a caller that is genuinely interested in a conversation and isn't a hopeless mess.
-"You are not answering my question."
-"What is the question?"
-"Did you know I have a cat. I name her Ms. Litte Dishonesty. She is so cute."
-"Ok cool but, what is the question?"
-"I like pizza. I ate one with extra fallacious topings. It was so deliciously toxic :D"
-"That doesn't asnwer my question."
-"Why are you so angry? You never answer my question."
-"I'm not angry. I just want to answer your question. Can you please tell me your question?"
-"I'm a t-rex raw!"
Shot through the heart
And you're to blame
Darlin', Matt gave atheists a bad name
I am pretty sure that Matt would love your song!
…I play my part and you play your game
Matt gives Atheists a bad name (bad name)
Matt gives Atheists
a bad name.
This felt like one of the more productive conversations on the show I've heard
Matt has been doing this for 20+ years. He has the right to be fed up with non answers and the same debunked claims. I, personally, kind of enjoy Matt and wish I knew the material like he does.
Ditto. Be kind and respectful up till it's apparent the other person is not listening or is engaging dishonestly.
Let's test her. Let her replace Matt and take these callers who KNOW that only THEIR god is real, and all others are false. Their god story, with talking snakes and unicorns is real....
How long would she last before she EXPLODED? One hour? One caller?
I dont remember been a atheist requires a hivemind or a rule set for it.
Being decent and civil requires a rule set.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 OMGs atheists are the Borg? 😲
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 LOL.
I don't need anyone to give me a bad name, I'm perfectly capable and proud to do that on my own.
😁👍
How someone is treated and how they portray themselves are two different things.
Curious how people (religious or not) can't give a straight answer to a straight question, they have to preamble it to death and thus making for a frustrating discussion..
The Bible straight answer is faith, faith just simply is, it's about Who or what the object of one's faith is. Faith in Jesus is Peace with God, contentment therefore a Christian doesnt NEED to "prove" He exists since it's a Personal Relationship between a person and God.
@@db90990 I am God.
I don't need to "prove" it, since I have a personal relationship with myself.
@@definitelynotcrazyrei3890 lol😂everyone's a comedian wanna be
@@db90990 Stop mocking my faith, Satanist
@@definitelynotcrazyrei3890 not mocking just stating facts
Matt once insulted a man and his mom "in the worst possible way" his words for no reason whatsoever. That really pissed me off.
Yup thats the episode i stopped watching.
@@777biggs so why are you here?
@@Senjinone popped up in my feed. Decided to give it a watch and left a comment. Not too hard to figure out.
@@777biggs same
That clears things up a bit. Thanks for sharing this call. The answer to this fairly common concern is several things but above all else let's not forget that this is a SHOW and the show must go on!
Now I have that stupid Bon Jovi song going on repeat in my head thanks to that title. I'm gonna have to listen to some Muddy Waters to cleanse my palate.
Matt is one of the best spokes persons for atheism and secular humanists. And in general just a well-rounded very entertaining person
Matt does not need to change at all. The majority of the time he is perfectly civil he only gets irate when callers are being painfully dishonest. This is why I have been watching the show for years now and in fact it is the first U-Tube channel I subscribed to. The usage of "smug" is entirely wrong, he is confident in his position because his knowledge and experience are far beyond the average caller. I wish I had the ability to debate half as well as him. Thanks Matt, for years of indirect support.
Honestly, the types of callers he has issues with seem like the kind of people that can't be reasoned with at all, regardless of his response to them.
@@magnatcleo2043 That is precisely why he seems rude. He has a lot of experience with talking to callers and recognizes when they lack the honesty required for reasonable discussion. I remember watching years ago and Matt's patience then was legendary, his goal at the time was obviously to educate through civil discourse. Over time he has lost some of that patience and has wisely kept his own sanity by dismissing the dishonest as quickly as possible. There is no point in a discussion if who your talking with never hears your words and/or admits to their own dishonesty.
4:59 the look on Matts face is priceless 😂 he is getting ready 💥
I haven't seen every single call in Matt has ever made. I can say, I've followed AXP for years and have seen a great deal. In all that time ive never seen him go off on anyone without just cause. The stupidity from these callers, he tries to work through. Its the lying that he has no patience for, and thats as it should be.
Yeah but here's the thing. There's no rule that says he has to keep these people on the line is there? Is it really worth getting your blood pressure up instead of just hanging up on them and putting them on the no call list? You don't even have to announce it on the air. Just click and discretely add them to the list.
I have to agree. Watching Darkmatter2525 made me an atheist. But then I found ACA and it just confirmed any doubts I had. I have had the "what &why" conversations with some. The hardest was my inlaws. When it came down to it their reasons were "faith & community" I simply stated that the conversation / debate was over and I have nothing further to say to them about religion because they are religious without an actual reason. We have never spoke if it since then and they have not asked us to join them at church again. 😁👍 In short AGREE TO DISAGREE
The clip I saw recently, even Seth A. was just there hearing Matt talks and talks and talks and interrupt the call for whatever reason, I don't watch these clips as often as I used too.
I love how Phil and Matt began dismantling her approach from the very beginning like a pair of gurus.
This poor woman was NOT prepared for this level of no-BS format... at least she got it in the end though.
Love Matt
I like how Matt's face gets darker and darker shade of red as Phil keeps trying to steer the conversation.
Haven't even watched the video yet, but I'm going to go ahead and give a resounding "FUCK NO". Matt has made me a way better skeptic and listening to his formal debates, he has an incredible amount of patience when dealing with people and arguments who are insanely frustrating.
Loving the thumbnail image 👌
Fallon starts off with a massive preamble instead of getting to the point....good job that's not fucking annoying.
"Hasn't fu*king worked" THANK YOU PHILL for summing it up. 👍
I don't think that a "new" Atheist should come on a show like this and try to tell the host how to do their job. If you have constructive criticism just email the show or put it in the comments. Don't badmouth the host with no facts behind behind your statement. Maybe Fallon should start her own call in show.
I concur
Good discussion.
I am a died in the wool atheist , I have been most of my life. Matt is excellent at explaining the atheist positions. But I can bear the foul language he uses and his assumption that atheists should buy into his social philosophy. Atheism is (in my view) purely the non belief in God, gods, any afterlife or other supernatural beliefs. It begins and ends there. It does not imply any particular social philosophy.
Relativism works in polytheism too. 😊
Hehe, love Phil's work here. Excellent mediation and communication skills. Bravo good sir.
"But Matt keeps cutting people off after every two words!"
Actually listen to what Matt is asking of the caller and how said caller responds. He's pinning them to stay relevant and not hop off to another tangent. He's going to keep interrupting so long as the caller refuses to answer his questions. If you don't want Matt to cut you off or come at you, *stay on-topic and answer the question*
And more recently, he stops things to get some much needed clarification on words that every theist seems to have their own personal definitions of. Put simply, when Matt is interrupting, the caller needs to just stop and listen.
It annoys me when people complain about the hosts interjecting and asking questions. You can't just go "I think evolution isnt true because of what I read in Genesis, and slavery means indentured servants, and priests molesting kids isn't that bad..." Without a logical moderator hitting the brakes and making you explain some of the more retarded points you're trying to make.
Interrupting CAN be rude, but when Matt does it, he is either A) looking for clarifying info, or B) or correcting a fucked up theist's claim.
This is a good lesson in asking questions and giving answers.
Matt has had his FILL of religious nonsense . . .
@Jim Jones lol , its a lack of . . .
@Jim Jones considering it has no tenets , dogma or rituals that is a pretty farfetch claim.
@Jim Jones That was childish.
@Jim Jones Now you are just babbling nonsense. Tickie boo
@Jim Jones You've just stated a few scientific fields, and that is not atheism you twit.
I've had that thought sometimes, but i understand the build up to getting frustrated or angry. when i started talking myself with believers, always began with polite words... but after a while you notice that ppl are not being honest or thinking... most believers have some kind of speech that they are comfortable with, so they can't "listen" no matter what you say you get the same talk over and over, they don't answer questions they try to preach! It IS frustrating when you get to a point that you notice it doesnt matter what you say or what you ask, they will just say what they are told to say... it is hard...
THUMBNAIL: When the doom music kicks in
Rip and tear!
Never start an argument with someone you're not compared to fight with.
At first I thought matt did give us a bad name, but I understand his frustration, all he wants is evidence and nobody can provide it🤷
Do you know what happened inside ACA and the shet Matt did?
Is it that they're not providing it, or that he doesn't agree with the parameters?
@@archiesimpson5172 both
@@AngryBilleh OK so since you don't agree with their particular parameters, no amount of proof they give you is going to satisfy you.
Time to call an impasse and go on your marry way.
@@archiesimpson5172 why are you assuming that no proof would ever convince me? Don't go putting words in my mouth
I think Matt is an amazing asset to the atheist community.
Matt doesn’t give atheists a bad but I think a lot of theists give religion a bad name. Sometimes you must be aggressive with theists because there are those who will step all over you. I remember Christopher Hitchens and people would say the same about him but I will go full Hich on a theist if I have to.
If you want to stoop to Hitchens’ antics (of fallacious and superficial rhetorical mumbo jumbo) , then be my guest. However just be humble enough to accept all the contemptuous disdain, that such foolish and vainly pompous gibberish, brings upon itself. RIP Hitch. Notwithstanding Hitchins’ magical hold over proudly foolish atheists (by making them swoon over every shallow utterance) he was certainly entertaining. Hence when any intellectually honest person, actually READ the transcripts of Hitchens’ diatribes, you’d fully understand how unhinged he was. Hence why he was essentially just a raconteur - who had a way of wooing gullible atheists.
Phil and Matt are a good pair for the show.
I suppose anyone else would get angry listening to some of these fruit loops that call in.
Especially hearing the same stupid arguments over and over and over again.
Good on you Matt, for putting up with these callers for so long.
I thought for a second this was a bon jovi song
Matt : wooah, you're a loaded gun,
woooah there's nowhere to run, no one can save you the damage is done
Shot through the heart and you're to blame
matt gives atheist's.............. A BAD NAME !!!
LOL
I used to think Matt was too quick to pull the trigger sometimes too. It never bothered me that he used curse words or was "rude" (usually for a good reason), but I guess I wished at times he'd be calmer more often and let the caller talk more. After listening for years, and especially after listening to the show when it's not hosted by Matt, I realized that there was a definite method to his "madness", and he has in fact stated this method many times on the show itself. He has heard all this stuff before, over the course of the last 16 years of running the show, and when he starts to hear the same argument for the hundredth time, there's no reason to waste everyone's time letting the caller talk it out. There are also many callers who are simply dishonest, and Matt is super-quick to sniff that out, much quicker than any of the other hosts, and he cuts their legs off right away, again to avoid wasting everyone's time.
I realized after a while that this was all a good thing and made the show better. It gives the show a faster pace, we get to hear from more people, and we learn as an audience not to put up with nonsense. Matt is simply efficient, and if that kind of efficiency sounds "rude", so be it. He's not trying to be anyone's friend. He's running an educational show, and he keeps it on track like a master conductor. One problem I think most of us have is that we're willing to let the other side have all of their say, in the interest of politeness, "free speech" and "respecting other opinions", even if what they're saying is nonsense, and Matt simply doesn't tolerate that. He will cut people off and call them on their bullshit before they can even start down that soggy road. It's a skill that's worthy of respect and more of us should be doing it. It's taught me to be a better arguer myself and to not let my opponent speak nonsense unchallenged. It's even taught me that some conversations just aren't worth having at all.
Thank you Matt for being just the way you are!
Long comments are rarely read in their entirety and I think it's a shame. Yours is an example that is very much worth the read.
_"One problem I think most of us have is that we're willing to let the other side have all of their say, in the interest of politeness, "free speech" and "respecting other opinions""_
I couldn't agree more. It's one of the things I find absolutely aggravating about most hosts on most shows. I wouldn't blame them for it, but as soon as a theists starts talking about their beliefs, their first 5 words contain over 19 assumptions (roughly :p but definitely more assumptions than there are words spoken). If you let them finish the sentence you have more to break down than anyone has time for.
For instance: "God has created the universe."
-assumes the existence of a god
-assumes the ability of a god to do anything
-assumes one of its abilities to be creating universes
-assumes a god would want or need to create a universe
-assumes the universe was created
-assumes all these answers are known facts even though there is no evidence
-assumes that all other explanations for the existence of the universe to be wrong
-and so on and so forth
The way I'd like such a conversation to go is:
theist: God has...
atheist: Hold on. Let's pause there, what is a god and how do you know one exists and how do you know it can have something?
@@stylis666 - exactly, and thank you for the kind words! Matt taught me this, and it's so valuable - don't get into the details of an argument until you accept the premises first. Most of us get roped into going down whatever rabbit hole our opponent is trying to get us to go down, and then we get overwhelmed trying to counter numerous claims all at once, when really we should just be arguing the prerequisite premise(s) and avoid going down the hole altogether. What is the point of arguing, for example, what God meant by something he said in the Bible, when the opponent hasn't even demonstrated that God exists or that anything it says in the Bible is true? It's an important tactic that I wish I'd known about 20 years ago.
There is no need to address every bullshit claim that's made - just address the prerequisite claim that all the other claims rely on, which is usually the existence of a god in the first place. Much easier to argue that one point than all the superfluous stuff beneath it. After all, if God can't be demonstrated to exist, what's the point of arguing about anything this non-existent being has said or done?
Maybe the show could use a call screener to cut down on some of this.
Matt is the most entertaining host.
Matt generally only gets confrontational when the caller is dishonest, disingenuous, not answering questions and/or holding onto positions that are clearly untenable/flawed.
The caller is right. He likes to interrupt then gets pissed if people try to interject while he gives lengthy responses. People probably listen because they like the drama. I suspect he may either be doing it on purpose or his patience is just worn out after years of people refusing to think critically... or both.
This is just tone policing
So are you saying you don't like Fallon's tone? lol
I agree in fact many do it on pretensious view of "politeness matters more than kindness" with cases even happening if caller defend bible slavery.
It shows the hypocrisy of these fanatics of manners as i call them or on reddit one called that kind behaviour "pious brigade"(they divide good people more than the good ones who are vulgar for no good reason than whinning that good person using rudeness even if justified). If ignore the substance for stlye aka how it is said then dont call yourself an intelectual!
"you don't answer questions that get asked"
"Can you give me an example?"
"For example, you don't answer questions that get asked"
Phenomenal dodge of the question
I imagine that in time, when the emergent Fallon has put some meaningful distance between her new self and her former, religious self, she'll be able to see the offensiveness and privilege of much of the commentary and even questions presented by religious fundamentalists on the show (and in real life) that she's not yet in a place to be able to fully identify. Like Matt, I get pissy (I'll admit to 'triggered') when people repeatedly refuse to answer direct questions with a relevant, direct answer. It's dishonest. It's frustrating. It's childish. It's also how fundamentalists are taught to think and behave when learning the doctrines and apologetics of their 'faith'. It can take a while to 'shake off'.
What I liked about today's show was that instead of venting his frustrations, Matt allowed Phil to drive the conversation in a way that was more 'digestible' for a person not yet able to fully understand the mechanics of rational enquiry. Well done to both hosts, and to the caller for what I think will be a productive conversation for people on the cusp.
The ability to refuse to answer a direct question by weaving around the question and misdirecting their answer is the superpower of theists and politicians.
I met Matt in 2012 in Binghamton NY. He was one of the nicest, more respectful guys I’ve ever met. So were the 3 atheist men I travelled with.
Matt fills a niche by venting the frustration that his fans are too timid to do themselves. As an atheist, I'm curious to hear what silly arguments theists will try to make. However, Matt never gives them a chance. They barely get three words out and he will ream them on some pedantic point before they ever get to make their actual point. We know that these callers are not trained in logic or philosophy. They're just trying to express an idea in the only way they know how. I say let them finish their point and then pick apart the fallacies rather than never letting them out of the gate. It would be more fair and more interesting.
Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks for saying it for me. ✌
@Jebus Hypocristos Ever hear of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves? It may be time for a little taste of your own medicine. LULZ 🙄
Matt is one of my favorite hosts. He has a lot of experience with debating apologist, and he isn't going to fall for sophistry. If you don't like his approach, don't call in, or watch him when he's on.