11:00 Jason Jack (he/him) - Atheist | Caller wants to talk about the book of Urantia. 20:46 Louis (he/him) - Atheist | Is the question "Can god create a rock or an object that it's so big for him to pick up?" correct as a rebuttal. 26:31 Answer to a question that a caller who dropped posed. 32:06 Sven (they/them) | Caller considers themself "spiritual" and claims that "only god can assess the concept of god." 51:47 Peter (he/him) - 3rd option caller | Caller claims that you can't either accept or not accept the proposition that a god exists. 1:07:24 Val (they/them) | Caller is an atheist but says they experienced a supernatural event that they can't find an explanation to. 1:27:30 Brian (he/him) - Atheist | Is agnostic theism a valid position? 1:36:47 Becca (she/her) - Atheist | Caller's spouse is a Muslim, she is an atheist, and she wants to know how to have better conversations with him. 1:52:40 Adam (he/him) - Atheist | Caller claims he can defend agnosticism in a way that can change Matt's mind in 5 minutes. 2:04:53 Alex (he/him) - Weak Theist | Why do I have to choose between theist and atheist? 2:26:18 Joel Delage (he/him) - Atheist | Caller wants to argue against the separation between religion and State in Israel and wants to have good arguments to do so (totally emphasis with the caller here, as the constitution of my country grants several privileges to the Catholic church). 2:36:47 Billy (he/him) - Theist | Caller claims that a god exists because of the "appearance of design." 2:58:58 This Week on The Line.
Just a typical dunning kruger theist like so many with their hobby level knowledge of reality. They start a conversational mostly graceful but when they see the wall coming they lie like little children do when they are exposed to their own ignorance or clearly stupid false reasoning.
Isn't Billy the guy who called in with a "flawless argument" that he had presented to people at some university? The anxious worked up tone of voice is unforgettable.
And you should feel angry at the theists who abusively push you into these illogical boxes, not the atheists who point out who illogical and abusive the theists are
Don't bring bigotry into the comment section. People of a third gender or nonbinary exist, they know who they are and if you think you know their brains better than they do you can go F yourself.@@unit0033
I remember that Billy came at Katie and someone else on another show. He was so impotent and emotional, the girls had him for lunch. It was hilarious and endlessly entertaining. It was impressive how quickly the "male" abandoned logic and reason and devolved into stunted emotional pleas. Illuminating.
Peter’s call was mind numbing. Even if we went with his picky definitions of theists and atheist, he went to the Oxford dictionary to prove his point. These were, in their briefest summations- Theist: “A person with the belief in the existence of a god or gods” Atheist: “a person who does not believe that God or gods exist”. This couldn’t be more “A or not A”.
Becca - I have found that the best way to deal with people with stubbornly held opposing views, is to write down the two polar opposite ends of a subject; Then REFUSE to DEBATE them. Next make a list of things that you each agree on related to the subject. Then say you are only willing to discuss compromise that can achieve common goals. Whenever your opponent drifts back to stubborn debate, start back at the first step. People can only convince themselves.
good ol' billy texas had me going for a minute thinking he had changed tactics and was gonna be polite and thoughtful but I guess old habits are hard to shake
I feel sorry for people who didn't grow up with a love for knowledge, information and truth. In adulthood, they become mentally stunted in a way that they can't recognize how wrong they are when being illogical or spreading false information. My goal in life is to absorb as much information as possible, and I have always loved to learn and grow to be a better person. While trying to stay humble lol😅
I know I feel bad for atheist also especially the 90% of atheist who are forced into atheism because they live under an atheist government AKA communist government like North Korea. Of course their disbelief is caused by an inability to accept God as true. Outside of Communism the next largest representation for atheism is the LGBT community. The ones that live in western civilization AKA Christian civilization have the right to believe whatever they want but their belief isn't an inability it's an unwillingness. It's sad that people have to be unwilling or unable to accept something as true regardless of evidence I've yet to meet an atheist that actually believes the origins of Life came into existence without God and could provide evidence to why they believe that. Since they don't believe the origin of Life came into existence without God I believe they would actually believe in God if they were willing and able to accept God as true. They become so brainwashed so ignorant I can be an atheist 20 years and they still don't comprehend atheism is a disbelief. They can be an atheist for 20 years and still don't comprehend the simplicity of the burden of proof. I really do try to help them for example I tell them to repeat 100 times burden of proof is to the claim not to the satisfaction of the atheist but they don't get it.
I’m definitely not the first to notice this, neither is it the only instance of dishonesty, but it’s so silly when Billy brought up and stated “artificial intelligence gives exhaustive demonstrations of how everything works (and therefore showed that the human genome was designed)”, but when pressed that the basic, single-definition word “exhaustive” did not comport with his claim, suddenly reverted to “you don’t need fucking exhaustive…” at the end. This is exactly the mentality of a child who boasts about how good he is at a game and how he could crush anyone, then when someone else beats him, screams and cries “I didn’t want to play it anyway”, then storms off.
Sven, the question is effectively “do you believe in a god, yes or no?” Simply saying “I’m spiritual” is as informative to the topic in question as simply answering “yoghurt”.
For a while there I thought we were going to have a call from Billy "Flawless Syllogism" Spicoli that wasn't going to end up with him making laughable, unsupported claims about reality and then flaming out when people don't just nod and say "yaaah dude," but no - apparently computer simulations are sufficient justification to toss out our understanding of biology and anyone who doubts that is, like, an idiot, dude. Thanks, Billy. Never a dull moment. 👏
Why is a True or False question so hard for these people?! 🤦♀️ It's like asking someone if they're pregnant or not and they say kind of or some other "3rd answer". 😏
Billy is an absolute moron. He cannot argue honestly, ever. He's shown how ridiculously upset he gets when women pushback on his nonsense. I'm convinced this guy is so enamored with his "intelligence" that he's sure that he cannot possibly be wrong.
Billy might be the only repeat caller I am genuinely afraid of in a Travis Bickle/Arthur Fleck kind of way. And, with respect to hygiene apparati, he's a sexist douche bag.
Yeah, I just came here after recognizing his voice, so I Googled & found the episode you’re referencing. Actually, I think there’s another one where he’s arguing with Matt and Tracy. Actually, I think I remember him from at least a few old AE episodes. Anyway, I came to these comments, thinking I would have to search forever to find someone else who recognized this guy and lucky me, you were the first entry ;-) Regardless, that was 2016. He has been so frustrated with Matt all these years and hasn’t changed one bit :-(
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -- Richard Feynman “The truth has nothing to fear from inquiry” - Matt D.
You don't call into this show unless you are serious and or willing to take a slapping for a poorly reasoned position. Sven was scooled hard but often that kind of abrupt rebuttle is enough to shake a person off of a wobbly intellectual perch that wouldn't have held any weight when needed out in the real world anyway. He's lucky to have had his preconceptions challenged in as safe a space as this one.
On how beautiful the universe and the natural world are, the universe is beautiful and most of it will kill me, and our own little world has parasitic zombie fungi, really takes the shine off.
For Billy, simulations of "universes" cannot take into account all laws of nature because we don't know if we know all the laws of nature, and hence cannot be used as an "example" of another universe.
It usually takes just 10 seconds to expose the silliness of theists. In Billy’s case, it took a little longer, but the silliness came out nonetheless. 😂😂😂
Putting it out there: is the Voynich Manuscript potentially a practise book for someone who would have made books like this? Like they were training to make high quality books for the time but obviously they don’t want to make mistakes so this would be a trial run for different styles of drawing, practise with writing, etc. I listened to an SYSK podcast on it a while ago so I know of it and the speculation. If it hasn’t been decided by this point I’d say it’s nonsense, but since the materials would’ve been so expensive at the time I think this is probably the best explanation. To prove that you’d probably have to find something from the same area and era that matched their style and was some type of important book/ text that actually made sense.
Ya know, for a split second I thought that Hall of Shame repeat caller Billy would actually get through a call without pissing Matt off by being dishonest. Years later...his perspective hasn't changed a bit. He has given the same answers that he gave years ago on AXP 🤦🏾♂️
Billy is the dude that has called for years and blows a gasket when he’s challenged. I remember him saying dude repeatedly and going crazy when told he’s wrong. The self educated I need no formal education
Matt really has no mercy on the simple minds of some callers lol. What Jim said here was spot on. My parents are hard religious fundamentalist and hard right Q-anon believers. They see the term Atheism as devil worshipers. 49:47
In the town of Cartago, Costa Rica, there is a church built on the site of a “miracle” that happened over 100 years ago. A girl found a little statue of Jesus on a rock near her house. She took it home and placed it on a shelf. The next morning, she saw that the statue was missing, went looking for it, and she found it on the very same rock. So she took it home again, and the same thing happened the next day, in fact, several days in a row. She told the townspeople about it, and they declared that it was a miracle. And upon that rock they built a church. When I heard this story, I thought to myself, I wonder if she had a little brother. The whole thing could have been a prank.
Regarding the third option: I think a lot of people still think of Atheism as “Hard Atheism”. In that case, there is a third option: “I do not know”. In the context of this discussion, I agree, there is no third option; “I do not know” is an atheist. My older brother was a “Hard Atheist”, so I had a lot of discussions with him about this after I deconverted (and before). I am just saying that I understand how someone can think there is a third option. Note- I added this comment before Matt clarified the difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist! FYI- I looked up atheist in my 1977 version of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. It reads: “One who denies the existence of God.” It then lists syns. Then, “One who does not take an orthodox religious position.” Hence, I think, the confusion.
Sven's call is a good example of the former theists who break out a dogmatic system and overcorrect by refusing to take a stance on anything and looking down on people who.
I still struggle to explain these concept to people tbh so many people socially jus change definitions then argue symantics instead of the actual point. Thnx guys matt is good at highlighting flaws when they dont see them n they usually see this as rude instead of a challenge but i think its how debates go. Matt can be a lil bit forward but tbh its usually required in context and his analogies are clear wether people can grasp them or not most of them are known scientific methods of reason. I totally understand why tho hes been doing this a long time i can image the frustration but i have to aknowledge i absolutely love how Jimmy tries to save people arguments hes really empathetic to the depth of these convos but is so genuine with his aproach even when he calls out nonsenve. Matt and jimmy together is a good balance they recognized each others weaknessess and suport when needed. I know jimmy can tell when matt is anoyed repeating over and over just like matt can tell when jimmys is being abit too passive on a serious point but it really works. I like both of them n i also respect the strength for some to call in which may help others . My heart when the caller got upset hit me tho i am glad they told him it wasnt personal and didnt prevent him looking for answers as its a hard when someone disagrees its like a form of invalidation . Either way everyone handles that in different ways. Still a great talk thnx guys
Joel from Israel said something with which I completely agree: He said, regarding the rise of religious fundamentalism in national politics, that he believes that we have already lost. It is a deeply depressing perspective, and as I see it, inarguably true... :( 😔
Interesting that whenever Billy calls, if Matt uses a swear word, Billy gets defensive and starts swearing too. Way too many assumptions about the usage of swear words
It was translated about 8 years ago! It's a list of medicinal plants with their properties discussed in one language which was not normally written in another language. The race to decipher it took place on RUclips.
I think the disconnect as to why people feel like there's a 3rd option between "A" and "Not A" is because they are confusing what atheism is. They think the 3 options are: 1) The positive belief a god exists. 2) The lack of belief a god exists (which they confuse with agnosticism) . 3) The positive belief no god exists (hard atheism). They are failing to realize options 2 and 3 are BOTH atheism.
Are used to live in a part of the country where there was a nest of the Urantians . One of my friends, was a big follower of them, and he became an atheist when he discovered that the genetics proposed in the Urantia book was complete hogwash. The pain he was in afterwards was as real as any you see in a suffering, deconstructed Christian.
Why didn't anyone say "pantheism, pseudotheism, deism, noctheism"... And things like Janeism or Buddhism that don't have a god but remain to have a divine realm.
I am just baffled on how the concept either a or not a is so confusing. It is so simple, and it just goes right over heads. Anybody that has watched Matt or Jimmy should know by now their definitions. I understand Matts fristration on this topic.
I love debating ignosticism, so I'll do the unadvisable thing of getting into a youtube comment debate. Ignosticism is not a failure to understand that the law of the excluded middle demands (correctly) that any proposition is either true or false (as you and Jimmy seem to mischaracterise it). Ignosticism is the position that unless you have good definitions, "there is a god" (or even "I believe God exists") are not propositions. For instance, if you're in a fruit store, "the orange tastes good" has a different meaning (and a different truth value) than it does when you're in a paint store. That's because "the orange tastes good" is not a proposition, it is a sentence that can refer to several different propositions. That is why "the orange tastes good" is in some cases false, in some cases true. Since the word "orange" has an ambiguous definition, the statement is not one proposition, and can have several truth values. This is complete word play, it's very nitpicky, and it's not very important. However, it is correct. Similarly, "God" is poorly defined. If you came across someone who's understanding of God includes Kim Jong Il, or the sun, I would say they believe in _some_ version of a God, and that thing does _in fact_ exist. As an irreligious and mostly atheist-aligned person, I cannot say I don't believe that version of God exists, I can't even say that I lack the belief that that God exists (i.e. even the negative atheist statement would be actively incorrect). Of course, I attach no additional reverence to the sun or Kim Jong Il due to this word play. Of course, in practice, there is often some religious person who provides a definition of God which solidifies the sentence into one proposition, which we can believe in or not believe in. However, unless you're addressing a particular theist (for instance, if you're deciding on a title for yourself), it may not be possible to reach the concept of an atheist.
@@doedfiskjr i have to disagree, and it's because of the definition of ignosticism itself. To me, it doesn't matter how coherent of even if there's a definition to a proposition, only if it can be accepted or rejected. Although, I fully admit it'd be unique for someone to make such a proposition, especially with the goal of convincing others to accept it. Definitionally, claiming something to exist, whether factual claim or just belief, is a proposition. It doesn't matter if I say "there is a god" or "there is a dog". The content isn't relevant to its categorization. As for your orange/paint example, that is still a proposition, though its acceptance or rejection isn't based on fact, but opinion and preference. True, it'd be safe to accuse them of lying, trying to say the paint tastes good, but it's not impossible. And the fruit would be just as varied as any other fruit. All that aside, it's a poor analogy, because it's a proposition based purely on opinion. Those supporting the god proposition believe it to be factual, not just one's subjective opinion, regardless of if it truly is or not.
@@doedfiskjr If that's what ignosticism is, then ignosticism is just a category error. "Similarly, God is poorly defined. If you came across someone who's understanding of God includes Kim Jong Il, or the sun, I would say they believe in *some* version of a god, and that thing does *in fact* exist." This right here is the mistake. We all agree that Kim Jong Il and the sun exist, or at least did exist in Kim's case. However, once someone makes the claim that Kim Jong Il is a god, they are now no longer talking about that actual person, but now some radically altered version of him, and therefore are neither talking about something real, nor something I or anyone else should believe exists. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the concept of God, because it applies equally to *all* terms. There is exactly *zero* reason why the following sentence makes any less sense than the one you said: "Similarly, "Prime Minister of America" is poorly defined. If you came across someone whose understanding of the American Prime Minister includes Kim Jong Il, or the sun, I would say they believe in *some* version of an American Prime Minister, and that thing does *in fact* exist." And that statement is equally wrong, for the same reasons.
@@brifox "However, once someone makes the claim that Kim Jong Il is a god, they are now no longer talking about that actual person, but now some radically altered version of him", I don't think that is true, we may well be speaking of Kim Jong Il as he existed. "Prime minister of America" is well-enough defined that Kim Jong Il isn't it. I'm not certain whether the President qualifies as a Prime Minister, but Kim Jong Il isn't one anyway. The same is not true for "God", all my examples are things that have unironically been thought of as gods. It applies not to all terms, I'm not confusing God with a BIC pen. It only applies to terms which directly influences the meaning of a sentence, like "the orange is tasty" when it's not clear if you refer to the fruit or the paint.
Here’s a visual aid for the “third option” people: -Write the phrases, “God is real,“ “God is not real,” and, “I don’t know whether God is real.” -Underline the phrases “God is not real,” and “I don’t know whether God is real.” -Circle whichever one phrase you identify with. If you circled any of the underlined phrases, you do not accept the proposition, “God is real.” Therefore, if you circled any of the underlined phrases, you are an atheist. If you circled more than one phrase, you did not follow the rules (in this case, these are an analogy for the laws of logic).
@@A-non-theist “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.” If this person is being honest and rational, they would circle the third phrase only. Apply the rest of the process in my original comment from there.
@@A-non-theistif no one could tell you were dishonest from an appeal to the dictionary, your “laughing crying emoji” responses definitely demonstrate your dishonesty
Bang! I loved the Sven call because recent callers keep saying they are deist, agnostic or whatever because they live in a bigoted social community with little diversity that enforces tribalistic control of Being a Christian. Those communities think that being a Christian is the only socially acceptable outcome. I guess that is the result of a Monopoly on religion in the USA. If there was a stronger diversity of anything but Christianity, it would have been easier to state I am a nonbeliever.peter
Billy’s retorts always come down to an insult or just calling bullshit or horseshit. That’s the limit of the thinking about things that contradict his worldview
1:05:14 Finally! I was almost screaming this at the screen all this time. Finally. There was talking pat each other because one phrasing was “theist or atheist” which are labels that can be misunderstood or misused ... and another phrasing was “x and not x” which is a clear logical absolute by all standards. Glad that got cleared up.
I wonder when more theists will start calling The Line. They're still stuck on AXP (which I still watch), but the quality of shows on here is just way better. Clearer calls, the best hosts, and longer episodes to handle more calls.
@@markallen8022 Do you figure it's either/or? These days many folks do media + x + y... A creator I watch is a working comedian, musician...plus doing about 18 hours of amazing political/philosophical content every week. It's @Hal Sparks btw
Billy, all simulated universes are based/dependent on the one actual universe we can investigate. Also there's no evidence of any design in any genome. DNA didn't even emerge for about a billion years after life began, and it definitely evolved from something extremely primitive...
Adam was 100% correct that in the philosophical definition of "atheism", there is a third option - agnosticism. The disagreement only lies in the definition of "atheism".
@Billy - if you lack knowledge on a particular question, then yes you are ignorant of the answer to that question. Ignorance, in itself, isn't an insult, it is a position about your knowledge about a specific subject.
Many people think that when they're called ignorant, they're being insulted to the core. And I find it amusing just to think about that. But I'm not afraid to call people ignorant when they ignore something and persist in stubbornness.🤷🏻♂️
Billy was *not* dishonest. We use models to study things all the time. He needed you to explain why simulated universes couldn't count as a universe to explore -- because the inputs for a simulated universe come from us, which means that anything that we don't know about the natural limits or broadness of universes can't be included (ie how they're formed, which forces or properties can be different, and which can't, are other laws possible, etc...). Thus we cannot establish that those universes represent reality -- and thus cannot add them to our investigation as a way to learn about our own. He'd been very sincere and open in the discussion. I understand why he thought he was answering you honestly. I wish you could have extended him the benefit of the doubt.
The prop hypothesis is probably the best answer we have or might ever have for the Voynich Manuscript. Given how it's composed, it may have been commissioned by a mystic/astrologer/fortune teller, etc. from the period in order to appear more mysterious and powerful. It's a shame we're not likely to know for sure though. Callers like Sven (and Pete) are why I'm dubious about the End Boss format, or why I tend to dislike more traditional debate structures. Even with the hosts constantly stopping him, and holding his feet to the fire, it was a nightmare to get him to answer the actual questions. It's not just Sven either. There are way more competent people who do the same. It'll be interesting to see how the new formats play out. I'll still be watching. ☺️ Talking about Donald Trump and the idea of him being president seeming ridiculous. It reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where they mention it (when Lisa is president). No, they didn't predict him becoming president: it was a joke because it seemed utterly ridiculous at the time.
At least Sven was taking the space and the time to actually think and consider the questions before spewing forth answers. They are actually taking the time to consider the input they are given, which is more than most theist callers ever do. Their call just boiled down to a misunderstanding of terminology, at the end of the day. Sven is an atheist, whether they want to accept it or not. If one is not convinced that a god exists, one is definitionally an atheist. A soft atheist to be sure, but an atheist nonetheless.
It's frustrating that such a large portion of the shows these days is atheist callers. I used to play these in the back ground while i do other things. Now it's not worth the effort. I'll continue to check in, but don't expect a long watch time of it's 80% atheists smelling there own farts.
I can say I believe in the scientific method. I can also say that I believe the scientific method is the best route to establish the truth about what we experience in reality.
Val's memory about a fridge magnet flying off at her could simply be explained by the fact that magnets have 2 poles. The manufacturers don't much care whether the north or south pole is facing towards the fridge. So if the letter U slid down and encountered a strong same polarity pole from another fridge magnets it could flip it off the fridge. A letter U would probably have 2 magnets, one in each arm of random polarity.
On the topic of the separation of religion and government: if you don't separate them, everyone in the country WILL have to, eventually, convert or die, as the conservative sects get more and more fundamentalist as they gain more power and wield it across the whole population
@@maynardlikethecandy5347 mothers tend to assume that, if they ask "who did this bad thing", their offspring does indeed know, so saying "I don't know" in that _specific_ context would be a lie. But more generally, if you don't know, say that you don't, then try to find out.
11:00 Jason Jack (he/him) - Atheist | Caller wants to talk about the book of Urantia.
20:46 Louis (he/him) - Atheist | Is the question "Can god create a rock or an object that it's so big for him to pick up?" correct as a rebuttal.
26:31 Answer to a question that a caller who dropped posed.
32:06 Sven (they/them) | Caller considers themself "spiritual" and claims that "only god can assess the concept of god."
51:47 Peter (he/him) - 3rd option caller | Caller claims that you can't either accept or not accept the proposition that a god exists.
1:07:24 Val (they/them) | Caller is an atheist but says they experienced a supernatural event that they can't find an explanation to.
1:27:30 Brian (he/him) - Atheist | Is agnostic theism a valid position?
1:36:47 Becca (she/her) - Atheist | Caller's spouse is a Muslim, she is an atheist, and she wants to know how to have better conversations with him.
1:52:40 Adam (he/him) - Atheist | Caller claims he can defend agnosticism in a way that can change Matt's mind in 5 minutes.
2:04:53 Alex (he/him) - Weak Theist | Why do I have to choose between theist and atheist?
2:26:18 Joel Delage (he/him) - Atheist | Caller wants to argue against the separation between religion and State in Israel and wants to have good arguments to do so (totally emphasis with the caller here, as the constitution of my country grants several privileges to the Catholic church).
2:36:47 Billy (he/him) - Theist | Caller claims that a god exists because of the "appearance of design."
2:58:58 This Week on The Line.
Hi, Faia. Thanks, as always. 🥰
Saint Faia with the Halo ❤
Thank you Faia!!! You're a ⭐!!!
Thanks! ❤
Thank you!
Sven - "God is incomprehensible - now listen while I tell you all about him."
Right then. ??????😮
Exactly!
We can’t understand God or detect him yet the Religious have all the answers about him🤣.
Billy went from discussing “willful ignorance“, to demonstrating “willful dishonesty” in record time.
Just a typical dunning kruger theist like so many with their hobby level knowledge of reality.
They start a conversational mostly graceful but when they see the wall coming they lie like little children do when they are exposed to their own ignorance or clearly stupid false reasoning.
Every time Billy has called into any of these shows, he's clearly demonstrated his dishonesty.
Isn't Billy the guy who called in with a "flawless argument" that he had presented to people at some university? The anxious worked up tone of voice is unforgettable.
@@JayMaverick yep. And called in with ‘flawless’ arguments. Yep. That guy
@@Sparky1701 I'll never forget the arrogantly frustrated "the argument is flawless, dude." Love you Billy, come back with more fun stuff!
Sven, I get it. It's really hard to feel like you belong. I feel that way many times and it's ok to be who you are.
And you should feel angry at the theists who abusively push you into these illogical boxes, not the atheists who point out who illogical and abusive the theists are
Unless you happen to be Donald Trump. That is not OK.
sven is as confused as his pronouns
@@jerrylong6238 It's okay for him to be who he is, a soon to be felon.
The BEST felon president.
Don't bring bigotry into the comment section. People of a third gender or nonbinary exist, they know who they are and if you think you know their brains better than they do you can go F yourself.@@unit0033
I remember that Billy came at Katie and someone else on another show. He was so impotent and emotional, the girls had him for lunch. It was hilarious and endlessly entertaining. It was impressive how quickly the "male" abandoned logic and reason and devolved into stunted emotional pleas. Illuminating.
Peter’s call was mind numbing. Even if we went with his picky definitions of theists and atheist, he went to the Oxford dictionary to prove his point. These were, in their briefest summations-
Theist:
“A person with the belief in the existence of a god or gods”
Atheist:
“a person who does not believe that God or gods exist”.
This couldn’t be more “A or not A”.
But definition wars though. Definition wars!
Becca - I have found that the best way to deal with people with stubbornly held opposing views, is to write down the two polar opposite ends of a subject; Then REFUSE to DEBATE them. Next make a list of things that you each agree on related to the subject. Then say you are only willing to discuss compromise that can achieve common goals. Whenever your opponent drifts back to stubborn debate, start back at the first step. People can only convince themselves.
it's interesting how respectful billy is when talking to men as opposed to women
good ol' billy texas had me going for a minute thinking he had changed tactics and was gonna be polite and thoughtful but I guess old habits are hard to shake
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -- Richard Feynman
I was so delighted to discover the intellectual freedom of atheism that I lament the years I lost to theism.
Always keep looking forward, it's why our eyes evolved to be in the front of our head.
I feel sorry for people who didn't grow up with a love for knowledge, information and truth. In adulthood, they become mentally stunted in a way that they can't recognize how wrong they are when being illogical or spreading false information. My goal in life is to absorb as much information as possible, and I have always loved to learn and grow to be a better person. While trying to stay humble lol😅
I know I feel bad for atheist also especially the 90% of atheist who are forced into atheism because they live under an atheist government AKA communist government like North Korea.
Of course their disbelief is caused by an inability to accept God as true. Outside of Communism the next largest representation for atheism is the LGBT community. The ones that live in western civilization AKA Christian civilization have the right to believe whatever they want but their belief isn't an inability it's an unwillingness.
It's sad that people have to be unwilling or unable to accept something as true regardless of evidence
I've yet to meet an atheist that actually believes the origins of Life came into existence without God and could provide evidence to why they believe that.
Since they don't believe the origin of Life came into existence without God I believe they would actually believe in God if they were willing and able to accept God as true.
They become so brainwashed so ignorant I can be an atheist 20 years and they still don't comprehend atheism is a disbelief.
They can be an atheist for 20 years and still don't comprehend the simplicity of the burden of proof.
I really do try to help them for example I tell them to repeat 100 times burden of proof is to the claim not to the satisfaction of the atheist but they don't get it.
Not just raised without a love for, but raised with outright contempt for those things
2:08:30 Alex: “when I look at how beautiful the world is…”
Jimmy: *smirk and head tilt*
Jimmy internally: “look at the trees? Really?! C’mon.”
I’m definitely not the first to notice this, neither is it the only instance of dishonesty, but it’s so silly when Billy brought up and stated “artificial intelligence gives exhaustive demonstrations of how everything works (and therefore showed that the human genome was designed)”, but when pressed that the basic, single-definition word “exhaustive” did not comport with his claim, suddenly reverted to “you don’t need fucking exhaustive…” at the end.
This is exactly the mentality of a child who boasts about how good he is at a game and how he could crush anyone, then when someone else beats him, screams and cries “I didn’t want to play it anyway”, then storms off.
And repeatedly says the word “dude” like a child.
@@ghostpacas7600 I don’t think there’s anything egregious about _that,_ though…
Sven, the question is effectively “do you believe in a god, yes or no?” Simply saying “I’m spiritual” is as informative to the topic in question as simply answering “yoghurt”.
I am an Athoghurt
Yogurt might work for "do you believe in culture?".
For a while there I thought we were going to have a call from Billy "Flawless Syllogism" Spicoli that wasn't going to end up with him making laughable, unsupported claims about reality and then flaming out when people don't just nod and say "yaaah dude," but no - apparently computer simulations are sufficient justification to toss out our understanding of biology and anyone who doubts that is, like, an idiot, dude. Thanks, Billy. Never a dull moment. 👏
Even when he is all alone Billy is not the smartest guy in the room.
Why is a True or False question so hard for these people?! 🤦♀️ It's like asking someone if they're pregnant or not and they say kind of or some other "3rd answer". 😏
ah, Billy "but how do you know they're farting?" from Austin, who equated universe-farting pixies with god on an older call on AXP.
Gotta love it. Sounds like one of my stoner friends after an acid trip.
Billy is an absolute moron. He cannot argue honestly, ever. He's shown how ridiculously upset he gets when women pushback on his nonsense.
I'm convinced this guy is so enamored with his "intelligence" that he's sure that he cannot possibly be wrong.
Billy might be the only repeat caller I am genuinely afraid of in a Travis Bickle/Arthur Fleck kind of way. And, with respect to hygiene apparati, he's a sexist douche bag.
Yes. He's always good for a chuckle.
Yeah, I just came here after recognizing his voice, so I Googled & found the episode you’re referencing.
Actually, I think there’s another one where he’s arguing with Matt and Tracy.
Actually, I think I remember him from at least a few old AE episodes.
Anyway, I came to these comments, thinking I would have to search forever to find someone else who recognized this guy and lucky me, you were the first entry ;-)
Regardless, that was 2016. He has been so frustrated with Matt all these years and hasn’t changed one bit :-(
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -- Richard Feynman
“The truth has nothing to fear from inquiry” - Matt D.
I do feel bad for Sven. He just wasn't prepared.
Almost seemed like he was gonna cry at the end poor guy
@Don_Ricardo it kind of sounded like he actually did
"They" just wasn't prepared. Misgendering is blasphemy of the religion of the Sunday show.
@@michaelnorris2765what the fuck 😂
You don't call into this show unless you are serious and or willing to take a slapping for a poorly reasoned position. Sven was scooled hard but often that kind of abrupt rebuttle is enough to shake a person off of a wobbly intellectual perch that wouldn't have held any weight when needed out in the real world anyway. He's lucky to have had his preconceptions challenged in as safe a space as this one.
Jimmy and Matt together!!! The undisputed champs, powerhouses, Dreamteam, deadly combination etc. you name it! 😎👍🏾🤩🤩
the show is looking great jimmy! the webcam quality is outstanding!
Its crazy when you now see an old Atheist Experience episode and the quality let's you know what 5 year period it's from.
Oh my god Billy is back!!?!?!?? Yess he's a classic.
He sounds a bit like George, a notorious called to AXP many years ago.
@@jshaers96 From memory Billy has been calling Atheist show for 10 years or so.
@@jshaers96 Yep, Pastor George. That's who I thought it was.
On how beautiful the universe and the natural world are, the universe is beautiful and most of it will kill me, and our own little world has parasitic zombie fungi, really takes the shine off.
Its kinda like galadriel and cthulu got together to design a planet. Breathtaking beauty, and horrors to drive one mad.
Speaking as an Australian....... yeeeeah :/
Hell, most of Earth can kill us.
For Billy, simulations of "universes" cannot take into account all laws of nature because we don't know if we know all the laws of nature, and hence cannot be used as an "example" of another universe.
Oooh it's Billy the guy with the flawless argument or whatever, who got all huff puff angry when Katie wasn't buying his bs. 😂 Love that guy.
Which stream was that?
@@facundotorres175 I think billy called the Atheist Experience years ago too!
It usually takes just 10 seconds to expose the silliness of theists. In Billy’s case, it took a little longer, but the silliness came out nonetheless. 😂😂😂
Putting it out there: is the Voynich Manuscript potentially a practise book for someone who would have made books like this?
Like they were training to make high quality books for the time but obviously they don’t want to make mistakes so this would be a trial run for different styles of drawing, practise with writing, etc.
I listened to an SYSK podcast on it a while ago so I know of it and the speculation. If it hasn’t been decided by this point I’d say it’s nonsense, but since the materials would’ve been so expensive at the time I think this is probably the best explanation.
To prove that you’d probably have to find something from the same area and era that matched their style and was some type of important book/ text that actually made sense.
Jimmy is to the ACA as Lorne Michaels was to National Lampoon.
Ya know, for a split second I thought that Hall of Shame repeat caller Billy would actually get through a call without pissing Matt off by being dishonest. Years later...his perspective hasn't changed a bit. He has given the same answers that he gave years ago on AXP 🤦🏾♂️
I’m sure the jovial pejorative “silly billy” is some sort of prophecy, foreshadowing these calls we now hear.
@@Heathen.Deity. nominative determinism rules.
Ahhh Billy, Billy, Billy... he's called AXP several times and got muted there, too. Like every time, ha ha!
Next time Billy calls, I hope Jimmy starts screwing with him and starts muting him just to annoy him.
Although Billy's mind will never be changed, the conversations he engages with are still useful. They're entertaining and give us a bit of nostalgia x
I love his slightly crazy staccato voice.
Billy is the dude that has called for years and blows a gasket when he’s challenged. I remember him saying dude repeatedly and going crazy when told he’s wrong. The self educated I need no formal education
Yeah, he's an idiot.
And he can barely form a coherent sentence.
Yes he has a distinctive voice and I was remembering him saying “dude”.
That must have been years ago.
Matt really has no mercy on the simple minds of some callers lol. What Jim said here was spot on. My parents are hard religious fundamentalist and hard right Q-anon believers. They see the term Atheism as devil worshipers. 49:47
How have you been able to separate yourself from that?
Once I heard Billy's voice I said to myself, "Oh, I know that voice!" And then I said, "This is not going to go well." I was right.
In the town of Cartago, Costa Rica, there is a church built on the site of a “miracle” that happened over 100 years ago. A girl found a little statue of Jesus on a rock near her house. She took it home and placed it on a shelf. The next morning, she saw that the statue was missing, went looking for it, and she found it on the very same rock. So she took it home again, and the same thing happened the next day, in fact, several days in a row. She told the townspeople about it, and they declared that it was a miracle. And upon that rock they built a church. When I heard this story, I thought to myself, I wonder if she had a little brother. The whole thing could have been a prank.
Regarding the third option: I think a lot of people still think of Atheism as “Hard Atheism”. In that case, there is a third option: “I do not know”. In the context of this discussion, I agree, there is no third option; “I do not know” is an atheist.
My older brother was a “Hard Atheist”, so I had a lot of discussions with him about this after I deconverted (and before). I am just saying that I understand how someone can think there is a third option.
Note- I added this comment before Matt clarified the difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist!
FYI- I looked up atheist in my 1977 version of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. It reads: “One who denies the existence of God.” It then lists syns. Then, “One who does not take an orthodox religious position.” Hence, I think, the confusion.
Sven's call is a good example of the former theists who break out a dogmatic system and overcorrect by refusing to take a stance on anything and looking down on people who.
He reminds me of those atheists who claim that atheists can't be religious.
I still struggle to explain these concept to people tbh so many people socially jus change definitions then argue symantics instead of the actual point. Thnx guys matt is good at highlighting flaws when they dont see them n they usually see this as rude instead of a challenge but i think its how debates go. Matt can be a lil bit forward but tbh its usually required in context and his analogies are clear wether people can grasp them or not most of them are known scientific methods of reason. I totally understand why tho hes been doing this a long time i can image the frustration but i have to aknowledge i absolutely love how Jimmy tries to save people arguments hes really empathetic to the depth of these convos but is so genuine with his aproach even when he calls out nonsenve. Matt and jimmy together is a good balance they recognized each others weaknessess and suport when needed. I know jimmy can tell when matt is anoyed repeating over and over just like matt can tell when jimmys is being abit too passive on a serious point but it really works. I like both of them n i also respect the strength for some to call in which may help others . My heart when the caller got upset hit me tho i am glad they told him it wasnt personal and didnt prevent him looking for answers as its a hard when someone disagrees its like a form of invalidation . Either way everyone handles that in different ways. Still a great talk thnx guys
shout out to milwaukee, thanks Jimmy. I also check the weather in milwaukee, going to do it now
Joel from Israel said something with which I completely agree:
He said, regarding the rise of religious fundamentalism in national politics, that he believes that we have already lost.
It is a deeply depressing perspective, and as I see it, inarguably true... :( 😔
Like dude, it's Billy dude, farting pixies dude.
Interesting that whenever Billy calls, if Matt uses a swear word, Billy gets defensive and starts swearing too. Way too many assumptions about the usage of swear words
It was translated about 8 years ago! It's a list of medicinal plants with their properties discussed in one language which was not normally written in another language. The race to decipher it took place on RUclips.
I think the disconnect as to why people feel like there's a 3rd option between "A" and "Not A" is because they are confusing what atheism is. They think the 3 options are:
1) The positive belief a god exists.
2) The lack of belief a god exists (which they confuse with agnosticism) .
3) The positive belief no god exists (hard atheism).
They are failing to realize options 2 and 3 are BOTH atheism.
Are used to live in a part of the country where there was a nest of the Urantians . One of my friends, was a big follower of them, and he became an atheist when he discovered that the genetics proposed in the Urantia book was complete hogwash. The pain he was in afterwards was as real as any you see in a suffering, deconstructed Christian.
Sven, if you're watching this video, I hope you're doing okay.
Matt and Johnny are The Real Deal. I've learned so much listening to the Line.
Why didn't anyone say "pantheism, pseudotheism, deism, noctheism"... And things like Janeism or Buddhism that don't have a god but remain to have a divine realm.
Simulated Universe = Universe.... now that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Billy may as well have said the Smurf Universe.
I am just baffled on how the concept either a or not a is so confusing. It is so simple, and it just goes right over heads. Anybody that has watched Matt or Jimmy should know by now their definitions. I understand Matts fristration on this topic.
A shape is either a circle or not a circle. I too don't understand how others don't understand the law of non-contradiction.
I love debating ignosticism, so I'll do the unadvisable thing of getting into a youtube comment debate.
Ignosticism is not a failure to understand that the law of the excluded middle demands (correctly) that any proposition is either true or false (as you and Jimmy seem to mischaracterise it). Ignosticism is the position that unless you have good definitions, "there is a god" (or even "I believe God exists") are not propositions.
For instance, if you're in a fruit store, "the orange tastes good" has a different meaning (and a different truth value) than it does when you're in a paint store. That's because "the orange tastes good" is not a proposition, it is a sentence that can refer to several different propositions. That is why "the orange tastes good" is in some cases false, in some cases true. Since the word "orange" has an ambiguous definition, the statement is not one proposition, and can have several truth values. This is complete word play, it's very nitpicky, and it's not very important. However, it is correct.
Similarly, "God" is poorly defined. If you came across someone who's understanding of God includes Kim Jong Il, or the sun, I would say they believe in _some_ version of a God, and that thing does _in fact_ exist. As an irreligious and mostly atheist-aligned person, I cannot say I don't believe that version of God exists, I can't even say that I lack the belief that that God exists (i.e. even the negative atheist statement would be actively incorrect). Of course, I attach no additional reverence to the sun or Kim Jong Il due to this word play.
Of course, in practice, there is often some religious person who provides a definition of God which solidifies the sentence into one proposition, which we can believe in or not believe in. However, unless you're addressing a particular theist (for instance, if you're deciding on a title for yourself), it may not be possible to reach the concept of an atheist.
@@doedfiskjr i have to disagree, and it's because of the definition of ignosticism itself. To me, it doesn't matter how coherent of even if there's a definition to a proposition, only if it can be accepted or rejected. Although, I fully admit it'd be unique for someone to make such a proposition, especially with the goal of convincing others to accept it.
Definitionally, claiming something to exist, whether factual claim or just belief, is a proposition. It doesn't matter if I say "there is a god" or "there is a dog". The content isn't relevant to its categorization.
As for your orange/paint example, that is still a proposition, though its acceptance or rejection isn't based on fact, but opinion and preference. True, it'd be safe to accuse them of lying, trying to say the paint tastes good, but it's not impossible. And the fruit would be just as varied as any other fruit. All that aside, it's a poor analogy, because it's a proposition based purely on opinion. Those supporting the god proposition believe it to be factual, not just one's subjective opinion, regardless of if it truly is or not.
@@doedfiskjr If that's what ignosticism is, then ignosticism is just a category error.
"Similarly, God is poorly defined. If you came across someone who's understanding of God includes Kim Jong Il, or the sun, I would say they believe in *some* version of a god, and that thing does *in fact* exist."
This right here is the mistake. We all agree that Kim Jong Il and the sun exist, or at least did exist in Kim's case. However, once someone makes the claim that Kim Jong Il is a god, they are now no longer talking about that actual person, but now some radically altered version of him, and therefore are neither talking about something real, nor something I or anyone else should believe exists.
Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the concept of God, because it applies equally to *all* terms. There is exactly *zero* reason why the following sentence makes any less sense than the one you said:
"Similarly, "Prime Minister of America" is poorly defined. If you came across someone whose understanding of the American Prime Minister includes Kim Jong Il, or the sun, I would say they believe in *some* version of an American Prime Minister, and that thing does *in fact* exist."
And that statement is equally wrong, for the same reasons.
@@brifox "However, once someone makes the claim that Kim Jong Il is a god, they are now no longer talking about that actual person, but now some radically altered version of him", I don't think that is true, we may well be speaking of Kim Jong Il as he existed.
"Prime minister of America" is well-enough defined that Kim Jong Il isn't it. I'm not certain whether the President qualifies as a Prime Minister, but Kim Jong Il isn't one anyway. The same is not true for "God", all my examples are things that have unironically been thought of as gods.
It applies not to all terms, I'm not confusing God with a BIC pen. It only applies to terms which directly influences the meaning of a sentence, like "the orange is tasty" when it's not clear if you refer to the fruit or the paint.
Matt needs a blackboard!
Here’s a visual aid for the “third option” people:
-Write the phrases, “God is real,“ “God is not real,” and, “I don’t know whether God is real.”
-Underline the phrases “God is not real,” and “I don’t know whether God is real.”
-Circle whichever one phrase you identify with.
If you circled any of the underlined phrases, you do not accept the proposition, “God is real.” Therefore, if you circled any of the underlined phrases, you are an atheist. If you circled more than one phrase, you did not follow the rules (in this case, these are an analogy for the laws of logic).
@@A-non-theist “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.”
If this person is being honest and rational, they would circle the third phrase only. Apply the rest of the process in my original comment from there.
@@A-non-theist Agnostic is a question of knowledge, not belief.
@@A-non-theistif no one could tell you were dishonest from an appeal to the dictionary, your “laughing crying emoji” responses definitely demonstrate your dishonesty
@@A-non-theist I know that you’re lying because I know what I looked up for that definition. Thank you for wasting my time, and go fuck yourself.
@@A-non-theist ah the “*true* definition” of agnostic, such a pathetic moving of the goal posts
Bang! I loved the Sven call because recent callers keep saying they are deist, agnostic or whatever because they live in a bigoted social community with little diversity that enforces tribalistic control of Being a Christian. Those communities think that being a Christian is the only socially acceptable outcome. I guess that is the result of a Monopoly on religion in the USA. If there was a stronger diversity of anything but Christianity, it would have been easier to state I am a nonbeliever.peter
That last caller Billy- Is he the same Billly from Texas/Billy from Austin that used to call The Atheist Experience 10 years ago
He was the same billy "how do you know pixies are farting" whom ended up equating a creator god with farting pixies after a bit of pushback.
Yep it's the same Billy.
And you could copy and paste his answers to each call into the other, totally proofed against improvement or thought.... Poor sod...
I recognize Billy's voice from AXP. I remember him saying something like "because your getting so upset, dude!"
Billy’s retorts always come down to an insult or just calling bullshit or horseshit. That’s the limit of the thinking about things that contradict his worldview
Billy also employed the “Dumb and Dumber Apologetic” by claiming, “That’s as good as a universe, sir. It’s a simulation!”
The Church of the Flying Refrigerator Magnets... count me in! 😂
Set me Free, Zer!
Billy, Billy, Billy. You call, and call, and call… but fail every time, “dude”.
In his very first line when Peter mentioned the dictionary, I was like, woohoo, semantics.
People are indeed very confused about logic!
Looking forward to reading about Billy's Nobel Prize :D
1:05:14 Finally! I was almost screaming this at the screen all this time. Finally. There was talking pat each other because one phrasing was “theist or atheist” which are labels that can be misunderstood or misused ... and another phrasing was “x and not x” which is a clear logical absolute by all standards. Glad that got cleared up.
I'm sure Becca won't see this but I watched a really good video debunking flat earth theory. It's called 10 Challenges For Flat Earthers.
The 12:54 one by Professor Dave Explains?
I remember Billy... He was the guy who gave the two lady hosts a hard time...epic... lol
Rick Martin's chat comment that "frat earth has more beer" deserves some kind of award :)
Gnat earth has more buzz?
The third option is that the question might not make sense. Can you answer a question like “Do you believe in Tuesday?”
The question not making sense is not a third answer. Yes I can answer if I believe in Tuesday, because yes I do believe in Tuesday
I wonder when more theists will start calling The Line. They're still stuck on AXP (which I still watch), but the quality of shows on here is just way better. Clearer calls, the best hosts, and longer episodes to handle more calls.
Jimmy has the witty tongue of a standup comedian. I bet he could do that if tried it.
I hope he continues doing this.
@@markallen8022 Do you figure it's either/or? These days many folks do media + x + y...
A creator I watch is a working comedian, musician...plus doing about 18 hours of amazing political/philosophical content every week.
It's @Hal Sparks btw
Whoa, Billy, that was fucking brutal dude.
Billy the "Dude" man when he gets agitated...
The call ban list needs to be expanded more frequently, we don’t need to hear from Billy ever again, in my humble opinion.
Sounds like Val's family have an uphill battle convincing a jury where that baby went.
New format of the show: What is the third option besides theist and non-theist and how can you prove that it actually exists?
“But we can study simulations and that’s the same thing as a real universe!!”
Billy, all simulated universes are based/dependent on the one actual universe we can investigate. Also there's no evidence of any design in any genome. DNA didn't even emerge for about a billion years after life began, and it definitely evolved from something extremely primitive...
At night, Minnesota woods, scaring one another with the legends of the Wendigo.
Option 1: a
Option 2: ~ a
Option 3: ~~~~, if, ~~~, ~ if, ~~ a
It was cool to hear Matt shouting out Dan and Catz. Thanks a always Jimmy and Matt.
Jimmy rocking the grow out!
Adam was 100% correct that in the philosophical definition of "atheism", there is a third option - agnosticism. The disagreement only lies in the definition of "atheism".
@Billy - if you lack knowledge on a particular question, then yes you are ignorant of the answer to that question.
Ignorance, in itself, isn't an insult, it is a position about your knowledge about a specific subject.
Many people think that when they're called ignorant, they're being insulted to the core. And I find it amusing just to think about that. But I'm not afraid to call people ignorant when they ignore something and persist in stubbornness.🤷🏻♂️
Ah! "Strawman" Billy! Been a hot minute, dude!
How does Billy NOT get that simulations don’t count for comparing and contrasting things that are or could be designed?
Billy was *not* dishonest. We use models to study things all the time. He needed you to explain why simulated universes couldn't count as a universe to explore -- because the inputs for a simulated universe come from us, which means that anything that we don't know about the natural limits or broadness of universes can't be included (ie how they're formed, which forces or properties can be different, and which can't, are other laws possible, etc...). Thus we cannot establish that those universes represent reality -- and thus cannot add them to our investigation as a way to learn about our own.
He'd been very sincere and open in the discussion. I understand why he thought he was answering you honestly. I wish you could have extended him the benefit of the doubt.
That was a good call Sven.❤
Sven left the call crying 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The prop hypothesis is probably the best answer we have or might ever have for the Voynich Manuscript. Given how it's composed, it may have been commissioned by a mystic/astrologer/fortune teller, etc. from the period in order to appear more mysterious and powerful. It's a shame we're not likely to know for sure though.
Callers like Sven (and Pete) are why I'm dubious about the End Boss format, or why I tend to dislike more traditional debate structures.
Even with the hosts constantly stopping him, and holding his feet to the fire, it was a nightmare to get him to answer the actual questions.
It's not just Sven either. There are way more competent people who do the same.
It'll be interesting to see how the new formats play out. I'll still be watching. ☺️
Talking about Donald Trump and the idea of him being president seeming ridiculous. It reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where they mention it (when Lisa is president). No, they didn't predict him becoming president: it was a joke because it seemed utterly ridiculous at the time.
At least Sven was taking the space and the time to actually think and consider the questions before spewing forth answers. They are actually taking the time to consider the input they are given, which is more than most theist callers ever do. Their call just boiled down to a misunderstanding of terminology, at the end of the day. Sven is an atheist, whether they want to accept it or not. If one is not convinced that a god exists, one is definitionally an atheist. A soft atheist to be sure, but an atheist nonetheless.
Louis from Abu Dhabi has balls ...Apostasy (turning away from God) is still punishable by death in Saudi Arabia 😳🙄☝️
It's frustrating that such a large portion of the shows these days is atheist callers. I used to play these in the back ground while i do other things. Now it's not worth the effort. I'll continue to check in, but don't expect a long watch time of it's 80% atheists smelling there own farts.
On the other shows, like Talk Heathen, there tends to be more.
Theists are cowards, whatcha gonna do 🤷🏻♂️
Tell your theists friends to call.
If you know WLC, get him to call in.
Yeah I've heard people say that God can create that rock and then that he could lift it too. 😅😅😅
I can say I believe in the scientific method. I can also say that I believe the scientific method is the best route to establish the truth about what we experience in reality.
It took awhile, but Billy DID show up! :)
Val's memory about a fridge magnet flying off at her could simply be explained by the fact that magnets have 2 poles. The manufacturers don't much care whether the north or south pole is facing towards the fridge. So if the letter U slid down and encountered a strong same polarity pole from another fridge magnets it could flip it off the fridge. A letter U would probably have 2 magnets, one in each arm of random polarity.
Really excited for this "End Boss" show!
Terrible name for the show.
wouldn't "final boss" be better
On the topic of the separation of religion and government: if you don't separate them, everyone in the country WILL have to, eventually, convert or die, as the conservative sects get more and more fundamentalist as they gain more power and wield it across the whole population
thank "god" for beavers. lol. great show.
My mom always told me growing up that "i don't know" is not an answer. So thank you Jimmy, at 29 i am validated😅
Sounds like an answer to me. It also sounds like momma would prefer you to lie, than admit not knowing.
@@maynardlikethecandy5347 mothers tend to assume that, if they ask "who did this bad thing", their offspring does indeed know, so saying "I don't know" in that _specific_ context would be a lie. But more generally, if you don't know, say that you don't, then try to find out.
Spry was a Crisco competitor back in the 1950s. My mother used it.
I listen to old time radio. I've heard a few ads for Spry.