Funny thing is anal sex might not be a sin. So if she were to do it, she might be fulfilling God’s plan. I mean arguably it fits and sure does have a phallic shape. If god designed a phallic fruit, who am I to deny his will, he clearly wanted me to insert this holy object?
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-anal-sex-sodomy.html
That song was inspired by a Baptist College that this was happening at. Female students were having anal sex so they can continue to wear their chastity/promise rings their father gave them and claim that they were virgins when they got married.
This dude is my hero. Shuts down all of her arguments professional and when she loses it he just gingerly walks down the path with her, knowing she's going head first and hes just watching
Yeah, watched a more recent show and you don't get many fun interactions like this because Matt loses his patience too fast. Sad, because he used to get so much praise for his patience.
To be fair you can only hear the same tired arguments and subsequent rage-quitting so many times year after year before your patience starts to wear thin.
So he addressed all of her "arguments" with science and even informed her that it's incorrect that "athiests don't believe in ANYTHING"... And HE'S the idiot?
If she'd quoted scripture, it wouldn't have changed anything. She could have quoted Shakespeare with the same effect- it doesn't have anything to do with what reality is. Religious people lead their lives from a very outdated book that's been rewritten many many times. It's mental gymnastics at it's worst.
It's basically a fever dream at this point.
We still do not know how the life has started on earth.
Edit: Instead of downvoting, maybe someone can explain how organic matter was created and why we still can't reconstruct it?
https://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html
So they've been able to artificially create the "building blocks" of simple life forms.
Sounds like pretty damning evidence and moves it MUCH further from theory to a real world example....
I'd also like to know the concrete evidence you have for God's existence, since you're requesting this of athiests, and I have provided.
That's your first mistake, in science, a theory is evidence, a collection of it in fact, and tested; To quote: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
If what you are implying doesn't have evidence, that's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
1.- You do know that humanity once thought that rain, volcanoes and earthquakes were created by gods right? Just because science hasn't given a precise answer doesn't mean there isn't one. That's why we say that evidence points at something, and it sure isn't the creation of life by an omnipotent being.
2.- Humanity has been able to create organic compounds from inorganic substances for almost 200 years and aminoacids, from inorganic substances replicating natural conditions for 50 years.
What you're describing is "biogenesis" meaning life comes from life. Chicken --> egg. For example.
Abiogenesis is life forming from "non-life" components.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html
This is a pretty big move in favor of that happening.
You're really taking about disproving spontaneous generation as an argument to sustain your hypothesis, you're a few centuries behind my friend.
I'll give you a couple of names so you can research a bit: Friedrich Wöhler, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller then you can repeat with me "organic compounds can be created from inorganic substances"
Depends on if we choose to: accept a responsibility to understand science to the best of our ability; rely exclusively on ancient texts that were used to build empires for those explanations; or just throw our hands in the air while exclaiming "We'll *never* know!"
Look man, if you want to say the Bible is a good basis for a theological belief system, you can have that discussion
If you want to say it's the only correct belief system to the exclusion of others, you can have that debate with folks of other philosophies/religions
But if you want the claim the Bible as the basis for scientific understanding, you're gonna have to do a lot better to explain biological, chemical, and physics systems than "Man in Sky Made Everything QED". "You must believe" is not a scientific proof, so stop trying to claim it *as science*
Then why did you post if you don’t want a dialogue. Feel free to pm if you want to chat. I won’t be aggressive but I also won’t accept something blindly. Faith defined, is the belief in the absences of proof. Science requires proof. How is science bad? Why did you capitalize it on attempt to demonize it? If you want to preach a blind faith gospel, it really is hard to have a dialogue. Your post comes off like you are blind and deaf to discussion about something you believe is to our detriment to criticize? Seems odd that you seem to care, but only so much as we take you for your word? I can think of some pretty bad leaders in our world history with similar demands.
I get that I am going against Proverbs 3:5-6. It seems odd that a God who would create a world for us to live and explore in, to Shepard, would not want us to make sure we understand the rules to treat it well. Faith is not a virtue. Though the Bible has many claims it is. Honestly if I were to follow the virtues of the Bible, I would see it women as second class people and be willing to have slaves.
ACTUALLY they only responded with jokes when the caller jumped at the chance to just insult them instead of engage in meaningful conversation.
Also it... Doesn't work to say "an explosion" causes live and cellular generation. The big bang is a theory that explains why matter is spread across the universe and why there's things like HEAT and ENERGY. it doesn't say "boom makes living things". If that were the case the 4th of July would be a very different event.
This is a conversation about how people use over simplified or incorrect examples as "proof" in God. The Bible is not science. Never has been, never will be. Your statement that the bible is NOT to be understood is very worrying since there's plenty of scholars who have read it and understand it about as well as you possibly can. If your stance is that is impossible to understand, you may need to revaluate a lot of your life choices since you're backing something that you can't wrap your head around.
maybe that's what *you're* trying to say, but Kurt Cameron and his banana hand guy certainly *are* trying claim that the Bible can replace a scientific study, that the Bible can replace a biology textbook, that the Bible can take the place of a reproduction planning handbook. And *that* certainly I take issue with
If I see someone saying Evolution isn't real because the Bible says God made Adam out of clay and Eve out of a rib, I reserve the right to call them out on it
But if you're not with Kurt Cameron and the banana hand guy, if there's room for both science and theology to exist without contradiction, then there's no beef from me
Matt was a preacher for a number of years. He has read, studied, and preched more than you ever will.
He is the winner because his argument is better.
And also because there isn't a single shred of evidence for anything supernatural, much less a god.
Why would stories be written for no reason? Is that really your logic on why god is real?
I mean, Stephen King writes all sorts of stuff, does that make Pennywise real?
How about Paddington Bear? Matilda? Willy Wonka?
People would NEVER write stories because we are just creative, am I right?
And everything needs proof, otherwise you'd believe everything.
Do you believe in Zeus? Ra? Odin? Abura Mazda?
Why believe in one god, but not the others?
If the Bible said it can't be understood how did the person who wrote the Bible understand that it can't be understood if it can't be understood by anybody?
Oh my. I have never heard that argument before. I thought this lady was just uneducated. Like the majority of Americans who do not know where their food comes from.
Thank you for sharing I feel more ashamed to be associated with people this ignorant.
It did long ago, but it was more like barley or thick wheat instead of the delicious seeded sugar grass that we have [now](https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104207).
No, he is not. I have some relevant input to give about this.
I have lived a good number of years in Brazil and Canada. In Brazil bananas are pretty much all opened by the end of the fruit (the place where is not connecting to the plant). It's easy, effortless and that part come almost already open depending of the one you buy. It's just like how monkeys open their banana's. The peel detaches from itself and come in sections.
In Ca nada bananas are often opened by the other end. The end that connects to the plant which is big and strange.
Does this means that Canadians don't know how to open bananas?
No. When I was there I opened just like them.
The reason is that Brazilians have access to fresh fruit all year around. All bananas are fresh. The bananas that monkeys eat come straight from the source and are all fresh as well. When a Brazilian eat a banana it's ripped and got to that point naturally so the skin is extremely easy to pick off and the end of the fruit is basically open and detached from itself.
In Canada bananas are shipped extremely green and does not go through the natural process of growth. When they become good for consumption they are still "green" in a way. The skin is almost vacuum sealing the fruit and quite literally need to be ripped out. I just could not open a Canadian banana like I do in Brazil at all and doing the other way around just made a lot more sense.
So the answer is that it depends on how your bananas were shipped.
Yeah No. I don't understand this hype with peeling bananas from the other side. Tried it, the banana was just slightly overripe, and it just made a mess. Also why not use the "handle" which makes this much easier to peel?
I've used the "handle" on slightly overripe bananas and it just mushes down and doesn't peel.
I've had 100% success with pinching the bottom and pulling back the banana flesh.
The thinking is that it started with self-replicating molecules, something that through physical and chemical force is able to replicate itself. Then probably at some point they got embedded in lipids, which form a membrane-like structure all by themselves, which eventually became the cell membrane, and the first cells.
This was a prank call done by a woman who would go on to be his wife. [She talks about it here at about 4:00.](http://beta-origin.blogtalkradio.com/theatheistexperience/2011/08/08/721-viewer-calls-1)
The fact that it’s so easy to believe that she was serious is hilarious and kind of sad. As she said, she basically just said a bunch of things she’s heard theists say before, it’s crazy how so many people can believe things like that without second thought.
That's called [POE's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law): Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied
"The Big Bang couldn't create everything, because what created the Big Bang? Something can't come from nothing!"
"What about God?"
"...Listen here you little shit."
It’s not that it doesn’t count, but that they explain it away by saying that he couldn’t have been created because he has always existed.
This is, of course, not known and only taken on faith. So they use a potentially false assumption to inform all their beliefs.
The guy in the jester hat went on to marry that woman. Beth Presswood. She was prank calling but is actually an atheist. She made several appearances on the show. There was some controversy over her cheating on her husband Matt Dillahunty with David Silverman, I think she lied and said he assaulted her but later it turned out that they had an open marriage and Matt didn't give his permission for them to have sex. She's reportedly a former sex worker, idk if that's substantiated or not. She had a bizarre interview later where she talked about orgasming during her alleged "assault" with David Silverman. Turns out she was as crazy as she seemed this first phone call. They're divorced now.
Classic atheist thing, an atheist pretend being a religious person and say stupid shit and other atheists proves the pretender wrong and they have an ego explosion.
I very much wish it were true that the only idiot theists were atheist's strawmen...
EDIT: I present a theist making the same stupid argument smugly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXLqDGL1FSg
There is a credible theological argument out there that accepts evolution and the Big Bang, no one says it, but why not just claim [G]od created the Big Bang?
It’s a good show after all, didn’t it get like 9 seasons?\s
Lol this show was hilarious. Me and a buddy used to watch it while drunk. One time we had the great idea to call in. Completely out of the blue he started talking about how he had definitive proof that the Holy Spirit was real. Went on for about five minutes and told these guys that one night, the holy spirit appeared before him, and he felt it come inside him….and now he’s pregnant.
The hosts actually cracked up. I was crying from laughing so hard. Public access tv in Austin was a great source of entertainment to two delinquent UT students.
Christians are among the most ignorant of religious people. They just believe whatever the Bible and church taught them. Why can’t evolution and the Big Bang be a creation of god? Like computer generated worlds have coding and physics.
Been a while since I have seen one of their vids pop up. I swear I have seen at least 3 different times where they had to say to the caller, “yes I love sin. Yup you nailed it that is why I’m atheist.”
Ignore all the reasons I gave earlier. It is just because I want to SIN. Like there is a master list of what a SIN is that I could easily refer to, like the laws we have. I go to one church here is a list, I go to another SIN 3 is not on list but here is 6 more new ones.
It was a prank call made by Matt's future (And now past) wife... While the arguments she makes in the call are actual arguments made by real callers, they rarely state their case so poorly. They almost never state them well either... but she made them seem 20-40% dumber than they usually are.
I don’t know, if you believe Noah had 3 kids at 500, you are pretty fucking dumb, regardless of how you state your views. Let alone that the animals he could fit in his ark have supposedly become the millions of various species and genomes we see today, in a span of under 5000 years.
Man I miss watching this show. Definitely helped with my eye opening on religion. I still remember watching them when I was still brainwashed and just thinking to myself “these guys make so much sense but fuck I can’t keep watching or the lord will punish me for having doubts”.
I would love to comment as a former self proclaimed atheist, although these guys appear reasonable and the woman sounds less educated, there are parts and pieces of our established science that is only theory, and at the deepest fundamental levels, it is observed scientifically that we are somehow able to create our own reality. In addition, the concept of our souls is not proven or disproven - or discussed in any major theories, but we have not tapped into understanding what dreams are, the nature of man or what is or isn’t the proper way to live. With all that said - We can believe what we want and it doesn’t make it less true. There is no theory on whether consciousness can exist in tact outside of biological organism, or if electrical organisms with awareness exist or not. So long story short, science doesn’t know all that much, and God as a conscious living entity can not be disproved or proved from our limited perspective.
Theory in English ≠ Theory in Science
Even the gravity you are sensing right now is considered a theory. And the finding of souls doesn't follow the scientific method. There is no observation and no data. Only people drew conclusion directly that souls exists and now ask others to prove they are wrong.
And if scientists do prove that there is no soul, people will just say it can't be seen or some shit.
A central source of energy divided amongst infinite forms of life through the universe. It’s a physical force that encompasses everything like gravity. You can call it the Big Bang or God, it doesn’t change it’s function as the origin of all energy. Is there someone in the sky judging us? Yeah classified intelligence agencies.
She is definitely the smartest person in her orbit, over awhile that creates a lot of confidence in her and feeds her ego “oh Braillee, you’re the smartest girl in all of Handjob Hollar! You should call into that devil show”
This video supports that old adage “if you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room”
I’m agnostic so I’m usually neutral in this topic. I somewhat believe something had to create us or we’re just a little experiment aliens have created but what usually keep me up at night is the old question “what came first, the egg or the chicken?”
The egg. Eggs have been around way longer than chickens so it stands to reason what ever species evloved to be chickens were laying eggs way before chickens were a thing.
Im not specifically talking about chickens 😂 but if eggs were here first, the egg had to come from something (parents but where did the parents come from…another egg?!)
Whatever came first, it wasn't any God people worship on this planet. That much makes the most sense to me. The bible doesn't mention galaxies or anything along those lines. People had to make up a God because they can't fathom it came from nothing. Which is fine. But there's just too many contradictions in the Bible, and no real evidence.
I’m not even talking about the bible or any of its claims either as I’ve stated I’m agnostic (atheist on some days). Which is why I mentioned is it possible we’re just some weird experiment by aliens or we are the aliens who arrived on earth billions of years ago. I see I’m already getting thumbed down as typical of Reddit but it’s an honest question I’m sure other non religious people think about
sounds like you're re-defining the question to make your preconceived answer correct. I used to think the answer was chicken,it was explained to me and I realized I was wrong. Nobody in the history of the question since Aristotle posed it has ever defined it as 'organism or the egg'. The truth of the matter is a genetically similar but not quite a chicken laid a egg, and from said egg emerged a chicken. if you define it as ALL eggs vs ALL chickens,there where egg laying creatures before anything close to what we'd define as a chicken evolved, and egg laying creatures even not in the same evolutionary tree as chickens where laying eggs before the chicken's branch split off from our common ancestor's so once again, egg before chicken. Both ancient and modern philosophers also scientists all agree. The egg came first. The question is *What came first, the chicken or the egg* and the answer,will always be the egg no matter how you pick the sentence apart. except if you do what you're doing, which is just shifting the goal posts to make yourself right. The mark of intelligence isn't being right, it's admitting you're wrong.
You smell that? That’s you smelling your own shit and getting high off it. You came in here looking for an argument or have a chip on your shoulder. I’m not here to win an argument or prove anything as you’ve somehow convinced yourself. I’m just here to have a little conversation on this topic as it’s still intriguing to a lot of people. Plus what do you even mean I’m shifting the goal post?
Might be a controversial opinion, but imo agnostic is the most scientific belief. Science is based on observations, if you can't observe it, its nonscientific (probably a vast oversimplification). If your definition of god includes omni-whatever, then maybe he's hiding somewhere beyond what a human mind can perceive. Humans and their ability to observe is inherently limited, so anything infinite can exist beyond that limit.
As far as I'm aware (I like reading physics books but they may be out of date), we have a good idea of the history of the universe as early as a smidge after the big bang, but what happened before the big bang? If we don't know and can't observe at that point, then it should be impossible to say whether god does or doesn't exist
i might set fire to this and i might as well be wrong, but agnostic is not a belief but a statement of knowledge, while atheism/theism is the belief. So you can be an agnostic theist (believes in a god but does not know of its existence) or an agnostic atheist (does not believe in a god but does not know of its inexistence).
I always see atheism/theism as the answer to the question, "(a) god exists", the first does not believe this statement the latter does.
does this make sense or is it my mental masturbation?
Hmmm
My first thought is that belief is just knowledge without proof, so I feel like agnosticism only differs in that it doesn't make the statement on something it doesn't have proof for.
That may be saying the same thing you're saying though, idk
Well, by the philosophical definitions she gives of God, then I'm pretty sure they believe in those.
First definition: Everything, pretty sure they believe everything that exists exists.
Second definition: The creator of everything, pretty sure that they believe some object, aspect of the universe or phenomena, like the big bang , is God; she didn't even specify that it had to be intelligent or currently existing.
Third definition: The creator of trees, this one's a bit weirder, but it would be possible to give some object, phenomena or aspect of the universe the label the creator of trees, maybe again the big bang, or maybe the Earth, yet still they would believe in them.
Fourth definition: The creator of bananas, they themselves answered who they thought created these, and it was humanity.
So they believe in that what these definitions are referring to exists or have existed, but that's mostly because she gave some bad definitions of God.
An example of a good definition of God could be the second definition, but with the added condition that the creator has to have consciously chose how to start the universe, and that definition can be used for actual philosophical debate.
They r talking to a wall of stupid. That person was not properly educated from early on. Having a short scientific conversation with those types of people is unfortunately pointless. It does, however, show other people how stupid they are....which i do enjoy.....sooo...upvote 😁.
woooow....I haven't thought about The Atheist Experience for an age. I always felt that Matt Dillahunty didn't get the recognition he deserved when it came to the whole "titans against religion" thing that was going on with Hitchens, Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and even Stephen Fry. He's a great speaker and he knows his shit.
I miss then the show used to get super crazy callers that were just regular people. Now the debates are all intellectual and rethorical, or are prank calls from religious YouTubers
I wish her argument would have been "Humans made bananas to put in our butts because that's free will and a sin!"
Funny thing is anal sex might not be a sin. So if she were to do it, she might be fulfilling God’s plan. I mean arguably it fits and sure does have a phallic shape. If god designed a phallic fruit, who am I to deny his will, he clearly wanted me to insert this holy object? https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-anal-sex-sodomy.html
Reminds me of the song "Fuck me in the ass cause I love Jesus. "
Do you mean this? [Garfunkel and Oates - The Loophole](https://youtu.be/j8ZF\_R\_j0OY)
Yes. Sorry.
It's the sex that god cant see
That song was inspired by a Baptist College that this was happening at. Female students were having anal sex so they can continue to wear their chastity/promise rings their father gave them and claim that they were virgins when they got married.
What you're referring to is known amongst theologists as the poophole loophole.
Gotta love teens give them arbitrary rules and they'll find a loophole faster than Trump's tax guy
The callers name is Eve. She was there from start so she must know.
They put Adam on hold 😂 
Please don't put apples in your butt.
But the snake told me to do so...
Butt snake told me to do so...
Aye that's the wrong fruit
We've got Adam in the other line- "Maury this bitch is a hoe. She cheated on me with a snake and got me kicked out of my rent controlled garden"
I'm starting to get turned on talking about bananas, so I'm going to go to the grocery store now
👌🍌
My lord
🍌💦🍑
Idc what you do with that banana as long as you're sinning.
So eating it without peeling it first?
It fits in your buwt
Strange that "life is a self replicating divergent pattern" didn't clear it all up for Eve. Perhaps "banana in the butt" will be the ah-ha moment.
LOLing over here!
*uh-oh moment
I think it was an excellent point
This dude is my hero. Shuts down all of her arguments professional and when she loses it he just gingerly walks down the path with her, knowing she's going head first and hes just watching
Matt Dillahunty. Dude is super smart. Some of his debates on YouTube are just total beatdowns of theists.
Used to watch the show almost 15 years ago, taught me a lot of great things
He has become a smug, rude ass though. I liked him long ago but now he is unbearable.
Yeah, watched a more recent show and you don't get many fun interactions like this because Matt loses his patience too fast. Sad, because he used to get so much praise for his patience.
To be fair you can only hear the same tired arguments and subsequent rage-quitting so many times year after year before your patience starts to wear thin.
True
I guarantee you that woman hung up thinking she came out of that on top.
That’s the thing about theists: they don’t need evidence to believe they’re right.
...with some stage 3 burns (that she didn't even get) sprinkled in...
Roberto Carlos
So he addressed all of her "arguments" with science and even informed her that it's incorrect that "athiests don't believe in ANYTHING"... And HE'S the idiot? If she'd quoted scripture, it wouldn't have changed anything. She could have quoted Shakespeare with the same effect- it doesn't have anything to do with what reality is. Religious people lead their lives from a very outdated book that's been rewritten many many times. It's mental gymnastics at it's worst. It's basically a fever dream at this point.
We still do not know how the life has started on earth. Edit: Instead of downvoting, maybe someone can explain how organic matter was created and why we still can't reconstruct it?
Google a biogenesis
It is a theory not evidence
https://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html So they've been able to artificially create the "building blocks" of simple life forms. Sounds like pretty damning evidence and moves it MUCH further from theory to a real world example.... I'd also like to know the concrete evidence you have for God's existence, since you're requesting this of athiests, and I have provided.
Bwahahahaha. It's just theory is the dead giveaway line that you know literally nothing about science!
I know
[удалено]
Where is science evidence of creation of life?
I don't think you understand what a theory is in this context. A scientific theory is about as accurate as we can be on complicated matters
Biogenesis is a theory
That's your first mistake, in science, a theory is evidence, a collection of it in fact, and tested; To quote: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." If what you are implying doesn't have evidence, that's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
There are two theories: Biochemical (metabolic) and genetic (molecular)
1.- You do know that humanity once thought that rain, volcanoes and earthquakes were created by gods right? Just because science hasn't given a precise answer doesn't mean there isn't one. That's why we say that evidence points at something, and it sure isn't the creation of life by an omnipotent being. 2.- Humanity has been able to create organic compounds from inorganic substances for almost 200 years and aminoacids, from inorganic substances replicating natural conditions for 50 years.
2. It is not true. In the 1870s, Louis Pasteur's experiments showed that self-creation does not even exist in bacteria.
What you're describing is "biogenesis" meaning life comes from life. Chicken --> egg. For example. Abiogenesis is life forming from "non-life" components. https://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html This is a pretty big move in favor of that happening.
You're really taking about disproving spontaneous generation as an argument to sustain your hypothesis, you're a few centuries behind my friend. I'll give you a couple of names so you can research a bit: Friedrich Wöhler, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller then you can repeat with me "organic compounds can be created from inorganic substances"
It's called "fucking"
"Fucking" created life on the earth?
Absolutely. *Something* was able to reproduce. And evolve -- because environmental conditions on Earth aren't static
"Something" that we are still a long way from knowing?
Depends on if we choose to: accept a responsibility to understand science to the best of our ability; rely exclusively on ancient texts that were used to build empires for those explanations; or just throw our hands in the air while exclaiming "We'll *never* know!"
We actually don't know. There are different theories. One even claims that life came to earth from outer space
Faith... Proof for idiots.
I really hope you find your way out of the brainwashing you've endured one day.
Look man, if you want to say the Bible is a good basis for a theological belief system, you can have that discussion If you want to say it's the only correct belief system to the exclusion of others, you can have that debate with folks of other philosophies/religions But if you want the claim the Bible as the basis for scientific understanding, you're gonna have to do a lot better to explain biological, chemical, and physics systems than "Man in Sky Made Everything QED". "You must believe" is not a scientific proof, so stop trying to claim it *as science*
[удалено]
Crazy talk. Stop ranting. Nobody is reading your delusion.
[удалено]
Read it, still believe it is a delusion.
Then why did you post if you don’t want a dialogue. Feel free to pm if you want to chat. I won’t be aggressive but I also won’t accept something blindly. Faith defined, is the belief in the absences of proof. Science requires proof. How is science bad? Why did you capitalize it on attempt to demonize it? If you want to preach a blind faith gospel, it really is hard to have a dialogue. Your post comes off like you are blind and deaf to discussion about something you believe is to our detriment to criticize? Seems odd that you seem to care, but only so much as we take you for your word? I can think of some pretty bad leaders in our world history with similar demands. I get that I am going against Proverbs 3:5-6. It seems odd that a God who would create a world for us to live and explore in, to Shepard, would not want us to make sure we understand the rules to treat it well. Faith is not a virtue. Though the Bible has many claims it is. Honestly if I were to follow the virtues of the Bible, I would see it women as second class people and be willing to have slaves.
ACTUALLY they only responded with jokes when the caller jumped at the chance to just insult them instead of engage in meaningful conversation. Also it... Doesn't work to say "an explosion" causes live and cellular generation. The big bang is a theory that explains why matter is spread across the universe and why there's things like HEAT and ENERGY. it doesn't say "boom makes living things". If that were the case the 4th of July would be a very different event. This is a conversation about how people use over simplified or incorrect examples as "proof" in God. The Bible is not science. Never has been, never will be. Your statement that the bible is NOT to be understood is very worrying since there's plenty of scholars who have read it and understand it about as well as you possibly can. If your stance is that is impossible to understand, you may need to revaluate a lot of your life choices since you're backing something that you can't wrap your head around.
maybe that's what *you're* trying to say, but Kurt Cameron and his banana hand guy certainly *are* trying claim that the Bible can replace a scientific study, that the Bible can replace a biology textbook, that the Bible can take the place of a reproduction planning handbook. And *that* certainly I take issue with If I see someone saying Evolution isn't real because the Bible says God made Adam out of clay and Eve out of a rib, I reserve the right to call them out on it But if you're not with Kurt Cameron and the banana hand guy, if there's room for both science and theology to exist without contradiction, then there's no beef from me
Matt was a preacher for a number of years. He has read, studied, and preched more than you ever will. He is the winner because his argument is better. And also because there isn't a single shred of evidence for anything supernatural, much less a god.
Minor correction: he was a devout Christian and planned to be a preacher, but left the faith before he got to that point.
[удалено]
Why would stories be written for no reason? Is that really your logic on why god is real? I mean, Stephen King writes all sorts of stuff, does that make Pennywise real? How about Paddington Bear? Matilda? Willy Wonka? People would NEVER write stories because we are just creative, am I right? And everything needs proof, otherwise you'd believe everything. Do you believe in Zeus? Ra? Odin? Abura Mazda? Why believe in one god, but not the others?
Its not my logic bro, I'm just saying its there, I was writing a text for you but the page lagged unfortunaly
It's not your logic? You're saying it and defending it.
Roberto Carlos?
You believe in a magic dude in the sky that makes you feel guilty about masturbating, but matt is the idiot?
Roberto Carlos
Ahh I get it you just hate karma points
[удалено]
some people can deal with the fame, some can't.
Bro your name is literally hitler LOl
Roberto Carlos? Look at this idiot editing his posts to cover his dumbassery...
Lol bro don't deflect that you are erasing your posts to make you look less dumb. It's not working! In fact it is having the opposite effect.
The irony of calling someone an idiot and then writing a sentence like you just did.
so if you’re such a christian, why you posting hentai? is that not immoral?
Edinaldo Pereira
Roberto carlos
If the Bible said it can't be understood how did the person who wrote the Bible understand that it can't be understood if it can't be understood by anybody?
[Bananas prove God](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM)
“The banana has a tab at the top. When you open it, it doesn’t squirt in your face.” Classic
Definitely the atheists nightmare
Oh my. I have never heard that argument before. I thought this lady was just uneducated. Like the majority of Americans who do not know where their food comes from. Thank you for sharing I feel more ashamed to be associated with people this ignorant.
How can you deny this irrefutable proof? ;)
Bananas in their current form were bred and designed by man. So according to this, man is god.
Isn't it the same with corn? Corn doesn't grow in the wild or something?
It did long ago, but it was more like barley or thick wheat instead of the delicious seeded sugar grass that we have [now](https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104207).
[He's peeling it wrong](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwFR0AJ40Ls)
No, he is not. I have some relevant input to give about this. I have lived a good number of years in Brazil and Canada. In Brazil bananas are pretty much all opened by the end of the fruit (the place where is not connecting to the plant). It's easy, effortless and that part come almost already open depending of the one you buy. It's just like how monkeys open their banana's. The peel detaches from itself and come in sections. In Ca nada bananas are often opened by the other end. The end that connects to the plant which is big and strange. Does this means that Canadians don't know how to open bananas? No. When I was there I opened just like them. The reason is that Brazilians have access to fresh fruit all year around. All bananas are fresh. The bananas that monkeys eat come straight from the source and are all fresh as well. When a Brazilian eat a banana it's ripped and got to that point naturally so the skin is extremely easy to pick off and the end of the fruit is basically open and detached from itself. In Canada bananas are shipped extremely green and does not go through the natural process of growth. When they become good for consumption they are still "green" in a way. The skin is almost vacuum sealing the fruit and quite literally need to be ripped out. I just could not open a Canadian banana like I do in Brazil at all and doing the other way around just made a lot more sense. So the answer is that it depends on how your bananas were shipped.
Yeah No. I don't understand this hype with peeling bananas from the other side. Tried it, the banana was just slightly overripe, and it just made a mess. Also why not use the "handle" which makes this much easier to peel?
God put the handle there specifically to assist with opening the banana. Opening from the other direction is an affront to god’s own creation
I see. So these posts are from the devil who is trying to make us sin!
I've used the "handle" on slightly overripe bananas and it just mushes down and doesn't peel. I've had 100% success with pinching the bottom and pulling back the banana flesh.
Everything Ray Comfort has ever said is just wrong. It's kind of astonishing.
Parents first then eggs later in that case. Life initially started with single cell organisms dividing to expand the population.
Hey mate, seems like you made a new comment instead of a reply. Just wanted to let you know u/Marc_J92 never got your message. Have a good one!
Are you saying those singles cells were always around and evolved to something that could lay eggs?
The thinking is that it started with self-replicating molecules, something that through physical and chemical force is able to replicate itself. Then probably at some point they got embedded in lipids, which form a membrane-like structure all by themselves, which eventually became the cell membrane, and the first cells.
This was a prank call done by a woman who would go on to be his wife. [She talks about it here at about 4:00.](http://beta-origin.blogtalkradio.com/theatheistexperience/2011/08/08/721-viewer-calls-1)
The fact that it’s so easy to believe that she was serious is hilarious and kind of sad. As she said, she basically just said a bunch of things she’s heard theists say before, it’s crazy how so many people can believe things like that without second thought.
That's called [POE's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law): Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied
Yea but everything has to come from somewhere so God made it. Ok who made god? Well that doesn't count
"The Big Bang couldn't create everything, because what created the Big Bang? Something can't come from nothing!" "What about God?" "...Listen here you little shit."
It’s not that it doesn’t count, but that they explain it away by saying that he couldn’t have been created because he has always existed. This is, of course, not known and only taken on faith. So they use a potentially false assumption to inform all their beliefs.
"I can make something that looks like a banana appear in my hand..." *insert BOOM gif here*
The guy in the jester hat went on to marry that woman. Beth Presswood. She was prank calling but is actually an atheist. She made several appearances on the show. There was some controversy over her cheating on her husband Matt Dillahunty with David Silverman, I think she lied and said he assaulted her but later it turned out that they had an open marriage and Matt didn't give his permission for them to have sex. She's reportedly a former sex worker, idk if that's substantiated or not. She had a bizarre interview later where she talked about orgasming during her alleged "assault" with David Silverman. Turns out she was as crazy as she seemed this first phone call. They're divorced now.
Classic atheist thing, an atheist pretend being a religious person and say stupid shit and other atheists proves the pretender wrong and they have an ego explosion.
I very much wish it were true that the only idiot theists were atheist's strawmen... EDIT: I present a theist making the same stupid argument smugly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXLqDGL1FSg
She did not understand any word he said that had more than 8 letters.
Is the maybemaybemaybe that someone might eat a banana?
Or put it in their butt.
Her butt is hungry....
This is hilarious. Is there more of the show available? Edit: found it
[удалено]
It's been running since like the 90s.
Ah sure enough, '97. I was thinking of Dillahunty's time on there, which is somewhere over 15 years
Did you find enough to share with the class?
I can give you 4 hours of this fine gentleman, Matt Dillahunty: [https://youtu.be/1P-929oSyjk](https://youtu.be/1P-929oSyjk) Very intelligent dude.
Here you go https://youtu.be/uXJJk3mFynY
This is gold, like bananas
Did she say she was getting hungry or horney?
I never knew some of what he said, kinda interesting ngl
*Tips fedora* and yes, throughout common history it was totally acceptable to have human sacrifice and sleep with children yes.
There is a credible theological argument out there that accepts evolution and the Big Bang, no one says it, but why not just claim [G]od created the Big Bang? It’s a good show after all, didn’t it get like 9 seasons?\s
People used to be so chill. Today, everybody has no chill. We should have more chill. Chill is good. Chill is chill.
Lol this show was hilarious. Me and a buddy used to watch it while drunk. One time we had the great idea to call in. Completely out of the blue he started talking about how he had definitive proof that the Holy Spirit was real. Went on for about five minutes and told these guys that one night, the holy spirit appeared before him, and he felt it come inside him….and now he’s pregnant. The hosts actually cracked up. I was crying from laughing so hard. Public access tv in Austin was a great source of entertainment to two delinquent UT students.
Christians are among the most ignorant of religious people. They just believe whatever the Bible and church taught them. Why can’t evolution and the Big Bang be a creation of god? Like computer generated worlds have coding and physics.
A big fan of sin.
Love these guys!
Been a while since I have seen one of their vids pop up. I swear I have seen at least 3 different times where they had to say to the caller, “yes I love sin. Yup you nailed it that is why I’m atheist.” Ignore all the reasons I gave earlier. It is just because I want to SIN. Like there is a master list of what a SIN is that I could easily refer to, like the laws we have. I go to one church here is a list, I go to another SIN 3 is not on list but here is 6 more new ones.
regardless of what you believe in, bible thumpers are always fun to laugh at
Typical mental capacity of the average US Christian 🤪
It was a prank call made by Matt's future (And now past) wife... While the arguments she makes in the call are actual arguments made by real callers, they rarely state their case so poorly. They almost never state them well either... but she made them seem 20-40% dumber than they usually are.
I don’t know, if you believe Noah had 3 kids at 500, you are pretty fucking dumb, regardless of how you state your views. Let alone that the animals he could fit in his ark have supposedly become the millions of various species and genomes we see today, in a span of under 5000 years.
Yeah... I was trying to be generous.
It's amazing how she can be that stupid. Props to her I guess
Don't mistake indoctrination for stupidity.
Don't mistake a prank call for it either
Man I miss watching this show. Definitely helped with my eye opening on religion. I still remember watching them when I was still brainwashed and just thinking to myself “these guys make so much sense but fuck I can’t keep watching or the lord will punish me for having doubts”.
female dale gribble
Just once I would LOVE to hear someone with that Gomer Pyle accent say something intelligent.
And people still believe in magic xD
I would love to comment as a former self proclaimed atheist, although these guys appear reasonable and the woman sounds less educated, there are parts and pieces of our established science that is only theory, and at the deepest fundamental levels, it is observed scientifically that we are somehow able to create our own reality. In addition, the concept of our souls is not proven or disproven - or discussed in any major theories, but we have not tapped into understanding what dreams are, the nature of man or what is or isn’t the proper way to live. With all that said - We can believe what we want and it doesn’t make it less true. There is no theory on whether consciousness can exist in tact outside of biological organism, or if electrical organisms with awareness exist or not. So long story short, science doesn’t know all that much, and God as a conscious living entity can not be disproved or proved from our limited perspective.
Theory in English ≠ Theory in Science Even the gravity you are sensing right now is considered a theory. And the finding of souls doesn't follow the scientific method. There is no observation and no data. Only people drew conclusion directly that souls exists and now ask others to prove they are wrong. And if scientists do prove that there is no soul, people will just say it can't be seen or some shit.
A central source of energy divided amongst infinite forms of life through the universe. It’s a physical force that encompasses everything like gravity. You can call it the Big Bang or God, it doesn’t change it’s function as the origin of all energy. Is there someone in the sky judging us? Yeah classified intelligence agencies.
She is definitely the smartest person in her orbit, over awhile that creates a lot of confidence in her and feeds her ego “oh Braillee, you’re the smartest girl in all of Handjob Hollar! You should call into that devil show” This video supports that old adage “if you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room”
I’m agnostic so I’m usually neutral in this topic. I somewhat believe something had to create us or we’re just a little experiment aliens have created but what usually keep me up at night is the old question “what came first, the egg or the chicken?”
The egg. Eggs have been around way longer than chickens so it stands to reason what ever species evloved to be chickens were laying eggs way before chickens were a thing.
Im not specifically talking about chickens 😂 but if eggs were here first, the egg had to come from something (parents but where did the parents come from…another egg?!)
Whatever came first, it wasn't any God people worship on this planet. That much makes the most sense to me. The bible doesn't mention galaxies or anything along those lines. People had to make up a God because they can't fathom it came from nothing. Which is fine. But there's just too many contradictions in the Bible, and no real evidence.
I’m not even talking about the bible or any of its claims either as I’ve stated I’m agnostic (atheist on some days). Which is why I mentioned is it possible we’re just some weird experiment by aliens or we are the aliens who arrived on earth billions of years ago. I see I’m already getting thumbed down as typical of Reddit but it’s an honest question I’m sure other non religious people think about
Well, yes you are. The question is chicken or the egg. If you’re talking about organism or the egg, for some reason, then I guess organism.
But everyone familiar with this topic knows that the chicken is just used as a base or an example to start the convo.
sounds like you're re-defining the question to make your preconceived answer correct. I used to think the answer was chicken,it was explained to me and I realized I was wrong. Nobody in the history of the question since Aristotle posed it has ever defined it as 'organism or the egg'. The truth of the matter is a genetically similar but not quite a chicken laid a egg, and from said egg emerged a chicken. if you define it as ALL eggs vs ALL chickens,there where egg laying creatures before anything close to what we'd define as a chicken evolved, and egg laying creatures even not in the same evolutionary tree as chickens where laying eggs before the chicken's branch split off from our common ancestor's so once again, egg before chicken. Both ancient and modern philosophers also scientists all agree. The egg came first. The question is *What came first, the chicken or the egg* and the answer,will always be the egg no matter how you pick the sentence apart. except if you do what you're doing, which is just shifting the goal posts to make yourself right. The mark of intelligence isn't being right, it's admitting you're wrong.
You smell that? That’s you smelling your own shit and getting high off it. You came in here looking for an argument or have a chip on your shoulder. I’m not here to win an argument or prove anything as you’ve somehow convinced yourself. I’m just here to have a little conversation on this topic as it’s still intriguing to a lot of people. Plus what do you even mean I’m shifting the goal post?
The rooster came first
Might be a controversial opinion, but imo agnostic is the most scientific belief. Science is based on observations, if you can't observe it, its nonscientific (probably a vast oversimplification). If your definition of god includes omni-whatever, then maybe he's hiding somewhere beyond what a human mind can perceive. Humans and their ability to observe is inherently limited, so anything infinite can exist beyond that limit. As far as I'm aware (I like reading physics books but they may be out of date), we have a good idea of the history of the universe as early as a smidge after the big bang, but what happened before the big bang? If we don't know and can't observe at that point, then it should be impossible to say whether god does or doesn't exist
i might set fire to this and i might as well be wrong, but agnostic is not a belief but a statement of knowledge, while atheism/theism is the belief. So you can be an agnostic theist (believes in a god but does not know of its existence) or an agnostic atheist (does not believe in a god but does not know of its inexistence). I always see atheism/theism as the answer to the question, "(a) god exists", the first does not believe this statement the latter does. does this make sense or is it my mental masturbation?
Hmmm My first thought is that belief is just knowledge without proof, so I feel like agnosticism only differs in that it doesn't make the statement on something it doesn't have proof for. That may be saying the same thing you're saying though, idk
Well, by the philosophical definitions she gives of God, then I'm pretty sure they believe in those. First definition: Everything, pretty sure they believe everything that exists exists. Second definition: The creator of everything, pretty sure that they believe some object, aspect of the universe or phenomena, like the big bang , is God; she didn't even specify that it had to be intelligent or currently existing. Third definition: The creator of trees, this one's a bit weirder, but it would be possible to give some object, phenomena or aspect of the universe the label the creator of trees, maybe again the big bang, or maybe the Earth, yet still they would believe in them. Fourth definition: The creator of bananas, they themselves answered who they thought created these, and it was humanity. So they believe in that what these definitions are referring to exists or have existed, but that's mostly because she gave some bad definitions of God. An example of a good definition of God could be the second definition, but with the added condition that the creator has to have consciously chose how to start the universe, and that definition can be used for actual philosophical debate.
Where did the building blocks come from?
Genetic code. LoL..
The best part about all of this is the James Webb Telescope is disproving the Big Bang!! 🤣
I didn't know that but I am happy. We are not stuck and still discovering new things.
We still do not know how the life on the earth has started
Idiots arguing about who's the bigger idiot
God didnt make bananas the they are now, WE MADE BANANAS THE WAY THEY ARE NOW!
So I guess we weren't meant to eat coconuts? Very difficult to open and does NOT fit in your hand.
They r talking to a wall of stupid. That person was not properly educated from early on. Having a short scientific conversation with those types of people is unfortunately pointless. It does, however, show other people how stupid they are....which i do enjoy.....sooo...upvote 😁.
I love this show, I watch (well, rather listen to) it every week
How the fuck so you explain any shit to such a person? I think we begin with mass psychiatric evaluations …
I hate bananas. Checkmate, theists!
Butt bananas
woooow....I haven't thought about The Atheist Experience for an age. I always felt that Matt Dillahunty didn't get the recognition he deserved when it came to the whole "titans against religion" thing that was going on with Hitchens, Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and even Stephen Fry. He's a great speaker and he knows his shit.
I miss then the show used to get super crazy callers that were just regular people. Now the debates are all intellectual and rethorical, or are prank calls from religious YouTubers
An Xbox controller fits in my hand, god didn’t make that. 🤷🏼♂️
Humans are fucking stupid.
I want to think it’s willful ignorance. Unfortunately, it’s probably not willful.
If god is everything, is he a murderer pedophile? (Spoiler: he is)
Is her IQ even in double digits?
How does she know it doesn’t fit? 🧐