Open thread for AETV #809

Yesterday Russell and Don did a show, on the topic of “Christian Message Subtext.” Here is the Blip video:

Also, I’m happy to say that the official Atheist Experience YouTube channel is finally back in business. Please expect a few days for new videos to appear on YouTube. Jen is working hard to convert the last several months of shows to YouTube format.


  1. Dark_Monkey_316 says

    What about a comments section on last weeks episode. It was just the conference and then the life of Pi.

    Just wondering.

  2. jdoran says

    After Jen’s post mentioning “schmarriage”, I watched the clip she linked to. Charlie’s still in there (as “atheist homophobe”) trying to push his horrible little opinions. I guess it’s not all that surprising that he’d immediately turn up on the show again.

  3. says

    trying to push his horrible little opinions

    You have no rational basis for saying that.

    He’s so advanced, having been graced by thousands of years of evolution, that we cannot, in our little primitive non-evolved primate atheist pea-brains, understand what he can so clearly comprehend. He’s like that time in Star Trek TNG when Barkley was flashed by a probe, and he got really smart, and ended up expanding his mind into the computer, to the point he understood everything, and us children cannot understand even if he tries to explain it to us.

    He just have to trust in him, and accept what he says, even if it seems to contradict reality.

  4. says

    The second I heard he was an atheist and he used the phrase “high risk behaviors,” the thought “Charlie Checkum” popped right into my brain. Guy needs to get a life.

  5. changerofbits says

    I’m not sure Charlie is a troll, but seems to think that acting like a troll helps get his message across. Saying “no comment” when called out by name, while honest, defeated any sort of opportunity to troll or push his homophobic ramble. Methinks this is what the word “derp” was coined to describe.

  6. kestra says

    Regarding fervent religious belief vs. mental illness, all you have to do is google exorcism videos to see that extreme mental illness is often taken, in fervently religious communities, for signs of “demon possession”. Much like in cosmology and astronomy, real medical science is replacing the old, ineffective, religious approach to mental illness (pray it away). Unfortunately for some people, that process isn’t happening fast enough.

  7. John Kruger says

    Even for just a few minutes, his shtick as not changed much at all.
    Not sure what he was thinking. His obnoxious style and refusal to listen to any counter points got him banned last time. I guess he figured he would not be remembered? Was he was expecting different results with the same method? One more data point illustrating that atheists can be delusional too.

  8. Dark_Monkey_316 says

    In the archive there is an episode 808 with Matt and Jeff that says was done April 7 and the description is about Matt going to church. Plus the conference was from Mar 27-31 (the archive shows no show for that weekend).

  9. says

    Message for Jen – whatever happened to the email you got from the dude who called you “little girl” and said he wanted to buy you pretty things? That you were surveying people at AACon about? I think you said you were going to discuss that on Godless Bitches, which is great, but I’m just waiting for the recording of that to become available.

    /off topic

  10. says

    On religious belief and mental illness. It’s my understanding that mental illness usually requires the condition to be causing problems in the person’s ability to function and enjoy their lives. Most religious people in our society do quite well and in someways can even help improve their lives (through community, social support etc). This is why you’re not going to see most religious beliefs in the DSM anytime soon.

  11. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    There’s that (and even if it were listed, there’d likely be a continuum with only the extreme maladaptive end considered an illness to treat). But also there’s distinguishing an individual’s anomalous disorder from quirks of a society’s customs and understanding of the world, at the time.
    Article: Wikipedia – Folie à deux

    a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief are transmitted from one individual to another.
    Folie à deux and its more populous cousins are in many ways a psychiatric curiosity. The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders states that a person cannot be diagnosed as being delusional if the belief in question is one “ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture” (see entry for delusion). It is not clear at what point a belief considered to be delusional escapes from the folie à… diagnostic category and becomes legitimate because of the number of people holding it.

    Article: BoingBoing – 12 Million Americans Believe Lizard People Run the USA *
    * If the poll is accurate. The linked Atlantic Wire page broke down a list of conspiracy theories by political affiliation and said 5% of Democrats thought Obama was the antichrist. 😛

  12. says

    It frustrates me to only have Matt do the:

    “I don’t believe / I reject your claim”
    Is not the same as
    “I believe the opposite of your claim”

    explanation. I know it ends up not speeding things along that much since people don’t pay close attention to it but at least then I can blame them for not getting it sooner.

  13. dhbloom says

    I would like to see a show about atheists coming out of the closet. I am sure there must be many different experiences and each individual is different. But there might be common threads that would help someone, like myself, be more open about their viewpoint.
    If this has been a subject in the past, I would appreciate finding out the date or number of the show so I could find it. Thanks!

  14. Callinectes says

    You know when you have a radio show on often enough the presenters start to feel like old friends? That’s happened to me with you guys. Is that weird?

  15. codemonkey says

    I didn’t see an episode 806 thread, so I’ll post it here. I am watching it, and Matt, when you said “I eat curry .. fucker” in response to the “curry-eater” guy, I clapped out loud. You sir, are awesome.

  16. codemonkey says

    I really think that they should abandon their current way of talking about it, and say there are (at least) three distinct positions with regard to a claim, with overlap and grey areas in the middle. Namely, 1- believe the proposition is true, 2- believe the negative of the proposition is true aka believe the original proposition is false, and 3- undecided.

    Then, you have to note that rejecting a proposition can encompass both “I don’t know” and “I think the proposition is false”. I think the term “reject a proposition” is somewhat ambiguous in this regard, and that’s why I don’t use it, or I qualify it by always saying “I reject the proposition as unsubstantiated”.

    I know Matt is rather attached to this pedantic point, and he is right. However, if you want to be an effective communicator, I would emphasize the three positions above, and note that rejecting a proposition (as unsubstantiated) and disbelieving or lacking a belief in a proposition, encompasses both positions 2 and 3.

    Of course, to make matters worse, IMHO most atheists are a mix of 2 and 3. Depends on the god claim. If the god is invisible intangible heatless and doesn’t leave tracks in flour, then you have to remain undecided, but you can dismiss the proposition as worthless. If the god is visible and tangible, and we go looking where they say we should see that tangible visible god but we don’t, then we have evidence against that god claim.
    See: Saga’s garage dragons. It really is the summary of the atheist position.

    Agnostics, coming around 100 years after the first modern atheist writers, demanding that they be called a different word while largely holding to the same position on the issues.

  17. codemonkey says

    Ack, I should watch the whole show before commenting. Sorry Matt. You’re entirely right. I think you did what I said early on, that you were being less clear than what you could be, but with your gumball example, you nailed it exactly. I think half of these are just pedantic quibbles over ambiguous terms. So, again, sorry. You did great.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *