1. Desperadox says

    It would be very helpful if you could write the information, at what minutes exactly are the calls, under each video.Sometimes, when I havn`t much time, I want to listen only to the callers.(Mostly for a good laugh)

  2. ed says

    What lies beyond the universe is not measurable. Therefore, for all practical reasons, it does not exit as we are unable to measure or have a knowledge of it. To say something exists beyond our universe just places us back to, “We don’t know, therefore god.”

  3. Joe E Dangerously says

    I wanted to leave a comment in case the disabled caller was reading this and for anyone else in a similar situation who isn’t able to have much social contact outside the home. I’m disabled too, and pretty severely so. It’s not just that I can’t do a couple of things most others can but I can lead a pretty normal life. I have to spend most of my time at home and I can’t really do much socially or really in any sense outside my home. So I understand what that person is going through in that respect.

    What I would say is that the internet is your best resource. My best friend is currently living in Jordan. I have close friends who now live in many countries and have met people online with whom I’ve formed real relationships and close friendships. I have a very good friend in Canada, one in Sweden, one in Malaysia, and more people I know across the whole world. The internet is a fantastic tool that you can use to find like-minded people or people with different perspectives and experiences. I have friends who are black, white, Japanese, Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Italian, and every ethnicity in between. These are people who have greatly expanded my sense of the world and humanity on the whole. I do have friends locally and I’ve had plenty of romantic relationships as well but as that has gotten harder and harder, online interaction has helped a lot to fill that hole.

    You may not get the same satisfaction from interacting with people online and over the phone at first but when you realize these are real people you’re talking to and real relationships you’re forming you get over that. Skype allows you to see their faces and interact on a more personal level than a Facebook chat or over the phone so you may want to try that too. There have been many people I’ve spoken to about this subject. I’ve been contacted by young people who are losing their faith and talked to them about it because they could not turn to their parents or adults in their lives. Jerry DeWitt actually helped me realize that was something I could do so I give a lot of credit to him but the point is I’ve been able to help some people including kids who really needed some help. The internet made all that possible. I think I’ve done a little bit of good because of it. I’m not trying to toot my own horn so to speak but trying to convey how much is possible through the magic of the internet. And if you’re one of the people who could use some help in navigating all this you can find people to help you through it online. And when you do you can try to return the favor and do some good in the world by freeing people from the bonds of religion and religious faith. Google around a bit and find some communities you can join. It’s not hard to find people to talk to. This is not a hopeless situation and since we’re all reading this online we all have some form of internet access. Use it. This is the time to do that so seize this opportunity and get the support you need. That is the best advice I can possibly offer you.

  4. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Attention Mods
    Hours afterward, the YouTube channel says this show is still live.
    Attempting to watch it yields this error.
    “Video was interrupted. The streamer stopped streaming.”
    And unlike a normal live stream, I can’t work around arriving late by seeking back in time.

  5. Chikoppi says

    It looks like no one stopped the stream (it clocks-in at over seven hours at the moment). This “short show” may set the record for length.

    Bummer about the technical issues. Good luck getting it sorted.

  6. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Vid’s up!
    Duration: 1:16:19. (“Streamed 20 mins ago”)

  7. superatheist says

    Peter, yes there are atheists that believe in conscious existence after death that are not based on supernatural concepts like gods, souls, heavens, hells etc.. At the very least a cidentireplica will produce the best legacy immortality possible. Even if as Mat has said “a replica of me is not me” there can be such conscious identity from a cidentireplica that has all of the same thoughts, memories, feelings, emotions, knowledge, goals, desires, loves, hates, ixperiencitness, replaceability for others of the original, that will be good enough for me to occur after my death. There does not have to be continuity or continuousness in space, time, or body, with the original either. All that is required to produce a cidentireplica or videntireplica of the original is just close identical structure and functioning of matter to that of the original. This is not uploading your self into a computer. This is the ability to reproduce any previous, present, or future, conscious stage of your life by duplicating the structure and functioning of you, the original, at that stage in your life. Some atheists want a legacy or some remembrance of them and their deeds to exist into the future. This they think can be done through people’s memories of them, and what people write and speak about them in the future after their death. But the actual best way is with the creation of cidentireplicas and videntireplicas of them They will have memories of having the actual experiences that the original had they will be able to continue the goals and desires of the original and they can exist over and over again any time in the future. And maybe best of all there can be any number of them existing at any one time. This is much more than some one just remembering you for a few years into the future and then maybe if you are lucky them reading about you further into the future. A cidentireplica is as close to being you as you can get without having to be you the original.

  8. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Article: RationalWiki – Roko’s basilisk

    a thought experiment about the potential risks involved in developing artificial intelligence. The experiment’s premise is that an all-powerful artificial intelligence from the future could retroactively punish those who did not help bring about its existence, including those who merely knew about the possible development of such a being. It resembles a futurist version of Pascal’s wager, in that it suggests people should weigh possible punishment versus reward and as a result accept particular singularitarian ideas or financially support their development.
    this is not necessarily a straightforward “serve the AI or you will go to hell” – the AI and the person punished need have no causal interaction, and the punished individual may have died decades or centuries earlier. Instead, the AI could punish a simulation of the person
    Note that the AI in this setting is (in the utilitarian logic of this theory) not a malicious or evil superintelligence (AM, HAL, SHODAN, Ultron, the Master Control Program, SkyNet, GLaDOS) – but the Friendly one we get if everything goes right and humans don’t create a bad one. This is because every day the AI doesn’t exist, people die that it could have saved; so punishing you or your future simulation is a moral imperative, to make it more likely you will contribute in the present and help it happen as soon as possible.
    The basilisk was officially banned from discussion on LessWrong for over five years

  9. Jason Waskiewicz says

    This is a small point about the first caller. So many callers to this show want to talk about science. The hosts usually point out that they are not scientists, and that’s true.

    What bothers me is that so many callers associate science with atheism, especially the theist callers. Now, I haven’t done a study on this, so it’s merely an anecdotal observation. But, this should disturb the Christians who are involved in science or scientific research or merely understand how science works (like most of the mainline denominations). There are too many callers who believe that it’s an either-or proposition.

    And, I think theists who become atheists will be disappointed to discover that atheism does not mean rational or scientific thinking. It’s really only an answer to one question.

  10. StonedRanger says

    I got to the show late so will have to watch it over again. Superatheist is here to fill the comments with his bullshit word salad. I stopped reading when I got to the word cidentireplica. Im sorry SuperAtheist, but when you start making up words I lose interest in everything you have to say. I know youre not interested in having a conversation with anyone here, youre just trying to drive traffic to your ridiculous wiki. When you make shit up, you become just as useless as someone who says they believe something on faith. Neither will guide you to actual knowledge of anything. Go peddle your malarkey elsewhere. And Im begging EL and the others to not try and engage this idiot and fill the thread with his bullshit. He isn’t interested in having a discussion.

  11. Monocle Smile says

    But of course, it’s worse than that. The callers who want to talk about science seem to think that poking (imaginary) holes in “science” somehow bolsters their case for a deity.
    The association of science and atheism seems to come from theists getting their information about atheists from sources other than atheists. This crap is what the media and their pastors feed them ( Most atheists are former theists and thus we have a degree of empathy, but it’s constantly frustrating for me that theists have such difficulty understanding the first thing about atheism. It’s the little things that bother me…like when Blake Giunta, who should know better, says “let’s say atheism is true…” It makes me cringe due to the fundamental misunderstanding.

    Getting your Clockwork Orange on again? Nobody cares.

  12. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    There are too many callers who believe that it’s an either-or proposition.

    IMHO, it is. Of course, there are plenty of good Christians who also do good science, but they’re never “good Christians” simultaneous with being good scientists. They can be both only by compartmentalization, and swapping which hat they wear, never wearing both hats at the same time. A proper application of the methods and values of science does lead to a godless world view.

    I’m not going to go out of my way to piss on the atheist accommodationists, but when it’s brought up in situations like this, I will politely disagree with the accommodationists, like I have now. I believe that we promote science because we value critical thinking because of the good that more critical thinking can do in the world. I personally don’t care as much if we get more engineers in the world via the accommodationist approach. I want more critical thinkers in the world, which we will get by the confrontationist approach IMHO.

    And Im begging EL and the others to not try and engage this idiot and fill the thread with his bullshit.

    I’m good. Maybe if he brings up a new point, but that seems unlikely.

  13. Rationalism Rules says

    @Jason #11
    It’s not surprising that science has become widely associated with atheism. Science provides a rigorous methodology for examining claims, and rigorous examination is the antithesis of religious faith.

  14. superatheist says

    At Atheist Experience #343: Death and Dying, Immortality @ Keryn Glasser talks about how atheists view death. At minute 22 she talks about the kind of immortality she wants. It is usually called legacy or memory immortality; people will remember the (good) things about you in the future after you are dead. She seems like a wonderful person that deserves at least this kind of immortality. When I heard her talk about this I though how can this type of immortality be improved? The key aspect of legacy or memory immortality is not that you get to experience life after death but that through others consciousnesses there is something of you that remains (memories). To increase the positiveness this type of immortality you need more people to remember you, for longer periods of time into the future, with the strongest and most memories of you possible. The little I know about Keryn comes from the Atheist Experience, None the less I have positive memories of her. I think that she is great as a person and think that she should have her desired legacy immortality. I can help her with this task only if I live longer than she does. This is not likely because I am old and she is much younger that am. Now I could try to get my children and grandchildren to watch her on the Atheist Experience, but they have very busy lives and are not likely to do so. If any close enough replica of me is made any time in the future that has memories of her there will be produced a small part of her legacy immortality. Each copy that you make of me that have memories or her is a slight increase in her legacy immortality. We could also make copies of everyone that has ever known her and will have memories of her wonderfulness etc., in her life. We could make as many copies of these people as we wish through out time and space. You might call this super legacy immortality. But there is actually an even better form of legacy immortality. And that is where we actually make replicas of her at different points in her life. These replicas can exist any where humans can exist through out space and time. These memories of her could likely even be generated by computer like replicas of her and others. These replicas of her are not only going to have memories of her they can generate the same experiences that she had and even different possible versions of experiences that she could have had. These replicas could even generate experience and memories of her being great like president Jefferson, Einstein or a good Hitler. These replicas if exact enough in structure and functioning will produce the belief in them that they are actually her, not some replica of her. These legacy replicas of her can even have the thoughts, emotions, feeling, etc., that she had at those points in her life.

    Of course I believe in superimmortality which is a theory that predicts that certain types of replicas of me will produce a consciousness that I will experience. But If this is not true then we still can have “Super Legacy Immortality” as Keryn and many other atheists might like. Either way you need the advancement of science and technology (by way of rational though and inquiry) and the perpetuation of conscious beings (humans) taking care of the universe endlessly into the future.

  15. superatheist says

    Monocle Smile #20

    Is your god telling you to say this because he does not believe in free speech and the fact that superimmortality will help make many people’s lives better without his help? Why do you find these ideas so scary that you have to revert to ad hominem attacks? Be brave, the universe is actually an amazing and wonderful place!

  16. jeffh123 says

    I guess the best example of how science peer review works well is when some researchers published they found cold fusion. Everyone was excited (the holy grail of cheap power), but as others tried to repeat the experiments they found that the original scientists were in error. That’s the advantage of science or religion: In science we can admit error and go forward (politics excluded).

  17. superatheist says

    Mind Is What Brains Do! The Illusory Soul (portion of #576) @

    At 6:16 Matt says:
    There is no justification for thinking there is something that is me in any sense that persist after I am dead and decomposed.

    The reason that there is no “me” after I am dead is because there was no me before I died. The “me” is a made up supernatural idea like the soul to try to tie you to a singular unique thing (or body). What actually exists is the ever changing structure and functioning of matter and energy. If you want to consciously exist again after death replicate the structure and functioning of matter that produced the consciousness you want repeated. Simple!

  18. Chikoppi says


    This community is not a place for you to spam your irrelevant and irrational ad hoc manifestos. No one wants to see your bullshit posts regurgitating the identical rantings across multiple threads again.

  19. Rendrag says

    You stated, “Of course I believe in superimmortality which is a theory that predicts that certain types of replicas of me will produce a consciousness that I will experience.”

    I think you’re neglecting to take into consideration the importance of the influence that time and space has on matter and energy.
    Does it not seem more reasonable, that in order for a replica to be identical enough to its original, to replicate consciousness, that the matter and energy from the replica would be required to have the identical environmental experiences throughout time and space as the original?

  20. Chikoppi says


    See post #10 above. There’s no discussion to be had that hasn’t been had already. He’ll use any attempt at an honest critique as an excuse to post a wall of text filled with made-up words.

  21. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So he just ignores questions directed to him?

    I’ve tried to engage with him at length. IMO, this person’s ideas are incoherent. To be fair, this is a difficult space to have a reasonable discussion in, but even after repeated attempts to get him to explain what he actually means, I ended up going nowhere. If you’re actually curious, and have some time to kill, I encourage you to look through the previous threads to see my conversations with him. Google it, my name and their name on this site.

  22. Monocle Smile says

    You can read the threads that Sky Captain linked in comment #10 if you like. Be warned: they are painful, time-consuming, and will probably give you eye strain. This guy’s hobby appears to be inventing words, as there are hundreds of “new terms” on his blog, apparently to drive up traffic.

  23. StonedRanger says

    superatheist is here to drive traffic to his wiki. Go and read the previous threads as others have pointed to. I hope you have lots of time to throw away because the experience will be just that, a waste of time.

    And it was only a matter of time before the cries of ‘freeze peach’ get bandied about. If that isn’t a direct indication of superatheists trollishness then nothing is.

  24. Rendrag says

    I started to read through some of the threads and I’ve decided that my time would be better spend learning something of real value.

  25. Patrick67 says


    Normally I enjoy reading this blog and usually don’t make an effort to get involved, but it is getting to the point where all the discussions are getting hijacked by people trolling left and right. This comment section is being screwed over by another attempt from SuperAtheist BS. As StonedRanger said up above, all this SA BS is made up. It only exists in SA’s own mind. Don’t take my word for it, simply google cidentireplica or videntireplica. The only links you will find all lead to That is the only site in the entire Google universe or any other universe where those words can be found to exist. They are not real words or concepts other than in SA’s mind. If you think those words make no sense, here are a few more that can only be found on

    I’m just going to copy and paste them straight from the awaretheory site to save time:
    Itofazsimultaneousness Itosimultaneousness, Orisimultaneousness, Idosimultaneousness, Corisimultaneousness, Citosimultaneousness, Vitosimultaneousness, Fitosimultaneousness, Isosimultaneousness, Biosimultaneousness, Enhasimultaneousness, Mussimultaneousness, Insisimultaneousness, Tritosimultaneousness, Nrgsimultaneousness, Combosimultaneousness, Simisimultaneousness,

    Fazsimultaneousness, Physisimultaneousness, Physasimultaneousness, Neurosimultaneousness], Awaresimultaneousness, Mentasimultaneousness, Ixpesimultaneousness, Episimultaneousness

    Itofazsimultaneousness, Itophysisimultaneousness, Itophysasimultaneousness, Itoneurosimultaneousness, Itoawaresimultaneousness, Itomentasimultaneousness, Itoixpesimultaneousness, Itoepisimultaneousness

    Orifazsimultaneousness, Oriphysisimultaneousness, Oriphysasimultaneousness, Orineurosimultaneousness, Oriawaresimultaneousness, Orimentasimultaneousness, Orixpesimultaneousness, Oriepisimultaneousness

    Idofazsimultaneousness, Idophysisimultaneousness, Idophysasimultaneousness, Idoneurosimultaneousness, Idoawaresimultaneousness, Idomentasimultaneousness, Idoixpesimultaneousness, Idoepisimultaneousness

    Corifazsimultaneousness, Coriphysisimultaneousness, Coriphysasimultaneousness, Corineurosimultaneousness, Coriawaresimultaneousness, Corimentasimultaneousness, Corixpesimultaneousness, Coriepisimultaneousness

    Citofazsimultaneousness, Citophysisimultaneousness, Citophysasimultaneousness, Citoneurosimultaneousness, Citoawaresimultaneousness, Citomentasimultaneousness, Citoixpesimultaneousness, Citoepisimultaneousness

    Vitofazsimultaneousness, Vitophysisimultaneousness, Vitophysasimultaneousness, Vitoneurosimultaneousness, Vitoawaresimultaneousness, Vitomentasimultaneousness, Vitoixpesimultaneousness, Vitoepisimultaneousness

    Fitofazsimultaneousness, Fitophysisimultaneousness, Fitophysasimultaneousness, Fitoneurosimultaneousness, Fitoawaresimultaneousness, Fitomentasimultaneousness, Fitoixpesimultaneousness, Fitoepisimultaneousness

    Isofazsimultaneousness, Isophysisimultaneousness, Isophysasimultaneousness, Isoneurosimultaneousness, Isoawaresimultaneousness, Isomentasimultaneousness, Isoixpesimultaneousness, Isoepisimultaneousness

    Biofazsimultaneousness, Biophysisimultaneousness, Biophysasimultaneousness, Bioneurosimultaneousness, Bioawaresimultaneousness, Biomentasimultaneousness, Bioixpesimultaneousness, Bioepisimultaneousness

    Enhafazsimultaneousness, Enhaphysisimultaneousness, Enhaphysasimultaneousness, Enhaneurosimultaneousness, Enhawaresimultaneousness, Enhamentasimultaneousness, Enhaixpesimultaneousness, Enhaepisimultaneousness

    Musfazsimultaneousness, Musphysisimultaneousness, Musphysasimultaneousness, Musneurosimultaneousness, Musawaresimultaneousness, Musmentasimultaneousness, Musixpesimultaneousness, Musepisimultaneousness

    Insifazsimultaneousness, Insiphysisimultaneousness, Insiphysasimultaneousness, Insineurosimultaneousness, Insiawaresimultaneousness, Insimentasimultaneousness, Insixpesimultaneousness, Insiepisimultaneousness

    Tritofazsimultaneousness, Tritophysisimultaneousness, Tritophysasimultaneousness, Tritoneurosimultaneousness, Tritoawaresimultaneousness, Tritomentasimultaneousness, Tritoixpesimultaneousness, Tritoepisimultaneousness

    Nrgfazsimultaneousness, Nrgphysisimultaneousness, Nrgphysasimultaneousness, Nrgneurosimultaneousness, Nrgawaresimultaneousness, Nrgmentasimultaneousness, Nrgixpesimultaneousness, Nrgepisimultaneousness

    Combofazsimultaneousness, Combophysisimultaneousness, Combophysasimultaneousness, Comboneurosimultaneousness, Comboawaresimultaneousness, Combomentasimultaneousness, Comboixpesimultaneousness, Comboepisimultaneousness

    Simifazsimultaneousness, Simiphysisimultaneousness, Simiphysasimultaneousness, Simineurosimultaneousness, Simiawaresimultaneousness, Simimentasimultaneousness, Simixpesimultaneousness, Simiepisimultaneousness

    I’m sorry folks but allowing this type of trolling to go on week after week is getting ridiculous. SA has been quiet for awhile, but I have a very “strong feeling” as the theists would say, that the Peter who called the show is actually SA and he made the call to give himself a reason to start trolling again. Any discussion with SA is, in my humble opinion, going to end up a circle jerk.

    For a verifiable fact, I went through over 15 pages of links on Google, containing such word salad as above and all of them were only found on the aware theory/wiki site.

  26. superatheist says

    Rendrag 34

    I have learned after many years of living there is usually two (or more) sides to every story. You have heard these guys story of me and a lot of what they say is true. If I was crazy they would not have spent so much time discussing these ideas with me which I REALLY APPRECIATE by the way. I stopped writing about these ideas because I just could not keep up with all of the statements and questions that they were making. I was trying to have a discussion with everyone at once that is why everything I wrote was so confusing. The reason I started again was because one guy on the show asked if there were any atheists that believed in life after death. I said to myself over and over again do not respond do not respond (like Chikoppi did). In a moment of stupidity I did. I also added a little information why. Again stupid. I though maybe, hopefully they had forgotten about me, no luck. I had come up with another idea super legacy immortality. This did not go over well. So I tried writing another way of looking at superimmortality. This was a third try at chipping away at moralism. Once you make an atheist mad there is no going back. I am working on answering in a coherent logical fashion all of these guys questions and problems with superimmortality where I will refer them to each of prewritten proofs and evidence for each principle of superimmortality. I am not sure how long it will take but it is getting done. You asked me a question at post 27. I will answer that question. It is a good question and I have good answers for it. If these guys haven,t scared you off I will try to answers any further questions you have. It will be much easier to answer one person’s questions at a time than several. Thank you for having a questioning mind!
    Just so you know ahead of time I am a scientist and I could be wrong. And I do not have a problem admitting it.

  27. superatheist says

    How many names are there for chemicals? How about life forms? Millions. Science names new concepts, things, ideas, genes, people etc all the time. Each of these terms have meanings. I am just developing a science, a very complex science about consciousness. How many ways can you structure a brain? How many ways can it then function? Consciousness has been said to be the last true scientific frontier.
    There are always people that have hated scientific advancement because they do not understand it. They find it threatening. They like to make everything simple. They hate the mess. They do not want to learn new things. They say to intellectuals your just an egg head! The universe is not simple. It is extremely complex and the most complex thing that we know about is the brain. What is even more complex is how brains relate to each other.

    Science is all about the creation of new theories and then tearing them apart and then making new ones from the usable parts. I do not care what you think about my theory. It may not be true. All of the words that you have copied have distinct useful meanings. In the future these concepts may not be called by the same names none the less be they will be useful. I have tried to construct them so they will be easy to decode and then understand.

    You are right this is not the place for a discussion of words with complex meanings but you brought it up. This is a place for the discussion of atheism. I do not believe in the existence of gods that makes me an atheist. However, many atheist are wrong about the impossibility of life after death. You are doing damage to atheism when you keep telling people you will never consciously exist again after death. We do not know for sure what will happen to people after their death. This is exactly the place to prove or disprove atheism’s key pillar of moralism. Maybe what upsets you so much is the fear of death and talking about immortality is very uncomfortable for you. I am sorry if this is the case. But at least I care for the needless suffering of people that atheism is inflicting on them. Tell me, why are you so down on me when I an trying to make the world a better place? You act like superimmortality is the worst thing that could ever happen to people? What appears to me is that you are religious and it scares the “H” out of you that superimmortality might be true, because religions would be truly obsolete then.
    By the way I am not Peter. I am not a troll! I have only talked on the show twice.

  28. superatheist says

    LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking angered supporters of Donald J. Trump on Monday by responding to a question about the billionaire with a baffling array of long words.

    Speaking to a television interviewer in London, Hawking called Trump “a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,” a statement that many Trump supporters believed was intentionally designed to confuse them.

    Moments after Hawking made the remark, Google reported a sharp increase in searches for the terms “demagogue,” “denominator,” and “Stephen Hawking.”

    “For a so-called genius, this was an epic fail,” Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said. “If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.”

    Later in the day, Hawking attempted to clarify his remark about the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, telling a reporter, “Trump bad man. Real bad man.”

  29. Monocle Smile says

    The Borowitz Report is satire, you dumbass.
    Regardless, that post is baffling and out of nowhere. Troll harder.

  30. Ethan Myerson says

    Tell me, why are you so down on me when I an trying to make the world a better place? You act like superimmortality is the worst thing that could ever happen to people?

    I can’t speak for others, but for me the issue isn’t that I think you’re wrong for “trying to make the world a better place”, it’s that you’ve come in here several times with unsupported assertions (and probably unsupportable assertions) that you feel you are justified in believing. I’ve read through a few pages of your awaretheory site, and largely it looks like you’ve got a hypothesis that you’re treating as a self-evident truth. There’s a lot of work ahead of you if you want this to be accepted science. There’s a whole lot more work after that if you want your hypothesis to then do the bold effort of making the world a better place.

    You’ve likely spent a lot of time with your concept, which appears to have had the effect of making you more certain of its truth. In reality, though, I think it’s just blinded you to the gaps in the concept. You have pages that describe concepts and you illustrate them with thought experiments. You imagine outcomes of these thought experiments and use those outcomes as evidence for the overarching idea. That’s not how this works. You don’t get to imagine an outcome to validate your hypothesis. You have to actually do the research.

    There’s a good chance that this veers into “not even wrong” territory.

  31. Secular Strategy says

    To get back to the content of the show…

    In addition to the problems raised against Gerard’s argument (about 21:00 into the show), he is also denying the antecedent. I’ll simplify his argument.

    1. IF something is part of the universe (or within the universe), THEN cause and effect applies to it.
    2. God is not part of the universe.
    C. Therefore, cause and effect does not apply to God.

    This conclusion does not follow. This is easiest to illustrate with a simple counterargument.

    1. IF an animal is a dog, THEN it is a mammal.
    2. Mittens (a cat) is not a dog.
    C. Therefore, Mittens is not a mammal.

    In the simpler argument, 1 and 2 are clearly true, but an obviously false conclusion has followed.

  32. Ethan Myerson says

    The “immune to cause and effect” argument is a silly one anyway, because the people making it don’t even believe it to be true. If their god was immune to cause and effect, why pray? You can’t have an effect on your god. Why worry about sin? Your god cannot be affected by actions. Why believe their god created the world? Being immune to cause and effect means he cannot have a creative effect on the real world.

    No, what they mean is that there’s just one special instance when their god is immune to cause and effect, and that is at its point of origin. They’d prefer not to look into the gaping maw of infinite regress that opens when you ask what created their god. After that, they’re very happy to have their god be bound by cause and effect.

  33. Monocle Smile says

    Yeah, it’s just special pleading and a colossal failure to understand ontology.
    I kid you not, I’ve had a theist argue that their god is “immaterial” and outside the universe, yet can affect the universe and holds absolute power over the universe…but the universe cannot in any way affect or detect god. There’s no arguing with such bankrupt nonsense.

  34. Ethan Myerson says

    Yeah, that phrase has popped up a few times in our conversations

    I don’t doubt that at all. I’ve followed most of the conversation around this hypothesis, but I’ll admit to mentally muting it after a bit.

  35. StonedRanger says

    I think all this wordality is becoming a bunch of bullshitishness. Hey look at me, I made up some words. Im doing SCIENCE. That’s not how science works and pretending otherwise shows you to be the fool. Accusing atheists of being religious because we don’t believe your made up bullshit is silliness in the extreme.

  36. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    “Whenever God reaches his hand into this plane, he should pull it out dripping with physics, he should leave evidence, we should not be required to believe on faith, because there’s only one thing in the universe that needs faith, and that’s a bad salesman.”
    -AronRa vs Ray Comfort, Radio Paul’s Radio Rants – ep13 (at 28:00)
    / Almost attributed it to DogmaDebate. They repeated the quote.
    / Looks at that site’s sidebar… GAH!
    Anyone not already aware of Robert Price’s disappointing positions ought to hear this.
    Podcast: DogmaDebate – 252 Atheist Trump Supporter, Dr. Robert Price (18:00-55:19)
    I’d heard off-topic asides on Bible Geek, where he had the sense to stop himself. Here, he went full awkward Thanksgiving dinner.
    * Paid supporters get access to the second hour, which a YouTube commenter reported is much like the first. =/

  37. Monocle Smile says

    @Sky Captain
    Yikes, that’s drunk-racist-uncle stuff. The abortion stuff made me stop listening. This goes beyond misinformed opinion…the shit he said concerning women who get abortions and Planned Parenthood is degenerate asshole material.

  38. Yaddith says

    I have listened to Dr. Price’s Dogma Debate podcast, and I have heard almost all of his Bible Geek podcasts. Not that the learned Dr. Price needs me to defend him, but I have never heard him say anything that any reasonable person could construe as racist.

  39. Yaddith says

    Monocle Smile: Thanks for the clarification. “Racist” is not a term to be invoked lightly, even if intended as a metaphor.

  40. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Yaddith #53:

    “Racist” is not a term to be invoked lightly

    Some tips on invoking, for whomever finds them helpful…
    Video: Jay Smooth – How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist (2:59)

    Remember the difference between the ‘what they did’ conversation and the ‘what they are’ conversation.

    Video: Jay Smooth at TEDx – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Discussing Race (11:56)

    We need to shift towards thinking of being a good person the same way we think of being a clean person. […] And when someone suggests to us that we’ve got something stuck in our teeth, we don’t say: “I have something stuck in my teeth? I’m a clean person!?”

  41. Kilgore Trout says

    Dear co-hosts, when the show has a dark background it helps for you to wear a light colored shirt (like Matt has been doing).

    And if you have dark skin or dark hair, it would be helpful for the crew to put up a light colored background so that your head doesn’t blend into the background.

    Color coordination, it’s not just for atheists. 🙂

  42. Kilgore Trout says

    On the other hand, maybe some of those things could be addressed by changing the lighting? Maybe even apply some powder to those chrome domes (sexy bald headed guys) to kill all that glare.

  43. Yaddith says

    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain #54: We’ve come a long way. At one point in time the Ultimate Invective in American society was probably “atheist,” but now it is “racist.” That in itself, of course, is a very good thing. But one unfortunate result is that many people are now afraid of making any remark about race for fear that someone might decide (by whatever criteria) that they “sound racist.” Better to keep one’s mouth shut, they reason, than risk becoming a social pariah.

  44. Jeff Welch says

    This is my first blog, so I wanted to make a comment but it is hard because I agree with almost everything Matt says.
    So even though this is not a political place, I thought I would comment on his political comment, while, like him, using no political parties. He is right of course, one side with the facts and the other side with just the feelings. It reminds me of the 1992 election. One candidate brought up most of the leading economists to affirm the the recession was over. Easy for them to do since a recession was defined as 3 quarters of economic growth. Facts. The other candidate just had feelings. “I feel yall’s pain.” and “Its the economy, STUPID!!!”. Well the “feelings” guy won and forever took credit for “saving” an economy that was on the upswing. Oh, and the “facts” candidate had said the economy was on such a strong upswing that we would pay off the national debt in 8 or 10 years. The “feelings” candidate called him stupid and said it was impossible, and that our grandchildren would be paying off that debt. Eight years later, the debt is paid off, and the ‘feelings’ guy gets the credit for something he had said was impossible. Anyway, just hope all that doesn’t happen again.
    Sorry if I was too off topic, I hope I can find more relevant things to contribute in the future.

  45. Chikoppi says


    I think the best course in such discussions is to table arguments about assessments and focus on metrics. When discussing economic/social issue “X” agree first on what statistics are necessary and sufficient to draw a conclusion. Otherwise, each side will offer an unending series of competing anecdotes that supports their preferred position.

    Of course, parties entrenched in motivated reasoning will not be swayed by evidence. The numbers are always “cooked” or “skewed by external factors” if contradictory to the intended outcome. Luckily, we have congressional committees who will continue to torture the evidence until it yields the presupposed conclusion.

    Arguing political ideology isn’t all that different from arguing about theism in that respect.

  46. Jeff Welch says


    Thank you so much for your polite response and advice.
    You didn’t read my comment closely enough if you think I made any claim that required “statistics” or economic analysis. The only skill needed to prove my point is the ability to count.
    Recession is a man made concept, a simple indicator that we use as a tool. It has a very simple definition, 2 quarters of consecutive negative economic growth. It doesn’t need statistics or analysis. So at the time, with all KNOWN data available, the finding of the NBER was that we were not in a recession (fall 1992). Now I guess you could argue that we have more data since then and low and behold, Clinton was right, we were still in a recession at that time, but that is a moot point. Just like Matt said, one candidate with data, one with feelings.
    Any other points I can clear up? Most were quotes, and I know that I don’t have references but I think we all know who said “I feel your pain”. I also stated that the Bush/Regean national debt was paid off by 2000, I guess I could look for a reference if you really need. Oh and the fact that one candidate called the other “stupid” for even daring to suggest that the national debt could be paid off more quickly by lowering taxes, as quickly as 8 years, well just let me know if there are any quotes that you need references for.
    Just remember, statistics is not a general word for math, it is actually a specific course of study within math.
    Again, thank you for your comment and advice

  47. Chikoppi says


    I think you missed my point. I’m speaking of ideological conversations in general, not your example in particular.

    Right now, there are people arguing that the economy is booming and others arguing that the economy is in shambles. The way these conversations usually unfold is that each side lists anecdotal evidence that supports their preferred position until they are both blue in the face. Each is trying to assign credit or culpability in support of their ideology.

    I’m saying that before introducing anecdotal evidence a discussion should focus on which facts would be necessary to establish a valid assessment of the situation.

    This is why I hate the panel discussion segments so prevalent in ‘news’ media. They sit two opposing panelists in front of a camera and they both shout anecdotal sound bites at each other for a couple of minutes. Nothing is learned or illuminated. Each walks away confident in having defended their position.

    It’s a bothersome topic, but probably not one really suitable for an atheist discussion forum.

  48. says

    Superatheist? I think not…Stuporous Atheist, maybe. I know that, whenever I see silliness like this person posts, it’s SCROLL TIME!

    People who think they know it all, and feel the need to prove it, bother the fuck out of the quiet ones of us who DO know it all and just BASK in that…….

    Go away, SA.

  49. Nathaniel Clouston says

    To answer the karma caller
    A common response i get to why doesn’t Jesus answer all prayers (like in John 14:13 for example) is that maybe god just works in mysterious was and wanted that child in heaven (if it was a staving child or dies of face cancer related issues..) whatever the cause childen die every day of seeming undeserving children as well as adults
    I have also heard Christians use the karma argument but that quickly falls apart because they do not believe in past lives

  50. Yaddith says

    Nathaniel Clouston #63:

    Christians might not believe in past lives, but reincarnation and karma are mentioned in the story of Jesus and the blind man: “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:1-2).

  51. Monocle Smile says

    That is one whiny-ass religious douchebag. The comments are spot on; the dude chooses to set up rather laughable straw men and do a poor job knocking them down. Absolutely nothing substantive concerning the existence of god is addressed, and the author straight-up admits in the comments that he believes for childish emotional “reasons.”

    I think we all know why you posted this in an older thread. Grow a spine.

  52. Monocle Smile says

    Now that I read it again, I’m guessing you’re Joe P, the author. Don’t hurt yourself with all that smug back-patting.

  53. says

    That’s funny, man. Actually, I am Joe P., the author. But, I’ll give a shout out to Joe for representing, lol Hey guys, why so angry? Can’t we just have a conversation about it? Sheesh!