1. JonGrant says

    If every potential caller searched for “argument from ignorance”, 90% of AXP callers would be gone.

  2. Murat says

    Scott is into a very naive kind of argument from ignorance. The moment a planet with butterflies and without human population is discovered, his inconsistent way of connecting God’s existence to the life on Earth will crush.

    I don’t get limiting existence to Earth, much less moving on from there to theism.

  3. Scott says

    If God has the power to heal cancer, why in the world would he let it happen in the first place?

  4. Paiex says

    Oh my dog, Scott. The prayer improved your blood test results and you know it was the prayers because your blood tests were better. Really? Was that a prank call?

  5. Murat says

    Kim sounds like the ideal kind of Christian that Trump would want all Americans to be – not genuine, not posing a threat to tradition, yet, maintaining enough of a cultural echo chamber to create a perception of “the other” on all grounds and in terms of distancing from true humanism and facts.

  6. Elaine says

    How can the second caller say they don’t “force” their beliefs on people when she also said they vote based on those very same beliefs? Being a polite bigot doesn’t make you not a bigot. And it certainly doesn’t make you a fucking humanist.

  7. An Israeli says

    Not exactly.
    Only 10% “Charedim” (don’t study or serve).
    Secular in Judaism could still mean they believe, they just don’t perform the Jewish rituals, as it is a religion of “works” rather than mere “belief”. In actuality, roughly 15% of Jews are atheists.

  8. Murat says

    During Jonathan’s call from Israel, no one even mentioned the devoured land of Palestine and the situation of those rejected people. This is almost always the elephant in the room whenever “effects of theocracy on reality” need be spoken regarding that particular geography, because (especially in the USA) this has been turned into a taboo over time.

  9. An Israeli says

    An “all people named Kenny” killing bolt of lightning that transcends all worlds could exist in a possible world.
    Therefore it exists in this world and all Kenny’s have just died by being hit by lightning right now 🙁

  10. K says

    I’ve been thinking of calling in to ask, but I’m not a theist. I was raised secularly and am an atheist, but my ex has become increasingly religious since he has remarried. They joined a pentacostal church, but he insists that even though they call themselves that that they don’t adhere to any of the core tenants that are on the wiki page, most of which I find alarming. Whenever I raise concerns he just says come and see what it’s like, but I’m skeptical that considering he has a personal relationship with the pastor that things would be as they are normally. He insists that the church is pentacostal in name only. Is that usual? Or is he lying, even if through ignorance?

  11. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Scott was very, uh, um…limited in a way that’s much too common.

    “I see butterflies” ??? Is that the new “Look at the trees.”

    Would’a, Could’a, Should’a time: He should’ve been stopped at “accidental universe” claim and asked what the illness was just for clarity sake(though I understand the reluctance to divulge personal info.)

    I understand Kim’s feelings(Scott’s too to some extent) but I’d rather get my “feel good” stuff from a secular source as I’d rather nothing extra on my ice cream.

    Jonathan must know the saying: “The best way to become an atheist is to read the bible.”

    Atheist x Theist couples commonly have that issue of the Atheist/the Theist having to censor their feelings and positions. Effective communication is the obvious must here: seek counseling whether or not you need it(if you can.)

    He needs to make his own cute cat slideshow to get the message across in a way that she favors.

    Andrew is a definer.

  12. Mobius says

    I saw the strangest creature yesterday. It had the body of a unicorn and the head of a horse.

    Good show today. Keep up the great work. Here’s to 20 more years.

  13. Stuart says

    People who use logical arguments to define god into existence are the most frustrating and, to me at least, the most up themselves!

  14. falular says


    Hey, I’m the Jonathan who spoke on today’s show – I mentioned that some of the negative influences of religion and religious Jews were the settlements and talked about internal affairs – both of which have a great affect over the Palestinian issue, as they have on many other things.
    Personally, I find the situation appalling as you do – the best way to change that is to change things from within via education and politics so my government can be the “adult” in this conflict and realize that Judaism offers no valid claim over this piece of land (and neither does Islam, or any other religion for that matter) and so, it is in our best interest to give some of it up for the sake of our children and our children’s children – I don’t want my son or daughter to be an oppressor of another people nor do I want them to risk their lives defending people who refuse to be reasonable (the settlers and others).

    The Palestinian side is infused with religious fundamentalism and hate towards us, but that doesn’t give Israel the excuse of disregarding it’s own interest – you make peace with enemies, not with friends. eventually, I hope, the influence of religion will be moderated and fundamentalism will subside – so we could actually be friends.

    All of this though – is not what this show is about. it is not a show in which to discuss politics and state affairs. at least not in detail (although I like to debate this too) 😛

  15. says

    @ murat:

    The moment a planet with butterflies and without human population is discovered, his inconsistent way of connecting God’s existence to the life on Earth will [be crushed].

    we can go back only five million years in earth’s own history to find such a planet, since butterflies predate humans by almost two hundred million years.

    not that scott has a coherent enough argument to counter with this type of rebuttal in the first place, since it is impossible to win an argument with an ignorant person. not only does scott fail to provide evidence for the god he claims, he also sorely fails to demonstrate comprehension of the diverse education he claims.

  16. says

    P1 It’s possible that a maximally awful being exists.
    P2 A maximally awful being exists in some possible world.
    P3 If a maximally awful being exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world. (Wouldn’t THAT be awful!)
    P4 If a maximally awful being exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.
    C Therefore a maximally awful being exists.

    I mean, you can basically do this for any feature. A maximally spicy being exists. A maximally upside down being exists. A maximally non-existent being exists. The logic doesn’t work. Every premise except 4 seem chock full of problems. This must be the worst argument for God ever.

  17. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    @aarrgghh(10:) I stand corrected. Another reminder to finish the prime episodes.

    Butterflies are great creatures though, so I guess they’d be flattered that their existence = proof of a universe creating deity thing.

  18. Rick Pikul says

    @Mobius #8

    I saw the strangest creature yesterday. It had the body of a unicorn and the head of a horse.

    Yes, that would be strange: A horse’s head, cloven hooves and a leonine tail.

  19. Monocle Smile says

    Yeah, all forms of the ontological argument are just playing with (lots of undefined) words to baffle the audience. There’s always a hidden non sequitur and no effort is made to support the premises with evidence.

    Is there a reason you care that much about what your ex says or does? I don’t ask this sarcastically; I’m actually wondering.

    Scott’s not the first “I prayed and got better” caller, and none of their stories are even remarkable, let alone “miraculous.” A woman named Lisa called in a while back and talked about being sick and starting to pray…then she started getting better five years later! What a miracle!

  20. Monocle Smile says

    Looks like youtube comments are enabled on this episode…and the ACA’s past decision to disable them has already been justified. A huge chunk of the comments thus far are butthurt ax-grinding from atheists.

  21. Monocle Smile says

    I agree about Kim. People like her are the dangerous ones…they come across as decent people, but vote for terrible things and don’t object to the extremists. That’s nice she has her little liberal christian bubble, but there’s an awful lot of depravity coming from people who share her label that she seems to ignore.

  22. Monocle Smile says

    Andrew is Nick from last week, I believe. The voice is at least similar, if not the same. Changing one’s name and location seems to be a red flag.

    I share an alma mater with Alvin Plantinga, and he’s probably the alumnus I’m third-most ashamed of…1 and 2 being the Unabomber and Ann Coulter.

    Matt is correct to attack the “maximally great” wibble. It’s intentionally left vague and undefined to smuggle in the baggage of the entire argument. These arguments are just rejections of empiricism in favor of “pure reason,” which leads you conclusions like women have fewer teeth than men.

    I laughed out loud when Andrew started objecting to Matt’s explanations of possibility. This dude needs to figure out how reality works, because he doesn’t understand at all.

  23. Maddie says

    These comments are amazing! After having slow careful difficult conversations with theist members of my family, it feels good to read through these comments and find myself in the company of people who at least make the effort to think critically. Thank you all!

  24. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Yeah…I’m gonna continue ignoring YouTube comment sections and the idiotic “muh fee beach!11!” whiners.

  25. says

    re: Scott from Seattle — we think of Seattle as being liberal but it’s also home to the Discovery Institute and Seattle Pacific University. I would like to know where he got his supposed education.

    re: the last caller & a jillion others: I keep hoping for one of the hosts to say “and monkeys could fly out my butt.” Just once. Please???

  26. kudlak says

    I suspect that the “some possible world” part of that argument is actually “in a world that I can imagine”, forgetting that not everything that can be imagined actually exists naturally. I guess that’s why some people buy into this, because they have very vivid imaginations or are use to the wide variety of “possible” worlds posited by fiction.

  27. Monocle Smile says

    “All possible worlds” refers to the entire design space outside of logical impossibilities. Unfortunately for religious apologists and associated wibblers of philosophy, the constraints of reality are much, much harsher than “logical impossibility.” Anyone with a cursory understanding of science knows this; babbling about “possible worlds” involves constructing castles in the air with (usually) very little applicability to our reality.

  28. Murat says

    Though sometimes used interchangably, “possibility” and “probability” are different concepts. In my head I have a rough definition of the fine line between the two, and various online references are just a click away, yet, I’d like to listen to Matt go a bit deeper about this next time they get a caller referring to either one.

  29. Marx says

    Scott is a typical theist giving credit where credit is not due to his invisible friend in the sky.It was MEDICAL SCIENCE that cured his ailment not faith in a deity.

  30. CJH says

    I really hate that last caller’s argument. The worst things about it (for me) is that “existence” is used as an attribute… well, that and the fact the “maximally great” isn’t a terribly coherent concept, and one could argue against such a beings existence with the problem of evil.

  31. Dean Penney says

    Hey guys I was just removed and blocked by the Atheist Experience fb page for questioning your moderation policy without a warning message of any sort. I’ve been a long time fan and am greatly saddened to see such an authoritarian style of censorship. This is exactly what people refer to when they call something an echo chamber. Who ever removed me clearly does not respect free speech or the views of others. Part of me would like to receive readmittance, but a part of me knows it would serve no purpose because as soon as I disagree with one of the moderators I would be blocked. I am deeply ashamed of the authoritarian tact you’ve taken. You will no longer receive my support.

  32. says

    Not to mention the conflation with “maximally conceivable” versus “maximally possible”. It could be that Bob, down the hall, is the maximally greatest possible being. But he’s just an therapist who does a lot of charity on the side.

  33. says

    @36 Dean Penney

    Hey guys I was just removed and blocked by the Atheist Experience fb page for questioning your moderation policy without a warning message of any sort.

    Yeah sorry, don’t believe you. Usually when people make claims like this, they’re leaving out important bits of information, like the fact they were being excessively trollish or profane.

    ho ever removed me clearly does not respect free speech

    I don’t know how you got that out of the situation. Free speech is about whether the Government takes action against you. The ACA is not the Government.

    This is their house, and if you misbehave, they can show you the door.

  34. gshelley says

    P1 It’s possible that a maximally great being exists.
    Fails on the very first premise. I don’t know if it is possible. If no maximal great being exists, I think we could say it isn’t possible. If a maximally great being exists, then it is true that a maximally great being exists, though I wouldn’t know if we would say it is “possible”
    P2 A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    this is muddled from the normal presentation (as given by Craig), which is “If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.”, but close enough
    This premise struggles because it doesn’t really mean anything. “There is a possible world where a maximally great being exists” How does it exist? Do things that are not real exist? If only real things exist, you have already used your conclusion (it is real) as one of your premises. If not, you can get to the end, “prove” god exists, but still fail to prove it is real
    It would also be better as “there is possibly a world” rather than “there is a possible world”. If it is only a possible world, stating it as actually existing, which “there is” impliess leads to confusion
    P3 If a maximally great being exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world.
    No! No no no no no
    You can’t go from “there is a possible world” to “there is definitely a world”, just as you can’t go from “it possibly exists” to “it definitely exists”
    P4 If a maximally great being exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.
    I think finally we get to a premise that make sense and doesn’t fall apart if examined

    C Therefore a maximally great being exists.

  35. snoopcat1 says

    Scott, the harmony that you see in Nature is not due to a creator god but is what you would expect to see in a world where living things have adapted (evolved) to their environment. It looks designed but that’s actually an illusion. Also, FYI: the early earth was spinning a lot faster than it is today. It has been gradually slowing down because of the pull of the moon. At one time the day was 6 hours long which would make our surface velocity close to 4000 mph.

  36. Monocle Smile says

    Looks like comments on youtube are once again disabled, likely due to a huge influx of “freeze peach” knuckleheads and assorted trolls. Nobody should ever wonder why comments are disabled again.

    Seems like you’re one of this crowd. Protip: if you come into my house and take a giant steaming shit, I am not being “authoritarian” or exercising “censorship” if I kick you out…at least, not in the context that you imply. I am indeed exercising my authority, but people like you like to portray controlling one’s own facebook page as akin to the practices of a 1984-type dystopia. Personally, I don’t find much value in forums that allow trolls and sockpuppets to gratuitously spray feces everywhere. Also, the fact that an expression is an expression doesn’t make it valuable to anyone else. If “it’s not illegal to say” is the very best defense of an idea, you should probably start questioning yourself.

  37. Murat says

    @Falular #16

    Hi Jonathan,

    I may have missed those remarks, sorry for any unjust comment about it. I believe the Israel-Palestine situation to be something more than a dispute over land. It’s one of those things that has altered perceptions of generations through time. The way it is presented in mass media and the psychological effects it has triggered over the decades have multiple layers.

    I have met several Israeli citizens (not to mention the countless Jewish people with whom I worked etc) and their varying ideas on the issue (as wel as their perception of heritage) are remarkable. However, when you step back in time and look at the situation from a distance, Israel can easily look like this: Europeans a) want to redeem themselves over the Holocaust b) want to simply get rid of the remaining Jewish population in Europe, so Zionism is formulated / praised, Brits try to keep control of the population and the land in the Middle East but the overall feeling of redemption in the world eventually sacrifices the Arabs of the region, condemning them to something like a genocide / ethnic cleansing in slow motion, and Israel finds the greates support from USA, which holds exactly the opposite values in terms of secularity and equality.

    From within, I bet you see even the tiny details and the inner-brakes to the process. However, a summary of the history of Israel is something that can easily suggest the presence of an apartheid ideology focused on a highly nationalistic ideal which manifests itself sometimes as religion.

    It seems that, with Trump’s administration, the USA will experience a whole new kind of “shifting of the facts” process, which I believe has always been part of the trouble behind the Israel-Palestine issue. We have yet to see if Trump’s adolescent approach to world problems will make him team up with the falcons of Israel to further damage the paths to peace, or if either the sanity behind US foreign departmens (or the not-so-Jew-loving base of the Republicans) will formulate a less hazardous thing. But even if nothing changes, I believe that the overall misconseption regarding this issue is frustrating enough. People from other parts of the world just don’t buy it when the “antisemitism” card is played whenever Israel if criticized, and some Isreali assets here and there have been way too much exposed to make people think there is a “balance” in what has been going on.

    I’m well aware that there is injustice all over the world and that no single government is innocent. What makes Isreal stand out among the parade is the manipulated flow of information and biased perception about its specific wrongdoing. For anyone who may not know: Today, Israel encourages and even pays those of (even arguable) Jewish descent to become citizens. What’s bad about it? Had the call been to populate an uninhabited area, not much, maybe. But in practice what happens is this: A family of 5 from Russia are given citizenship and some promises, so they arrive in Israel and get settled in a place where Palestinians have been living. (Israeli settlements) And for this family of 5 to settle there, eventually, 25 Palestinians lose their piece of land. What happens to them? No one cares: Fuckin Arab tyrannies don’t give a damn about those people, they get trapped in the narrowing-down, already tiny pieces of land, etc. Was the family from Russia currently in danger? No. Are the 5 Palestinian families going to be transferred to Russia to replace them? Hell no! So, by tricking a family into displacement, they create 5 displaced families. That’s the very basic mathematics behind enlarging Israel / shrinking Palestine. I’ve had American friends who did not believe this map to be true: Had the apartheid / oppression in the Republic of South Africa been so well kept from the man on the street of the 1st world, the white supremacists there would not have ever been cornered to give it up either.

    Tying-up this ongoing policy to the griefs of the Jewish people is the worst kind of cover-up. Maybe you won’t agree but I believe that things like demonizing Mel Gibson or acts like shutting up / firing people over claims of antisemitism do not work for the goal of acknowledging the Holocaust, but rather create the impression that Jewish people resort to it for preserving some kind of privilege.

    I personally would like to see Israel keep existing because I don’t think it’s healthy for whichever geography / environment / group to consist only of “kinship” or “likeness” – a whole part of the world being Muslim-dominated is as bad it being Christian-dominated or Whatever-dominated. But this particular way of existing, this on-the-edge kind of militaristic and theocratic body is bad for all. Maybe too naive an idea at first, but I believe that a “reformed” Israel upholding something similar to the US constitiution would shine in the region quite rapidly and sincerely convince next generations to bury the hatchets.

    “Facts” are what anyone needs to start with for solving a problem, and biased reportings of whatever is going on (though for now harms the Palestinians mostly) are not good for the Israeli citizens either.

    I hope someday AXP investigates the issue with regards to (the lack of) secularity. Far as I have watched, it was Don who got a bit in depth about it on an episode.

    Anyway, I hope some good stuff does happen about this and other aged troubles. Everyone has the feeling that the world is entering a new era of fascism, and the only escape can be through the collaboration of common sense, empathy and reason.


  38. snoopcat1 says

    Scott was right about 1 thing though; the other students in the Philosophy class were smarter than he.

  39. kudlak says

    @ Monocle Smile #32
    As I said, there is a difference between conceived worlds, the kind that are briefly described in fiction but which fail in being modelled on any actual worlds we have examples of. Planets like Superman’s home Krypton could exist around red suns, but there is no reason to suspect that such conditions would lead to his strength here on Earth. For the sake of the story we suspend our skepticism, much like many people apparently do with regards to the universe described in the Bible, one where a maximally powerful being is obviously manifesting.

  40. Minus says

    “I saw the strangest creature yesterday. It had the body of a unicorn and the head of a horse.”

    1st. Person: I saw the strangest two headed man yesterday.
    2nd. Person: I think any two headed man would be strange, what was so strange about this one?
    1st. Person: He only had one head!

    (Stolen from the wonderful old time radio show, “It Pays To Be Ignorant.” Look it up on Internet Archives as a great antidote for the face palm inducing AXP callers.)

  41. says

    I would have liked to have heard what Matt was going to say about “punching Nazis” and about what he might refer to as “freeze peach”… I’m not sure what requires much “nuance”…? Is it OK to punch Nazis for simply talking: no. Are in in favor of free speech: yes. Seems easy enough to me.

  42. veridor says

    When the caller named Andrew near the end started laying down the Ontological Argument, my eyes rolled so hard I got whiplash. The OA is one of the WORST arguments I’ve heard.

  43. RationalismRules says

    @gshelley #14

    I don’t know if it is possible. If no maximal great being exists, I think we could say it isn’t possible. If a maximally great being exists, then it is true that a maximally great being exists, though I wouldn’t know if we would say it is “possible”

    Haven’t you got this exactly backwards? If no X exists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is impossible for X to exist. However if X actually does exist then surely it must be possible for X to exist. (…how else?)

    I entirely agree that 2 to 3 is a non sequitur. TBH I don’t see why anybody bothers debating the other aspects of this argument when there’s this gigantic gaping hole in it.

  44. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Utube comment sections remain in trash-tier. A visible portion of frequenters refuse to help themselves.

    Atheism abounds with rank amendment jesters.

    Of course, Eric Holp is a “fee beach!11!” proponent (hence not citing any unsubstantiated claims at the Austin protest) now saying “don’t eh punch deh Nazis!”

  45. RationalismRules says

    @Jasper #39

    Usually when people make claims like this, they’re leaving out important bits of information, like the fact they were being excessively trollish or profane.

    Bad assumption, actually. I easily found his thread (open FB: search Dean Penney) and it’s neither trollish nor profane (at all, let alone excessively). In fact he’s very civil. It’s just another “you should enable YouTube comments” thread – which is boring, but hardly reason to ban him. He drops a couple of flags (‘misogyny’ and “Sam Harris/Islam’) that may have set off someone feeling a bit trigger-happy with the ban-hammer.

    @Dean #36 If you want worthwhile discussion there’s plenty to be had here – just spare us the “YT comments should be enabled” arguments, because no-one here cares.

  46. says

    @51 RationalismRules

    You’re right. I couldn’t find Dean’s comments, but seeing the moderator feedback there… there’s clearly a different personality behind the helm than here.

  47. Monocle Smile says

    It’s not a bad assumption just because it happens to be incorrect.
    “Reason to ban” doesn’t exist in my mind as something that needs to be had. Being banned from a thing on FB is just not a big deal to me, so I don’t really care if stuff like that happens for whatever reason. Also, those flags are glaring red ones, IMO. I can’t find Dean’s comments either.

  48. gshelley says

    “Haven’t you got this exactly backwards? If no X exists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is impossible for X to exist. However if X actually does exist then surely it must be possible for X to exist. (…how else?)’
    I think I was oversimplifying. while I don’t know that it would be possible for a maximal being to exist in a universe without one, in an entirely materialistic universe, I would say it is impossible for one to exist, so I should have used materialistic universe as the definer
    For the second point, I think it depends on what possible means. If the probability of something =1, so we say it is possible? I don’t know on this one. I can’t think of an example, where if something were known with 100% certainty (which in general it wouldn’t be) we would declare it “possible”
    Do dogs exist? “It is possible”
    Is there a universe? “It is possible”
    I think some of the more certain Christians would probably agree with me (hardly a ringing endorsement). Yuo ask them “So you think it is possible God exists?” they will say “No, I know he does”

  49. John Iacoletti says

    Arguing with the mods in the group about what the group rules are is not a good strategy for remaining in the group (either Facebook or here). If you’re tempted to cry “freeze peach”, see this:

  50. favog says

    First caller — how fast is the earth spinning? Well, you can’t measure the speed of any one point because it varies, including “0” for the points on the axis, no matter how fast the other points are going. So you don’t measure it in units of distance per time, you measure it in revolutions per unit of time. So the earth spins at about 1 per day.

    And I had a serious illness myself recently. I didn’t go the prayer route, but comparing what data we have on the track records, it seems that my surgeon is at least as good as your god; I’d be willing to guess he’s actually better.

  51. favog says

    … and I always catch the typos after it’s too late. In this case, it actually changed the meaning of the sentence. Of course you can measure the speeds of individual points, but you can’t measure BY them because they vary. Yeesh.

  52. RationalismRules says

    @54, 56
    Obviously I wasn’t clear in my post. I’m not a free-speech fetishist. I understand that Facebook groups, blogs, etc. are not public spaces, no matter how much they give that appearance, and the hosts/mods are entirely within their rights to ban anyone for whatever reason they choose (or even no reason at all).

    I was interested to see whether Dean was lying/trolling, so I checked – he wasn’t. I was interested in Jasper’s assumption that because he had been banned he must have been behaving in a certain way – he wasn’t.

    It seems to me warning him would have been a better course of action in this instance, but that’s the mod’s prerogative. Just as questioning the mod’s action is my prerogative. Just as banning me for questioning the mod’s action is the mod’s prerogative. And so forth…

  53. BluePrint says

    Hey, Jonathan.
    In case you get notified of followup comments, look up נושא לשיחה on YouTube.

  54. Murat says

    @RationalismRules @Dean Penney @BluePrint @Jasper of Maine @Monocle Smile @John Iacoletti

    Do you guys think the thread on “banning from groups” is tied directly to the concept of authority (and the misuse or legitimacy of it) witnessed in the “holy books” (reward / punishment) therefore the varying ideas about it form kind of an “apologetics”?

    Or it this just what it is on this very finite and mortal scale we are bound to share, hence application of further meaning to it is pointless 🙂

  55. K says

    @Monocle Smile

    Yeah, he has visitation with our two kids and has been making them go with him. The older has objected, but still has to go, and the youngest is embracing it.

  56. cobbler says

    good am … i have been trying to get on comments section for a long time . i suspect some correspondents would have already mentioned this topic, i do like your show but can you get back to the feisty atmosphere of old i would like the access to phone in on Sundays to be easier for argumentative believers , similar to what happened under the public access model that you had before moving to your own studio. most callers over past 12 months have been fairly ordinary and a lot of these calls seem to be allowed to meander along far too long. i hope you can spice up the show to reach its former glory. keep lucky

  57. Monocle Smile says

    Uh…what do you think changed? There’s no real difference in how the show operates at the moment. They have a phone system with a call-in number. I’m not really sure why you think the “new system” has “less access” for “argumentative believers.” FYI, watching the “highlights” of the “former glory” on youtube skews your perception significantly.

  58. John Iacoletti says

    Yeah, not sure what you mean by “access to phone in”. We give priority to theists, but we can’t control who calls in.

  59. marx says

    I think the big difference between now and then is theist(especially Christians) use to try to preach instead of having an ACTUAL DISCUSSION.Once theist found out they couldn’t talk over the host the conversation became chaotic and non-productive.
    The end.

  60. Tsukihime says

    I just wanted to make something perfectly clear about that first caller. He said the LAB called telling him his results? If he lives in Canada or the US there are laws about that. The lab is NOT supposed to be calling and giving out results to the patients. It’s not their job. Maybe a nurse called you Scott but as long as you live in either of these two countries you shouldn’t be getting your numbers from the lab.

  61. Sushi says

    I suspect Scott had mono. They may have been watching his WBCs (along with other labs) but not treated him in any way. It would have resolved on its own after several months. Also, as Tsukihime stated, the story about the lab calling to tell him he was cured is highly suspect. I doubt he is remembering the facts very clearly.

  62. genesis1932 says

    A little late to comment but I just watched this and it hurt my brain. Even if we accept the first premise of W.L. Craig’s version of the modal argument as not embarrassing, then this argument opens the trap door for an infinity of gods; look:
    It is possible that 923 of maximally great beings exist.
    If it is possible that 923 maximally great beings exist, then 923 maximally great beings exist in some possible world.
    If 923 maximally great beings exist in some possible world, then they exists in every possible world.
    If 923 maximally great beings exist in every possible world, then they exist in the actual world.
    If 923 maximally great beings exist in the actual world, then 923 maximally great beings exist.
    Therefore, 923 maximally great beings exist.

    How exactly does that get us to Jesus?

Leave a Reply

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