1. Justin says

    “And all the people on the other side of the glass that you can’t hear”

    Matt says this all the time. Matt: we can hear them! When they clap at the end of the show, or when they all laugh at a particularity bad caller, we can hear them! It’s clearly not soundproof glass or maybe you have a door open or something, but I hear the audience almost every week.

    I swear one day I’m going to call up just to tell him that.

  2. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    We all have souls, get over it, A-TEA-ists!

    Soul xxx in heaven sounds swell, I guess. Thanks, gawd.

    Robert already batting 6s from right out of the gate, “I think it’s trash.” You have to get that most athiests aren’t particularly holding religious views in high regard, so what the kristians/must-slims/more-mons say means salt water.

    Poor example Don, a victim of hypothetical head hitting.

    “Punishment disappears,” huh? Guy, have you not heard about courts? Laws? Base social behavious like ostracizing, correcting, mockery or just reprimanding. We do various things to punish people all day, every day without the help of anything but our brains.

    Robert was hype for a gotcha there. Matt forgives all trangressions, peace be with him.

    Robert was one of the more mild callers in a minute, odd.

    “Fun? In, Toronto?” *giggles in american d-bag*

    Mark, faith will not save your canadian being! Turn back, maple, turn back!

    Mark, no one is running around considering each and every variable in life, so why are you conflating that with faith? We get along well enough(pardon my president) without 100% knowledge so why pretend that it’s similar to a woo drenched term when we can just use “confidence” & “/acceptable” certainty/uncertainty.

    (Background “Throw it out!” – Don Baker.)

    Yeah, gawd is always involved with the labourer’s juice(alchohol.)

    So Mark is an ex-con who threw away his own credit cuz reasons?! No, you don’t need faith, you just need evidence from your past non-terrible moments and the experiences of other rehabilitated individuals to formulate a belief in redemption, nothing more is required.

    It’s okay to pat yourself on the back, it really, REALLY, is! No one is gonna stone you for it(well okay, there may be 1 or 2 rock heads.)

    You Canadians need some American(non-toxic) self confidence and self love. You’re worth it, Mark(hold the l’oreal.)

    “Could-could-could-!” what about what we have evidence of: you worked towards a goal and you achieved it, no need for additives.

    Ah, gawd belief “washes” guilt and shame away, no wonder it’s so clung to, it allows people to delude themselves out of valid feelings.

    I like this call.

    You only half care aboot the truf? Bye, Mark.

    Mark you betta not come for the gays, mafia will come after you, ask the other kristuhns.

    Good, love the gays, as we all should(within reason, of course.)

    dfghjklaqwerty, he said, “I don’t think you(ex christian seminary student) have the right concept of what hell is.” I swear, jail researchers are the true scientists of the world.

    I wouldn’t mind being separated from Hugh Hefner, matter of fact, I don’t even like the guy! I’d feel no shame.

    Well read, however no opinions on things I’ve read, only things I find opinion suitable?

    Now the Earth was flooded by gawd, and he has proof that inexplicably links to his gawd?!

    asdfghjlk, now he has a problem with people who get phds from acceptably qualified to distribute schools instead of creationist pooping places of wooiness. Mark is tap dancing and losing focus, time for more rehabilitation?

    Now we’re referencing “evolution is a hypothesis not a theory” people? I’m OVERJOYED that Mark called in. The amount of Marks on the planet is too much.

    Zack is another one. Aye-yie-yie, sentient presidiential pumpkin spice latte.

    Faith as a sense isn’t even new to the axp, this call isn’t pointing to another finale.

    Special pleading, Zack. “It’s just like all the other senses we have evidence of BUT we have to cuddle this one.”


    Zack is honest on the final point, a rarity. Watch some apologetics gymnastics come through in the end.

    A good quip about winning the lottery instead of tax exemptions, prize to Don.

    Evil, satanical atheists on the line, working for Lucyfur without knowing it.

    ~My faithshake brings all the gods to the yard and damn right, it’s better than yours! I could teach you but I’d have to charge.~

    ^An original composition, DO NOT STEAL, I intend to copyright it.

    Aaaaaaah, Gerard, I’m happy to hear from him again! *prepares a water and a migraine pill for MS*

    He’s still walking with that “latch onto semantics” limp. Connection issues for sure, the audio gets sucky here.

    Don, Gerard is more theist than atheist. I dont’t even his equation.

    Damn, Gerard, noooooooooooooo! *cries in the rain, knees covered in dirt filled water.*

    He was a gud boi, he don’t do nuffin to nobawdy!

    Michael, that feeling isn’t uncommon, I get a feeling whenever god comes up, it’s a “Jeezus, not again!” feeling. It’s holy and magnificent.

  3. HappyPerson says

    mark is a prime example of how hard it is to have a rational discussion with a believer. he has such a deep emotional attachment to his faith that he is willing to handwave criticism (eg i am not god, you have to ask him if people are going to hell), cherry pick evidence (putting more weight on creation ‘scientists’) and ignore uncomfortable consequences of his position (eg having to accept slavery).

  4. einyv says

    Gerad is a troll, he goes by many names. Same semantic BS. When he is shown to be wrong he still tries to go on with nonsense.

  5. bigjay says

    Mark got the better of Matt on a few points. Matt tried to take him down the “do you think I deserve hell” road and Mark easily dealt with him. Matt won the overall battle but Mark got in a few shots that Matt didn’t counter. (I know, I know, it’s not a fight or a war, I was just using a metaphor.)

  6. davidlucky7 says

    “Gerard” was a theist troll, and Zack clearly hasn’t taken any physics or astronomy classes, because color can easily be described to a blind person.

  7. Monocle Smile says

    Robert was a bit crass at first, but I think he asked some good questions that allowed Matt to elaborate on compatibilism. Spectacular call, IMO despite not having a theist caller.

    I think Mark is the same odd-voice troll from a while ago who was talking about nanotechnology and Lego universe.
    JK. This is a different Mark, although I know which call he’s referencing. He got badly exposed last time and hasn’t learned a damn thing. Sky Captain probably has the link saved somewhere. Matt and Don handled this guy well; I hope the message sticks this time.

    Crap, Mark is a creationist after all this time and buys into the worst possible arguments. There’s very little hope for this guy. This is a huge failing of religion. Mark is a recovering alcoholic, but in “helping” him out of his problems, it has enslaved him completely.

  8. Monocle Smile says

    I love how it never bothers people like Zack that they have to create a shitload of excuses for why they can’t test the “sensus divinatus” by pointing out perceived failing of other hypotheticals (that aren’t actual failings). Shouldn’t their god be able to do better? Shouldn’t they be able to wield awesome power that makes their god obvious?

  9. Monocle Smile says

    I can’t for the life of me figure out why Gerard is concerned with the topics he blabbers about. What the fuck does it even matter what “separated” means in theology? Theology is evidently just made-up crap with a truckload of incoherent concepts.

    Fucking Gerard. I’ve accused him before of digging for bad excuses to feel superior to atheists, and this call just strengthened that accusation tenfold. Gerard, you need to grow the fuck up. Maybe you’re just surrounded by extra-stupid people, because you seem utterly clueless as to how little you actually know and understand. I’m extra-glad Matt hung up on your ass, because your calls are getting more and more cringe-worthy. You’ve been asked so many times what you actually believe and why along with why your points of contention bother you so much, and your outright refusal to honestly engage with any of these inquiries is the biggest reason you’re greeted with hostility here.

  10. gshelley says

    Was Gerard the guy right at the end?
    I thought Matt’s response on separation and annihilation was bizarre. Possibly the terms are not familiar to me in this context, but his assertion that lacking senses was the same as annihilation was not supported, so I couldn’t understand why he would have that view. Lacking senses would just mean no new experiences. The soul (or whatever it is) could just exist eternally with just its own memories while being ignored by God.
    From an atheist view, it also seems a little strange in that if there is a god, who is currently everywhere, non believers don’t experience this god, so it’s hard to see why being separated from this being would be any different from the current situation.

  11. zandronum says

    What is the style of Matt’s beard? I’m interested to know!

    OT: Gerard should stop wasting show time, he’s not offering up anything profound or interesting to the conversation. I’m convinced he’s just trolling at this point.

  12. says

    Hi y’all,

    Soo, with regards to my call the main contention seems to be that the whole thing is simply a semantic issue. Thing is, it’s not; it’s not just about what words are being chosen or what words people use, it’s about the concepts that those words mean.

    When I first heard the question “How can you be separated from God when God is everywhere?”, I thought it was just dumb because it assumes that when Christians say “separated from God”, they are literally talking about it as a spacial concept, which I thought was a bad assumption to make (although, granted, at the time I didn’t personally know exactly what Christians meant by it either). Now, thankfully Matt pointed out that there was an answer to the question and that it was rhetorical. Unfortunately, even the answer annihilation theory proposes still assumes the restricted idea of “separated” as spatially away, which is why I still decided to call in about it.

    Now, the problem that Matt had that I couldn’t really answer was what is actually meant by the authors and people who say the phrase “separated from God”. I just had a hunch that Christians, who always talk about things in abstract ways, didn’t literally mean that you are spatially away from God. And, again, this isn’t a semantic issue, this is about concepts, it’s about their meaning, not what words they should be using. So, after the call, I decided to actually look up what it means, and came across these passages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    1033 – “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell.'”
    1035 – “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

    I think it’s fairly clear from these passages that eternal separation does not literally mean “placed somewhere where God isn’t.” What they mean is that hell is a place sinners go when they die, and in hell, the punishment is that they are no longer given God’s blessings nor do they have communion with him. This has nothing to do with his omnipresence. As a matter of fact, another interpretation I found said that not only are you not literally separated from God, rather you are in eternal presence of God’s wrath. Furthermore, it also made clear the idea that you are separated from God’s blessings.

    So with all this understood it should seem clear that the question and Matt’s answer “How can you be separated from God if God is everywhere?” is somewhat nonsensical and completely misunderstands the concept. Also, sorry to Don that I kept cutting him off, but it really annoyed me that he kept brazenly insulting and characterizing religious people poorly without justification. Like I’ve said before, just blankly accusing people of things like “word soup” shows, to me, some level of dishonesty and willful ignorance in argumentation. Furthermore, generalizing such an accusation to a whole group of people seems discriminatory or prejudiced in the least and that annoyed me also.

    Anyway, that whole thing wasn’t even the purpose of my call. I wanted to call in to talk about metaphysical ideas and the mistakes I think a lot of atheists make with them (like the concept of “nothing”), but I only got reached at the very end of the show, so I decided to just talk about what Matt had said, since it actually became an example of what I think is flawed metaphysical thinking.

    Oh, one last thing: “Cool, watch another show.” lol Yeah, because I would sit on a phone for 2 and a half hours if I didn’t care about the show.

  13. says

    einyv #4

    You can think I’m a troll, but I’m not the troll you’re probably thinking of. I’ve only ever used one name.

    zandronum #12

    That’s an odd statement. Does every call on the show have to be profound or, hell, even interesting? If so, you must be very disappointed in how much stuff is repeated. Or you just wanted to throw in an ad hominem because I tickle everyone’s, um, non-fancy for some reason.

  14. Monocle Smile says


    Anyway, that whole thing wasn’t even the purpose of my call. I wanted to call in to talk about metaphysical ideas and the mistakes I think a lot of atheists make with them (like the concept of “nothing”)

    Oh, so you called in to waste time with a pointless, trollish subject, and you ended up wasting time with a different pointless, trollish subject. Fun fun.

    I just had a hunch that Christians, who always talk about things in abstract ways, didn’t literally mean that you are spatially away from God

    This is utter bullshit. There was a creationist caller earlier in the show who took the bible literally. He thought there was a literal flood that drowned literally everything on the planet except a literal small family and animals that survived on a literal ark. PLENTY of christians actively believe that hell is a place where god isn’t. You have merely chosen a very specific interpretation of “separation from god” that allows you (in your teenage head) to feel superior to the hosts of AXP and “atheists” in general. Why you continue to behave like this, I’ll never know, because engaging honestly isn’t something you’re interested in doing.

  15. AllmightyDerp says

    One of the least confrontational episodes ever.

    I wasn’t impressed by Matt invoking “God is everywhere” either. The doctrines about hell are so flawed that it can be hard to choose one weak point out of many. Maybe it’s best to figure out why the person you’re talking to finds it important to hold a particular doctrine.

    Separation theory: God ignores you forever.
    Annihilation theory: you are destroyed on death.
    By the way Gerard, losing your senses forever is just a cruel and unusual punishment akin to “burning in fire forever” that doesn’t match either of these two.

    In the case of Mark, I think choosing the doctrine of separation plays right into his “I’m nothing without God” theology. He thinks he’s weak and feeble-minded without being supported by God, therefore he is afraid of separation from the imaginary walking stick that stops him from stumbling right back into alcoholism. I think it would be more important to talk about that mindset rather than getting mired in theological minutia.

  16. t90bb says


    FYI…..I could care less about your “hunches” about what men in dirt huts thought when they wroye the hokey bable. Really. You are dismissed,

  17. t90bb says

    What the magical sky daddy meant when he supposedly told men in dirt huts to write shit down is a hilarious discussion.

  18. ironchew says

    @ Gerard

    Oh, one last thing: “Cool, watch another show.” lol Yeah, because I would sit on a phone for 2 and a half hours if I didn’t care about the show.

    Alternatively, you would sit on a phone for two and a half hours to call into a show because you have an unhealthy obsession with Matt. Maybe you should step back and wonder why you’re so aggrieved about nothing in particular.

  19. zandronum says


    Actually, I’m just done with you wasting show time. You literally bring nothing to the conversation that hasn’t already been addressed. If things are going to be ‘repeated’ on the show, I’d rather it be first time callers or people that aren’t familiar with the show, instead of a repeat caller who just wants to waste time.

    Jog on and find yourself something else to do. 4/10, bad troll.

    Git gud plz.

  20. says

    Wow, no actual arguments. Just a bunch of insults and general ad hom crap. Does anybody actually want to respond to how Matt misunderstood/misrepresented the concept of “separation from god” and defend him or something? I even, post-call, answered his challenge of “What is the meaning of ‘separation from god’ that the authors intended?” and showed how it makes the question, in his interpretation, nonsensical, in a way.

    Monocle Smile #15
    Metaphysics is a trollish subject and pointless? The topic of understanding reality at its most fundamental? Whatever floats your boat. Also, I didn’t come up with the strict interpretation of “separation from God”, Matt did by implying that his omnipresence caused a problem with it. Btw, I’m not gonna feed into the “oh, I obviously feel superior to everybody” thing. I go on Quora on a regular basis, I’m very aware of how not smart I am. (lol I scrolled up briefly to look back at the other comments and I didn’t even realize on first read that you added “(in your teenage head)”. I gotta ask, what does age have to do with anything?)

    Allmighty Derp #16
    Yeah, when I heard “separated from God” the first idea of “separated” that came to my head was unable to interact with or observe, which is why the question seemed so nonsensical to me at first. So I just used that as an example of what they could mean and a very easy way to answer the question. Of course, that was before I did actually know what the “authors” meant by it.

    t90bb #17
    Sorry to be “that guy”, but it’s “couldn’t care less”. Unless you actually do care a little bit. But if you don’t care, why do you have to tell me? Especially since I don’t think I’ve ever even conversed with you.

    ironchew #19
    Well, I don’t get out much: I don’t have many (if any) friends that would bother to discuss things like this with me and when I talk with my family it’s pretty much a one-sided conversation, so the only people I have to talk to are you lovely folks in these forums. So, yes, I would gladly spent a part of the night to be able to have a conversation with someone as sharp as Matt, or anybody else on the show for that matter. Now if I don’t get on because they decide to spend 30 minutes on each theist caller, (which did happen a couple weeks ago) then I get annoyed. (Also, I can hear the show through the phone, so it’s not like I’m doing absolutely nothing. I’m actually listening to the show)

    zandronum #20
    Actually, after I posted that comment, I did come to realize that you could be justified in posting such a comment because I have called in a few times and have also been in the forums, so the message could reach me. Buuut, I’m also pretty sure it has nothing to do with that and it has more to do with some personal problem you have with me as a person, my actions or my character. However, I would like to see you support your claim that I don’t bring anything new to the table, cause I honestly have experienced the opposite. When was the last time someone pointed out that Russell makes the mistake of conflating “certainty” with “belief” (which he has done on multiple occasions)? Who was the last one that convinced him that he believed a god didn’t exist and use the Dawkins example to prove it? When even was the last time the concept of “separation of God” was argued? First time I heard it. And who did all of this without any aggression towards the hosts or with the intent of “winning” the argument?
    I’ve also wanted to call in to talk about Matt’s opinion on some of his friend Ozymandias’ ideas, like how he also agrees that there are problems with the, what he calls, “lack-theism” approach to atheism, and how the “burden of proof” is a poor name and should be thought of as “burden of justification/evidence” instead to dismantle confusion.
    I’m not saying any of these things haven’t been done before, but I’ve seen a good number of the recent episodes of the show and I haven’t seen this stuff happen. So why don’t you back up your attacks (because that’s more of what they are than actual arguments or criticism) rather than just talking shit?

    I’ll be blunt: most of y’all suck. You’re concerned more with personal attacks and trying to put yourselves above others (which is a bit ironic) rather than talking about the subject that’s actually being discussed, all because I pushed your buttons in some way, which I still don’t quite understand, other than the fact that I have the audacity to have confidence in and defend my unpopular opinions against argumentation and ad hominem attacks. And, no, it’s not just because I’m arrogant or smug, because plenty of the most popular atheist talkingheads of the past decade are exactly the same way. Hell, most of you are the exact same way. Problem is, I disagree with the group, so my actions aren’t tolerated. Matt Dillahunty can go ahead and call people idiots and hang up on them on air but, when Matt Slick does the same exact thing on his own show, he’s a dick and deserves to be attacked and ridiculed. I gotta say t90bb, we’re not as far from the primitive, groupthink mentalities of those men in dirt huts as you may think. Ha, and Monocle wonders why the forum gets so many hit-and-run posters.

    Anyway, that’s enough ranting. If anybody does want to talk about the issues rather than personal attacks, I’m happy to engage. Hell, I’ll still probably entertain any further ad homs, but with less enthusiasm probably.

  21. Kudzu says


    Not only are you an obsessed bore, but you are also a liar when you claim, “You can think I’m a troll, but I’m not the troll you’re probably thinking of. I’ve only ever used one name.”

    I only wish the call screeners would learn to recognize your voice the way most listeners have.

  22. robertwilson says

    @Gerard (22)

    “respond to … the concept of “separation from god””
    How about we get to an agreement on the concept of god first?

    “Metaphysics is a trollish subject and pointless? The topic of understanding reality at its most fundamental?”
    It certainly can be. It’s not really understanding anything fundamental or otherwise when it just involves making shit up.

    “Sorry to be “that guy”, but it’s “couldn’t care less”.”
    Why I am not surprised at this level of pedantry.

    “Well, I don’t get out much: I don’t have many (if any) friends”
    I wonder why…
    “I’ll be blunt: most of y’all suck.”

  23. rodney says

    When Matt talks about “the people you can’t hear” I don’t think he’s referring to the audience, he’s talking about the behind the scenes crew that works very hard on the show, but don’t have a speaking role in the show. I think it’s his way of sharing the credit for the show.

    I’m not sure how Mark got the better of Matt about the Hell thing, unless I missed something (certainly possible, I listen to this while I’m working), all I heard him do was use the “I’m not your judge” avoidance tactic.

  24. says

    indianajones #24

    I see what you did there (Damn dude, you’re making me pull up 2011 memes)

    robertwilson #25

    It certainly can be. It’s not really understanding anything fundamental or otherwise when it just involves making shit up.

    And this is exactly why I want to talk about it. Some people think that metaphysics is just bullshit, but I think precisely that line of thinking is a huge mistake that leads to confusion and overlooking deep problems (like virtual particles coming from “nothing” and the universe being “everything that exists”), if not simply an anti-intellectual approach to the subject. Also:
    “I don’t have many (if any) friends”
    Nice quote mine. Very clever.

  25. robertwilson says

    “And this is exactly why I want to talk about it. Some people think that metaphysics is just bullshit,”
    You have not done anything to demonstrate otherwise.

  26. Kit Zupan says

    It is easier to explain “sense experience unreliability”. Just consider the mirage – where, you’d swear there’s an oasis right over there. You think it is ‘real’ while it is not real. The human brain is a powerful and unique organ but if there isn’t sufficient input “sensory deprivation”, hysterical emotions, a survival need, or simply synapse failure – the brain will attempt to ‘solve’ the problem for your conscious mind – as in the case of a mirage where the desperate need for water is ‘solved’ by the brain making an oasis appear. Those who hear God might truly believe that they are hearing God when it is simply their brain ‘solving’ their emotional need to ‘hear God’.

  27. t90bb says

    and why exactly should i be concerned or threatened by separation from “god”? As an agnostic atheist that lacks a belief I am separated now……and doing quite well, indeed!

  28. AllmightyDerp says

    At the risk of repeating myself: I’ll agree that Matt argued poorly against separation theory, however even if he had nailed the doctrinal stuff and comprehensively shown why annihilation is more theologically sound – that would have still been an irrelevant angle to pursue with that caller.

    If you’re simply fascinated with the ideas – just say so, and give others a reason to care. Until then I’m going to echo others by saying this is a waste of time.

  29. says

    robertwilson #28
    Uh, there are a couple strange things here.
    1. Metaphysics is a well-established branch of philosophy. Is it really my duty to demonstrate that it’s not bullshit? Seems to me like calling it bullshit is a much more radical claim than saying, “no, it’s not bullshit”. Hell, can I not just point to the fact that it is a well-established branch of philosophy, of which many great philosophers have partaken in, to show that it’s not all just bullshit?
    2. Also, I didn’t realize we were starting the discussion, so I had to argue for it. Do you actually want to talk about whether or not metaphysics is bullshit? I did already mention some examples where having a good understanding of metaphysical concepts like “nothing” can give one more insight into a claim like “virtual particles come from nothing”. Do you think we have evidence of “something” coming from “nothing”?

    t90bb #29
    I didn’t say any of that.

    AllmightyDerp #30
    Me, personally, I care about logical thinking, sometimes even more than what is actually true. It’s like knowing mathematical facts, and knowing how to actually do math. I’d rather have the logical abilities to discover knew truths than simply learn new truths without being able to do things with them. So, yes, I can be very nitty-gritty when it comes to arguing. That’s why (among other personal reasons) I’ll defend theism, which I don’t think is true, from bad arguments against it, like what Matt said in the show. Also, I don’t feel like I am making a big deal out of it, although I could be. Again, I decided to bring it up on the show because I only had a couple of minutes and figured it could be a small thing to be sorted quickly. The rest is just me responding to ad homs, which, if people had just said “you’re right, but who cares” (unless I’m not right, in which case I would want an argument against it because I care if my reasoning is flawed) then I probably wouldn’t have gone on a big tirade. So, actually, what did you specifically mean was a waste of time? Cuz now I’m not sure. Also, I don’t even remember the rest of the call at this point but I’ll take that it was probably tangential and unnecessary to pursue during the conversation. lol But I’ve wasted enough of your time if you bothered to read this far. Cheers.

  30. Monocle Smile says

    Lol, the troll demands that others engage honestly when he refuses to do so. Then he thinks that the problem is that everyone else sucks even though a wide variety of people from different walks of life all can’t stand his neckbeard blather. Teenage narcissism 101.

  31. John GG. says

    I can put on a dress and wave my hands around a food-item and say it’s metaphysically changed to the body of Einstein, it doesn’t mean it actually has.

  32. says

    so if i’m grokking this rightly, in separation theory a god that does not manifest in reality punishes sinners by not manifesting in the afterlife.

    this atheist remains unimpressed.

  33. t90bb says

    Soooo… I replayed Marks call…..Let me get this right…..THE ALMIGHTY SKY DADDY writes a book of clear instructions to the creatures he loves so very much…….and after 40 something books later this magical sky genie is so clear….that Mark, a devout believer, can not know, or even lacks confidence to speculate on whether non believers go to “hell”……….if it is SKY GENIE’S intent on clear communication, it is a failure. If it is not Sky Genie;s intent to clearly communicate it is a DICK. Either way..not much interested!!!!

    PS. Gerard….even though you are a class A clown, not everything I post is directed at you. That is all. You are dismissed.

  34. says

    Gerard, #31

    The rest is just me responding to ad homs, which, if people had just said “you’re right, but who cares” (unless I’m not right, in which case I would want an argument against it because I care if my reasoning is flawed) then I probably wouldn’t have gone on a big tirade.

    Why should anybody care about what you want?
    You have proven to be another disgusting animal: not a troll, but a sealion.
    Read to learn what a sealion is and why we dismiss them so quickly.

  35. kiwidaveo says


    Its obvious you are/were roman Catholic, and you right in Catholic philosophic terms Metaphysics is a central part. Its because the Catholic philosophic constructions is founded on the Aristotle concepts of existence which were refined by Aquinas.
    In the same way the cosmological ideas of Aristotle have been rejected in main stream astronomy, the metaphysical ideas he had also subject to a lot of push back from the secular modern (in sense of the Entitlement is called the modern) philosophic constructions.
    Hume, Kant and Ayer all rejected largely Aristotelian Metaphysics and so outside Catholic/christian theological circles his ideas don’t float no more.
    If you up to a heavy duty discussion of the various objection and problems have a gander at
    Sure because the Catholic church is still large educational force in the world it still can be called a of branch of philosophy, it party because components of philosophy are soft science.
    It may be more useful to say that a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable, testable or provable.
    As almost every atheist in this comment stream thinks ideas should be a far a possible empirically verifiable, testable or provable you going to get a lot of push back on catholic theological ideas.

  36. RationalismRules says

    @kiwidaveo #35

    As almost every atheist in this comment stream thinks ideas should be a far a possible empirically verifiable, testable or provable you going to get a lot of push back on catholic theological ideas.

    Is there some other way of determining whether or not an idea has value as an explanation of the world we live in, other than through empiricism and testability?

  37. Monocle Smile says

    Good question. Logical positivism plays a role here, too.

    Instead of answering this question with any substance, religious apologists accuse rational empiricists of having an absolutist view that anything and everything MUST be subject to empiricism and testing, and that this view is somehow untenable because we’re not omniscient. This is both a non sequitur and a straw man, but it’s pretty standard apologetics.

    Kiwidaveo is correct about Catholic apologetics, and his post is enlightening. They’re really into rehabilitating outdated, long disproved arguments and building castles in the air and burying their opposition in paperwork, as if the Courtier’s Reply is a real argument.

  38. anthony wharmby says

    Thought it was an interesting comment made by Matt about use of words and “move out of the way or you will get hit by the paint” when referring to labelings of Christians. I have a friend who is Catholic and since him I’ve noticed a large number of denominations I’ve spoken to here in the UK don’t like being called Christians but rather there specific denomination. I realised that they are indeed trying to separate themselves from this generalised term however I’ve noticed many atheists and none Christians still use this broad label that encapsulates all the denominations even if it’s a point of view not shared by them all. Are we not therefore as guilty of refusing to let a word die as they are e.g. soul…free will…spiritul…mystical? We just have less words that need to die is all.

  39. RationalismRules says

    @kiwidaveo #37
    Sorry, I’m a bit unclear due to the brevity of your response. Are you suggesting that hard solipsism and the logical absolutes can be used to determine whether an idea has real-world explanatory value?

    I don’t see how hard solipsism can tell you anything about anything. It’s an untestable idea, is it not? So if we have no way of establishing its own validity, how would you propose it be used to validate other ideas?

    The logical absolutes can tell you if your idea is logically incoherent (if you violate them), but they can’t even tell you whether it’s logically coherent, let alone whether it has real-world explanatory value.

  40. Monocle Smile says

    @Gary John
    Moreland’s work is laughable apologetics, nothing more.
    From Wiki:

    Moreland is a substance dualist,[10] and also defends libertarian free will,[11] as well as life after death.[12] Moreland has defended the existence of angels and demons, arguing that he knows they exist due to both Christian doctrine and personal experience.[13] He is an old earth creationist who is a critic of fideism

    This is a guy who’s demonstrably wrong about pretty much all of his views.
    That book is about rejecting science and substituting theology in its place. That isn’t how you prove things. That’s how you preach to an already indoctrinated choir.

  41. says

    Argument ad Populum | Billy – Austin, TX – Billi or known as William has been told that he was using Argument ad Populum by myself any many other person. His form of debate s repeat a claim without any supporting evidence, And his famous claim is he can only rule things in. When asked how can he not rule natural causes in, he goes on his rant again.

Leave a Reply

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