Really interesting episode. I’m surprised no one’s commented on it yet.
paxollsays
Michael from California should learn what special pleading means.
paxollsays
Coran from Ottowa should lookup naturalistic fallacy.
seanjsays
This is about Matt’s interaction with Jimmy relating to Matt’s discussion with Jordan Peterson, Matt of course has no idea what evidence someone else is going to bring to a discussion/debate ahead of time. If Matt had previously been aware of the study by Dr. Matthew W. Johnson, the only study I could find that discusses psilocybin in smoking cessation, then he could have brought up that citing a study of 15 participants is not very meaningful. Of course, as Matt states here, it doesn’t matter in the least if Dr Peterson is citing a good study or a bad study, or what language is being used within the study; Matt only needs to address the narrow point that whether the participants reported a mystical, or mystical like, experience does not mean that their experience was real or true because there is no objective way to determine the validity of such a claim.
Unanonymous Jonessays
The thing about folks like Michael, who have a really-good-but-imperfect grasp of the language, is that it’s often hard to tell if the hosts and the caller are arguing about the same thing. (It doesn’t help that Michael’s a chatterbox who rarely even stops for air.)
The hosts are lulled by the caller’s level of fluency and start in with the nuance, but it’s not readily apparent whether the caller is on board, or whether the conversational train has left him at the station.
Like, how up to speed can you possibly be, if you feel you need to explain the basics of Christianity to Matt?
amuthansays
Jimmy from San Antonio (aka Bizzy Bone),
You should make clear the final point you are trying to make so the hosts know where you are going with your explanations. That way, they will be more patient with you otherwise the hosts will assume the worst of your motives.
It appears, I hope, you are making the educated point that hallucinogens like psilocybin or simply meditation can help with depression, anxiety, PTSD or quitting smoking. If that is your point, you will get a sympathetic ear because that is a scientifically provable point that can be tested by peers. And that point is completely consistent with the conclusions of the John Hopkins’ scientists.
However if you are trying to make the point that there must be a God because people on certain drugs have common ‘mystical’ or psychodelic experiences, then of course be prepared to get absolutely shredded and eventually cut be off if you don’t acknowledge any fallacy the hosts point out.
Hope you call again and make your intentions clear this time!
Nathansays
I’m so sick and tired of Jimmy and his perennial philosophy nonsense.
Eivindsays
Jimmy has gotten so much time to express his ideas clearly across multiple shows, but fails to do so every time. I really hope they can filter out his calls, because he does not seem to be able or willing to go into the details or problems of the idea he claims to hold and wanting to promote (Perennial Philosophy).
When they push back on the ideas and examples he tries to get into, he goes into full defense mode denying the objections raised, dodging responsibility to defend his position, accusing the hosts of ignorance on the subject at hand and all sort of evasive tactics to keep his idea untainted.
It seems a waste of time.
maxmacccsays
Some of Phil’s comments had me crying laughing. He’s so funny.
MMMsays
Matt, if you drive on the other side of the road in Europe, you’re gonna get in trouble with the law in most countries. That is if you survive all the trucks that run over you.
Peggy Clancysays
Yes, Michael from California was a frustrating call to listen to. It might well be that his apparent language fluency is far greater than his comprehension in English. I’ve frequently noticed that in students of English from the Middle East. I *think* he was trying to assert that his Christian denomination is the only pure, true one because it came straight from Jesus. Again, I could be wrong, but that might have been because that was what he was taught in his early childhood and then he never questioned it since.
Please block him! He simply repeats his one idea, does not listen and does not respond to any question from the hosts. He does not participate in any discussion. He just eats up airtime for the show and annoys everyone.
I’m on Podcast Addict and it looks like someone uploaded the wrong episode. The info is for #22.22 with Matt and Phil. However, the audio is from a month ago, with Jenn and Phil.
Curt Cameronsays
Please make the link point to the correct episode. Like Secular Strategy said, the header of this one said Matt and Phil, but the audio file was with Jen and Phil from a few weeks ago.
Monocle Smilesays
BOY am I glad Matt hung up on Jimmy/Kafei. That dude is singularly obnoxious.
I love it when people like Jacob get so butthurt over AXP hanging up on them. Listen, bub, you’re not special. You’re barely memorable. Get over yourself. Predictably, this cretin goes straight for the tu quoque nonsense of “you have faith, too” solely because he’s butthurt.
Oh, the irony of a Muslim whining about Matt calling unfalsifiable beliefs harmful.
LOL Jacob’s going to call back. I’m already suffering from “anticipointment.”
Russ Francissays
Hello, I was wondering if someone from this show could answer a question for me. I classify myself as a polytheist i guess would be the closest thing to my ideas. Now I don’t practice any religion and I don’t go to church or any other form of religious place. I was just wondering if that would be the correct title in regards to this idea. please let me know if that is a accurate description thanks.
H4rmlessven0msays
Matt gets butt hurt too easily and hangs up on caller. Matt makes another video after discussion and misrepresents JP by saying he said you need a mystical experience to stop smoking. While it is accurate, it’s out of context. JP was only saying that because he thinks it counts as evidence for super natural. Matt even admits on stage that he is right to count it as.
I believe the caller was asking why matt never bothered to look up post discussion. Matt/JP clearly dont agree on definitions, so does the caller. Also, Phil seems like a nice guy but adds no value to the live show, ever. I can think of 3 hosts I’d get rid of just to have Jeff back.
Dennis Naglesays
Just watched episode 22.07, where Jen Peeples stated that Episcopalians had no particular problem with homosexuality. I wanted her to know that the Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal church in America has undergone a number of upheavals and schisms since 2002, beginning with controversy over the ordination of women and accelerating with the ordination/consecration of openly gay priests and bishops. Perhaps the Episcopalians she knows/knew have no problem with it, but there a lot of self-identified Episcopalians who do.
chuckvsays
Would it be possible to get a pay feed without ads? I much prefer giving money directly.
lesserthannonesays
Justifying slavery fallacy.
(quite frankly it comes up so much, it might as well be its own thing)
Approximately an hour in we are drawn to Mat trying to get to the validity of the bible, with the slavery example.
Fact is there is no time, as I will show, that slavery is required (let alone moral).
The Caller, seemed to um and ah about societal structure requiring leadership, or in the lest some one on the bottom. Their example is starvation (I assume to people not wanting to farm? (from the callers point of view)).
At no point is it required to be a slave, people will not choose starvation over being comfortable.
You do not have to force people for necessary work. reality, is still there making you hungry.
Slavery is only necessary to the slave master, and even then only in a highly loose sense (since a king could step of the thrown(ah the power of choice)). It can not be shown to have any inherent benefits, and the few perks it has for a slave master, can be sourced from just being a better boss (you can easily research how freedoms have afforded a more rapid pace in improvements, invention ect..).
Its the whole sum greater than its parts thing, and I am aware slavery is amoral, I prefer to dissemble arguments from within themselves as per the persons previous statements.
Slavery is flawed for the slave and ultimately for the master. It is for the same reasoning kings are no longer acceptable forms of government.
Think of all the Neil Degrasse Tysons the world has already missed out on.
End of fucking conversation.
dwillcosays
If owning another human has always been wrong as Matt says then he must believe that even if everyone had always and still believes it was right it would still be wrong. If so then it must demonstrate that objective morals exist. Can Matt show how such objective morals which exist regardless of man’s opinions are grounded?
Don'tWantToSaysays
In this episode, Matt talks about how he has previously spoken about: “Is the Bible is misogynistic and patriarchal?” Does anyone have a link for this talk?
Monocle Smilesays
@dwillco
Matt has explained this like 45 times over the past month or so on the air, so asking this question as if it hasn’t been addressed is borderline trolling, IMO.
Really interesting episode. I’m surprised no one’s commented on it yet.
Michael from California should learn what special pleading means.
Coran from Ottowa should lookup naturalistic fallacy.
This is about Matt’s interaction with Jimmy relating to Matt’s discussion with Jordan Peterson, Matt of course has no idea what evidence someone else is going to bring to a discussion/debate ahead of time. If Matt had previously been aware of the study by Dr. Matthew W. Johnson, the only study I could find that discusses psilocybin in smoking cessation, then he could have brought up that citing a study of 15 participants is not very meaningful. Of course, as Matt states here, it doesn’t matter in the least if Dr Peterson is citing a good study or a bad study, or what language is being used within the study; Matt only needs to address the narrow point that whether the participants reported a mystical, or mystical like, experience does not mean that their experience was real or true because there is no objective way to determine the validity of such a claim.
The thing about folks like Michael, who have a really-good-but-imperfect grasp of the language, is that it’s often hard to tell if the hosts and the caller are arguing about the same thing. (It doesn’t help that Michael’s a chatterbox who rarely even stops for air.)
The hosts are lulled by the caller’s level of fluency and start in with the nuance, but it’s not readily apparent whether the caller is on board, or whether the conversational train has left him at the station.
Like, how up to speed can you possibly be, if you feel you need to explain the basics of Christianity to Matt?
Jimmy from San Antonio (aka Bizzy Bone),
You should make clear the final point you are trying to make so the hosts know where you are going with your explanations. That way, they will be more patient with you otherwise the hosts will assume the worst of your motives.
It appears, I hope, you are making the educated point that hallucinogens like psilocybin or simply meditation can help with depression, anxiety, PTSD or quitting smoking. If that is your point, you will get a sympathetic ear because that is a scientifically provable point that can be tested by peers. And that point is completely consistent with the conclusions of the John Hopkins’ scientists.
However if you are trying to make the point that there must be a God because people on certain drugs have common ‘mystical’ or psychodelic experiences, then of course be prepared to get absolutely shredded and eventually cut be off if you don’t acknowledge any fallacy the hosts point out.
Hope you call again and make your intentions clear this time!
I’m so sick and tired of Jimmy and his perennial philosophy nonsense.
Jimmy has gotten so much time to express his ideas clearly across multiple shows, but fails to do so every time. I really hope they can filter out his calls, because he does not seem to be able or willing to go into the details or problems of the idea he claims to hold and wanting to promote (Perennial Philosophy).
When they push back on the ideas and examples he tries to get into, he goes into full defense mode denying the objections raised, dodging responsibility to defend his position, accusing the hosts of ignorance on the subject at hand and all sort of evasive tactics to keep his idea untainted.
It seems a waste of time.
Some of Phil’s comments had me crying laughing. He’s so funny.
Matt, if you drive on the other side of the road in Europe, you’re gonna get in trouble with the law in most countries. That is if you survive all the trucks that run over you.
Yes, Michael from California was a frustrating call to listen to. It might well be that his apparent language fluency is far greater than his comprehension in English. I’ve frequently noticed that in students of English from the Middle East. I *think* he was trying to assert that his Christian denomination is the only pure, true one because it came straight from Jesus. Again, I could be wrong, but that might have been because that was what he was taught in his early childhood and then he never questioned it since.
jimmy one-note is axp’s perennial loser.
This episode isn’t showing up in iTunes. It repeats last week’s episode.
Jimmy and Perennial Philosophy
Please block him! He simply repeats his one idea, does not listen and does not respond to any question from the hosts. He does not participate in any discussion. He just eats up airtime for the show and annoys everyone.
I’m on Podcast Addict and it looks like someone uploaded the wrong episode. The info is for #22.22 with Matt and Phil. However, the audio is from a month ago, with Jenn and Phil.
Please make the link point to the correct episode. Like Secular Strategy said, the header of this one said Matt and Phil, but the audio file was with Jen and Phil from a few weeks ago.
BOY am I glad Matt hung up on Jimmy/Kafei. That dude is singularly obnoxious.
I love it when people like Jacob get so butthurt over AXP hanging up on them. Listen, bub, you’re not special. You’re barely memorable. Get over yourself. Predictably, this cretin goes straight for the tu quoque nonsense of “you have faith, too” solely because he’s butthurt.
Oh, the irony of a Muslim whining about Matt calling unfalsifiable beliefs harmful.
LOL Jacob’s going to call back. I’m already suffering from “anticipointment.”
Hello, I was wondering if someone from this show could answer a question for me. I classify myself as a polytheist i guess would be the closest thing to my ideas. Now I don’t practice any religion and I don’t go to church or any other form of religious place. I was just wondering if that would be the correct title in regards to this idea. please let me know if that is a accurate description thanks.
Matt gets butt hurt too easily and hangs up on caller. Matt makes another video after discussion and misrepresents JP by saying he said you need a mystical experience to stop smoking. While it is accurate, it’s out of context. JP was only saying that because he thinks it counts as evidence for super natural. Matt even admits on stage that he is right to count it as.
I believe the caller was asking why matt never bothered to look up post discussion. Matt/JP clearly dont agree on definitions, so does the caller. Also, Phil seems like a nice guy but adds no value to the live show, ever. I can think of 3 hosts I’d get rid of just to have Jeff back.
Just watched episode 22.07, where Jen Peeples stated that Episcopalians had no particular problem with homosexuality. I wanted her to know that the Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal church in America has undergone a number of upheavals and schisms since 2002, beginning with controversy over the ordination of women and accelerating with the ordination/consecration of openly gay priests and bishops. Perhaps the Episcopalians she knows/knew have no problem with it, but there a lot of self-identified Episcopalians who do.
Would it be possible to get a pay feed without ads? I much prefer giving money directly.
Justifying slavery fallacy.
(quite frankly it comes up so much, it might as well be its own thing)
Approximately an hour in we are drawn to Mat trying to get to the validity of the bible, with the slavery example.
Fact is there is no time, as I will show, that slavery is required (let alone moral).
The Caller, seemed to um and ah about societal structure requiring leadership, or in the lest some one on the bottom. Their example is starvation (I assume to people not wanting to farm? (from the callers point of view)).
At no point is it required to be a slave, people will not choose starvation over being comfortable.
You do not have to force people for necessary work. reality, is still there making you hungry.
Slavery is only necessary to the slave master, and even then only in a highly loose sense (since a king could step of the thrown(ah the power of choice)). It can not be shown to have any inherent benefits, and the few perks it has for a slave master, can be sourced from just being a better boss (you can easily research how freedoms have afforded a more rapid pace in improvements, invention ect..).
Its the whole sum greater than its parts thing, and I am aware slavery is amoral, I prefer to dissemble arguments from within themselves as per the persons previous statements.
Slavery is flawed for the slave and ultimately for the master. It is for the same reasoning kings are no longer acceptable forms of government.
Think of all the Neil Degrasse Tysons the world has already missed out on.
End of fucking conversation.
If owning another human has always been wrong as Matt says then he must believe that even if everyone had always and still believes it was right it would still be wrong. If so then it must demonstrate that objective morals exist. Can Matt show how such objective morals which exist regardless of man’s opinions are grounded?
In this episode, Matt talks about how he has previously spoken about: “Is the Bible is misogynistic and patriarchal?” Does anyone have a link for this talk?
@dwillco
Matt has explained this like 45 times over the past month or so on the air, so asking this question as if it hasn’t been addressed is borderline trolling, IMO.