Comments

  1. t90bb says

    I recognized Austin right off. He’s a repeat caller with similar themes. Matt has lost his temper with him several times in the past. I was surprised the conversation got as far as it did tonight. Austin kept trying to butter Matt up by saying things like….”its interesting you would say that” or “we can certainly look into that”…….which was a better approach for him. but perhaps a bit dishonest.

    Austin’s point seemed to be that it would be better/easier to convince people to be moral because god insists upon it, rather than to get them to care about flourishing/well being.. It’s ironic that he made this claim on an atheist show, If it was easy to convince others of his magic fairy, there would be no show to call, lol.. Austin has access to the show and is a frequent caller. Rather than calling about nebulous issues….why doesn’t he take on the assignment of trying to argue that his god actually exists. Seems to be the rational first step in substantiating his claim. They fact that he chooses not to do this (and the fact that hundreds try every year on the show and fail)…..seems to call his claim that its easier to get people to care about god into question. Jus sayin!…….Austin, if you think its easier to convince the non believer to care about god…..then go for it. Next time you call the show make that your goal. But I bet you wont…because you know you cant…which makes your argument self defeated and silly.

  2. Derek Hawke says

    Please excuse me if this is off topic, but I really wanted to ask something. I am an atheist. I am proud of this and fully capable of defending my position on this and many other topics. Its been a tough time for me and I am in a crisis of faith. Yes…FAITH. It is trying to penetrate my mind like some parasitic worm. You see, my grandmother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 4 months later, she was gone. Just like that. I feel so guilty and I despise myself because I dont believe she is in Heaven. I don’t get to take comfort like everyone else that she is watching from above and she will always be with us in spirit. It hurts so bad and it wont go away. The sickness of theism and faith is so strong and I am in a state in which I might be able to let it take hold so I can feel better; even though it will be a lie. We all know if we say a lie over and over again, eventually we think its true.

  3. anti religion says

    I just started watching the show and find it very entertaining. As a Christian myself, I find it stupid for die hard Christians to call the show to try to convince the hosts that a God is real. It is not possible for Christians and Atheists to prove that there is or is not a God. I think the show would be better for those who already have doubts about what they believe and need a support group. I think it would be awesome if all die hard Christians stop calling the show.

  4. The Wild Monk says

    1. How can a unique combination of atoms only (humans) evolve to care about human flourishing? Atoms can THINK and self-reflect about human flourishing? How the fcuk can atheists use science (atoms) to demonstrate atoms need to think about human flourishing? What does it mean my “atoms flourishing?”

    2. How does science demonstrate its presuppositions?

  5. indianajones says

    1. ‘Atoms’ don’t. Emergent complexity does.

    2. Science is a method for describing and investigating stuff. It doesn’t have presuppositions.

    Atoms seem to be a pretty good (but not perfect) model about the universe that makes some useful predictions.

  6. Killian Jones says

    @The Wild Monk. I know this is hard so I’ll say it slowly. Atheists make no claims, we just don’t believe that that the claim there is a god has met it’s burden of proof. Therefore we don’t believe in any god(s). Why do theists find the above statement so hard to understand? Why do they always drag made up garbage into the argument? If you get stuck just re-read my post or ask someone else to read it for you. On your atomic question, Ask a scientist and be prepared to be laughed at.

  7. The Wild Monk says

    How do atheists demonstrate the material is all there is, when the physical is constantly changing, therefore can’t be objective?
    Science is founded on immaterial laws of logic. But where did they come from? Nothing?

  8. The Wild Monk says

    I know this is hard, but how do atheists demonstrate the material is all there is, when the physical is constantly changing, therefore can’t be objective?
    Science is founded on immaterial laws of logic. But where did they come from? Nothing?

    Once atheists try meditation and prevent the wave from collapsing, they realize the physical cannot exist without the immaterial. But most atheists don’t have the patience to meditate 8 hours a day and experience reality.
    If it can be described by language or writing, it isn’t objective.

  9. Killian Jones says

    @The Wild Monk

    Please open a dictionary or google the word ‘Atheist’. (face palm).

  10. III says

    @t90bb

    The theist position, although it is rarely stated as such, is “we don’t HAVE to agree (whew!), we don’t need to rely on moral philosophy or reason (a sweath endeavour!), lucky for us that God has the authority to decide these questions for us.”

    Perhaps one gives up too much ground (in a debate) by asking this, but I always wonder how Austin’s reasoning is justified from an interfaith perspective. If you believe that a moral system, in order to have weight, has to have a divine source … show me how one set of divine set of rules is better than a different divine set. Show, for example, why a Christian is morally beholden to keep kosher.

    And then we’re right back where we started. You must still CONVINCE me that either
    1) Your ethics make rational sense because they are grounded in reality OR that
    2) Rationality/reality may be abandoned because you can prove that your god has a better system than, say my god, something which –apparently — you can show me without using rationality/reason. (Good luck with this.)

  11. indianajones says

    ‘Science is founded on immaterial laws of logic’
    As i stated above, no it isn’t, it just uses them and is yet to find an exception to them.

  12. Theisntist says

    “…most atheists don’t have the patience to meditate 8 hours a day and experience reality.”

    All those darn scientists wasting time with their studies and experiments, when they could learn more sitting in a dark room with their eyes closed! Weird thought how every religion that uses meditation to understand reality has come up with different answers that totally contradict all the others.

  13. says

    If it can be described by language or writing, it isn’t objective.

    Do you ever get tired of inventing your own language? Because if you do, you could just use the same words as the rest of us. Might make communication easier, too.

  14. John David Balla says

    The only way this entire discussion is warranted is if the theist can provide cogent evidence that their particular god exists. Without that this is a big time waster. It’s one big deflection and I wouldn’t be surprised if the theists in this discussion are “high-fiving” each other over this tactical success.

  15. John David Balla says

    Matt’s notion of “well-being” has roots in the “golden rule” which can be traced back to Confucious. It is merely a refinement, and a good one at that, for establishing a reasonable standard for which all moral questions can be assessed. Divine moral precepts have tons of problems. First, they are merely proclamations. Second, many of them, i.e., worshiping other gods, eating shellfish, providing rules for owning slaves, are not moral.

  16. Kentucky Boy says

    I wonder if all those priests who abused children believed in god? Good basis for a moral system!

  17. t90bb says

    12 and 13….yes JDB……..For Austins argument to be seriously considered….he must first demonstrate his magic fairy exists. Otherwise its silly. Unless hes arguing strictly for the utility of religious belief. Perhaps his argument is…that its easier to influence behavior by convincing people that a potentially fictitious concept is real…..than it is to get them to care about human well being. But I do not think so. He is a theist.

    Austins hypothesis avoids the biggest hurdle entirely…..that being that belief that a god exists is rationally justified.

    Austins claim is that it is easier to get people to behave morally by convincing them that:
    a. God exists
    b. God has an expressed clear set of moral instructions it desires us obey
    c. We should care about these instructions

    I think Austin would have a problem establishing any of the above..but without establishing a, b and c seem irrelevant to me.

    That is not to say that Matts claims would also be difficult to prove, which Matt stated several times.

    Bottom line…Austin seems to want to avoid the argument for gods existence altogether…..as someone who lacks belief I cannot say I blame him, lol….

    Austin seems an example of a sophisticated thinker,, who desperately wants his god to be real. In all honestly, it must be pretty frustrating to always hold a losing hand. Call me delusional but I hold out hope that Austin may one day become intellectually honest and join our side. I will be praying for that. Cough cough.

  18. t90bb says

    Wild Monkey…….

    ahhh the laws of logic. I am definitely not the sophisticated thinker some of my friends on the board are, but it seems to me the laws of logic came to be when our local universe (or reality) came to be. They describe how things “are” or “are not”. Where did reality come from??? I do not know. I am open to all possibilities including a creator. I just need a demonstration of any possibility being rationally justified. Until then, I am afraid I have to be intellectually honest and admit I do not know. The nature of your argumentation early in this thread is a text book argument from ignorance. That is…”you don’t know how”….therefore a magic fairy had to have done it……..
    So your making a positive claim that requires a burden of proof. That burden is not met by you stating “I cannot think of any other………”
    I know it must be greatly frustrating for you based on the following:…

    a. you assert god exists
    b. you assert god wants us to know it exists
    c. god is without limitations
    d. GOD leaves you with such an empty sack of evidence

    Like I said…must be frustrating!

  19. Monocle Smile says

    The Wild Monk is an obvious troll. Do not feed it.
    Austin’s call reeks slightly of “the little people need god” nonsense that I hear somewhat often.

  20. GumB. says

     
    Austin (repeatedly): “It’s really interesting that you would say that …”

     
    Translation:
    “Wow, you’ve just absolutely smashed the crap out of my argument …”

     
    Apparently, Austin finds the sensation of cognitive dissonance to be “really interesting.”

     
    😀

     
    Austin doesn’t appear to actually believe in his god for real, but instead argues that people require a fearful external motivator in order to compel them to behave cooperatively with others in society. That sure isn’t saying much for the internal scruples of those people he speaks of, or about himself for that matter. To me, Austin seems to be making a case for god not being real, but for just being a necessary and convenient lie in order to keep people in line. To me, that’s what he was pointing out; that god isn’t actually real, but is instead just a fabricated intellectual thought mechanism for scaring people into conformity. I wonder what his fellow believers would think of his insight? Didn’t he just basically call them all dumb believers of a manipulative lie?

     
    “the little people need god”

     
    Yup, that was pretty much his angle … god is not true, but just a necessary fabrication in order to manipulate people.

     
    I agree with Austin: god is just a fabricated imaginary social mechanism (but, I disagree with him that it is a good one.)

     
    I find it really interesting that Austin, a professed believer, would make that argument … (lol)

  21. Ray Smith says

    So far I have listened to the first 4 callers. Matt hung up on 3 of them. I mean this in the kindest way possible; I think Matt needs to review the survey results from a year or so ago. One of the complaints was Matt losing his temper so quickly. The 3rd caller, (the one who was not hung up on), began her call by saying Matt intimidates her. He intimidates me as a listener. I greatly respect his knowledge and I have learned from him. I want to continue learning from him. But it is hard when I’m sitting here listening, wanting the theist callers to get to their points, and right before they are there, Matt dumps them. It is frustrating to listen to. Here is my suggestion for Matt. (And I realize it is his show and he doesn’t have to care what I think.) When you are in a conversation with someone who has a different viewpoint than you, you should expect them to say things that don’t make sense to you or that you disagree with. When that happens, it would be best to allow them some freedom to get to their point without interruption, and to remain calm. Think of this as taking the high road in the conversation. Your goal should be to understand them so you can know where your views differ from their’s. Then you can calmly explain where you believe they are incorrect and why. But if you never let them get to their point, they will never get to learn from you. I know dumping them usually gets an applause from the crowd, but that is not your goal. The goal is to educate and change minds if possible. Remember, the caller is generally not as far along this journey as you are Matt. They are generally nervous and may not say things exactly correct the first time. Think of it as a conversation and not a debate. Thanks for reading this. Enjoy the show, most of the time.

  22. HappyPerson says

    @#14 t90bb
    someone said that the only difference between a ‘smart’ theist and a ‘regular’ believer is how they attempt to justify their claims. the arguments are still flawed, just that those that are smarter are just better at making the claims stronger than they actually are.this might describe austin’s situation.

  23. bluestar says

    MS Standard comment #18

    Anyone that posts here with a different point of view is an “obvious troll.”

    Dayum, don’t you ever get tired of saying that?

  24. anti religion says

    As a Christian I find it stupid that die hard Christians call The Atheist Experience show to try to prove to the hosts that God is real. First off, it is not possible for Atheists and Christians to prove that a God does or does not exist. I think it would be awesome if die hard Christians stop calling The Atheist Experience show.

  25. says

    existence claims are solved by producing the thing in dispute. i find it really interesting that those who insist on the existence claims of a thing that wants to be produced to everyone cannot produce it.

  26. namidim says

    I have to admit… I’m getting tired of Matt angrily hanging up on people and then arguing with them in absentia afterwards. And I’d like to hear more from the other hosts or at least for them to have more of a chance to talk without being interrupted. I mean I sort of get the entertainment aspect. And although it’s tired to me maybe it’s new to others, but I get the feeling there is a base of long-term fans. So am I missing something? Do you find it fun, annoying? What do you get out of it?

  27. Serge Rubinstein says

    Why does Matt never answers callers like Austin asking about where atheists get their morals from with the universal criterium of Jean-Paul Sartre, ie an action is moral if it matches the universal criterium. It is the answer to the question “what if everyone did the same ? “

  28. Serge Rubinstein says

    @ John David Balla : The problem with moral values of religions is that they are absolute. For example : Lying is a sin. but the people who helped Jews in Europe during WW II have been lying day after day for five long years to the german ocuppier. Sin ? …

  29. Vincent Thomas says

    @Serge Rubinstein. The bible does have some stories of people lying and it never being condemned. Such as Rahab and the Egyptian midwives, etc. I think these are OK because it was not for their personal gain in my opinion. Lies of Jacob and Abraham probably were sinful because their hearts were sinful, they were for personal gain in some way. So I would say your example would not be sinful.

  30. John David Balla says

    @ Serge Rubinstein. That’s one of the many problems. When pronouncements such as “don’t eat shellfish” or “don’t wear mixed fabrics” enter the fray, it’s hard to take this so-called morality seriously. It’s so obviously made up. The only people that can believe it are the people who actually can believe such things, which they don’t. They can’t. But God says otherwise so accommodations must be made which is where the religious masturbation comes in. Making sense out of things that don’t make any sense becomes an achievement. But clearly when you’re starting from the absurd anything goes.

  31. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Serge Rubinstein #23:
    Do you have a source for the term “universal criterium”?
     
    Googling that phrase with Sartre only turns up comments that are slight variations of #23, repeated here and on other sites. Kant’s “categorical imperative“, for instance, has an article on Wikipedia.
     
    Article: StackExchange – Does Sartre imitate Kant in moral philosophy?

    Kant walks away with an imperative–a rule–whereas Sartre walks away with, at most, a guideline: that whatever you do, you’re defining humanity, so take that into account when you act (in an absolutely free way).

  32. Serge Rubinstein says

    I think you’ll have to check french sites : critère d’universalité.

  33. Monocle Smile says

    @Serge
    Matt doesn’t answer like that because that doesn’t describe how he views morality, at least not in a sufficient sense. Why would you expect Matt to respond with something he doesn’t hold himself?

  34. t90bb says

    I was spending some time reviewing the show and became particularly interested in the first caller, Nicholas. He like some of the others was a repeat caller who i recognized. He went right on the attack against the show by questioning for its goal as well as why any of those that take part in it take pride in their work. He was angry and his voice shook a bit in what I recognized as rage.

    I thought Phil and Matt did well with Nicholas. They seemed more amused than threatened and never did they match Nicholas’ tone or intensity which was great. They were not threatened in the least. They explained that some of the goals of the show were to promote critical thinking and to have open and honest discussions. Obviously the show focuses on religious/spiritual beliefs or lack thereof so it reasonable to expect critical thinking and open discussion regarding belief in god.

    And this got me thinking and eventually chuckling to myself. As i grew up I was heavily influenced and indoctrinated by a family member. I cannot count the times he would say that an honest thorough read of the Bible (and discussion thereof). would produce absolute undeniable proof of the truth, wisdom, beauty, and divinity of cChristianity in particular. Basically, like others Christians I grew up with, they would say fair and open minded discussion of Christianity would win the day every time….because it was true.

    Why do I mention this? It made me reflect on Nicholas call. He was totally pissed that we would critically look at religion and hold honest discussions. You would think, as a Christian you would want constant open critical dialogue, if you really believed your book and arguments would so soundly win the day.

    You would expect, that if religion, or specifically Christianity were true, Christian callers would line up and run rings around the shows hosts. You would also expect famous and renown apologists to call regularly to make fools out of the show. Do not get me wrong, rarely a well known apologist will call….but its rare. More often these apologists hold there own after show hangouts to pick apart the show, but they are too fearful to call directly because they see the down side. They will pick at the show from afar, but don’t dare enter the actual arena.

    It made me realize something that was probably more obvious to most of you. Nicholas, and people like him, are not really angry at having open and honest conversations per se, they are angry at the results of these discussions. They demean the conversation as bickering and small talk in part because of the results of these discussions. Now keeping in mind if the theists actually had logic and truth on their side……wouldn’t these discussions go,and end, very different??? But they do not, do they???

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    jus say’n

  35. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Serge Rubinstein #27:

    Do you have a source for the term “universal criterium”?

    I think you’ll have to check french sites : critère d’universalité.

    Still not a lot of hits for that. Odd. Sartre’s kind of a big name. Would’ve expected chatter. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions it in passing.
     
     
    Article: IEP – Jean Paul Sartre: Existentialism

    There are in fact many statements in Being and Nothingness which emphasise a universality criterion not entirely dissimilar from Kant’s. This should come as no surprise since both Sartre and Kant’s approaches are based upon the ultimate value of a strong notion of freedom. As Sartre points out, by choosing, an individual commits not only himself, but the whole of humanity (BN, 553).
     
    Although there are no a priori values for Sartre, the agent’s choice creates values in the same way as the artist does in the aesthetic realm. The values thus created by a proper exercise of my freedom have a universal dimension, in that any other human being could make sense of them were he to be placed in my situation. There is therefore a universality that is expressed in particular forms in each authentic project. This is a first manifestation of what Sartre later refers to as the ‘singular universal‘.

     
    That phrasing’s not popular either. The book is under copyright, so I couldn’t pin down a canonical translation.

  36. says

    Now keeping in mind if the theists actually had logic and truth on their side……wouldn’t these discussions go,and end, very different??? But they do not, do they???

    Which is why you get those people who claim that we all know god is real, we just love sin so much we can’t admit it. It’s an attempt, however feeble, to explain why their arguments keep failing.

  37. Marc C says

    Hi,

    I found the discussion with Nicholas on objective morality very insightful and well brought forward. I would like to add just two quick comments/additions if I may.
    I believe that it would be important to demonstrate that the thoughts brought forward are not only a purely theoretical construct, but they could actually be introduced in real life. For this, the decisions on what constitutes well-being would need to be agreed upon and codified and eventually enforced.

    In order to make this a fair excel use it would be necessary that all people affected by these rules can contribute to them and that there is a process to constantly review and change them based on new evidence.

    Turns out this is not too far away from what is being tried in secular democracies, though still far from perfect, imho they are the best working model of how people’s consensus about right and wrong can be elevated to established, objective and transparent rule or law.

    I know this does not constitute the entire body of morality, but probably a fair and important portion.

    I hope, this comment is welcome and maybe helpful,

    Regards and thanks for your great efforts,
    Marc (Germany)

  38. greenjelly01 says

    How can someone use the behavior of a terminally ill man to discredit Matt’s version of secular morality, while completely ignoring the ACTUAL PAST ACTIONS of religious nutters killing themselves to kill others?? Terrorist suicide attacks are PROOF that religious morality is immoral.

  39. Robink says

    Oh good, Austin’s back from the land of the hypothetical, the place where he’s managed to convince himself, if noone else, that believing in God makes you more moral and have greater “intrinsic worth” (I would love to see a non-nebulous description of that because I agree with Phil that I place a lot more value in the worth reality assigns to me than what a omnipotent creator does).

    Austin’s argument continues to founder on two levels:

    1. Without sufficient evidence your chosen moral authority (in this case God) even exists there is no value to a system derived from it
    2. Even if it’s proven to exist we still need a separate system to determine that their morality is in fact “objective” and desirable to us. This is what Matt was trying to explain in saying that this only adds a second, more complicated, and entirely unfounded step.

    If you want to invest in hypothetical moral systems that are superior to one ground in real world cost-benefit analysis you can do a lot better than a God proposition. What it people just intrinsically knew in their mind what the “right” thing was to do in every scenario? Wouldn’t that by definition be better? Yes, but it’s also a useless conclusion.

    As for poor Don, I don’t know if he has some issues but he keeps calling back supposedly prepared and then getting hopelessly befuddled by his own argument. A clear case of someone with a presupposition who is desperately peddling backwards to justify it but lacking the intellect to understand the path he’s taken.

  40. anti religion says

    I don’t understand why die hard Christians call the show. I mean, it is not possible for a die hard Christian to convince an atheist that a God is real, it has never happened. It would be awesome if all die hard Christians stop calling the show. I think the show is better for those who already have doubts about religion and need a support group.

  41. Monocle Smile says

    @Ray Smith

    Your goal should be to understand them so you can know where your views differ from their’s. Then you can calmly explain where you believe they are incorrect and why

    I don’t know what show you’re listening to, but Matt does exactly this until the caller starts getting violently dishonest, which is often. I simply do not buy that the callers who roll out shitty apologetics fully believe the bullshit they spout. Also, fuck calmness. Calmness achieves very little, especially when you’re dealing with people who wish harm upon your group.

    Furthermore, the show is NOT about convincing the caller of anything. The hosts have always been crystal clear that the show is for the viewers, not the callers. Who cares whether or not a caller comes away convinced? Most of them are too far gone for a phone call to help them with anything.

  42. Monocle Smile says

    Listened to the Nicholas call again. Fuck that guy and everyone like him.

    Don’s wife was correct about his problem, but his bigger problem is that he’s a dumb asshole with zero self-awareness.

    @anti religion
    Again, the show is about the viewers, not the callers. I’m glad when “die hard” christians call the show, because it exposes the ludicrous nature of their beliefs.

  43. GumB. says

     
    Monocle Smile #46

    “I’m glad when “die hard” christians call the show, because it exposes the ludicrous nature of their beliefs.”

     
    One of the biggest exposures for me is how, when stumped, they react with self righteousness and start threatening and judging and condemning. For me, it exposes how religion warps people’s morality … they become hierarchical and start condemning others. That’s when they rush out and start legislating their ancient beliefs onto other groups that aren’t even actually bothering or affecting them in any real tangible way. It’s pretty obnoxious actually … scaring and threatening people just to try and intimidate then into going along with you. That’s … just being a bully then.

     
    It’s a personal opinion I hold, but I don’t subscribe to the notion of, “hey, but you can believe what you want.” To me, religion trains anti social behavior into groups and pits them against others. That’s one of its main dysfunctions. It’s absurd to me this argument that christianity (for example) makes people benevolent, or kind, or compassionate. I look at how they behave, how they treat others not from their circle, not at their hollow “claims” of benevolence. To me, religion is the scourge at the root of social intolerance … not the touchstone of social inclusion or benevolence like the story goes.

     
    How un self aware can these people actually be. The first caller showed that he was clearly angry, it was like hatred. And Austin can’t hide his arrogance and feeling of being above the hosts and superior to them either. That’s, what religion does to the mind. It promotes hatred and judgement and creates artificial hierarchies regarding people’s “worth.” I doesn’t promote any sort of benevolence. That’s the boots on the ground observation of it in actual practice.

  44. Monocle Smile says

    @GumB
    I’m in full agreement with taking issue with what people believe. The whole “believe what you want” thing sounds like privilege to me.

    On another note, I’m a big fan of your posts on the blog so far. Good to have you here.

  45. GumB. says

    @Monocle Smile
    Thanks for the welcome. I’m happy to have stumbled across the place. I can’t even remember now what it was that I was looking at on utube when The Atheist Experience popped up. Suddenly, I was entertained for days watching the hosts do their thing with the callers show after show. Then, I found my way to the blog and immediately tangled with “he who quite possibly shouldn’t be named.”

     
    I may debate sometimes, and sometimes I might just be expressing myself. All in all, I’m glad I found the place. For the time being, I won’t be far away even if I’m not posting. I have a pretty strong opinion about the damage religiosity does to people socially.

     
    I also never realized Austin was a place that bucked the Texas trend. No wonder Austin City Limits is such a great arts program (I’m up here in Canada … in Alberta, Texas North as they call it, aherm.) 😀

  46. Joe says

    Claim;
    Nobody believes in gods or the supernatural.

    The proof is that nobody can prove they actually believe in gods or the supernatural deep in their heart.

    See? Skeptics can play the circular argument game also.

  47. RedDust says

    Hi AXP Team!

    Please reach out to Apostate Prophet to be a guest on your show. He is an ex-muslim and he is BRILLIANT!

    Thanks to your show, i am an ex-muslim today, and i would love to see more Islam bashing on your show.

    Realising that god/Allah was most likely a made up story has been a major life transition for me and thanks to your show and other shows like these i managed to deal really well with the whole transition.

    Thank you AXP team.

  48. InnerBoyka says

    When I think about the fact that the AE in a way is a public face of atheism, I sometimes cringe when I listen to the answers the hosts give. For example the question (in episode 22.26) “if your life is finite why do you take pride in your work” should be a no-brainer to an atheist. It is EXACTLY because our life is finite that an atheist would take pride in helping others realize that they should seriously reflect on theism and how it influences their lives (like their personal freedom , life decisions, how they judge others, what they consider a “good” and meaningful life) before it is too late rather than just believe what they were taught by some authority figure.
    I wish I was cherry picking but every time I’m tune in, I’m disappointed by a fair number of answers that I would think people who have been atheists as long as they have, would have pretty much nailed by now. Most of the show these days IMO reduces to the hosts spending about 5 minutes trying to define what the caller is asking (which is important) and then spending 10 minutes giving convoluted answers to the questions by playing word games (parsing words, arguing what they meant by a particular word, quibbling that they are misquoted, etc). Somehow the hosts seem to have forgot the basic tenants and principles of atheism and replaced them it with philosophy.
    All good things must come to an end; maybe Atheist Experience should hang it up or step aside for another atheist based show.

  49. Monocle Smile says

    @InnerBoyka
    This seems a bit like concern trolling. Given that AXP has the largest audience they’ve ever had and they continue to receive loads of emails from people thanking them for providing a positive message, your post is just like, your opinion, dude.
    Matt DID respond to the Nicholas character like you wanted, but he’s not given to pithy one-liners.

    The suggestion that AXP should “hang it up” is one of the most absurd things I’ve heard in 2018.

  50. t90bb says

    52. innerboyka…..

    1. dont watch
    2. start your own show
    3. just go away

    never been happier with the axp

  51. efersept says

    …And the story, that claims without evidence that the number of gumballs is even, is mostly wrong about the color and size of most of the gumballs and the shape of the jar.

Leave a Reply

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