tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post5608223719574834470..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open Thread / Show #699: Tracie & MattUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86225679153911388612011-03-14T14:21:16.431-05:002011-03-14T14:21:16.431-05:00@tracieh I just listened to your talk at the begin...@tracieh I just listened to your talk at the beginning of this episode. Very, very good. One thing that occurred to me that I don't know if anyone brought up: if we did suddenly uncover evidence of dragons existing, dragons would no longer be in the supernatural bin--they'd be in the natural bin like any other animal. This is true of every supernatural 'cause'. If we had evidence of gods or ghosts, they wouldn't be supernatural or paranormal, they'd be natural and normal.Ibishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354547321603494421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65037339116202885152011-03-14T11:04:43.727-05:002011-03-14T11:04:43.727-05:00Arguementum ad Timeywimey?Arguementum ad Timeywimey?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09410805080108311574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49799601326577408022011-03-11T05:56:40.989-06:002011-03-11T05:56:40.989-06:00@tracieh - fair enough. I listened to it again, af...@tracieh - fair enough. I listened to it again, after he agrees that empirical evidence backed logic trumps pure logic he doesn't go back on it. For some reason I felt like he did.<br /><br />Has he emailed in? I'm not expecting live email to email coverage or anything, but just knowing he'd got in contact would be satisfying.<br /><br />@Ing - yeah, if anything his introduction of future events causing past events gives an extra reason for not assuming a supernatural cause, since it adds another way nature can do it. So that was just weird.BloggytheBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373977167347907630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37547553469760877512011-03-10T10:32:13.708-06:002011-03-10T10:32:13.708-06:00Also apparently science-blogs is getting repeated ...Also apparently science-blogs is getting repeated DOSAs. Not that I think it *IS* Christian nutters, but I don't think it isn't either. Anyone have thoughts?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34010225015668578862011-03-10T10:29:56.673-06:002011-03-10T10:29:56.673-06:00So...if this guy is arguing that future events can...So...if this guy is arguing that future events can cause past events (retro-causality) and this may be a natural features of the universe. Why couldn't the universe have made itself via a backwards time arrow? I fail to see how that helps a God argument at all.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80432124981690682452011-03-08T20:42:43.424-06:002011-03-08T20:42:43.424-06:00"I think I can safely say that nobody underst..."I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."<br />Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)Sillysighbeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02819978295291712189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50863938119566231522011-03-08T17:38:08.785-06:002011-03-08T17:38:08.785-06:00Clearly the caller isn't available for me to a...Clearly the caller isn't available for me to ask, but I took him to be saying that when logic and empiricism conflict, empiricism wins hands down.<br /><br />His clarification was that in areas where we lack empirical evidence, we can reasonably speculate about what might be.<br /><br />We agreed even to that point. Where we ended up at odds was whether there was any reasonable bridge between "seems there must be a cause" and "god exists." I don't think he ever made that crossing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43911006576764290742011-03-08T14:05:35.397-06:002011-03-08T14:05:35.397-06:00I would much rather have the hosts go back and for...I would much rather have the hosts go back and forth with one theist for the whole hour, than turn the show into a game where we see how many theists Matt can tell to shut up and hang up on in the time alloted. Any asshat with a switchboard can do that. I can't speak for the other fans, but I like the show because Matt and the other hosts listen to the questions, and then make good points and put forward strong arguments. It helps me think about how I'd answer the same question -- I've even started pausing the podcast before the hosts give their responses,think about how I'd respond if the question or argument was posed to me, then start the show again to see where we differed in our approaches. Sometimes it forces me to rethink my own positions. Sometimes I think my way was better, and the hosts are available here and via email to discuss it.* <br /><br />If "no no no you're done" is what you want the show to be, that clip exists on YouTube. Go put that on a loop on Sunday afternoons and let them do the show the way they (and many of us, the fans) like. <br /><br />*(Which is a privilege I've come to appreciate even more now that I've gone back to work my way through the show archives. It's REALLY frustrating to watch a seven-year-old show and want to respond. I just watched an episode where Ashley went on about Mithra and Osiris and I was tearing my hair out.)Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22675745854337780932011-03-08T11:05:27.843-06:002011-03-08T11:05:27.843-06:00We need one theist in particular to call back: the...We need one theist in particular to call back: the "you are inane philistines, postmodern relativist atheists" guy. He would be worth an entire hour.zoomzoom12https://www.blogger.com/profile/00049985356181888299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20766833452780962832011-03-08T09:54:44.170-06:002011-03-08T09:54:44.170-06:00I don't understand the attitude of dumping the...I don't understand the attitude of dumping theists or rushing through them. Once we get one on the air, we should cling to them as long as possible.<br /><br />Occasionally, an atheist calls with something interesting to say, which is fine, but we seem to want to get them off the phones too.<br /><br />.. so is the goal to see how many calls we can get on the air? We can maximize that if we give them 2 seconds each.<br /><br />Theistic calls should end when we've stopped making progress (not entered any infinite loops, etc).JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82258500287091421122011-03-07T23:31:14.468-06:002011-03-07T23:31:14.468-06:00I agree he admitted empiricism trumped logic, but ...I agree he admitted empiricism trumped logic, but I also agree with Dorkman that he continued on after that as if he hadn't agreed to it.<br /><br />With any luck he'll email in and you can post a back and forth chain here, or he'll call again (and be more concise).<br /><br />I like the long, rambling guys. They're more intelligent, they've put more thought into their beliefs, and they can be shown the flaws in their arguments just as easily. It's nice to mix it up - all short & sweet and bagging out armchair theologians gets boring. You've gotta have the occasional combo breaker.BloggytheBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373977167347907630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9593485559117842922011-03-07T23:27:07.598-06:002011-03-07T23:27:07.598-06:00Next watch me pull a rabbit from my hat by reason ...Next watch me pull a rabbit from my hat <i>by reason alone!</i><br /><br />Never mind the evidence, this is reason.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10186865841853928988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54912795960935256672011-03-07T20:35:41.877-06:002011-03-07T20:35:41.877-06:00So, he clarified what he meant, but in the end, he...<i>So, he clarified what he meant, but in the end, he did admit that when it comes to a choice between empirically demonstrated reality vs. logical conclusion, you have to go with empirical reality.</i><br /><br />I don't think he realized that's what he admitted, though. I think he came away thinking he'd explained to you how logic trumps empiricism and gotten <i>you</i> to agree. That's me presuming to read his mind somewhat, but given that he then attempted to proceed to argue for God on the basis of logic alone, I don't think the point got through to him -- though it's certainly fair to say you did address it.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50295433248660943662011-03-07T18:38:29.802-06:002011-03-07T18:38:29.802-06:00Just to clarify, I don’t know how this has been ov...Just to clarify, I don’t know how this has been overlooked, but I did address his statement that logic trumps empiricism.<br /><br />I repeated what he’d said “logic trumps empiricism.” Then I asked him, if I accept a logical conclusion that seems logically iron clad to me, and then am confronted by someone demonstrating empirically to me, unambiguously, that the conclusion I accepted is in opposition to empirical reality, are you saying I should maintain the aforementioned accepted logical conclusion is correct?<br /><br />He answered no, and agreed that in such a case a person would have to go with empiricism.<br /><br />In my book, when logic points to X, and empiricism points to not-X, and we agree empiricism wins—that’s empiricism trumping logic, not the other way around. So, he clarified what he meant, but in the end, he did admit that when it comes to a choice between empirically demonstrated reality vs. logical conclusion, you have to go with empirical reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68996639036536413252011-03-07T17:20:09.909-06:002011-03-07T17:20:09.909-06:00did you guys see that a penguin is posting on this...did you guys see that a penguin is posting on this thread??? looks like evolution is out the window!!! <br /><br />Wish there had been more callers on the show. I am constantly disappointed when the first thing a caller says is "love you guys, love your show" since there is a big chance the next 10-20 minutes is going to suck. The first caller took up so much time and it's not something that couldn't have been asked by e-mail instead.<br /><br />I know the show doesn't pick it's callers. With the shorter time format, hopefully the hosts won't give quite as much time to atheist fans who are used to posting comments on youtube videos filled with nonesense and now want to hear themselves talk.TroopDawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03472898670398412674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81234408724565391142011-03-07T16:17:53.419-06:002011-03-07T16:17:53.419-06:00Maybe The AE could partner with the RD Foundation....Maybe The AE could partner with the RD Foundation. RD could provide some funding and visibility on his site, and AE could have an RDF advertisement as a banner or in a prominent place on the main ACA site.<br /><br />Perhaps the additional funding and visibility would allow the show to reman in Austin but go completely Internet (thus 90 minutes) with state-of-the-art equipment. And then RD and other of the Horsemen could appear on shows from time to time.<br /><br />Just some ideas, which I'm sure the AE hosts have considered.zoomzoom12https://www.blogger.com/profile/00049985356181888299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36769077990123547292011-03-07T16:15:10.621-06:002011-03-07T16:15:10.621-06:00Rambling callers are a tough thing to deal with, e...Rambling callers are a tough thing to deal with, especially with the truncated show.<br /><br />Matt did say that he could short-circuit the argument but wanted to give the guy a chance.<br /><br />It seemed to me that the concept that he was trying get across was not best served by a being explained in a time constrained phone conversation.<br /> Advising the caller to write his thoughts down and emailing to the show for future discussion may have been the way to go.<br /> I know it has been suggested to other callers in the past and can potentially looks as though you running away from an discussionRaymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6749366913612571712011-03-07T16:12:11.765-06:002011-03-07T16:12:11.765-06:00I agree, Mamba24, the shortened time period makes ...I agree, Mamba24, the shortened time period makes the rambling calls seem longer, and they crowd out other callers. Can you imagine a TAG debate in the hour format? It would take 30 mins to define conceptual!!!zoomzoom12https://www.blogger.com/profile/00049985356181888299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26112011050722534692011-03-07T15:59:13.573-06:002011-03-07T15:59:13.573-06:00I thought the last caller was reasonably handled, ...I thought the last caller was reasonably handled, yeah Matt and Tracie might have been a little too generous, but the conversation was kind of interesting.(Although I don't think the caller really made any legitimate points to support his views). So maybe they could have cut to the chase a little sooner and got some more callers on. It did seem when Matt kind of shut his argument down, the caller just said.."Well okay, I kind of see your point,... But..." <br /><br />And he did this a few times during the conversation when he really had no ground left to do so. It was a little interesting to listen to I guess at first, but after ten minutes or so I started getting bored.<br /><br />This just goes to show that we need the hour and half format back. It usually always takes at least 7 or 8 minutes for Matt to get through all the announcements which are usually the same every time. Then another ten to fifteen minutes for the co-host to talk about their subject. At this point there is little more than 30 minutes left in the show. Then they just plow through calls in which most of the time are just atheists telling them how great their show is and seek advice for some personal problem of theirs. Then some theist calls and presents some argument we've heard a million times and it drones on for ten or fifteen minutes and all of a sudden there is two minutes left in the show, in which they plow through another couple calls. It's always nice to hear the "Mark" callers, but I wish there was more time to talk about current events and news and how they may relate to atheism in general.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74731012314225606812011-03-07T15:30:31.949-06:002011-03-07T15:30:31.949-06:00Kazim, some of us did not want the caller to be sh...Kazim, some of us did not want the caller to be shut down; rather, encouraged to condense his arguments. <br /><br />Matt did try, valiantly, but the caller kept dragging the conversation into quantum physics, cosmology, and general rambling. To this listener, it seemed that Matt was being overly generous in allowing the caller to meander.<br /><br />I would suggest that there isn't a binary solution: be a jerk or let the caller ramble, but ideally a middle ground of keeping the caller on point, which Matt and the other hosts typically do exceptionally well. <br /><br />We are rabid fans; this is only intended as feedback - constructive criticism - that you may want to consider as your show gains in popularity. We want you to succeed.zoomzoom12https://www.blogger.com/profile/00049985356181888299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59855261006305662762011-03-07T15:22:00.041-06:002011-03-07T15:22:00.041-06:00Having actually listened to the whole episode now,...Having actually listened to the whole episode now, I was a little surprised Matt or Tracie did not try to go after the whole logic trumps empiricism thing. As Dorkman illustrates, this can be done quite quickly.<br /><br />Not to be too much of a Monday morning quarterback, but the long and rambling arguments of the last caller really came down to an argument from ignorance, and I don't really see the point of arguing with someone who does not put evidence foremost in evaluating truth. I think the story Tracie told at the beginning of the show more or less beat his argument before he even stated it.<br /><br />At least he was articulate and civil. I guess on those accounts I am glad Matt entertained him as long as he did. Not much other merit to the call though.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61626244769960372632011-03-07T14:59:01.552-06:002011-03-07T14:59:01.552-06:00@dave
That really sucks. As a 3rd person observer...@dave<br /><br />That really sucks. As a 3rd person observer, it's easy to just say "to hell with her then", but that's what she's doing to you.<br /><br />Not surprising that the theist is the closed minded one.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75795125350199783692011-03-07T14:21:49.848-06:002011-03-07T14:21:49.848-06:00"I don't believe in the supernatural. At ..."I don't believe in the supernatural. At all.<br /><br />Theists like to equate the supernatural with things that are as yet unknown and unexplained. At the risk of sounding trite, when and if these things become know and explained, then they will be natural."<br /><br />agreedOGIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901949919733451411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76459580159498888452011-03-07T13:39:03.297-06:002011-03-07T13:39:03.297-06:00The caller that was talking about his girlfriend b...The caller that was talking about his girlfriend being a believer and him being an atheist is the same situation I'm going through. My wife and I have been fighting about me being an atheist for over 3 years. Were now separated because she can't accept me as an atheist.DaveKoppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12658201775945426067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87033178369022690272011-03-07T13:32:10.437-06:002011-03-07T13:32:10.437-06:00Something I hope I never see in the chat room duri...Something I hope I never see in the chat room during the show again:<br /><br />"Matt, just yell 'No, no, no, no, no, you're done!' and hang up!"<br /><br />It can be amusing as a one-off clip to shut somebody down like that, but as a reoccurring catch phrase it would completely suck.<br /><br />Guys, you may take delight in fantasies of just telling every theist to shut up and go away, but that's really not what our show is about. That guy may have been long-winded but he was respectful and did offer a discussion that was a grade above what we often get (i.e., "Durrrr, look at the trees.") We are not about to create some kind of across the board policy to yell at people and hang up on them every time they identify as believers. That does <i>not</i> look like winning a debate, no matter what the chat room thinks; it would make us look like cranky, short-tempered, insecure cranks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.com