Others Commented under Matt's Video

Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad · Others Commented under Matt's Video · More answering other comments · Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse

I mean the video I started analysing yesterday or even the day before that.

I

Scooter Tuner

The caller is a flat Earther.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Don’t use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.

If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a “cultural Catholic” and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Don’t shy away from the term. Embrace it.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

Not all non-religious people are atheists, but…

In recent surveys, the Pew Research Center has grouped atheists, agnostics, and the “unaffiliated” into one category. The so-called “Nones” are the fastest growing “religious” demographic in the United States. Pew separates out atheists from agnostics and the non-religious, but that is primarily a function of self-identification. Only about 5% of people call themselves atheists, but if you ask about belief in gods, 11% say they do not believe in gods. Those people are atheists, whether they choose to use the word or not.

A recent survey from University of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle found that as many as 26% of Americans may be atheists. This study was designed to overcome the stigma associated with atheism and the potential for closeted atheists to abstain from “outing” themselves even when speaking anonymously to pollsters. The full study is awaiting publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science journal. Even more people say that their definition of “god” is simply a unifying force between all people. Or that they aren’t sure what they believe. If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist.

Being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced.

Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.

All atheists are different

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

Atheists exist across the political spectrum. We are members of every race. We are members of the LGBTQ* community. There are atheists in urban, suburban, and rural communities and in every state of the nation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How many people YOU would call atheists do not believe at least one of the following:

• reality follows physical laws admitting of no exception, and all non-physical (or not directly physical) causalities are just elaborations of physical causality
• hence, no soul in man, mind is an elaboration of brain
• hence, no intelligent designer, life and mind arose as byproducts of sth else ultimately physical?

"This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope."

Reminds me, how many people YOU would call atheists do not object to one of the following:

• sacred scripture
• dogma
• papacy
• Catholic sexual morality?

II

Matthew McCone

Only but a fool would say he believed scripture then say he's an athiest. A liar and a fool would speak as so, because God's word clearly states that foolish people will try to use science falsely so called against faith. Scripture clearly states that evidence of the unseen is faith. To then say faith is of those that are gullible, is to say he never was a Christian in the first place. This man never had faith, he is a liar. Otherwise this man would not go against scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apostasy is possible even for true believers (being so up to apostasy).

III

FunkyMonkeyJedi

Like George, many just simply can't be salvaged....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, going Atheist or at least Agnostic is "being salvaged" ...

FunkyMonkeyJedi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl looks like you understand stupidity pretty well with that deduction Einstein.....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@FunkyMonkeyJedi Thanks for making my point!

FunkyMonkeyJedi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl keep running on assumptions, that keeps the flame of willful ignorance alive. Why should that change now, right? and if you wish to believe that I've made your point, little do you know you've proven mine perfectly.

You're like that idiot caller that can't seem to grasp the simple premise of "making your argument" and stating your case. go back to ignorantly and blindly thumping your bible!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@FunkyMonkeyJedi Your actual curiosity about me (as opposed to prejudice) is probably too small for you to pick up the following links:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/03/methodology-on-god-matt-dillahunty-is.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Others Commented under Matt's Video
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/03/others-commented-under-matts-video_9.html

FunkyMonkeyJedi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're just regurgitating what's been discussed before, and considering those are from "Yahoo Boards" shows you have no opinion of your own. So, go away, I'm done wasting my time with an oxygen thief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@FunkyMonkeyJedi "from yahoo boards and elsewhere" - including youtube.

It so happens, the opinions I state are mine, but the debates have been held at different places and an early classic was yahoo boards.

Thanks for showing yourself prejudiced again ...

IV

Rob G.

Honestly, its like watching a cat chase its tail. what a stupid, endless conversation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It becomes so, when Dillahunty finds it needfull to interrupt the callers line of thought before he even finishes an argument.

V

Brooklyn Avenue

The caller is a concrete thinker, his thoughts are dichotomous. If you don't agree with him, then you must be against him. He is utterly incapable of seeing a third option.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The caller is an uneducated man who is not prepared to face some of the double talk certain intellectuals use.

Dillahunty shilly shallied between "gravity means masses attract each other" and "gravity is just how we describe a phenomenon we observe" (these are not the same thing) in a way an uneducated man would have not been prepared for.

VI

music loversaxgirl

Why do only dense people call in with the same old arguments?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Could be Christians sounding educated and holding an advanced intellectual line of argument (as in really being read up on Creation Science):

• have the sense to avoid calling a man who continually interrupts
• or, if not, are not connected to those on the show by some phone operator.

VII

Was continued and is now Dialogue with HeyLena and A C on other post

VIII

mwarren400

Matt said "demonstrate a phenomenon for your God"...here is one for you. DNA. Study how DNA, polymerase, ribosomes, proteins, and amino acids work. It is an incredible process. Then ask a scientist to duplicate it.

A C

DNA Double Helix Artificial gene synthesis, sometimes known as DNA printing is a method in synthetic biology that is used to create artificial genes in the laboratory. Based on solid-phase DNA synthesis, it differs from molecular cloning and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in that it does not have to begin with preexisting DNA sequences. Therefore, it is possible to make a completely synthetic double-stranded DNA molecule with no apparent limits on either nucleotide sequence or size.

npr : DNA 'Printing' A Big Boon To Research, But Some Raise Concerns
May 7, 20154:56 PM ET | Rob Stein
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/404460240/dna-printing-a-big-boon-to-research-but-some-raise-concerns

Next.

mwarren400

@A C Nice try. But you're merely tweaking a small segment of the instruction set and using an existing process for replication. Come back to me when you can develop your OWN process. It's like the Chinese stealing our technology and exclaiming "look what we did!".

A C

mwarren400 you don’t get to move the goalposts when you disagree with something. A synthetic cell has already been created, in 2010 by a research group led by Craig Venter. They made a synthetic genome and put it in an empty cell. The cell began building the instructions.

In a major step toward creating artificial life, US researchers have developed a living organism that incorporates both natural and artificial DNA and is capable of creating entirely new, synthetic proteins.

The work, published in the journal Nature, brings scientists closer to the development of designer proteins made to order in a laboratory.

Previous work by Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, showed that it was possible to expand the genetic alphabet of natural DNA beyond its current four letters: adenine(A), cytosine(C), guanine (G) and thymine(T).

In 2014, Romesberg and colleagues created a strain of E. coli bacteria that contained two unnatural letters, X and Y.

In the latest work, Romesberg’s team has shown that this partially synthetic form of E. coli can take instructions from this hybrid genetic alphabet to make new proteins. ”This is the first time ever a cell has translated a protein using something other than G, C, A or T,” Romesberg said.

Although the actual changes to the organism were small, the feat is significant, he said in a telephone interview. “It’s the first change to life ever made.”

Artificial life breakthrough after scientists create new living organism using synthetic DNA
Julie Steenhuysen | Thursday 30 November 2017 11:50
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/artificial-life-synthetic-dna-scientists-living-organisms-create-scripps-research-institute-floyd-a8083966.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C "Therefore, it is possible to make a completely synthetic double-stranded DNA molecule with no apparent limits on either nucleotide sequence or size."

Yes, by very much intelligent design.

"you don’t get to move the goalposts when you disagree with something."

mwarren had indeed unwisely chosen the formulation "Then ask a scientist to duplicate it," insteas of "Then ask a scientist to duplicate it under conditions recapturing probable non-designed ones."

"They made a synthetic genome and put it in an empty cell. The cell began building the instructions."

The empty cell started out with being a living cell involving a DNA which was not synthetic.

"Although the actual changes to the organism were small, the feat is significant, he said in a telephone interview."

You do not just have faith in the histry of the experiment. You also have faith in the self estimation of the man doing the experiment.

Imagine history books in which Caesar's veni, vidi, vici were sufficient to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was a walkover victory in that battle.

IX

Ang Jo

That caller got OWNED! Lol. Love it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You like seeing Christians humiliated, for some reason?

X

Human Errer

“Faith” is the suspension of reason in order to convince oneself of an otherwise unconvincing claim.

Anyone who claims that faith is a legitimate argument for the truth of any claim is a moron and not worth arguing with.

Even if atheists took the findings of science on faith alone, it still would not prove the existence of a supernatural being.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"“Faith” is the suspension of reason in order to convince oneself of an otherwise unconvincing claim."

It so happens, this is not how we define faith.

Rather it is the suspension of doubt in order to remain convinced of what was previously convincing, and recalling the reasons rather than change opinion every time anyone tries to give any kind of reason to the contrary, however weak.

It is also the suspension of doubt to accept truth claims from a source which one has so far found reliable.

"Anyone who claims that faith is a legitimate argument for the truth of any claim is a moron and not worth arguing with."

History is taken on faith, and science, all scientific claims, depend on history. Beyond, at least, very obvious and uncontroversial ones, like "fire gives light" and "fire needs - usually - air".

"Even if atheists took the findings of science on faith alone, it still would not prove the existence of a supernatural being."

• 1) You do not take anything in science without faith;
• 2) you show a great fervour of faith in "supernatural beings" being improbable, and a great impatience about how we actually intend to conduct the proving of our claims.

We do not spend all of our arguing time arguing only for our main thesis, there is also some demolishing to do against yours.

XI

Was continued on other post in the Dialogue with a man whose pseudo is "There Is No God".

XII

Rick McGhee

Dude, you're a dick.

XIII

Temple Beth Shalom _

He wasn't destroyed actually. The guy on the phone makes a lot of sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

XIV

A C

What is a “good” reason to believe in a divine being that is an absentee father figure? Is it the “get out of Hell” card? The smugness believers have that they KNOW a god exists, he’s their particular version, and all other denominations are wrong despite all claiming the same thing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What is a “good” reason to believe in a divine being that is an absentee father figure?"

That is not ONE question, but TWO questions.

• 1) "What is a “good” reason to believe in a divine being?" +
• 2) "Is [a divine being] an absentee father figure?"

Or in other words, you are asking Christians to spend the same first second of an answer to provide good reasons for and answer your reason against.

"Is it the “get out of Hell” card?"

You are not even waiting for intellectual reasons, you are already narrowing down the field to emotional motives.

By doing so, you are illustrating a point about logic : valid logic needs to have valid intellectual reasons, not just strong emotional motives.

B U T, this is a distinction which your belief in physics only (as ultimate basis of reality) cannot account for.

"The smugness believers have that they KNOW a god exists, he’s their particular version, and all other denominations are wrong despite all claiming the same thing?"

How about smugness of Atheists who KNOW why believers believe ...?

I was never an Atheist, but close to, insofar as I believed what atheists believe (Heliocentrism, Big Bang, astronomic developments of solar system, abiogenesis, evolution by mutations and natural selection) and did not actively believe there was a God.

When mother reminded me (she had been impeded in giving me a Christian education by other family members), her arguments included neither "you'll go to Hell if you don't believe" nor "we are right in denomination so and so, all other deniminations are wrong" (she was a Church hopper if that tells you sth), she gave me a NT and asked me to read (I was already an avid reader) and unlike with Dracula, Batman, Asterix and a few more, she told me it is true.

How do you analyse that most basic motive into fear of Hell, when there wasn't any?

How do you analyse that most basic motive into smugness about others being wrong, when others were not being considered?

You can't.

My father actually being absent might give you some cue for your first guess, but even that is bad, since my personal biography is not the same as my reasons for the faith.

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“Smugness of atheists” 😂 Christians claim they KNOW:

A God exists, it’s their particular version of god, and their version is the one ‘true’ God, despite every other denomination of Christianity claiming the same thing, how the universe and life was created and what happens after death.

BTW, The Big Bang, heliocentrism, Evolution, and abiogenesis aren’t “atheist beliefs”.

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe. Also, the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae, and their distance from observers.

In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called the Big Bang.

There are Christians that accept evolution.

Galileo, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." In 1632, he published a book that stated, among other things, that the heliocentric theory of Copernicus was correct.

Abiogenesis isn’t a “belief”, it is a theory to explain how life started on the primordial Earth and it is separate from evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C "A God exists, it’s their particular version of god, and their version is the one ‘true’ God, despite every other denomination of Christianity claiming the same thing, how the universe and life was created and what happens after death."

You may know someone personally, even if your background makes you mistaken about facts about someone.

Non-Catholics are mistaken on some facts about God, doesn't necessarily mean God keeps out of their lives or refuses them any and all personal acquaintance, which is, I suppose, what you meant by knowing God?

"BTW, The Big Bang, heliocentrism, Evolution, and abiogenesis aren’t “atheist beliefs”."

They are beliefs useful for atheism, they are positive beliefs held by all atheists.

"In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe. Also, the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae, and their distance from observers."

"In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called the Big Bang."

Making Lemaître a syncretist between Catholicism and the positive beliefs of atheists.

"There are Christians that accept evolution."

Making them syncretists.

"Galileo, a devout Christian"

He certainly did die one, he also died a Geocentric.

"who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word.""

The same could be said by any of his opponents among Catholics.

"In 1632, he published a book that stated, among other things, that the heliocentric theory of Copernicus was correct."

In 1633 he swore an oath not to believe that anymore, and by the time he died, he had made earnest of it.

"Abiogenesis isn’t a “belief”, it is a theory to explain how life started on the primordial Earth and it is separate from evolution."

Since when are theories not believed by the ones accepting them?

It is a theory accepted by any and all atheists (of the Western type), perhaps with some exception for Raelians.

It was enumerated separately from evolution (before it) because it is considered as separate from it.

XV

Was continued and is now Dialogue with pepperVenge on other post.

XVI

Phil Evangelinos

The Biblical defintion of faith is not what he asserts .Christians do not have "blind faith" .The definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11:1: "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION OF REALITIES THAT ARE NOT SEEN"

When an archaeologist discovers a piece of pottery with 2 scratchings on it he can quickly deduce that this is human writing from a certain period and be accepted BUT when Francis Crick discovers the most complicated language in the universe ,the sequence of the human genome ,he can not bring himself to say that someone designed us that or someone (we call God)wrote this language .That is called HYPOCRISY...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Excellent point!

XVII

Cypher Punk

I can understand the guy on the phone. When I was a Theist I was an asshole too because rather than listening to what an Atheist actually believed I just said what I thought they believed. Sometimes they would get pissed off and walk away, I was such a dumb fuck that I was like "yeah you believe in God".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It so happens, the asshole was not George but Matt, and the guy who was not listening but projecting what he thought the other believed was Matt.

When George said Matt had faith in gravity, in scientists citing gravity as cause for pen dropping, George was right.

Matt was prepared to verbally deny it, but after confirming it verbally a bit earlier.

So, George was right about Matt.

Would Matt have reasons to think he was right about George? Not necessarily, not even because he was earlier on an Evangelical pastor (at least he claims so). Evangelicals do have different views on what faith entails, some do have at least half and half bans on seeking intellectual certainty by rational means, some have polemised heavily against Catholic Scholasticism and are polemising against Creation Science like "sure I believe Earth is 6000 years old, but if there was an argument for it, God couldn't reward me for believing it" ... I have no experience of Matt before his apostasy, so, I can't tell what type of believer he was, I can just say if he was what he is projecting on George, he was wrong, and he is wrong to project that on all believers.

Cypher Punk

@Hans-Georg Lundahl In Matt's defense this was the last call of the show and the time was short, the vast majority of Theist callers are Christian. Also the calls are screened Matt would have known that "George is an Evangelical Christian that wants to ask a question about Atheists faith". But finally Matt did say they were out of time and did ask George to call back. The show definitely gets better views when Theists call in so Theists get way better odds of getting through.

I agree this is not one of Matt's best calls but I gotta point out that George continually was talking over Matt. Matt still makes his gravity view pretty clear between 3:53 - 4:07 where hes referring to the action of items attracting as being named "Gravity". The trouble wit the word "faith" is that many theists put it in the same context as we in the do with faith in a normal scenario. For example Matt believes if he drops the pen 100 times it will fall even if he doesn't actually drop it 100 times, this is because the phenomenon known as gravity can be tested. George believes in God his reason is that he has seen some stuff he can not explain so he automatically assumes God, mat doesn't agree. At 11:09 Matt asks George how we can find out who is right and wrong, and George really is lost here.

I can not speak for Matt being a Pastor but even if hes the biggest liar and has been Atheist his whole life it would make no difference to the discussion. When it comes to faith my level of faith is based on the evidence to support a claim. For example I have faith my motorcycle will start tomorrow when I go to work tomorrow, but I have a good reason for my faith, I have kept it serviced battery is charged and a 100% success rate of previously starting. When I was a believer I used faith as an excuse and the reason I believed, like it was something special I would use lines such as "I believe in Jesus because I have faith" and really thought that was a rational view to have. However faith and belief are the same thing so what I was saying was "I have a belief that Jesus exists because I have belief" see how silly that now seems.

It is a shame that I don't think George ever called back.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Cypher Punk "In Matt's defense this was the last call of the show and the time was short,"

How do you know that?

"the vast majority of Theist callers are Christian."

Yes, sure.

This doesn't mean that Matt could know from his past as Evangelical Christian what George believes on questions of "evidence" since this is one field were Evangelical Christians are notoriously varied.

"Also the calls are screened"

I just guessed so, meaning, callers who would intellectually non-plus Matt could easily be screened off.

"Matt would have known that "George is an Evangelical Christian that wants to ask a question about Atheists faith"."

Probably, yes. This would seemingly not have given him a sufficient momentum to hear him out on why he thought he had faith.

"But finally Matt did say they were out of time and did ask George to call back."

And this is how you conclude that it was the last call? I don't think the conclusion is safe, Matt is perfectly capable of deciding one has run out of time because he wants to give an ear to another caller (even on his probably fully admitted view) and on my view he is also capable of making that move when he paints himself into a corner and knows it.

"The show definitely gets better views when Theists call in so Theists get way better odds of getting through."

Considering how some really enjoy Matt humiliating a caller, I'd say they also have better odds of getting through if they have low education back ground or are slow in speech so Matt can better interrupt them or pull off a quasi argument they may not have heard of.

"I agree this is not one of Matt's best calls but I gotta point out that George continually was talking over Matt. Matt still makes his gravity view pretty clear between 3:53 - 4:07 where hes referring to the action of items attracting as being named "Gravity"."

And just after that, he says, at 4:17 "I believe that bodies of mass attract each other" - contradicting the spurious claim he was only making a description of behaviour. Btw, your use of the word "attracting" has strayed from description into the area of causality too.

"The trouble wit the word "faith" is that many theists put it in the same context as we in the do with faith in a normal scenario. For example Matt believes if he drops the pen 100 times it will fall even if he doesn't actually drop it 100 times, this is because the phenomenon known as gravity can be tested."

No, the phenomenon commonly explained by gravity can be tested.

"George believes in God his reason is that he has seen some stuff he can not explain so he automatically assumes God, mat doesn't agree."

How do you figure out what George believes? He never said the belief you attribute to him - you are taking Matt's word on him on faith.

"At 11:09 Matt asks George how we can find out who is right and wrong, and George really is lost here."

Questions about methodology, in a very general scope rather than applied to one specific question are very unusual to most people, including most normal atheists (if any are left), so the question non-plussed him.

"I can not speak for Matt being a Pastor but even if hes the biggest liar and has been Atheist his whole life it would make no difference to the discussion."

It certainly does to Matt's credibility in assessing what George believes, though. My point is, his having been a pastor in an Evangelical setting does not qualify him to know the philosophical position of an Evangelical, since there is a wide range between fideism and sth fairly close to scholasticism.

"When it comes to faith my level of faith is based on the evidence to support a claim."

At every moment, or over time?

"For example I have faith my motorcycle will start tomorrow when I go to work tomorrow, but I have a good reason for my faith, I have kept it serviced battery is charged and a 100% success rate of previously starting."

Will you keep the faith if it initially sputters a bit tomorrow (and do you go to work sundays?)

"When I was a believer I used faith as an excuse and the reason I believed, like it was something special I would use lines such as "I believe in Jesus because I have faith" and really thought that was a rational view to have. However faith and belief are the same thing so what I was saying was "I have a belief that Jesus exists because I have belief" see how silly that now seems."

So, if you and Matt have that experience, what does it tell you about George? His being an old man and still Christian argues he might have had a better and more logical position, right?

"It is a shame that I don't think George ever called back."

After how he was met, fully understandable.

XVIII

khufu

Atheism brought abortion. For this reason I left atheism.
Please somebody speak for children being killed.
Just because you people are Athiest, does not mean you have to be indifferent to children's sufferening.
I would respect you people a lot more if you stood up for children

XIX

Jerome Savary

This guy thought he had a gotcha question but failed miserably

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To get it through to a thick headed and wrong headed "Angry Matt" ...