I know it's not true but I am starting to worry about the fabric of reality breaking down do to this event & only the video being four years old is assuring me that it's okay to keep going

@@NinJestre Lol.

I don't think you mean "uninterupted"

Lol.

- How many? - Everyone!!!!

Brainnnnnnnns

Send more Paramedics!

You lost me in the sense that what I mean by it is I did not understand, either you used terms I am not familiar with, you used terms in a way I I have not heard before, or it sems to be you are being tangential in your answer/explantion

@@agimasoschandir I think plastickhero knows what "you lost me" means. He explained what his problem with the last guy is.

Or to put it more succinctly - Why do you, as an apologist, believe that you are capable of doing something (convince me that God exists) where God himself has so far failed?

I ask a similar question and have had good results. it's in two parts. the first is to establish a baseline for how convinced or sure they are that "Yahweh" is real. most will give a default answer of "100% sure!" the I ask "Okay, if Yahweh were to appear in this room with us right now would you be more convinced that he was real, less convinced or unchanged?" they almost always admit that they would be more convinced. which means their previously stated "100%" isn't really 100%.

They would probably say something like "Because Satan is working in the world and trying to turn people away from the truth! Apologists combat this". It's a common thing they say, that Satan is trying to damn people to hell

This is sort of similar to asking why, if you posit a god that exists timelessly, (who therefore knows the past, present, and future), you would even bother praying for god to intervene - god has already seen the future and knows before you even utter a word, whether he'll grant your prayer, so asking for anything is irrelevant.

Then I would ask 'how can you defeat Satan in his game if God can't?'

we can hope it's the way of the future....

And his stage debates are "Boss Fights." lol ♥

He will say to late "I did it my way" sad man.

@@noneya8100 *FLAWLESS VICTORY*

@@noneya8100 it’s more the “arcade” version for live debates in my mind

They know the phrase "second law of thermodyamics". They don't know how many such laws there are...or what "thermodynamics" means.

***** Exactly right.

Know the name of you mean. They very quickly demonstrate they don't understand what it actually is.

and actually don't even really KNOW and UNDERSTAND the 2nd law. they only say they few words of what the law is, but don't understand the explanation and workings of it

No, they don't _know_ it (well, some may), they've heard of it in some twisted form as part of some illogical apologetic argument.

Ewan Wilson he actually made me a stronger theist! Thanks Matt. It would be Vis versa like a thiest saying .. " It baffles me that anyone can hear and watch William Lane Craig and still be an atheist." WAIT! Don't give me the ad hominem s attacks! Name calling!? It would be more sophisticated if you actually pointed out his fallacies. Thank You.

okay tell me his percise arguments or your versions of them and I will show you maybe not that his logic is fallacious it could be sound but his assumptions could be flawed. Making his arguements invalid. i am not well infromed on the exact arguments Craig makes I do know his favorite kind of salad but that is about it. a link to a specific time stamp in a video will do if you are not comfortable writing it out.

J w nope.

Joshua Mar Matt doesn’t have any logical fallacies in his argument lmfao. That’s the one thing he is most careful about. If Matt’s precise and to the point arguments cemented your beliefs even more, that just shows how fucking ignorant your tiny mind is .

Yes its indoctrination at a young age...the guilt trip..once the seed it sown..its very hard to rip it out...that's what the religious love, they revel in it...but we atheists are stronger.

When he lacks understanding of the term "brevity" that doesn't bode well for the remainder of the Discussion.

@@noneya8100 Seee how quick i resonded to a your reply to my 4yr old comment, maybe i'm a god lol. Now if only i could reply to all those year old facebook messages..

@@darkbunglex Grant me 3 wishes, and I'll begin the Church of DarkBungleX. ♥ What will be our Tenants? ♥

@@noneya8100 lol well I think you got the first one - 1) Thou shalt enact the kindness of brevity.

Yeah, you can tell Matt wanted to hang up on the guy, but kept realizing that he wasn't on his show....lol

For real, he had a complete lack of understanding, especially about the age of the universe. It took 13.7 billion years for the universe to expand, to form stars and planets (that lived and possibly imploded to create ANOTHER set of stars and planets), to develop life on a specific planet (with several million failed starts and setbacks), to produce a resilient and successful transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic life (let's skip some steps), to produce a human-like species with a more developed intelligence and identity that reproduced many times to gain and lose various traits and spread across the planet, to establish civilization (which rose and fell hundreds of times, doing a lot of fųcked up things and a lot of amazing things), to bring two members of the same species able to procreate together who then had a baby and raised it in St. Louis, to send that baby on a journey of self-discovery, study and reasoning, and bring it into a discussion later in life with an idiot. That took 13.7 billion years, just like if I start a stopwatch and come back in an hour, it's going to say 1 hour. It took an hour for it to say an hour and it took 13.7 billion years for the universe to be 13.7 billion years old and for us to be able to have this discussion. If the fairies/pixies, who have 1 fuction without any intelligence and in a state without the understanding of time, created the universe, then period. It doesn't matter when in "local pixie time" they did it, they may not have experienved time at all, it was the only action they could have ever performed, they're dead now and they wouldn't have understood anyway. As far as we know, nothing occurring outside our universe is still affecting it's presentation, except for the initial event. If they age of the universe is a Y-value and the point where the pixies did their thing (did their thing 😂😂... wait, what if this is all a pixie orgasm? 🤤😫🤤😫) is the initial X-value: Then wherever X begins, the graph will always be a linear path to Y= 13.7 billion. And tomorrow, it'll be 13.7 billion years AND 1 DAY.

His arrogance was astonishing, because he can’t understand or wrap his around the so called probabilities, the years of research and generations of scientists must have it wrong.

That guy used a lot of science words to say "I don't understand this, therefore god."

@@slashdotism exactly... and he claimed to be a structural engineer. I expected a little more from him, not just to show a complete misunderstanding.

Evolution is about how species evolve(origin of species) over time---says nothing about origin of life itself. "had no clue what he's talking about" does not describe Matt. But this is often an assessment made by one who can't handle the truth.

@@russellmillar7132 I'm pretty sure he was talking about the guy Matt was talking to.

@@nickronca1562 Oops, my bad.

Indeed, I am always reminded of the fact that chemistry was able to progress and make major discoveries long before the origin of the chemical elements was established.

Funny enough the same guy very quickly wanted to change subjects after this came up. "I don't want to talk about that" well you brought it up, you jackass.

That's what I was just thinking. The dude just isn't smart enough to have a conversation like this.

The universe is not a closed system by the way. 2nd law my ass.

It seems of all such disciplines, engineers are the most likely to have a religious bent. The building you are in now (assuming western cultural area) was likely designed and built by Christians. Uh, where'd you go...

That’s not true about engineers. The percent that are religious is lower than most fields, but of course not as low as scientists. The problem is that very smart people are very capable of formulating a rationale to support what they already believe. We are all susceptible to self-delusion. But when a smart person is unwilling to revisit certain of their deeply held beliefs, then they essentially create a fortress without a door and lock themselves within it.

I'm pretty sure at 2:30:00 he said random mutation is sufficient to explain specified complexity. It seems like there was an "OOPSS!" moment then.

+Brian Stevens finally got there... it was just his accent. He was saying "no" in a heavily accented way that Matt (and obviously others like yourself) misinterpreted.

TheMonk72 Ahh, good catch. I'll have to listen to it again but it seems like you're right.

TheMonk72 The whole thing was a really good discussion and you could tell everyone was extremely respectful even though people like the last guy couldn't come to an agreement... but that happens... and I really enjoyed Matt fully going down the rabbit hole of universe creating pixies.

Yes he absolutely did and then tried to deny it like a typical lying religious nutter

I really wish you had said instead, 'nobody's ass had to be put on hold.'

My guess? The "structural engineer" is just a tech who cranks wrenches for a living. I hate to be condescending, but as an actual engineer, I hear techs call themselves engineers constantly.

Adam Cosper Sure. Lots of engineers are bad at designing integration- or manufacture-friendly components and subsystems. That doesn't mean the techs understand the physics, materials science, or any of the other theory behind the design of the components, which is the engineering part. Way to miss the point.

Adam Cosper Next time don't get butthurt for no reason and I won't pull out the paddle.

Adam Cosper You replied to me, little man. Look at you, cracking a witty line without a GED. I'm so proud.

TheZooCrew WOW... there are millions of engineers as are "techs"...of all stripes... nothing special.. whatever you designed i probably did it much better. your arrogance and dependency on geds as a measure of intelligence suggest less experience. so cool it down, freshman. the structural engineer was making stupid points but I've seen worse... criticise that moron, not his profession.

The first young man, despite being “of faith” Seamed unusually grounded and rational. If he continues to study logic and associate with the irrational, it’s almost as if he preordained for a solo exodus!!

Didn't you hear. He ignores KZfaq comments because they are a "cesspool of garbage".

Of all the reasonable things I've heard of Matt saying on various topics, this is probably the most reasonable of all.

well... he's not exactly wrong

Bashing KZfaq comments is easy and cheap. It is like bashing teachers, lawyers and taxes. Everybody does it and hardly anybody really thinks about it enough to bother disagreeing or questioning it. But look at the comments here, to this video. Is this "a cesspool of garbage"? Sure, there sometimes are trolls trying to be funny, but is that really such a huge problem? There are also prank callers calling into the Atheist Experience show and that isn't reason enough to give up on all the callers and stop producing the show. The reason for why the internet and a site like KZfaq are so successful and caused such a big shift and revolution in culture is not just that they are easier to access for content creators, but also that they are social forums and allow for consumers to interact and comment, instead of just being preached and talked down to by more important people. This is in our instinct. There is a need for this. In the old days people went to pubs, clubs and cafes to read the newspaper in the presence of others and have conversations about the stuff they read. Yeah, sometimes someone says something you don't like to hear and sometimes there is a Hitler in a Beer Hall, but does that mean that communication should be stopped or that it is better to have a small number of egomaniacs do all the talking and the rest of us just get to listen quietly? I cherish the opportunity to engage people who see things differently than me and I thought that is the mindset behind the Atheist Experience call in show, so I was perplexed and disappointed over their decision to disable comments for their KZfaq videos. What is the worst thing that could happen? Do they really think the comment section of one of their videos could turn into the next Beer Hall for the next Hitler, or something? What are they afraid of? I don't get it.

FiniteAutomaton I still don't see anything happening in KZfaq comments to be bad enough to necessitate moving the conversation into a walled in, controlled environment. There are reasons for why classical internet forums are a slowly dying kind of social venue and are replaced by other, more free means of communication. It isn't just the inconvenience of having to register and log in. Most forums are over-moderated by the wrong kind of people. The kind of people who want those small positions of power, tend to not be the kind of people who should have any power. I'm talking in general principle here. I never visited their forums and I don't know their moderators, but my experiences with forums in general made the whole concept icky for me. In my experience forums bring out the bad in people at least as much as the freedom and anonymity of KZfaq comments do, just a different kind of bad. Most are run by a bunch of moderators with a Napoleon complex, abusing their powers and a bunch of sycophants brown nosing them and ganging up on anyone who disagrees with the collective or starts looking like a weak link. All those forums tend to become very "Animal Farm"-ish, "Lord Of The Flies"-ish, or at the least "Mean Girls"-ish, if you know what I'm trying to say with that. I prefer the chaotic anarchy of KZfaq comments over that, which hardly ever is as bad as people make it out to be anyways, as the comments to this video happen to prove. As I said, I haven't visited Freethoughtblogs yet, but I have heard about them and what I have heard fits exactly into what I think of forums. Just look at what happened to Thunderfoot there. You may not agree with his positions, but the way that "community" went after that one guy in a feeding frenzy is exactly what I am talking about. In KZfaq comments a disagreement just stays a disagreement and the worst thing that can happen is that it devolves into a nasty exchange of insults till someone had enough. And long before that point nobody else but the two people fighting is still following it. In forums every disagreement seems to end in a verbal lynch mob forming and in someone being banned and excommunicated from the group and sometimes even doxing and real harassment. (As opposed to what people like Anita Sarkeesian call harassment, which is usually just harmless trolling or even just polite disagreement.)

Now I understand why he has to drop so many F-bombs during the Atheist Experience. The amount he was holding back throughout these 3 hours created a massive buildup that requires constant venting to keep him from exploding.

They have always been quite low when it came to religion and non religion. If they say 9 things that are correct, be sure they 10th thing isn't about religion before you bet your life savings. Also, don't assume that you can have a reasonable discussion with just anyone there. You can find plenty of reasonable people, but logical fallacies are cultural and the protection of the roots also protect the culture of accepting and protecting fallacies. So it's not that they lowered their standards. They just assumed a status quo since forever, while the world around them kept progressing.

I loved the "You have to show that universe creating pixies are metphysically necessary". Yeah dude, exactly.

Are most engineers diffuse? If he wasn't dense, he'd be an airhead and float away.......♥

basically all engineers are like that.

Yeah. Humanity comes into existence 13.7 billion years after the Big Expansion. If the universe was created earlier or later, Humanity would still come into existence 13.7 billion years after the Big Expansion. All that happened is that all events shifted in the larger timescale of the cosmos. If you move the 0 inch end of a ruler, the 12 inch location moves with the ruler.

😅

This is beautiful

Maybe it was the Oxford library.

I attended U.S. public universities for undergrad and grad school, then went to Oxford for another graduate degree. By comparison, Oxford was truly pathetic in every way except architecture. I was so shocked and drastically underwhelmed that I completed the degree there only because (i) transferring elsewhere would've been an enormous hassle and (ii) I only needed the degree for my résumé. I strongly advise people against wasting time or money at Oxford; it's disproportionately overstocked with pretentious morons.

i just finished watching it. this one is actually pretty good. oh and what happened between Matt and Sye wasn't even a debate. debates require communication, and I failed to see Sye communicate with Matt, much less with the audience

Is Sye Ten still making youtube video's? I've not seen much new stuff from him in the past year or so.

Is that bloke still kickin' ? I have not seen or heard for ages, thankfully.

PauLWaFFleZ Sye is a one trick pony.

PauLWaFFleZ Atheism isn't a 'true or false' position, it's simply saying 'I lack belief in your God', in the same way that you don't believe in all the other Gods of other faiths, we also lack belief in your Christian God. We are simply adding your God to the list of Gods that both you and I also don't believe in.

The problem is that sure people change every second, but change in a meaningful way is hard, rocky and takes a lot of time. A grudge can be justified, if the person you have a grudge on does not in anyway show he/she has changed.

@@RanEncounter fair enough. And, just in the small sample size of all the people I know (the average is 2000) morally speaking, people tend to get worse with age. As if being decent takes too much energy for an older person to suffer. There's exceptions of course.

@@theriffwriter2194: Or maybe there's a survivorship bias and Billy Joel was right: Only the good die young. :)

@@ncooty true. And that Harvey Dent quote about living long enough to one day become the villain.

I describe myself as Young Malcolm for almost anything before 2015

The first caller was fairly intelligent. But that last caller was a brick wall on every topic that came up. Also, I'm looking forward to the release of your book.

Exactly! When he said Matt was proposing something more complex than his god, I about lost it.

Dustin Moser If you are talking about the last caller, it was far LESS complex than his god.

Tom Jones - That was Dustin Moser's point. But the caller either couldn't grasp that simple concept or purposely played dumb to divert attention from the weaknesses in his arguments. It's hard to tell which.

Wood 'n' Stuff w/ Steve French I don't see how Dustin meant that when he said "more complex" instead of "less complex".

I say it is more like a "weak" level of memory.

I think people see life and they want to think there is something greater going on than the world in front of them. If we are something more than biological computers, can you imagine that? What's the point though? I believe it's a childish unwillingness to accept the world for what it is.

Much like quantum physics, if you think you understand it, you don't. ;p (WARNING LONG RESPONSE I'M SORRY) It's called the "hard problem of conscious" for a reason. It's hard because we barely even know how to phrase the question, let alone begin trying to answer it. Anyone who says "the answer is obvious!" is answering a different question. The question is why does anything FEEL like anything. Not how the brain works. Computers have senses and memories too, but are they conscious? Can my computer feel me typing on my keyboard? Does it feel like anything? The obvious answer is "no" but we can't prove it. As far as I know, my computer is experiencing the sensation of light pin pricks every time I close an electrical circuit under a key. Or maybe the feeling is more like sexual pleasure. I don't believe this, and it seems ridiculous, but _consciousness seems ridiculous_ too. If you take a microscope and point it at a brain, you won't see any "consciousness molecules". If you examine a brain and a computer processor, you won't be able to point at the part that causes one of them to be conscious. We all know what it FEELS like to be conscious, but if a non-conscious robot challenged us to give evidence that we actually feel things, we couldn't. The robot might be able to detect a broken electrical circuit, for example, but if it couldn't FEEL the sensation of pain, it wouldn't know what to look for. It's like Plato's _Allegory of the Cave_. The robot wouldn't even know what we mean by "feelings". My computer can detect if it's overheating, and with some AI improvements, it might even be able to answer "yes" to the question "do you feel hot?". But would it really FEEL hot in the same way that I do when I overheat? How could we even tell? That's the HARD problem of consciousness. It's not evidence of magic, but it is a very interesting question.

Actually I should think that the examples you provide can be handled to some extent.  We do know the biological entities that allow US to feel pain or heat. We know a great deal about the same things in other animals as well. So those are known qualities of known quantities. We also know the properties of a keyboard and that those materials are devoid of any such neurochemicals and receptors. Comparing computer memory and signal paths to the human brain, perception and cognition is probably not a valid metaphor. From what we know of what makes up a computer - it cannot (at present) possess the qualities we associate with consciousness. I would add the it's possible for living tissue to register pain, in neurobiological terms without the added conscious EXPERIENCE of pain that comes (and expands) with having different levels of consciousness. We certainly can give some evidence that we feel various things, as emotions will show both as involuntary body responses including muscle responses and facial expressions, skin response, levels of various neurochemicals, heartrate and breathing, brain wave frequency and brain activity and connectivity in or between specific regions. This kind of data may be used in combination with large samples of introspective accounts, psychological testing and even the tools of philosophy to triangulate what is currently an emerging field (Damasio 2000/2010). In other words there are at least some quantifiable sets of phenomena which we lable emotions and feelings. But that is not to take away from the main thrust of your point about how we can know anything. I would add though - consciousness mostly seems ridiculous if one attributes some kind of special otherness to it or if you look at it from the point of view of how it feels - because that entails all the highs and lows of human experience and it's easy to get poetic about it (we should, really) especially if one is religious and wants some kind of soul substance injected in the mix (not saying you are saying, just saying). Stated in the simplest way possible - if thoughts and feelings are neurological patterns are made up of sensory imagery, then consciousness is simply one more such pattern derived from many different layers of processing that each contribute uniquely to create the whole. A set of patterns that constitute the experience of experiencing the world from a reasonably coherent and historically consistent you-P.O.V. When part of the system goes - so does part of you and your conscious sense of self. Needless to say conscious experience rests upon a vast substrate of prior unconscious processing. It contains a comparatively very narrow range of information modeled to serve the short and longterm survival needs as they are perceived on a moment to moment basis. Patient observations have yielded significant knowledge about which aspects of consciousness are lost or destroyed when specific areas of the brain is damaged, and that data actually allows us to draw some conclusions about the neurobiological substrate the contributes to the phenomenon of consciousness (different from awareness btw). Note: Neurological patterns/images are comprised mainly of data from the sensory channels, the bleedover effects between physical channels and the complex selection and reshuffling of data in perception to contribute to the sense of a reasonably unified stream of consciousness. They are "the stuff" of conscious and unconscious though and neurological processing. This also includes data about the muscolo-skeletal aspect of experience, how the body feels about any emerging or recalled pattern, what it has felt about it in the past, what it may feel about it in various future scenarios, and the way the pattern in question reactivates (and modifies) past patterns and emerging patterns concerning the future. All of these selections, transformations and connectivities are oriented towards physical and mental survival. Some parameters are inherent and automatic - like the central nervous system - and some of which are variable and subject to the influence of embodied life experience - the impact of social realities, environment and complex conscious human experience (Main resources are the works of Antonio Damasio, A.P. Dijksteruis (Unconscious THought Theory or UTT, and Rafael Malach).

Its only a hard problem if you want to apply special properties to consciousness. Man has never created a machine even as complex as a dogs brain. And a dog has a level of consciousness. Maybe it cant ask where it came from, but still, a level of consciousness. Consciousness could well be just a result of a certain level of brain capacity. To imbue it with more than that is unecessary!

They always have a hardon for a bit of a science stamp and it always folds into "faith required" before they make final base ...

Or pre-school level biology.

But... the second law of thermodynamics!

I'm not sure he knew either. He just talked in circles and made a lot of unintelligible noises. It must have been exhausting to try to respond to the word salad questions he was asking.

I thought he was rather young and totally reminded me of my son (if he's nervous and wound up about his own ideas). I think he'll settle down and pull his thoughts together better as he gets older. Matt did do a fantastic job of pulling the gist out of what was said and responding!

I was very surprised to hear a student of Philosophy at the University of Oxford express his mind in such a shamble.

He's not going to last long at Oxford if his current level of thought is to believe everything in Keener's shill book without critical evaluation and blame the lack of its popularity among scientists on either maliciousness or utter stupidity on the part of the entire scientific community. It's not exactly surprising, but it's still galling how apologists just hand-wave things away like that. Some dude wrote a 1300 page book on REAL MIRACLES and yet somehow this isn't front-page news and the focus of all scientific inquiry? Give me a break.

Uhhhhhhhh like.... uhhhhh like..... i think... like... ummmm.... uhhhhh like....

Still bloody hurts when it happens.

Damn, I thought it was enought to get me saved. So what else must I do? Buy the t-shirt?

Salvation can only come through our lord and savior Carl who is the nephew of cthulhu.

And as a timeless 'who' God also cannot verb, because verbs require chronologies/time

HOW things happen, happen from something that "is" doing, or causing it. And GOD created ALL "somethings" from "nothing" and HOW he did is by SPEAKING "something" from "nothing" into existence, such that it in turn can cause HOW things happen whether WE are privy to that HOW yet (for example via Scientific DISCOVERY) or not. White Men DISCOVERED the Western Hemisphere FOR THEMSELVES. But that does NOT mean the Western Hemisphere was not ALWAYS there all along.

Aye, as a physicist myself, I cringe every time some one brings up this stuff. It's always blatantly obvious within 10 seconds that these people don't have a clue what they are talking about.

+Maarten Kok What are they talking about?

The "quantum mechanics allows telepathy" kind of stuff, or "quantum mechanics is how the soul interacts with the brain". They say this while having limited understanding of quantum mechanics, and then drawing conclusions far further than reasonable.

Maarten Kok Oh I get that, ya it's kinda weird that people appeal to something that they don't personally understand but other people actually study. It's like saying magic is possible because of advanced music theory, it only makes sense to them BECAUSE they don't actually understand what they are talking about.

Exactly, I notice I have lengths to go in clearly conveying messages succinctly in English, though I'm afraid the problem is not necessarily that it's my second language. :P

Consciousness is also only a property of a body, like digestion, perspiration and all those other features of life. A disembodied mind is as illogical a construction as disembodied digestion (or substitute 'immaterial')

there was an interesting study done that extrapolated DNA complexity growth rate (similar to the Moore's law in tech industry), and arrived at a point of origin for life that's billion of years before Earth, thus suggesting that life actually didn't originate on Earth. fascinating stuff.

I would be interested in the methodology of that study and what are the assumptions. DNA doesn't need to become more complex for one thing. Also, when you get down to single cell, the genetic mechanisms are can be quite different that sexual reproduction (for example gene transfer is common). I am sorry but while it sounds interesting, it sounds like a flawed study. For example, it directly implies that the timeline doesn't match *the timeline that we DO observe*. This is not uncommon with an exclusively math based approach that is divorced from observations.

If he said that abiogenesis only occurred once, he probably misspoke. I doubt he believe that or would offer an argument to support that assertion.

This was a pretty helpful paragraph, thanks.

Birds make nests. Ribosomes (biology's engineers) make and maintain living cells, and themselves (using DNA as the blueprints). In other words, the statement that "all known intelligence is human intelligence" displays a far too narrow bracketing of what intelligence is. Of course no biological being could have intelligently designed biology because it needs biology to be there in the first place. The Intelligent Design proponents realise that. That is why they appeal to some external intelligence, for which of course there is no sound evidence. On the other hand, can basic biology (RNA and some kind of proto-ribosomes) come about by chemical action in a primordial environment (abiogenesis)? Nobody knows yet. Nice use of the word "abductive" :-)

@@stupidtreehugger Okay, I know this is the wrong channel, but... Don't you mean "cdesign propotentsists"? >w

I think they are different space/time continuum zones Pixie time is Cornish and Hammer time covers the Viking zones Norway, Denmark, Iceland etc.

Of course! That makes perfect sense now, I'm surprised I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out for me :)

He just wasn't gettin' it...

I know right...lol

He's definitely ready for a job at AIG

I'm an atheist..I noticed the intented curse "Jesus Christ" could be misinterpreted as a prayer! Lol

He was simply painful to listen to. Pretentious little wanker. He I think was actually expecting to have more agreement and have a chummy friendly little chat. He was uncomfortably on the back foot. He really didn't seem to argue/discuss on a similar "level" and was more often than not attempting to get small incremental steps of agreement, that rarely happened. But then needed to back off to some vague wishy washy semantic bollocks.

they decided that it was better to have discussions on their own forums where they had a chance to moderate them. It is very unlikely that will change.

FiniteAutomaton TheMonk72 That's a shame. There's often quite substantive discussions in comment sections of interesting shows that I find of equal interest to the shows themselves. Sure, there's always some trolls that show up as well but such comments are easily ignored and, if they're insufferable, they can always be blocked, although I'm generally not a fan of blocking people for simply offering negative criticism..

youtube uploaders dont have control over the comment section? It is an all or nothing deal?

Dont count on it. Most members of the atheist experience blogs are SJWs and "Feminist" of the most abject childish variety.

FiniteAutomaton I am not really referring to Matt to be honest. Many of the hosts have a strong SJW / Toxic Feminism tendency and as long as the discussion revolves around theism then things are ok on that show. Otherwise they have drunk the kool aid of toxic feminism and SJW ideological nonsense. These people are polluting American colleges and now its getting harder and harder for real liberals to identify as liberal because of these people. They shut down dialogue rather than engage and closing comments on youtube is a perfect example of shutting down dialogue. People get banned on the TAE blog all the time. The Toxic Feminist and SJWs are actually against free speech. They are just as deranged as the extreme right wing. They took over the Reason Rally this year and it was a disaster with low numbers of people. I could go on and on.

alicantino11 completely empty arguments too

OpiatedBliss He doesn't read those. He reads tweets though.

Want to just weigh in and say: Absolutely agree. Thumbs up.

I've been saying this forever. Rogan and Dillahunty are my two favorites to listen to.

agreed

haha some of Rogan's pet ideas would be eaten alive by Matt.