Atheists Base Claims on Same Amount of Evidence as Theists | Victor - Brooklyn | Talk Heathen 02.06

[@Abraxas1177]

THis caller is so intellectually dishonest, I would not start a conversation, let alone continue with anything.

[@WyattCayer]

I would have hung up within the first 5 minutes.

[@themplar]

As soon as a theist says "i used to be a hardcore atheist" ... you know its gonna be nonsense. then he starts on "believe in the big bang" no we accept the scientific explenation.

[@trishayamada807]

themplar exactly. How can you be hardcore in a non belief. I don’t belief God exists or I really don’t believe God exists?

[@joegillian314]

It has to do with how a person attempts to know something (epistemology). Some people think you can know things just by somehow inquiring an authority (i.e. someone or something which they consider to be knowledgeable about the thing in question), and others realize that the only way to really know anything is to find out for yourself (i.e. investigate and make your own observations). The mere existence of a disagreement always suggests to me that there may be something to both sides, or at the very least we don't know for certain either way. The key is understanding the necessity of doing your own investigating and not relying on what you heard second hand.

[@Brainfryde]

"the big bang" is still just a hypothesis that describes the expansion of universe mathematically. It is mathematically consistent, but it has some points where it does not describe our universe. So it is valid to say that you do not believe in the big bang. "I've never seen anything as fake as the moon landing" is the point he cannot come back from :p

[@Alienshade]

Im always Atheist and if I starts to beleve in the IT clown take me to a klinik. Its nothing "hardcore" about it.

[@sypherthe297th2]

Well, he wasn't an inner-circle atheist so clearly he didnt understand the higher order of atheism. Canadian Catholic, on the other hand. . . Oh wait they're both dishonest morons. When did theists start claiming that they were faux atheists that converted in order to give themselves some kind of unearned credibility. When an atheist talks about leaving religion, they tend to have a clue about their former religion because it actually happened.

[@CypherForest]

This type of caller is the best suited for Matt, so he can yell at him 😂

[@paleemperor5379]

"I'm angry because i don't understand literally anything so i'm convinced that everyone else is lying"

[@Mewse1203]

"Because I don't understand literally anything" is ABSOLUTELY right. He made so many false assertions and explanations every time he talked that it was obvious he doesn't.

[@JDime2059]

@@Mewse1203 how so? The moon landing was obviously faked D because they were bouncing.

[@themanwithnoname1839]

​@@Mewse1203yea lmfao, my favorite part was when he said "dawk mattuh is duh biggest embarrassment in duh scientific kuhmunity evuh, like evuh" lmfao

[@tehspamgozehere]

I've heard it said that birds of prey are stupid. I mean REALLY stupid. Throw in the fact that they always look angry. An eagle is perpetually in a state of "I don't understand it and don't like it!" Go look at a picture of an eagle close up and tell me you don't see it. This caller is another example of that state.

[@bertrammemberberry4568]

always makes me laugh how 'super hardcore atheist' these people 'used to be'

[@BaronVonQuiply]

I'm gonna try that in reverse. "Yeah, man. When I was younger, I rebelled against science. I hated it. I became hardcore Jesusist. I was totally into it, even got a tattoo of the big names in the bible like John and Paul, and George and Ringo. I used to preach to people about how God has these three seashells, and no one will tell me how to use them. My favorite part of the Bibble is when God founds Magrathea and hits the Earth button. Just like science now says."

[@NickvonZ]

Can't demonstrate GRAVITY?!?? Are you sure Victor isn't a prankster? I can prove gravity... clearly Victor was dropped on his head as a baby.

[@chasedixon1492]

周寧康 which ironically, would prove the existence of gravity 😂😂😂

[@zemoxian]

It is a common assertion among flat earthers that gravity doesn’t exist. As far as I can tell they seem sincere about that. What I really don’t get is that they then say gravity isn’t scientific. That baffles me to no end.

[@Notthetimeforit]

This guy is a flat earth idiot called Wonton or something on KZbin. He's a total idiot and completely full of himself.

[@tinaspringer651]

@@Notthetimeforit yeah I know who he is. Red's rhetoric made a complete fool of him. He was on the same show with that Airhead Debbie that I know it sounds crazy being the total brain cells of the entire Flat Earth Community maybe being enough to make A1 brain but she is the absolute dumbest of all flat-earthers I have ever heard

[@MTD_1969]

L Johnson He has also called the Atheist Experience multiple times and was basically banned for not conceding certain facts and definitions. He is a hardcore conspiracy theorist. Period.

[@Spankki]

Victor thought he would make an imposing entrance by presenting himself as a former "harcore" atheist who knows his Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins through and through - when it was instantly obvious he didn't even know what atheism means.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

I find this religious approach intriguing.. the idea that one could score confidence points by professing to have once been atheister-than-thou and name dropping authors as if they were prophets that had to be obeyed. A similar mindset appears when people want to talk about Charles Darwin rather than, say, phylogenetics.

[@themanwithnoname1839]

​@@BaronVonQuiplyyea and what they dont realise is theyre directly denying god by trying for those brownie points lmfao rofl, it is completely unneeded to say "i used to be atheist" just state what you believe and why, plain and simple, you can always spot the cultists cuz they MUST give a half hour background story first

[@sjewitt22]

Remember Victor doesn't believe in gravity.

[@bigcizzle788]

Niether did Tesla and he was a genius.

[@MrtinVarela]

+Big Cizzle Tesla didn't have internet.

[@jasontaylor284]

Or a round earth, for that matter. Lol. He also believes that DNA is a code created by god, rather than a complex sequence of chemical proteins.

[@MrtinVarela]

+Marco Creen Mass atracts mass, the more mass there is the more likely is to have a measure of the atraction. This is a carrefuly studied theory that was founded on the facts and their measurements. Gravity is the weakest of all known fundamental forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than the weak force and yes... especially electromagnetism. "I don't understand it therefore it is wrong." Gravity has *only* been proven. You are making a claim of non-existence that has been refuted before you were born. Trust and faith are not the same thing, when we trust scientific findings it's not faith because unlike religion, science *delivers.* Is the only reason we are comunicating right now.

[@MrtinVarela]

"Bullshit claim. You just regurgitate what was told to you." *Prove it.* With the same logic I could just say flat earth was regurgitated to you if you are what I think you are. Saying that you don't believe in gravity? Fine. Carry on. Saying that gravity doesn't exist? That's a *claim* that carries a burden of proof that *you haven't met.* "I only accept what can be empirically proven" Have you ever jumped and noticed you always fall back at a rate of ~9.8m/s^2? If that isn't gravity, then what is it? (disclaimer: it's a question, not an argument) Seriously, explain me yourself why do we fall. "Supposed gravity is so strong it can hold billions and billions of tons of water glued to earth." The overwhelming weakness of gravity is compensated with an similarly overwhelming amount of mass, which is exactly *what earth is.* This is also why you can't attract a single feather while the earth can easily attract you. 1000mph is extremely slow relative to the size and angular rotation of the earth which is about a single rotation every *24 hours* over a much more massive circumference of *24900* miles. Would you expect a basketball to burst because it was "spinning too fast" at 1 revolution per minute? Exactly, that's retarded! Don't get me wrong, the centrifugal force *does* affect the shape of the planet which is why you see the earth expressed, more accurately as an "oblate spheroid". You simply made the *unfounded assumption* that such force would shred the earth to pieces or something among the lines. Here's a visualization to scale of the actual oblateness of the earth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth#/media/File:Earth_oblateness_to_scale.svg Pretty big right? That's quite a few kilometers. "...yet at the same time it's so feeble it allows a butterfly to fly" Gravity affects the butterfly with the same strength as the surrounding air, which compensates gravity with buoyancy, and this makes it a matter of density. Also, if you expect an object to fall by itself, it will be because of density differential, not raw weight. This also explains why massive clouds can stay in the air no problem: their density is in equilibrium with the density of the surrounding air. That's as simple as it gets. The reason why we don't have 1000mph winds is because that's the speed relative to the center of mass, *not the surface.* The bodies of air are already moving *with* the rotation of the earth, just like everything else that actually sits on it, but with a bit more freedom. There is no such thing as absolute velocity because there is no proof of true absolute position let alone a way to measure it, but also, relativity: The definition of the speed of an object always requires another object to which it can be compared. In this case you mixed between speed relative to the center of mass, with speed relative to the surface, which is why your *unfounded assumptions* are empirically wrong. Check for an introduction to the basis of relativity to get a minimal grasp of what I'm talking about, as you clearly don't. This has nothing to do with "gravity affecting objects differently", which is another *unfounded assumption,* but rather that the objects are affected by *not only gravity.* "Your are familiar with the saying "In God we trust"?" A) Faith is a subset of trust, mutually exclusive with scientific inquiry, which makes it consistent, so it doesn't have to be the same thing (and it isn't). B) Yes, but I'm not even american. "Prove that gravity exist, and a Nobel Price for physics next year is yours." DUDE... *it was already taken,* literally the last year. The Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Kip Thorne, Barry Barish and Rainer Weiss for their role in the detection of *gravitational waves.* FIVE events of detection have occurred so far. You only spew nonsense on top of nonsense that only reveals more and more of your scientific illiteracy. *You* are all the blabber of this conversation.

[@jlsc4125]

atheists are not scientists and believe in a lot of different things, and a belief in the big bang or otherwise is not a definition of atheism. Atheists simply don't believe there is enough evidence to prove the existence of a god, not that there was a big bang or not.

[@ptuffgong8504]

Well said.

[@theriffwriter2194]

Agreed. For instance: I consider myself an extreme sceptic and I subscribe to the infinite universe hypotheses. As in there never was a beginning or a big bang. This, of course, is counter-intuitive but science usually is. Not to mention, it's a pretty cool idea.

[@jlsc4125]

I don't really find infinite universe to be any worse than an infinite intelligence, in fact it's infinitely more believable. I have the theory that simply relies on there not being anything including time in the beginning. Without time, there is no need for cause and effect since that concept relies on time. Effect could happen on it's own.

[@roqsteady5290]

@John&JL Steady state universe is not "counterintuitive", it is actually what a lot of people used to believe before the overwhelming evidence for big bang, such as cosmic microwave background. Better to leave cosmology and other difficult science to those people who spend their lives doing it. Why people think that their "opinion" on these issues has any merit, baffles me.

[@theriffwriter2194]

(almost) as many reputable scientist believe there is evidence for an infinite universe. Counter-intuitive means it gos against intuition. I.e everything has to have a beginning. And since I'm not in a position were my opinions shape scientific policy, I can believe any mothrtfucking thing I mothrtfucking want!

[@montaguesummers]

This is why these guys can't do an effective show without Matt. They just don't know how to clear up misunderstandings quickly enough, and they let callers run on making no sense forever. This whole clip was 20 minutes of 4 guys failing to agree on the definition of a word. Matt would have shut that shit down in 45 seconds.

[@robertpreston2220]

Matt lets people go on and on and on as well.

[@clinbaker7359]

Matt would have hung up on his dumb ass, and Tracie would have called him out for what he really is. A flat earther!

[@notthefather3919]

@@robertpreston2220 its not about that. Its about how they let these people mischaracterize facts and take on discussions they aren't qualify to handle.

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@robertpreston2220 Sometimes he does, yes, but Not with this kind of caller. Some of them he curb stomps from the start, others less disengenuous callers get to go on for a bit before being shut down.

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@notthefather3919 That aswell, Indeed.)

[@MAR1N4M1]

I laughed so hard when he started talking! No way that caller was ever an atheist or has ever read any books period.

[@sleepy314]

"Atheist make claims that..." atheists don't make claims about god.

[@sleepy314]

Always the gentleman.

[@jeffc5974]

They do make a claim. The claim is "I don't believe you." That is the only logical claim to make when presented with zero evidence.

[@TeslaNick2]

+Jeff C _'They do make a claim. The claim is "I don't believe you." '_ Correction. We're not talking about belief or rejection of thereof, we're talking about rejecting a claim. If I phrase it as "I reject your claim", does that make it any clearer ? Calling the rejection of a claim, a claim is like calling not stamp collecting, a hobby. If I say "I don't believe there is a god", that is a claim. I am claiming the non-existence of god and have the burden of proof of that claim. I personally do make the claim there is no god. I can't prove my claim any more than anyone can prove their god does exist. If I was a god, I'd leave no doubt to everyone on the planet that I was very f*cking real. I'd replace humans with dogs and let them evolve and see what kind of world that would be.

[@Oswlek]

*They do make a claim. The claim is "I don't believe you."* That isn't really a _claim,_ but I'm perfectly comfortable making the claim of, _"there isn't good reason to believe a god exists"_ This adopts a burden, but it is satisfied merely by demonstrating flaws in theistic "evidence".

[@Oswlek]

_Atheists say all the time "there is no _*_good_*_ evidence for God. That's a claim_ Fixed that for you. Yes, it is a claim, one whose burden is rather easy to meet.

[@HarshColby]

Like I'm a super hard core non-stamp collector?

[@galactus170X]

No has super hard core as I am.

[@HarshColby]

It's just a weird way of saying it. It's like saying someone is a hard core a-Zeus-ist. "I am strongly unconvinced" is hyperbole, since you are either convinced or not convinced in a binary sort of way. I suppose he means anti-theist active in fighting theism, but that's not at all the same thing. In context, though, it doesn't sound like anti-theist would fit.

[@tdot1269]

HarshColby idk if you said that bc of the youtube channel but if not you gotta check out The Nonstamp collector channel. The animated content is hilarious

[@jonnynihil8121]

Whoa! Back the fuck up, son!

[@seanjones2456]

you get best post award. outstanding

[@themanwithnoname1839]

A Catholic guy once asked me "how does that work" when i said i was atheist, i replied "do you believe islam got it right? Or do you doubt them cuz a lot of what they preach and say dont add up or make sense?" He said "no of course not im catholic, of course i dont believe them" to which i said "ok cool thats how i feel about ALL religions lmfao"

[@sorenjensen3863]

K. You guys let him make the statement multiple times without correction... "I don't know why they use theory to describe something that is fact, ie germ theory, and also use it to describe something that is not fact, evolution, gravity, etc." There is a difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. One never becomes the other. A scientific fact is an observation (A happens), scientific theory is the best explanation of *why* A happens. It encompasses all knowledge within that field (observations, tests, hypothesis, etc.). Germs are a fact. Germ theory explains them. Gravity is a fact. Theory of gravity explains it. Evolution is a fact. Theory of evolution explains it. Etc. Ad nauseum.

[@upsidedownnugget9531]

Exactly! can you host next time theory comes up? It was frustrating listening to the hosts try to nail down what they mean by theory when they weren’t too sure themselves.

[@snatchngrab8262]

I must give the philosophers' addendum to that scientific usage. (Note that Eric is a student of philosophy, not science.) In an arguement (a.k.a., proposition, claim, proof, hypothesis, theory... and yes, all those words can be used equivalently), once a conclusion is held true, it is a fact. In this way, a scientific theory (which explains why/how something works to the best of our knowledge) is held as fact. It can then be used in another argument as a sound premise. I'll grant that "scientific fact" and "scientific theory" maintain their definitions, but "fact is fact". I mean, a scientific fact is a fact, just like any other. (In fact, all facts are scientific facts.) A fact is what is, just as was said for a scientific fact. Essentially, "scientific fact" is redundant. So now as to "scientific theory"... It is a stated - the explanation how/why. This becomes the fact(s). It can.be used as a sound premise. Biological evolution, e.g., is a fact. It is a scientific theory explaining how life on Earth diversified. (I'm taking it we all know that a scientific theory is true in order to be called that, and that "true" inherently implies "to the best of our knowledge". Biological evolution is a fact, thusly it can be used as a sound premise in other hypotheses. (e.g., the aquatic ape hypothesis - not that this claim ends up being valid) Or as another example we can say: Because the Big Bang model has been found true back to end of the Planck epoch at time 10^-42 seconds, it is a fact. A fact (among others) used to derive the existence of dark energy. In summary, there is no great divide between something that is an actual scientific theory and a fact. However, it is important to know that scientific theory refers to the explanation of how/why. In conclusion, a scientific theory is a "greater" fact than the fact that I am typing right now - even though the latter is empirical, yet anecdotal, evidence. The latter is data, it is a fact, it is a scientific fact - but nothing like a scientific theory is a fact. And a scientific theory is a fact.

[@upsidedownnugget9531]

I’m lost.

[@snatchngrab8262]

@@upsidedownnugget9531 Simply, the why becomes a fact.

[@upsidedownnugget9531]

No I got it. You just over complicated something the dude above had already explained. It’s just word soup like the hosts here. Also the why becomes the fact is simplifying it too much.

[@gregcampwriter]

Victor's attitude: I insist that you accept my definitions for the terms used in your field.

[@NerdOutWithMe]

I love people like Victor. They think they know everything, by acknowledging that nobody can possibly know everything.

[@brianfergus839]

Sounds like Victor attended the Dunning and Kruger school of Divinity

[@revo1974]

He’s a smug know-jt-all.

[@neutronpixie6106]

Did he really say he can see germs on the surface of his eye? Is he talking about "floaters", the visible shadows of the vitreous gel that's in your eye? Geeze! I'm surprised this guy was smart enough to even operate a phone.

[@KrustyKlown]

Victor is simply too scientifically ignorant to discuss gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity ... explains how the perceived force of gravity arises from the curvature of space and time .... this has been understood by mankind for 100 years ... excluding at least one guy named Victor ... who may now be floating off into Space .. .. bye bye Victor!!!

[@reclavea]

+BigCooter.com A scientific experiment proving Genesis 1:1 is the main impetus and motivation for Einstein to invent his bogus Relativity Theories precisely to overcome the results of the experiment.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Ron E [Citation Needed]

[@reclavea]

+Antediluvian Atheist Here's Einstein admitting that an incredible experiment that proves the Earth does not move in space....is the SOLE motivation for him to INVENT his bogus Relativity Theories! Einstein: “Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the earth is revolving around the sun. “How I created the theory of relativity” Einstein 1924 & Einstein admitted in 1920 in his Kyoto speech (Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, 35 (8), 45, 1982). ------------ Several others performed that experiment and also found the Earth does not move. Tens of hundreds of experiments were done subsequently and all with the same results. The Earth does not move. -------------- In 1971 …a biography is written about Einstein. Einstein's biographer Ronald Clark acknowledges he same frustrations Einstein and others experienced with those experiments: “In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed an experiment which confronted scientists with an appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether, at that time considered essential, it had yielded a null result leaving science with the alternative of tossing aside the key which had helped to explain the phenomenon of electricity, magnetism and light, or of deciding that the earth was not in fact moving at all.” (Einstein: The life and times”, 1971 p. 57) -------------------------- Einstein’s biographer again says it best and acknowledges the M/M experiment was THE motivating factor for Einstein to INVENT Relativity: “The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable” (Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, p. 109-110.) Everyone in the physics establishment saw the same implications, and they were beside themselves with consternation. Why should the results of an experiment be "unthinkable"? LOL! ------------ Genesis 1:1 is verified by these experiments and many others up to todays modern discoveries in cosmology. The Earth is undoubtedly static and the center of the universe as revealed in Genesis 1:1

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Ron E Nopoe. It just shows that you don't understand. your fisrt quote was Einstein 'admitting' that he had an impetus for his work. Duh. The second is an experiment that does away with ether theory, and shows that the earth is round. And the third is nothing more than an indicator that they overlooked something. Sorry, but We've moved on from Einstein. And you don't seem to know how science works. Also, the earth is a spheroid. In order to refute that, you have to go up against every branch of science, and all the photo evidence, and the things you can see with the naked eye... the list is so long, that you end up at odds with reality. www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html This is the damage that religion does. you have my pity.

[@reclavea]

Don't be absurd LOL!.....This is the problem with you and your presumptions LOL! First of all where did I ever say the Earth is Flat???? LOL! ...the Earth is a sphere!! And you are grasping for straws .....Einstein's MOTIVATION for INVENTING his BS Relativity Theories is that notorious experiment PROVING the Earth does NOT move!! LOL.....HE ADMITS IT! Look at the title ha ha “How I created the theory of relativity” Einstein 1924 And moved on from Einstein? LOL ....don't be science inept ....Einstein's Physics RULES today and is the paradigm! ...Go ahead and show which physics rules today the macro universe? LOL Listen......All the physics empirical evidence has a motionless Earth in the center of the universe. This is why I assert the modern science itself has proven Genesis 1:1 and therefore the existence of the Almighty Creator ..God. Go ahead a post any conclusive scientific empirical evidence the Earth moves and I'll acquiesce... :-) Otherwise any notion of an Earth in motion nothing but pure PHILOSOPHY. Genesis 1:1 conclusively proven by modern science itself! The Earth is undoubtedly static and the center of the universe.

[@shawnsimmons1308]

Atheists aren't the ones running around making outlandish claims.

[@picitnew]

Remember that atheism is just about the claim _"there is a god/gods"_

[@shawnsimmons1308]

picitnew....Exactly. It amazes and discourages me that the majority of the human race still haven't outgrown that caveman's explanation for thunder.

[@picitnew]

My point was that there are also atheists with outlandish claims. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you're smart :)

[@shawnsimmons1308]

picitnew..Ahh. I understand and I agree. I've heard a few atheists, over my years, claiming they believe in ghosts, good and bad luck, astrology, tarot cards, psychics, far-fetched conspiracy theories, and even reincarnation. That says more about humanity's gullibility than it does about the veracity of the ideas.

[@picitnew]

+ Zokix11 MC Perhaps you should read what I wrote once more :)

[@Emiliapocalypse]

As soon as he said “super hardcore atheist”, I couldn’t stop cracking up. Where can I buy that on a shirt? 😂

[@kenbee1957]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 If you ever find one, please @me

[@TheSnoeedog]

only from the inner circle...you have to know someone on the inside

[@robertstolk8744]

I've taught chemistry for over 20 years. Theories are not constituted by observation. A scientist observes something then creates a hypothesis. Upon coming up with a hypothesis the scientist comes up with experiments to satisfy the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is satisfied, then other scientists find out about the hypothesis and conduct the experiment to satisfy or dissatisfy the hypothesis. Through many years of experimenting where scientists satisfy the hypothesis over and over, then the hypothesis will become a theory. It stays a theory until a scientist can dissatisfy the theory through other experimentation. If the theory cannot be dissatisfied, then it stays a theory until someone can dissatisfy it. Theories are made and kept theories through enormous amounts of experimentation by many scientists. It may take many, many years of others trying to dissatisfy the theory, but if they don't dissatisfy it, then it stays a theory and will be used in science as a scientific tool.

[@TheChannel0309]

Man, I LOVE how Jamie starts dropping things randomly.

[@antitheist3206]

We measured gravitational waves 2 years before this call happened. Gravity is as real as light.

[@chasedixon1492]

Jamie had me cracking up after Victor said he rejected the theory of gravity and he just went on a spree of throwing shit 😂😂😂

[@BrianGay57]

“People always calling me a conspiracy theorist” Really? LOL!

[@BananaKyat]

This dude called eye-floaters germs..... Welp, that settles it, science is an embarrassment.

[@iloveplasticbottles]

1:00 he wasn’t an atheist. He’s always been religious, he’s just saying this to sway you to his side. He’s a liar.

[@chops6416]

The universe is expanding, it can be measured. Therefore it can be calculated that at one time there was a time and place it started to expand, ie a big bang. This caller was never ever an atheist. He is also scientifically illiterate.

[@eadiaz91]

No, we can only measure a certain part of the universe, the vast majority of it we will never be able to observe. So how can you, with 100% certainty, claim that the entire universe is expanding; and not just the small section we can actually observe. I don't agree with Victor but at least he questions conventional theories. Need people that can think for themselves then just accept what other people say. People used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth and wrote countless books about it.

[@chops6416]

eadiaz91 because all the observable universe is expanding, it is reasonable that what you can't directly observe is behaving in the same manner. Without appearing to be rude, there are a lot of comments here based on ignorance or a lack of understanding of the scientific method. People do think for themselves, how do you think we have got to the position of an understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine, engineering, etc etc. By people questioning how things work, these people are usually well educated in a specific field. Only when you have a good understanding of the basic principles of a subject are you able to 'think outside the box' Einstein had to have a good understanding of physics before he could think about theories of 'space time' and then publish them to the scientific community for evaluation. THAT is how we progress and gain a greater understanding of the world/universe we live in, NOT by watching 50 youtube videos of clueless idiots saying "The earth looks flat to me, so it must be" or "Its written in my religions scriptures, so it must be true" I have to trust experts in what they say because I don't have the knowledge or skill to argue a different view, that would be ridiculous. Science moves forward because of experts(scientists/ engineers etc) taking those next steps - answering one question usually results in many more being asked! Science can be perverted (in my opinion) when it comes to weapons development - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for example and also in medicine (again in my opinion) when testing on animals. I'm in danger of rambling on and on here. To sum up, I don't just accept what people say but I accept what people say backed up by research, published and scrutinized by peer review, there is NO other way.

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@eadiaz91 You tried to correct someone who was obviously correct to anyone scientifically literate. Google your question next time instead of wasting someone's time.

[@edvardm4348]

Cavendish is tested in various universities by new students all over the world by new students in tens of thousands experiments every friggin year.

[@kyleepratt]

Came here looking for Cavendish comments. Glad you already covered it. And just to add on, not a single satellite would orbit successfully if the theory of gravity wasn't incredibly accurate.

[@themightylex]

OMG!! Does Victor from Brooklyn have ya'll on speed dial? He's been the caller on every segment I've watched so far

[@Ahriman_II]

Please tell who's ever vetting the called to stop taking victors calls

[@GaryIV]

2:31 : "Stephen Hawking *walks* through the steps and observations" 😂

[@Zhamp0]

victor is the perfect example of the dunning kruger effect

[@wilfordbrimley3319]

This Victor guy sounds like he could be the condescending armchair science-denying cousin of Carl from ATHF.

[@Goldarlives]

WilfordBrimley Yo Fryman, you can’t frikkin’ convince me that the moon exists! Those moon men were paid crisis actahs

[@themanwithnoname1839]

He outright reminds me of gary milne, aka darth dawkins with how pathetically stupid he is

[@rubenvasquez8592]

Dark matter is not a theory, it's an observation

[@thomasclark9517]

Victor has an enormous chip on his shoulder. If you were standing behind Victor in a buffet line and said to him - "Sir, I'm grabbing a few napkins for myself, would you like a few? I can grab a few for you." Victor would reply - "WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? I'M A SLOB? I'M NOT A SLOB. YOU'RE A SLOB! DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT?!?!?!"

[@James-ye7rp]

"Gravity hasn't been proven": I suspect that everyone watching picked up something and dropped it.

[@righthandofdoom77]

'oh really, Victor' picks up a mug of tea and takes a sip.

[@kyleepratt]

Right!? 1 step further, most people who have done a physics lab class have confirmed the acceleration due to gravity here on earth's surface. You can actually get the number yourself!

[@Kestrel1971]

A scientific theory is much, much more than simply, "the best explanation for something". A scientific theory is comprised of the body of knowledge about a subject that has been tested and withstood attempts at falsification to such an extent that they can be considered, for all intents and purposes, to be established, proven fact. The colloquial use of the term, theory, is more aligned with a scientific hypothesis, which is a best guess, though unproven, based on established information.

[@homestarflyerify]

What about string theory, M theory, the theory of everything, etc.? There can be competing theories, right?

[@RacielSR]

Theories can not be competing, only hypotheses can. All the mentioned theories are called theories because scientist need funding and are inherently interested in overselling their ideas to generate interest from others. If you tell everyone you have just found a pile of gold, everyone is interested. If it turns out to be a mere description of said pile of gold, people will help you looking for it. Fact is: String theory is yet unproven and the theory of everything is not even formulated (i don't know what M theory is). There is however a debatte about the exact extent of the word hypothese. In essence it's about the question if a hypothesis is one single claim about a fact in the world or if a hypothesis can be multiple claims at once. In the first case it would be most accurate to refer to string theory as string hypotheses (plural form) and in the latter it would be enough to use the singular form.

[@homestarflyerify]

It's all politics brother

[@brianmonks8657]

Jesse lawson Physicists don't hold string theory to be a theory. At this point it is a hypothesis, and will continue to be until it can predict results that can be tested for. There can be competing theories to explain the same phenomena, but to be a theory, it has to explain the existing data, and be capable of predicting new data. The ability to also explain the new data is what will eventually narrow down which competing theory (if either) will be accepted.

[@roqsteady5290]

The thing is that science is progressive, so a single word, such as "theory", can not capture every degree of confidence that we can have in an explanation. There is no board of scientists that decides exactly when a hypothesis (i.e. tentative explanation) is sufficiently well established to be called a "theory", so in practice the term theory often comes to be used for almost any explanation. The best, most supported, explanations in science, such as theory of evolution, theory of general relativity, big bang etc. did not get their power by being called "theories" but by the fact that they are the best explanations in their fields, supported by stacks of evidence.

[@adamthaxton3157]

You can buy a Cavendish apparatus from any laboratory supply store. You can also build one. And find time-lapse videos on youtube. Does he think we just do one experiment once and go with that?

[@countedcrowzero]

Can someone please find out who this Victor guy is? I'm really interested to see his FB profile or something.. A Victor in his natural habitat, if you will.

[@JimShadyUK]

FB profile or FBI profile?

[@Mewse1203]

"In order to make a positive assertion..." Let me stop you right there. Atheists aren't making a positive assertion. They are rejecting the theists positive assertion because it hadn't met the burden the caller so helpfully laid out that it has.

[@Ebiru2387]

Dude is a troll. I doubt he was ever a "hardcore atheist"

[@adamcroft80]

Wait…. this guy is rejecting gravity because of an experiment done 300 years ago in a barn that he didn’t witness?? At the same time he believes in a God that created the universe millions of years ago even tho he didn’t see it?? That sort of logic always hurts my head

[@iansvoice1]

Before a conversation about something as complicated as the universe can begin, a big problem needs to be addressed with concern to Victor’s “style” of argument. He tends to conflate his own understanding (or misunderstanding) of a subject with others’ understanding of that same subject. He is the smartest man in the world and only deals in absolutes. That is his mentality. It is quite possible that in his development as a child he was not able to develop (or it was poorly developed) a theory of mind, or the ability to see the world through another’s perspective.

[@supreme84x]

Another caller doing a great job of demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[@jonnynihil8121]

Lol Victor is amazing! He reassures me that Einstien was right. There truly is no limit to human stupidity.

[@joeldavid1031]

The Cavendish Experiment was a little over 200 years ago and it wasn't in a barn. He had to make sure there was as little outside influence over the experiment as possible so he enclosed it in high, thick walls. He was a very respected scientist in his day and ours.

[@nameofthegame9664]

If this guy has ever been a “hardcore atheist” he has really gone thru a hardcore intellectual regression.

[@walde1968]

If having a crush on Eric is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

[@mikeinmelbourne9491]

Victor is a troll - wasted effort, but appreciate the approach of you guys.

[@mandolinic]

I performed the experiment to confirm Newton's law of gravitation when I was in the second year of my Physics BSc. It's called the torsion balance experiment and it's a direct measure of gravitational attraction between two heavy masses. It's done by real qualified physicists to measure the value of big G, and repeated to a lesser accuracy by tens of thousands of Physics undergrads in university department all round the world every year. So much for Victor's assertion that Cavendish's experiment has never been repeated.

[@MrKit9]

I want the 22 minutes of my life back.

[@lightshope5020]

Never have I wanted a troll to drop dead from a heart attack like I do with this guy.

[@himurarobatam8709]

God of the gaps! When ever something doesn’t suit you, God did it ! Question was answered yet he fail to see it. He said when different people are exposed to the same formula do they all have the same answer??

[@nirot_]

I've watched a couple of these involving Victor. He keeps mentioning things about how he loves "I don't know" and he "loves to be wrong" yet he is so unwilling to actually acknowledge that he doesn't know something or if he is wrong about something. Because of this it seems like like he is either very insecure about his beliefs or extremely confused about his beliefs. So I'm glad that victor is willing to have these kinds of public conversations with people who clearly have superior intelligence in relation to him. There are so many people in this world that are so set in their ways that they are unwilling to even hear the other side of the argument, let alone in a public setting such as this. Add onto the fact that, as far as I can tell, he is both insecure and confused and you have a fairly mentally tough guy. In my view, Victor is an excellent example of someone who is intellectually curious enough to change for the better, but needs a little bit more coercing than the average person. Never-mind Victor's demonstrably false beliefs, it seems to me Victor is a genuinely good person who is interested in advanced topics like these but just cannot grasp them as easily as the hosts, or the average person for that matter. I really dislike seeing negative comments about him because it really seems like he is trying to change both his life and his belief system for the better. You go, Victor.

[@JimmyBRANDON]

I find these people very patient to 'discuss' about things that have been already proven long ago. And this Victor caller can't even agree on the definition of a simple word? Damned! Why even trying to talk to him then?

[@admstick]

He thinks eye floaters are germs! Poor Victor.

[@1369Stiles]

The guy is the poster child for the dunning kruger effect

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

What does atheism has to do with the Big Bang or even evolution. If tomorrow they find a better explanation for the beginning of the universe or for origens of living things, what does it have to do with supernatural entities existing or not?

[@joecoolioness6399]

It doesn't. Problem is theists keep using things like those to try and prove they are right. So it kinda comes with the territory.

[@chrism3241]

ahh it is Victor again. This guy lacks critical thinking skills. He doesn't understand anything that is being told to him. I have seen him on other videos and he gives me a headache.

[@ralphtrusty3536]

It all became clear about 15:00 or so when he conflated germs with germ theory. One are the things and the other is are best explanation of what, why and how they came to be and do what they do.

[@sardento66]

Victor just rambles

[@charliegilroy1850]

"abby-o-genesis" is killing me

[@ptuffgong8504]

This caller apparently has everything figured out. Although I seriously doubt that he isn't a Christian. His beliefs, his hesitation when they asked him. The boy is a Christian. No one believes his nonsense without the Bible backing him up.

[@2l84me8]

An atheist is simply someone who lacks theism. It has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution nor Big Bang cosmology whatsoever. Also science does not operate on faith nor blind assumptions. This caller is very ignorant or trolling. “Hardcore atheist”.

[@DJ-ov2it]

20 years later and Ray looks like a totally different guy

[@grahamers]

These hosts are a trainwreck. (The guy on the right isn't as bad.) 1) Too many cooks in the kitchen. 2) Stop talking over each other so much. 3) Slow down and take it step by step.

[@jamesmartin770]

That dude talks sooo much and never says anything

[@redmed10]

They should have just straight out asked what point he called in to make. He softened them up by saying he's read all the books by hitchens and Dawkins and then proceeded to waste 20plus mins arguing about what the word 'theory ' means. Having 3 hosts does not help. No one took control. Matt can be overbearing at times but he does try to keep conversations on point.

[@blackflagofdeathgamester9685]

In the history of Victors, this one might be the absolute disgrace of Victors.

[@TheDizzleHawke]

He’s essentially arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as he is. Touché man. Touché.

[@TomAnderson_81]

The burden of proof is on the claimant

[@TomAnderson_81]

Happy Dragon I don’t nor ever will speak for anyone but myself and I won’t agree with them disrespecting that way. But, none of that fulfills the burden of proof of the claimant.

[@TomAnderson_81]

WotanSauron Hilarious 🤣 When did I ever say that?

[@TomAnderson_81]

WotanSauron You said I claimed the above but when did I do that?

[@TomAnderson_81]

WotanSauron Why believe? It is or it isn’t but I have not nor will ever CLAIM it is or that it is not without concrete factual verifiable data to support my claim. I don’t know much about it nor have I ever made such claims but if YOU believe in the Bible god or other god, YOU carry the burden of proof. So you think that your god is true?

[@TomAnderson_81]

WotanSauron Amusing fellow aren’t you. I think I answered above and speaking of avoiding, do you think there is a god?

[@_Dumb_Answers]

I love those little chuckles when Victor goes on a monologue, like he's loving how absolutely dismal his arguments are.

[@moonriver601]

When a drop a pen it will fall. That is gravitational law. Fact. But that doesn't explain why the pen falls when I drop it. The explanation, based on tests/evidence is called Theory. Why do people conflate these definitions?

[@Pyladin]

Paul, the proof for gravity is so much more then that. Having something fall could simply be because of other things we didn't know about. What we know is that we can also observe that tides happen because of the Moon. We can observe space and see gravity. We can take two small objects and see it there. We can predict things with the math that come from accepting that gravity is real. So much out there and then flat earthers comes along and they question it all, but they never ever fucking tries to find answers and do the simple experiments themselves.

[@moonriver601]

Sorry, bud. Words can have multiple meanings depending on the context. Open up any Dictionary and find multiple meanings for the same word. You don't have to put "scientific" in front of it, to give it more weight. People in general can have vastly different idea's of what different words mean. That doesn't change anything. Example: "Darwin's theory of evolution" not Darwin's scientific theory of evolution."

[@karlrschneider]

Keep in mind half the population is below average. And that segment is comprised of a very high percentage of religionists.

[@AdrianBourneArt]

Caller is not seeing “germs” They’re little bits of his collagen that have broken off and are floating in his aqueous humor.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Dear Victor: if a God were at least as interested as you in demonstrating himself, you would not be calling at all!

[@elainejohnson6955]

Good point. Victor's god picked a very bad substitute for itself.

[@hueybui]

He seriously does not know what a "Theory" is...When he was talking about Germ Theory, I wanted to punch my monitor.

[@jeffc5974]

The context is _science_, Victor. So we are talking about a _scientific_ theory. This is different from a conspiracy theory or a colloquial theory in that it has been tested repeatedly, hundreds, thousands and more times. You can test it for yourself as well.

[@joecoolioness6399]

Well put

[@jamesleighdavis138]

‘I wasn’t looking for Jesus’ ‘I’m very scientific’ ‘I’m a very rational person’ ‘I was a hardcore atheist’ ‘I didn’t want to believe’ - Every dishonest theist ever.

[@Omega0850]

I´m sorry, but the speechpattern of the guy in the middle is just so annoying that i can´t keep watching.

[@Omega0850]

Maybe its a medical condition, which i could understand, but that doesn´t make it less annoying.

[@NewRedYolk]

I didn't see that it was Ray, but I knew it was him as soon as I heard him.

[@BodinhoDE]

„I‘m not a conspiracy theorist, I‘m a reality analyst.“ 😂😂😂

[@Jprimus]

I guess it depends on what reality he thinks he is living in. In his, sure. In actual reality, he's a f***ing nut job

[@trailmarker6154]

These guys do a really bad job. Victor calls in to AE and he'd be destroyed by the hosts.

[@trailmarker6154]

Not my point. Doubt they hung up on you because you're feared. The hosts distract each other and don't stay focused on the call. Likeable guys but...

[@thenatural_69]

I was thinking the same thing. I wanted to yell at the screen. His arguments are so easily blown apart.

[@JasonBoreu]

WotanSauron Can tell us in which episode did you appear or better yet do you have a link to the video where you called in?

[@danielessex2162]

James Owsley they are trying to be nicer to the callers then AE because they haven't been doing it as long and believe that acting more timid will get them more points amongst the braindead of society as many theists and conspiracy nuts make the same claims that wotansuaron made.....or very similar ones such as "oh those guys heard my evidence couldn't deny it so they hung up on me" like umm that dude that called so often he had to start lying about his name so he could get through the call screeners.

[@bunnymustard]

Victor is the human embodiment of the argument from incredulity. 🤦

[@BlackGuyTv]

Victor is willfully ignorant and I have no time for ppl like that. Hence the reason he got triggered by being called a conspiracy theorist because ppl write him off when they know that.

[@cforchex]

Every time Victor calls, the conversation makes several right turns and a hard 180. Victor called in to discuss the definition of a "Theory." Great episode.

[@davidsmith7653]

"I used to be a super hardcore atheists and lookatme!!! I dun got converted to the twoof so it must be compelling and correct. If it can happen to me and I'm so super smart then it can happen to you" Look sonny, pretending you used to be an atheist cuts no ice at all with us and in fact makes us conclude that you're lying from the get go. It's a bad strategy so cut it out.

[@davidsmith7653]

OMG and then it turns out he's also a conspiracy theorist and flat earther.

[@felixgraphx]

also frustrating that the hosts do not seem to have the word "hypothesis" in their vocabulary to explain that the popular/everyday sense is hypothesis, and After that it is observed with experiments that it matches what happens in reality then scientists use the term 'theory'. How can you debate theists without being fluent with those terms!?!

[@bobobo2224]

I can't watch this show. It has such potential but Jaime ALWAYS steps on Eric and they rarely get anywhere. This show spent a few minutes on good stuff then Jaime and Mr senile kept talking. I can't watch Jaime. Eric NEVER gets to actually school anyone because any time some other host opens their mouth, Eric just waits patiently until caller changes topics and Eric never finishes his point.

[@onlymurgs]

This guy is amazing.. ALL the things that he claims scientists dont have proof for so are therefore just guessing, yet there is massive amounts of evidence that backs up everything that science says. When you deny gravity, you fully gone

[@markklippenberg7364]

How he read and still believes his nonsense is quiet simple, Dunning Kruger.

[@shanewilson7994]

The Cavendish experiment is still done today by students in colleges.

[@rachelmarieLMT]

How do we not have evidence for evolution? As an anthropology major in college...I assure you...we have tons of evidence.

[@joecoolioness6399]

I have found that almost all theists that refute evolution do not actually understand what it is. They literally say things like "I have never seen a cat give birth to a dog", or " if we evolved from apes why do we still have apes". At least when I talk to them about what the bible says I can actually point to it in the bible. They don't want to learn what evolution is because they may find out it actually does explain how we got here. We didn't get shat out by some god. And that scares them.

[@jessicahope9744]

Oh god its Victor from Brooklyn. I can't. I literally can't.

[@HappyHippieGaymer]

When people say there is no evidence for long proven scientific theories, you can conclude they are either a troll, waaaay to stupid to talk to in any rational sense, or are deliberately dishonest.

[@ReiverGames]

I know im late to the party here, but the joy on Eric's face (at 10:36) when he goes "Wellll....." is a beautiful thing.

[@justsomeguy8385]

The guy in the middle is great. He's a real character and seems to know his shit.

[@dr.christopherdiaz4473]

The confusion between the words "theory" and "hypothesis" have done more damage to humanity than imaginable.

[@jasontaylor284]

Actually, scientists are beginning to posit that the big bang could have been created by a black hole forming in another part of the universe. Interesting theory.

[@jasontaylor284]

Also, that each black hole contains a separate universe...

[@brianmonks8657]

Please don't mix up the Law of Gravity with the Theory of Gravity. Laws are descriptive, they offer no explanations. The Law of Gravity works just as well as it did in Newton's time, but doesn't at all explain what gravity actually is. A Theory is a model of a phenomena that explains the known facts, and predicts new results. Newton's Theory of Gravity was wrong, and was replaced by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Newton's Law of Gravity is what is used for space, not his Theory of Gravity.