The Atheist Experience 746 with Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser

[@pkiverson]

I love how Daniel first introduced himself as somewhat of an "aficionado" on evolution and then goes on to show he has absolutely no understanding of even the basic concepts behind evolution. Special. Just special.

[@ScottJoC]

Daniel: I won't take up much of your time! 25minutes later... Matt: we're out of time

[@jussts]

And the winner for the "caller who overstayed their welcome" award goes to Daniel!

[@ezelouie]

Lol at the end, "Smile and wave boys, just smile and wave"

[@TruthSurge]

Daniel - "I really want to know." No, you don't. When Matt gives a clear example of a stupid, asinine design and you cannot agree, you are not at all interested in truth.

[@Utmoon]

Just got done watching. Really good talk. The last guy seemed to have a case of 'painting himself into a corner'. He can't get out of the room any more without stepping on some of his beliefs.

[@HeranKoana]

That line of questions was maddening.

[@TheLaughingOut]

Definitely one of the better episodes of late. I'm glad that there are still some theists ballsy enough to call in.

[@BrytaPlanka]

That last call turned out to be a pretty interesting discussion to listen to!

[@TheIkaraCult]

As soon as that Dan guy started telling them he was a "physics afficionado", and about how much time he spends in a library I knew he was going to be an apologist. Someone who really studies these things doesnt feel the need to assert it before theyve said anything, they can demonstrate it with their knowledge.

[@jcisbell]

This is the only show I've watched regularly on the Internet. I tune in like it's The Sopranos or something. Thanks again for doing this.

[@SonytoBratsoni]

@xxFortunadoxx I actually concur with your post .No postmodern thinker I've read ever said "truth is subjective" , indeed I've yet to read a single article by anyone seriously defending this idea. Ironically , the only philosopher of science I recall saying that science is like religion was Paul Feyerabend , who wasn't a postmodernist and later admitted to using hyperbolic language.

[@x513xSparks]

Matt's face around the 42 minute mark is absolutely priceless.

[@BenZomasGarden]

This Daniel guy reminds me a lot of myself when I was still a believer (even down to the tremble in his voice). Hopefully he continues his questions and doesn't stop learning. He sounds like a potential OTDer.

[@TheAndyVegan]

YAY! I was soo happy when I saw this on my new uploads list! I'll comment again after viewing :D

[@kingjuggalo4335]

First call 18:55 athiest Second caller 23:38 atheist Third caller 29:07

[@TruthSurge]

@Saerain I understand you but Daniel was not even admitting to a bad design when it was clear and easy to understand. If your car has square tires, and someone designed it that way, that would be a bad design for transportation, CAN WE AGREE ON THAT? (Daniel would go... "well, it depends on how effiecient you need it to be.")

[@saerain]

I had to pause and take a walk as soon as Daniel said ‘there's a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution’. HNNG-

[@TheNakedAtheist]

You're absolutely right about journalists no longer investigating the truth. When there were just three TV networks they competed to report the truth as accurately as possible, in fact their reputation, and ratings were based on being the best at doing so. With the proliferation of "news" sources, we now have a situation where competition is based on telling the truth that as the most viewers want to hear it told. So instead of news informing public opinion, public opinion informs the news.

[@thegrimyeaper]

Pretty amazing sign-off. :P

[@nuttertools888]

wow that last caller went for 30mins lol. awesome discussion

[@theoriginalSkooby]

Wow! He sure picked the right day to call in.

[@TruthSurge]

@ricardjorg but he understood the cable thing. :) and he also understood where that was leading. But instead of admitting it was a bad design, he tapdanced.

[@Soultwist3r]

42:01 Matt whispers "wow" in response to the caller. I was thinking the same thing.

[@Nasonater223]

"Be thankful for your life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." - Richard dawkins

[@VerumAdNauseam]

I wish this show was two hours long and nationally syndicated with commercials and everything.

[@accent77]

What a frustrating phone call.

[@joshrocks11]

"You are wrong sir!' Amazing, I love matt.

[@LogicAndReason2025]

Proponents of the so-called intelligent design movement need to take some courses in engineering design. Daniel can't seem to grasp the fact that living systems are indicative of systems of cobbled systems.

[@urcorrect]

@TheAtheistExperience Uploads are quick with respect to aire times lately. Good job.

[@Quintinohthree]

"We should all be one-celled organisms, that's the most efficient of all" Just today I watched a video on the Numberphile channel in which it was explained that larger animals are more efficient when it comes to energy.

[@AscendingParadigm]

LOL the caller and his cable guy

[@shawndimery]

I wish they would change the background, the past 2 years worth of shows have blended together, they feel much more unique with a different background.

[@Jeremyramone]

@jumpingmap well stated, I ve often written about this topic and you ve worded this aspect of it quite astutely, cheers

[@toshir0m1]

How many Daniels does it take to change a lightbulb ? *shivers*

[@SelfImmolatorANP]

@theUKatheist I found the whole Daniel call far better than most other shows. They cycled through so much info that the uninformed won't have known, when responding to the things Daniel said. Plus you might be underestimating the creationism problem in the US, it's vital to get into this. I suspect it's more than 40-ish%. I think many religious people who tell pollsters they accept evolution know nothing about it and are thereby vulnerable to creationist arguments.

[@salamut2202]

The last caller didn't want to learn. Not from where I'm standing.

[@unclexbob]

daniel starts at 29:20

[@Jeremyramone]

fantastic episode, i will , when i have more time, organize a similar group here in san diego. thanks kindly gents, cheers

[@TruthSurge]

@ultim4t32 yeah, i was thinking about the cable example, actually. If someone wrapped cable 10 times around your house then into it for cable TV... obviously, that's a dumb design. And the guy wanted to DEBATE that! hahaha he knew, he would soon have to admit he was wrong if he didn't keep talking about efficiency and crap.

[@jcisbell]

@apeek7 Speaking of that, I like the 'design' of the bird that pushes is non flying young over the cliff to bounce, bounce, bounce down to the ground where many die and/or are eaten. GOOD PLAN!

[@AvalonDraconis]

@Spinobreaker It also helps that the time appears in the description box in such a way that doesn't require viewers to expand it to see when the callers start.

[@Atheistfor35yrs]

Daniel needs to make a trip to Galapagos islands so he can understand changes and why they happen.

[@user-ke3wp7cn1i]

nice closing by matt

[@pdoylemi]

As I explained to this guy, Russel's argument was not an argument from ignorance. His assertion is based on his ignorance of what abiogenesis means. It only means the beginning of life from lifeless matter. HE assumed that the only definition of abiogenesis was a naturalistic, scientific one. In fact, the Bible puts forth its' own hypothesis about abiogenesis - God did it. So this was not argument from ignorance it was a syllogism: "If life never started, there would be no life."

[@integralmath]

@Symos more specifically, it's the number of generations between population at time a and population at time b.

[@AlderDragon]

Aha, I -thought- he covered this topic before. I went through all of the old episodes years ago.

[@gwmgbwi]

Arthur Brisbane? Anyone notice that's the character's name from High Anxiety who thinks he's a Cocker Spaniel? "But cockers are quite bright."

[@crackthecorn]

LOL i love the callers when they just don't get it

[@BlckSbthMan]

Atheist Experience needs some crazy prog-rock or something to go with their cool intro. Also a font change. Haha. Love teh show.

[@Slarti]

I used to believe that one should never lie until my mother died and the only way I could get her ashes to scatter them at her request, in a forest she used to enjoy walking in, was to lie to the authorities about what I was going to do with the ashes...

[@Rationalific]

Russel Glasser did really well today. In fact, although Matt is brilliant, and I understood what he was getting at, he sort of got away from the main points, which tied up the conversation a bit. Russel mostly answered the main points and answered them well. That idiot caller was something else! Wow!

[@SephieRothe]

I don't think at 47:50 K2 event is meant, though it sounds like that is what is said. K2 is a mountain. KT is the border between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. The KT event is the mass extinction that occurred on that border

[@VirulentShadow]

lol Matt's "what the fuck, man" face @ 41:59

[@BeekersSqueakers]

"If it's about efficiency, then we should all be one-celled organisms," If he believes that, then the existence of multi-celled organisms would be a perfect example of why Intelligent Design is wrong.

[@AvalonDraconis]

@TheAndyLoraProgram No problem. Go read the paper "Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of the Giraffe," (2006) if you want more information. I just found this out recently too, and it's pretty cool how evolution works. There is even a documentary here on YT that talks specifically about the evolution of giraffes, from their long neck, to their horns, to their incredible heart, which is huge compared to humans.

[@kotoroshinoto]

@ixamraxi "When hunters kill elephants with the longest tusks, the ones with shorter tusks live to propagate the gene for shorter tusks, thus we see a drift away from long tusks. No mutation necessary here." Although you will eventually exhaust the variation toward the short-tusk direction, requiring mutation to produce more and enable tusks to either get shorter or vanish entirely with further selection.

[@EmmittBrownBTTF1]

.... and Daniel said wasn't going to attack afterwards... at least he it made it interesting.

[@andykjm]

I actually side with Danial on this one. He was asking a simple question. IF you think design A is better than design B, state your criteria. That's a perfectly valid question and I have no clue why Matt got so worked up about it.

[@Raziel_Knight]

Of course journalists should point out whether or not a statement is true. That's the primary role news sources should be performing in society. They are supposed to keep us informed of the truth and not allow us to be manipulated or lied to. Especially not from their own reports either.

[@Nasonater223]

Thank you for saving me some typing time : )

[@jerrypz]

@Webofscience To be honest, I goto a black barbers in London. Today, other customer starts preaching about how important Christ is today & the barber's agreeing with him. I didn't don't want the convo to come to me - I KNOW me declaring im an atheist will not go down well.

[@gwmgbwi]

@BlckSbthMan I've ofter thought the same about the intro song but now, I can't imagine it without it. It's like when I hear "Three Blind Mice" I'm ready to watch the stooges.

[@MrPatrickHenryCheryl]

44:43 "Not now, I'm pwning."

[@TheBostonRage]

@SBRslacker00 It's not so much that the extinct species were "bad" designs. It's the fact that once the Earth changed, those species, who were once well adapted to it, could no longer survive on that climate. Other than that, you are right. I was starting to get lost on that topic since I don't know as much about biology as other things

[@nasty1182]

that was hilarious. The caller didn't understand that the reasons for your belief determin whether or not your beliefs are resonable.

[@greenjelly01]

Matt was off his usual best today. I thought Russell handled the call much better, especially when he brought up the point that you cannot argue for a perfect creator and a perfect creation, and at the same time excuse some imperfections. Evolution is a far better explanation in that case. I wish they had pursued that line of argument further.

[@HotblackDesiat042]

@undisputedgreatest In the past they used to vary between a few songs that seemed to promote the “logic and reason” theme of the show, in which case I’m sure they had to obtain the rights to use them. However, in regard to the current opening piece, Brian Steeksma (sp?) specifically wrote that song for their show. It's "not my cup of tea" either, but it's understandable as to why it is current mainstay. Regardless of the piece chosen there will always be likes and dislikes.

[@AvalonDraconis]

@Utmoon The information I have is from: "Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of the Giraffe," by Simmons, Robert, and Lue Scheepers found in The American Naturalist (1996) vol. 148, pp. 771-786.

[@maccaaccam99]

seriously was my comment deleted or something? was like the 4th message. all i suggested was an list of callers, times they start and topic they cover so we can watch the ones that interest us instead of watching an entire episode or not. some one thought it was a good idea. like a dvd menu with chapters.

[@13aBOC]

Evolution doesn't have a goal. It just happens.!! EVOLUTION IS A FACT!!!! GREAT STUFF MATT!

[@heathenwizard]

I feel like maybe he was unnecessarily harsh to that second caller. The points he tried to make were kind of skewed in subtle ways, but that didn't give Mr. Dillahunty the right to tear him a new one.

[@pdoylemi]

By definition, abiogenesis means the beginning of life. It does not state what mechanism is involved. So his statement was nearly correct. He did get sloppy and forgot the panspermia option which might bring life from another world. But, in general, this was not an argument from ignorance. He was saying, (paraphrase) "Of course, a planet on which life never began, there would be no life." The only inaccuracy was forgetting the panspermia option, but essentially the argument remains valid.

[@SuperMemzzz]

@SuperMemzzz What I am saying is, Post modernism never disqualifies science. That would be absurd. It's relative approach to truth is about subjective matters, not objective reality. Like history can be subjectively biased etc.

[@ghollisjr]

The caller has a point: you need to specify what you think of as good design in order to show that something is poorly designed, like the giraffe neck. Something to think about is what the defining characteristics of a giraffe are. If you take the extremely long nerve as a defining characteristic of a giraffe, then the nerve must be long in a well-designed giraffe. However, it seems to make sense to call a design "better" if it achieves the design goals while using less resources.

[@ApostateOfTheDamned]

@theUKatheist Then they'll probably call back, whilst the guy that they argued with would probably not especially if his argument is treated as rubbish after 5 minutes. Though i see your point and Matt always trys to get to the point as fast as he can to fit the other callers and to stop things like that happening.

[@DrChalkwithering]

@gatorhighlights4 But I take your point. I recall a discussion with a friend at school who said that "Life happening by accident is a million-to-one chance". Given that there are 300 billion stars in our galaxy, that means by his own statistics there are thousands of inhabited worlds out there. They don't seem to get just how big the universe is, and what a sample size that large does to probabilities.

[@Spinobreaker]

for daniel... if ur designing a building, do u run ur internet (ethernet) cable into the basement, in order to connect ur compter to a network... it makes no sense to do it...

[@urcorrect]

I think objective reality is entirely procedural. Objectival abstraction is practical for description at specific scales, but when viewed closely enough, static values and boundaries do not exist. The only true constant is change, and I say this with absolute uncertainty.

[@Utmoon]

@andykjm The issue is that evolution is not about what is better all the time. A lot of the time it is simply about what what slips in as small changes. It might not be beneficial over the long run, but it will survive. Specialisation is an example of this. It is not in an animal's best interest to specialise in eating only one kind of leaf. However, at the time of the change over, there was nothing killing off the ones that did not specialise.

[@MrCFruitfly]

I've been following the Atheist Experience for over 5 years now, and I have a lot of respect for Matt Dillahunty. I think he is brilliant. But enough - MATT HAS GOT TO LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK on occasion. Last week it was Tracy who got talked all over, this week its Russell again, and I really like to hear what they have to say. Even the dimwit callers deserve more than the 3 second window they get between Matt's monologues. C'mon Matt take a breath!

[@artwdog]

@KrisBlueNZ Dont listen to these guys Matt, your passion is why most of us watch. KEEP IT UP!!!

[@atheistphilosopher]

@urcorrect I love it- 'absolute uncertainty'

[@kotoroshinoto]

Why are you guys so patient? Hang up on these people, they just keep changing what they say to keep talking and won't shut up and listen.

[@allln19]

@dprfail I was judging them by the integrity and validity of their statement, not by reputation...that doesn't make me ignorant, it makes me socially informed...

[@Utmoon]

@TheAtheistExperience Of course. I was not implying that anything decided to make them that way. Just as I would say the bombardier beetle's method of defence is to spray hot fluid out of its abdomen. You could say longer necks are a method of being less susceptible to death. not producing, if we want to get really basic.

[@tryhardnoob1140]

for my class, im doing my argumentative paper on the separation of church and state. anyone have any good points to argue?

[@TheSH1N1GAM1]

As far as evolution, you should have brought up that our retinas are flipped the wrong way, and that is why there is a blind spot, as the nerve comes up in front of the sensory cells.

[@Quiestre]

Lol @ 51:50 "eventually everything is going to die, whats the point?"

[@ikt123]

@xyoop Agreed, imo there should be a time limit on calls that go no where fast.

[@GotmyplaceinHell]

Hey, if I were to call this show, what time (from England) should I be doing that?

[@sevens3]

Postmodernism DOESN'T actually postulate that EVERYTHING is subjective (i.e. that there is NOTHING but subjectivism)--rather what postmodernism asserts is that everything is either wholly subjective, or viewed through a subjective frame. There's no way to be CERTAIN about objective truth, but if one admits existence, one has to assume truth of SOME things (i.e. that SOME things are and SOME things are not--if existence is to be meaningful). Thus, that SOME things are objective is near certain.

[@saerain]

@TruthSurge I don't know, man. I've never been a theist, but I've believed some pretty whacky things, and I can absolutely say that when arguing with the people I later found to be right, I wasn't lying when I claimed to be interested in learning the truth of the matter. The problem wasn't the sincerity of my curiosity, but simple failures of critical thinking, especially in recognizing logical fallacies, but even in the fundamentals of the scientific process.

[@redearthdoom]

It seems like there are fewer argumentative callers lately. The producers need to save that last guy's number, so he can chime in on a show's topic and start a disagreement whenever needed! LOL

[@ClosetoHumanMusic]

Daniel sounds like Mort Goldman.

[@CollectiveCheckup]

SM has big balls.

[@ixamraxi]

@Teoalcola - Variation in genes are not *always* caused by mutation, they can also be caused by things like sexual recombination. The point was not whether or not the variation in genes for tusks 'was' or 'was not' caused by a mutation, the point is that it gene for short tusks *wasn't* caused by a choice, intelligence or hunting, the genes for shorter tusks already existed prior to ivory hunting, but the proliferation and expression of that gene *was* caused by hunting.

[@SuperMemzzz]

I am just 10 mins in watching the show, but I have to say they over generalise what Post Modernism is. It is a concept that is often misunderstood. It allows many ideas to be heard but doesn't necessarily give equal amount of power to each of them. It still works from a framework of ideas. But it just acknowledges the human experience. It is more about the cultural diversity of ideas than the unknowable truth.

[@TheNakedAtheist]

@andykjm-He was asking a simple question. IF you think design A is better than design B, state your criteria. If you thought that was a simple question he just wanted answered you haven't been involved in the creationism debate very long. His "question" was the typical "how can you know what criteria an all powerful creator might have used" bullshit. (cont)

[@paulmarko]

@MrP86 I agree. I've watched Matt for years and he was surprisingly authoritarian and muddled. For example he could have elaborated about how the laryngeal nerve is better explained by evolution or a bottom-up process, instead he insisted on just asserting over and over that it was "bad design" which is a weak point because it relies upon knowledge of God's intentions. He never made it the concept clear, but just kept on asserting his point. It was a bit painful to watch that part.