The Atheist Experience 26.28 07-10-2022 with Matt Dillahunty and JMike

1:32:23
 
Partager
 

Manage episode 334014258 series 1313251
Par Atheist Community of Austin, découvert par Player FM et notre communauté - Le copyright est détenu par l'éditeur, non par Player F, et l'audio est diffusé directement depuis ses serveurs. Appuyiez sur le bouton S'Abonner pour suivre les mises à jour sur Player FM, ou collez l'URL du flux dans d'autre applications de podcasts.
In today’s episode of the Atheist Experience, Matt Dillahunty is joined by JMike! First up is John from CA who says that there are multiple pathways to reaching the truth about God’s existence, and that a pathway available to one person might not be accessible to another. Next up is Dean from CA who believes that science doesn’t require methodological naturalism, but does require philosophical naturalism. So scientists get to use unmeasurable supernatural phenomenon to create new theories? Seems legit. Questioning Theist from WA finds the host’s arguements for God relatively convincing, but doesn’t think their credible due to the caller’s disagreements with the host’s other positions. So if we both agree that the sun causes skin cancer, but you don’t like my position on a women’s rights to bodily autonomy, therefore you won’t be a pro-sunscreener like me? Wut? Next up is Brandon from WA who claims that the time doesn’t exist in the subconscious, and uses the perceived time before death as evidence of this. Serge from Australia is calling to ask why Atheists are asking for evidence and why Theists would want to present any. Why do beliefs require evidence? Next is Jonah from TN who is wondering if our host’s think that this show and other like it have opened the floodgates for the online platforming of evangelicals or presups like Darth Dawkins? Next up is Mike from WA asks if naturalists have proven the natural origin of life. As the caller doesn’t believe in naturalism, they conclude that Theists must have proven it by default. Next is David from TX is calling to argue that differences in epistemology allow for different standards of acceptable evidence and arguement. I mean sure, but that doesn’t mean they should be accepted or be convincing. Tom from the UK is calling to present an arguement that can somehow disprove every God, Theist or Deist, regardless of their respective properties. Seth from CA from is calling to say that porn has perpetuated a bad perception of women, and therefore God exists? How did we get here?

3112 episodes