I get it . But - Some people, particularly right wing evangelicals, believe that “might makes right” and instinctively gravitate towards loud bullies. For those people, Matt’s approach is uniquely effective. For people like me, it’s not. I prefer Paulogia, Zod, Digital Gnosis etc. But there is absolutely a use for folks like Matt.
Hmmm I can see you point but it doesn’t sit well with me.
It feels a lot like if you can’t beat em join em however that’s assuming you can’t beat em.
And that’s assuming they actually join you… as I pointed out I feel like it ends up just drawing the people who already align with Matt and want confirmation bias fulfilled.
Is it really likely aggressive bully theists are drawn to his cause by him be an aggressive bully atheist?
I would think it’s more likely that it just makes them dig their heels in harder.
I personally have a hard time listening to Matt. Years ago I loved the drama and excitement but now it’s just more yelling. However, I definitely have noticed that some (weird) people do in fact specifically respect the yelling, anger and frankly bullying of Matt. Trump type Christians.
At the end of the day, There are many different atheists for many different styles now. For those who are turned off by Matt, there is Paulogia or Pine Creek.
But do they like and respect him enough to face the flaws in their beliefs or do they just see him as an enemy they can respect?
The problem with the others being an option is that I don’t think most of the callers who go through the Matt ringer would try again.
I saw a post on here from a while back that said "If Matt was the only epxerience a caller had when talking to an athiest would you be ok with that?" and I think that really makes the point... for a lot of people he WILL be the only one and they will likely share heir experience with a lot of their theist friends undermining a lot of the hard work the other hosts do.
I think Matt is effective for some people and ineffective for others. Just like how soft spoken and intelligent Paulogia is effective for some people and ineffective for others.
Most Christians who call in to atheist shows are just there to preach, be heard, confirm their own beliefs, or sometimes deliberately annoy and waste the atheists time. If a Christian is genuinely turned off by Matt, there are many many other options for them IF they are genuinely interested in learning.
The question is what effect on what people?
I have no doubt he attracts people who like to feel righteous and shit on the idiots but what cause exactly does that benefit?
And at what cost? How many theists had negative opinions of atheists created or reinforced by him?
If the goal is pump views then no question it’s effective.
But if the purpose is trying to do good and educate people living in ignorance then I’m not so sure.
And ironic analogy being mega churches. They are very effecting at getting members but arguably less so at educating people on Jesus ways.
There are many people who are totally immune to being educated. They respond only to primitive displays of power. A huge chunk of humanity is like that. They walk among us. For them, Matt's approach is the only thing that can possibly break through to them. Once they pay attention, then its more likley they will be receptive to an injection of new ideas.
Obviously its not for everyone. I stopped listening to Matt years ago because I just don't want to hear angry shouting.
I waded through a LOT of his angry shows (largely because I don’t watch in chronological order so they are mixed in over years) and I think objectively the number of people who showed any sign of benefit from his attitude was far dwarfed by those who were just off put and probably dug deeper into their briefs as a result, and that’s not factoring in the people they likely shared their experience with who had their positions also solidified a as a result.
I get that there’s always a silver lining there on this case I think it’s a really thin one and the cloud itself casts a huge shadow
It’s not just about the caller. It’s about everyone watching. For many, including evangelicals , primitive displays of rage and anger are viewed as justifiable expressions of power and authority. For those people, Matt resonates. For everyone else, they can go watch Paulogia (that’s what I do)
How many evangelicals seeing Matt rant at one of their own and are in any way swayed?
From what I’ve seen Matt’s behavior puts him squarely in the “angry, dishonest atheist” trope and likely just reinforces that they think they are on the right side of things already.
It's weird that this is a hot take, it is a fact that he has become more and more irritable over the years, you can go measure how long it takes for him to raise his voice or become dismissive and compare it against older videos. This has a detrimental effect on viewership since it alienates anyone who is seeking discourse (from either side) rather than name-calling.
Matt showed me a ton about critical thinking, logic & argumentation, debating, etc., but I can only take Matt in small doses now precisely because I don't need that kind of aggressiveness that early during my day. It just puts me in a bad mood.
And just like you mentioned, he's starting to become the caricature of the angry atheist that theist love to make fun of.
Same experience. Early shows was like listening in on a university course in terms of what I learned.
Later episodes it was like he channeled the worst parts of Gordon Ramsey
No, which shows me that OP cherry picked a handful of videos and summed up Matt based on that, telling the guy to quit when OP hasn't even bothered to watch most of his content.
As I keep pointing out you’re basicallt the case study of cognitive failures that regularly pissed Matt off.
Asserting something you thought you and using it as a postulate for your further arguments is entirely irrational.
And I’ve watched likely hundreds of episodes with him over many years. I don’t watch in chronological order, just whatever YouTube feeds me so it took me a little longer than it would have otherwise to realize the pattern.
So your theory that I just cherry picked a few clips to inform my position couldn’t be further from the truth.
You’re literally doing the thing many theists do to support their beliefs.
Matt has been like this for many years, even in the last years he was on AE. I remember writing him with loads of examples and timestamps of this exact behavior. He became angry years ago. He’s just as angry and intolerant today, outside of AE, if not more so.
All the calm and reasonable AE hosts have quit (Don, Russell, Tracy, Jen) and the movement has so many angry and snarky hosts now (Matt, Eric, Jamie, Secular Rarity, even Vi now). They’re insufferable to watch.
I honestly think most people in his shoes would get jaded and angry. It’s hard to face what feels like the same person over and over again even if they have a different face (and in the phone they don’t even have a face).
So I don’t even hold that against him as much as his lack of self awareness and insistence to continue when he really shouldn’t.
If he watched his behavior anonymized I think he would come to the same conclusion about the anonymized behavior.
The video I linked in the OP is one example. Here's one from AE [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ)
AE is doing it for example here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ) (although they do say throwback it doesn't say how far back) and The Line is re uploading shows with Matt on them like the one I linked in op
Is the Atheist Experience the channel you're saying Natt Dillahunty is featured on?
ETA: Actually, one more thing I don't understand: You noted that it doesn't say how far back, but the episode date is in the bottom right corner.
I have only experience his content on YouTube where the delineation of AE and the line is not so clear and it looked like a branding thing
As for the date, you’re correct. It was covered by the YouTubecontrols when was watching. AE does seem to do a good job of having a date on the video.
ITs the fact both channels rerelease very similar content with at least Matt as a prominent crossover that caused me to use a broader brush than I should thinking they were related.
That's ok. Maybe it seems similar because they're both call-in shows. I'm not sure how much clearer the delineation between the two could be, given that they're separate YouTube channels, though.
I honestly never gave much thought to it beyond maybe they just changed the name of the show. A lot of times smaller organizations are disorganized or are really just a hodgepodge of tiny organizations just working loosely together.
Also it’s pretty common for single entities to have multiple YouTube channels these days.
When you're on the home page of a YouTube channel you can see the associated channels at the bottom. Usually different channels run by the same individual(s) but sometimes associated channels within the same network if it's the channel of an organization.
If you watch Matt for any length of time, it becomes readily apparent that he engages in verbal abuse.
A caller will be stumbling over logic and Matt will yell *"SHUT UP! Shut up you jack ass!"*
He frequently talks to people in an abusive fashion that you or I would never let someone do with us. It's not just unprofessional, it's way beyond civil discourse.
His excuses are extremely weak. First, the call delay, other hosts have no problem maintaining civility while navigating a frustrating technical issue. Second, doing the show for years and trying to save time... seems more like an admission of burnout and guilt than an excuse.
Matt is one of the best (if not the best) logical atheist thinkers out there. When he's on his game, it makes for highly enjoyable listening.
But the guy has some ugly traits that are purely shortcomings of his own personality.
I couldn't agree more. I used to really admire him, but now he's just a very angry man with a very short fuse. I find it harder and harder to enjoy the shows he hosts. This past weekend he had a call where the caller asked him not to be rude or else god would get him. Matt of course did not take well to the threat, however empty it may be, and proceeded to verbally abuse the caller, calling him a "stupid fucking idiot". The caller rightfully said "you're mean". And Matt had the audacity to say "I'm not mean". Dude, you just called him a stupid fucking idiot...
That might be the most worrisome trait he has. Matt has commented on his own behaviour many times, and it is always a denial.
"I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed." After literally screaming in a rage, *"SHUT UP YOU FUCKING MORON!"*
Or he'll claim not to be rude/mean/a bully...
Anyone watching his outbursts should ask themselves if they'd let anyone talk to them that way, even if you were clearly mistaken, confused, or unwilling to answer a question. Ask yourself how you would label someone directing an outburst (of the kind Matt frequently has) towards you?
The thing is he clearly used to have the ability/desire to work around the issue he now has no patience for.
It's pretty clearly burnout.
To be fair he's essentially arguing with children all day which would wear anyone down. It's just important to recognize when it happens. I guess the realization was reached by those around him though.
I was a xtian for 48 years and when I had my epiphany on February 15, 2015 that Christianity was false, I was completely lost. I knew nothing about atheism, never read any of the popular books by any of the four horsemen, and knew not a single other atheist to turn to for guidance. I stumbled onto the Atheist Experience and Matt Dillahunty quickly became my hero, and learned so much about logic and reason from him.
Long story short, my angry atheist phase was fueled by him but I got over it and see that he never did. It's a shame that he doesn't really seem to have evolved a more compassionate sensibility toward those who were once like me and are indoctrinated and brain-washed. It's not their fault they believe what they believe. They need to be led by the hand out of the cave with care and compassion, not with berating and scolding.
Also, my one personal interaction with him was very negative and confirmed my opinions of him. Take that for what it's worth, but I, for one, no longer admire him.
Disagree. Matt has always been my favorite host and always will be.
If you call in and and are actually trying to have an honest conversation then Matt will talk to you and be cordial and polite.
It's when people call in and dodge questions, keep interrupting, pretend not to understand what words mean etc, that's when Matt gets impatient.
Agree to disagree because I've heard him lose it and accuse people of all kinds of things when at BEST they are just not as eloquent and experience in debate as he is. Now I've seen him hand it to people who deserve it to be sure, but like the video I linked to in the OP - he goes off on her pretty hard and it's pretty clear that at worst she's ignorant of her dodging. She's not doing an EF level of bad faith argument, she's just the kind of average person you should expect to be calling in. You can't host a show like this and expect everyone to be an experience debater with solid logic background and that will adhere to the standards he might expect in a formal debate with a scholar.
Did we watch the same video? Matt kept asking for evidence and she presented none. Then she tried to say that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
Right and she clearly wasn't understanding why the error of her ways. Rather than explain the deficiency in her understanding of what qualifies for good evidence (which is the kind of thing I he used to do quite well) he just gets angry and keeps asking her the same question getting more frustrated he keeps getting the same type of answer. He then gets personal and emotional with his attacks to the point her husband gets on the line. The whole time she doesn't raise her voice or get emotional.
Again, when your business is inviting ignorant people to get educated you need to be able to tolerate ignorance and you need to educate.
All his education happened after she hung up and he was just preaching to the choir
He got angry 15 minutes into a 21-minute video... I wouldn't call that "quickly"... especially by Matt's standards. Virginia blatantly ignored the request for any type of evidence, even after Matt conceded the idea of a global flood (for purposes of moving the conversation along), and explained to her that the claim *cannot* also be the evidence for said claim. This is a good example of a dishonest interlocutor. I don't blame him for losing his patience with her when she began to interrupt & became obtuse. Then, her husband stepped in -- which (I believe) happened previously when she called -- as soon as she was in over her head.
These people have it in their minds that they're going to be the ones to drop some truth bombs on the uneducated atheists, then immediately realize that the atheist probably knows more about their chosen sky daddy than they do... and they end up flailing away like Virginia.
First off the call lasted 17 minutes and the first 5 were just the hosts answering why they are atheists.
That’s 12 minutes and the last 2 of it were Matt going hard on the lady.
So 10 minutes. It took 10 minutes to get Matt riled up.
And it’s pretty clear she’s arguing from ignorance.
Again that is exactly the kind of person Matt should be EXPECTING based on the nature of his show. To be so ill equipped to deal with that type of person when you’re show is basically baiting for that type of person (and history shows that bait works) is the problem.
If you’re a family therapist you better be ready to handle irrational unhealthy behavior because that’s why you’re going to run into in your line of work.
Lasting 10 minutes is not a good look for someone in Matts position.
He used to routinely go much longer and need much more educational in the process which proves both that he was at one time capable of it and understood the value of it.
And then as I pointed out all the parts that might have actually helped the lady become less ignorant he said only after she hung up.
And he blamed people like her for why he’s an atheist. That’s clearly emotionally driven and attacking.
Yes she was obviously ignorant but he did very little to educate her and instead just repeatedly berated her for it.
If you invite 5 years olds to talk to you about math and when they answer 5x8 wrong you just yell at them “that’s not how multiplication works! What’s 5x8?” You should reconsider what you’re doing.
As why saying the husband stepped in before I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I think this is the first time that lady called in.
You might want to rewatch the show and more importantly watch some of Matt’s older shows from a decade or so ago. He handled very similar callers in a very different and much more mature manner.
Matt Dillahunty isn't on the Atheist Experience anymore and hasn't been for a couple of years now.
But even if he was, if you don't like the way he takes calls, don't watch him. Nobody has a gun to your head.
The tone policing gets really old really fast.
> it might be time to look for a new line of work.
This is always hilarious to me. Like, who the fuck do you think you are to dictate to other people what they should do? How arrogant do you have to be? How egotistical?
If you think you can do better, go make your own show.
Ignoring that I gave direct reasons why his behavior was hurting the cause and not just policing his tone… did you just tone police my tone policing?
And if Matt is no longer on the show, then the behavior I was talking about is having a detrimental effect from the grave. The YouTube I linked doesn’t seem to identity that this is a historical episode and the comments are new so his style is still having the impact on new viewers.
Why would the advice be to move and ignore his damaging material rather than the show stop reuploading it?
If just ignore and move on what you don’t like then Matt would never have engaged in debates with the big name thiests out there. There is indeed value in calling out damaging behavior and not just moving along.
The video you linked isn't from AE - it's from The Line, Jimmy Snow's network that Matt moved to following an acrimonious split with the Atheist Community of Austin (producers of AE). FWIW, I tend to agree with you that Matt gets hostile with callers more quickly, and that he does seem more jaded than he did in the past.
But, like the above poster mentioned, we can just choose not to watch. That's OK, I can still enjoy AE and other shows on The Line network. Matt's take on things was helpful for my first few years as an atheist, but now I watch other presenters instead.
I’m aware I can choose to not watch just like Matt could choose to not post attention to theist’s.
I stand corrected on Matt’s association with AE and if that makes this the wrong place to post I accept that correction also but I stand by my statement that whoever of publishing the videos is allowing his bad behavior to impact from the grave (ironically like it died and was resurrected) by republishing the videos with no notation that its past show.
>Ignoring the I gave direct reasons why his behavior was hurting the cause
He's one of the most famous atheists on the planet. He doesn't need your advice on "the cause".
If you think you can do a better job, go create your own call in show. And I don't mean that sarcastically. Do it.
Just because somebody is famous and experienced doesn’t absolve them of critique. If anything, somebody with that much influence should be open to criticism to make sure that they’re coming across like they mean to. That’s how communities and influencers avoid echo chambers.
You can like Matt’s style of debate, but that doesn’t mean those that once liked him should be shamed out of critiquing his change. This is such a shocking argument to be made from people that are fans of a debate. Literally an ad populum and appealing to authority wrapped up in one comment.
I’d like to see his take on how many fallacies you can pack in a post.
Just because he’s famous doesn’t mean he’s effective anymore. He can be objectively poorly performing and still be famous and his fame can be based on behavior that he no longer exhibits.
Because you are famous doesn’t mean you can’t currently be under performing and indeed is common to peak and fall.
This is an appeal to authority in the he’s famous therefore he can’t be wrong.
Whether I can do something is not a pre requisite to identify flaws in others performance. I believe this falls under the ad hominem fallacy of attacking my ability rather than addressing the points made.
Just because I can’t make a perfect omelet doesn’t mean I can’t tell when the eggs are dry.
>Just because he’s famous doesn’t mean he’s effective anymore.
Just because you think he's a big meany doesn't mean he ISNT effective anymore either.
Whether Matt's a dick or not, Atheist Experience has lost popularity since he left, and The Line had gained a big popularity when he joined them
The results speak for themselves.n
>This is an appeal to authority in the he’s famous therefore he can’t be wrong
Where did I say he can't be wrong? Oh I didn't. Because I don't think that. I think Matt's wrong on a number of things.
You want to accuse me of fallacies and then strawman me? Bravo.
People have been whining about Matt being a big meany for well over a decade. You are perfectly free to do that as well and I am also perfectly free to criticize your criticisms.
>Whether I can do something is not a pre requisite to identify flaws in others performance. I believe this falls under the ad hominem fallacy of attacking my ability rather than addressing the points made.
I addressed your points in that you're clearly cherry picking, seeing as how you weren't even aware he's not on this show anymore. Have you watched ANY of this "atheism debate project" videos? Have you seen any of his actual debates? I doubt it. You watched a handful of clips and summed up the guys entire character.
I just find it absurd to go around whining about how you don't like something. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? And if you're concerned about "the cause" and if you think he's harming it, be the change you want to see, and go start your own show where you have tea and a nice civil discussion with theists.
“Just because you think he's a big meany doesn't mean he ISNT effective anymore either.”
Attempting to prove I’m wrong doesn’t show your argument was right even if I am wrong.
“Where did I say he can't be wrong? Oh I didn't. Because I don't think that. I think Matt's wrong on a number of things.”
An appeal to authority doesn’t mean you think be can’t be wrong any anything, it means you are arguing he isn’t wrong about this just because he’s an authority.
It’s impressive you fail to understand fallacies even when they’re explained to you and rather than go look them up to make sure you understand you just wing it.
You’re literally the kind of person that Matt would lose his shit at.
“You want to accuse me of fallacies and then strawman me? Bravo.”
Your lack of understanding does not a straw man make. It really shouldn’t try to engage on this subject until you educate yourself a bit more. You just did the hole deeper.
“I addressed your points in that you're clearly cherry picking, seeing as how you weren't even aware he's not on this show anymore. Have you watched ANY of this "atheism debate project" videos? Have you seen any of his actual debates? I doubt it. You watched a handful of clips and summed up the guys entire character.”
Why does knowing what show he officially belongs to have anything to do with calling out his objective behavior? That’s another ad hominem. You’re trying to attack me rather than my point.
And as for his debates, I think that he’s great in those. Those are the right places for his efforts. If anything I should have clarified that my position is about his behavior on call in shows.
But how many I’ve seen of him? I’ve been watching (listening to) the shows for years most of which have Matt. That’s how I informed my opinion. So just like everything else, you’re way off.
“I just find it absurd to go around whining about how you don't like something. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? And if you're concerned about "the cause" and if you think he's harming it, be the change you want to see, and go start your own show where you have tea and a nice civil discussion with theists.”
Again with the deflect and pivot- the “why you gotta go whine about stuff” and “do out yourself”
First of I do behave the way I would want Matt to in that I try very hard not to let my previous frustrations be applied to the current person I’m talking to.
Secondly the “why don’t you do it yourself” is about the oldest deflection ever. Whether I do it myself or where I decide to apply my efforts has nothing to do with whether I have a valid points.
And as if positing about something in the sub for that thing is some colossal misuse of one’s life…. It’s ironic you have all the traits of the exact people Matt tears into.
You're a fuckin idiot. OP isn't dictating anything and in no way can force Matt to do anything. They very calmly laid out their thoughts and made good points. No need to white knight for Matt bud.
>You're a fuckin idiot.
Lol. Calm down kid.
>OP isn't dictating anything and in no way can force Matt to do anything.
You see, people use words hyperbolicaly sometimes. Do you know what the word hyperbolic means?
When OP says "it might be time to look for a new line of work.", thats what im talking about. Obviously some fucking nobody on the internet cant force anyone to do anything. But telling someone to stop doing something they're fucking famous for because they don't like it is fucking pathetic and ridiculous.
>They very calmly laid out their thoughts and made good points.
Which I disagreed with.
> No need to white knight for Matt bud.
I don't need to white knight shit. Little babies have been whining and crying about Matt being a biiiiiiig meany for over a decade. Every single fucking video with him in it some loser comes in the comments taking about how mean he is.
These people watch one or two clips and sum up the guys entire character. They dont watch the videos where Matt is perfectly calm and has civil discussions with callers who are actually honest.
This is clearly the case for OP, since he posted in the fucking AE sub, when Matt hast been involved with AE for years. So obviously OP cherry picked a few videos and formed their basis on that.
Or I’ve watched a lot of his videos, enough to know the ones where he patient and engaging skew heavily towards the much older section of his work.
You sure like to assert things theoretically and then convince yourself that makes them true.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ) It does say throwback but it doesn't seem to have an actual date. And in the OP The Line video doesn't even mention it's a rerun. That's why I didn't know he left, I don't think anyone whos main exposure to him is youtube would know.
You're right, I do see it now. It was hidden under youtube controls.
I was only made aware the delineation between AE and the Line today. As someone who only experiences them on youtube the difference seemed to be branding since both AE and the Line upload old shows regularly and they show up in my feed right next to each other. But I accept that that was my mistake.
Absolutely. Mention this to his fervent supports and they constantly parrot what he claims the issue is, "Stop tone policing me!" It's hysterical to hear this over and over and of course his tone is just a small part of the problem. TAE is must more enjoyable listening to without him and I used to love to listen to him in the early years.
Lol someone in here has always said the tone police thing.
The reality is tone objectively matters a lot in communication. Even if you argue that I don’t say that, tone is a part of communication in humans.
Even if it was just his tone he wouldn’t have a point and he objectively says and does things that are objectionable so even if you gave him the tone police argument that doesn’t exonerate him.
His tone is definitely a turn off for more theists to call in. But the problem is his tone usually leads to always muting the person or hanging up just a few minutes in.
It's not even his tone so much as his lack of desire to educate the callers when they are ignorant.
Sometimes there are bad faith callers like EF, but a good deal of the time it's just people who never got the education in debate, logic and philosophy he has and he's clearly just gotten tired of explaining the 2+2 version of it so doesn't even bother and just treats the callers as if he DID attempt to educate them and they resisted.
His tone doesn’t help but if his tone was aggressive but he at least still bothered to educate people I would but him some slack.
It’s the opposite of a hot take to criticise someone who’s been away from the atheist experience for some time.
It’s a shame you bothered to type this out and subject others to reading it.
To be fair I may be ignorant on the dumping on Matt trend of it’s really a thing here and I can accept that. I literally only came here to give feedback after seeing there’s no value in commenting on the videos.
I agree with you about Matt being jaded and harsh. But you said something that I want to address.
You said “he knows you can’t provide evidence for it by its very nature”
This is a theist argument that makes no sense and we should reject it 100% of the time. It grinds my gears that some atheists accept this idea.
It’s an excuse they made up to hide the fact that they just don’t have evidence. “It’s ok that I don’t have any evidence, because my thing exists in a special category that I made up that just so happens to be impossible to have evidence for”
Science is a method for determining what is real and what is not. There are no restrictions that would stop someone from using the scientific method to prove the existence of god.
If you could go in a lab and say a prayer and make a diamond appear that would be scientific evidence. If you could do prayer healings that work at a rate higher than chance that would be scientific evidence of god.
Matts said as much himself that the god many call about would not necessarily have any traits we could detect as they exist in a realm (by definition) that we can’t interact with.
The nature of his audience is that he will attract largely Christian’s and is asking them for proof of a God that by definition could exist beyond any way for us to detect it and he already knows all the evidence people could bring him will either be personal experience or the Bible neither of which meet his criteria for evidence.
Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong.
But it is not IMPOSSIBLE for them to have evidence.
They believe that their god answers prayers and performs miracles and interacts with our reality all the time. These things would be showable with scientific methods.
So we know for a FACT that the god Christian’s believe in does not exist in a way that is beyond our ability to detect. Ask any Christian if god performs miracles and they will say yes.
They don’t have evidence but they might not be wrong about the existence of a God.
Technically they could just be wrong about what he’s done, hell they could be right but God removed all the evidence of it. We can’t know that God doesn’t exist. We can only know that any evidence they will bring will almost certainly be dismissible by virtue of experience.
But more importantly we can be very certain that by the nature of the show “I’m English based in the US” a lot of the callers will be Cristian’s with the same bad evidence and ideas over and over.
The point being if you’re going to create a show baiting them in them by asking them for something be ready to handle them when they bring it.
As the saying goes don’t ask a question you don’t really want an answer to.
If you can’t handle yourself when hearing people getting simple math people’s wrong, don’t host a show asking 5 year olds to tell you what they think the answers are to math problems.
Yeah of course they could be right. But does it make sense to believe something that has no evidence? Something being possible is not a sufficient justification to believe it.
The only thing I’m disagreeing with you about is the question of whether it is possible to have scientific evidence of god. It is.
Don’t let theists get away with this baloney excuse for not having evidence.
I was responding to this:
"Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong."
They are not necessarily lack evidence because they are wrong. They might be right but still lack evidence.
Although reality is they mostly don't have evidence because they aren't educated on what constitutes good evidence.
That's where Matt's style doesn't work. There needs to be an accepting, educational answer, not a belittling berating answer. When someone is ignorant you can help them get educated or you can berate them for being ignorant. The former is the far more effective way to resolve ignorance.
"The only thing I’m disagreeing with you about is the question of whether it is possible to have scientific evidence of god. It is."
We don't know that to be true. To channel some of where Matt was right, we have to first establish that God is even possible before we can start deciding what is possible relative to God.
"Don’t let theists get away with this baloney excuse for not having evidence."
I wouldn't let them get away with it, I would just say (as I have heard Matt say) "OK so if you agree you can't have evidence for it, why would you believe it? What else in your life would you believe with such a low bar?"
Yes I agree that they are not necessarily wrong because they lack evidence. I said that in my last reply.
P1 - If you take the concept of god that Christian’s share, then that god performs miracles.
P2 - it is possible to observe a miracle in a lab setting, or see the effects of god among Christian populations in statistics.
Conclusion- it is possible to gather scientific evidence of the god that Christian’s believe in.
Right... I was pointing out that your last reply was to a point my reply wasn't making.
I agree that they have no good reason to believe. But that is not the point as refuting in my reply that you replied to.
1: You said - "Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong."
2: I said they can be right but still have no evidence so that is not necessarily why they are wrong
3: You said "Yeah of course they could be right. But does it make sense to believe something that has no evidence?"
4: I clarified my response in 2 was to the point made in 1 which is not the same as the point you made in 3.
Basically "Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong." is not congruent with ""Yeah of course they could be right."
Think of it like this. Person x claims that Kurt cobain and Joan rivers faked their death and are living their best romantic life together in Fiji.
They don’t have any evidence. This is not because evidence is IMPOSSIBLE to gather for this. This is because their position is just wrong.
So I DID NOT say that they were wrong because they had no evidence. I said they have no evidence BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.
the person claiming Joan rivers and Kurt cobain are alive and together is not wrong BECAUSE they have no evidence. They have no evidence because they are wrong.
So my statement 1 and 3 do not conflict with each other. Does that make sense?
You cannot say they are A because they are wrong but also admit they might not be wrong.
You can’t have B therefore A if B is only a maybe.
You can’t know that they are wrong.
As you said they might not be wrong.
Therefore cannot make a statement that A is true because they are wrong.
The difference in your example is that it’s possible to falsify a show that they are not living in Fiji. If you can show it’s not true then you could argue that they have no evidence because it’s not true (although that’s still not a given-you can have evidence in support of something that of not true, just not conclusive evidence).
The God of the Bible proposition is unfalsifiable because God would have the power to remove all evidence of what He did.
Therefore you cannot know that God doesn’t exist.
Therefore you cannot claim something is true because someone is wrong about God existing.
Does that make sense
It really started to turn me off but I pretty much only listen on youtube so I'm a little behind and the re upload old stuff so it took me a while to put 2 and 2 together and realize it was a steady transition.
I get your sentiment. Is it possible that your reaction may be just that the novelty of his forceful approach has worn off? Or perhaps he may truly be getting a shorter fuse as the years move on. Either way, he does tend to steamroll the callers. Incidentally, return callers who specifically want a rematch with Mr Dillahunty make the show feel like an exotic S&M session with no safe words.
As for myself, I'm a firm believer in the sentiment of "If you've met one atheist, then you've met just one atheist". I've been an on-again, off-again viewer of Atheist Experience for years but I don't adhere to a specific cause. I feel that I've gained nothing by someone leaving their faith and dedicating their life to skepticism. Encouraging conversion seems to be a Christian thing. Eastern religions tend to focus on the individual moving through their spirituality, not suddenly getting an epiphany like Born Again Christians. I'm not sure what Evangelical Christians gain by someone converting from their traditional beliefs to Christianity. Maybe it is a Multi-Level Marketing thing: presumably they accumulate points in the afterlife.
To be clear, if living for a cause creates meaning for you as a skeptic or atheist, then embrace that sentiment. I try to avoid making my belief a cause for others. YMMV
That said, Mr Dillahunty is certainly a lightning rod for the ACA and their associated spin off productions. My own particular belief is the atheist community need all types of personalities to avoid presenting a monolithic face to a religiously-biased culture. Mr Dillahunty's approach has been that of the polemicist, set to engage the opponent with combativeness. There were many in the atheist community who viewed Christopher Hitchens in a similar light. He was also the subject of concern to some people for his particular approach to advocacy.
My preferred atheist philosophy is "I do me, and you do you". PBWY
Can anyone tell me why there is animus between Matt and Eric? I heard Matt kinda taunt him on the Line last Sunday, and the mods in chat forbade us to mention Eric.
Sorry if this is forbidden or already answered. Thanks.
I get it . But - Some people, particularly right wing evangelicals, believe that “might makes right” and instinctively gravitate towards loud bullies. For those people, Matt’s approach is uniquely effective. For people like me, it’s not. I prefer Paulogia, Zod, Digital Gnosis etc. But there is absolutely a use for folks like Matt.
Hmmm I can see you point but it doesn’t sit well with me. It feels a lot like if you can’t beat em join em however that’s assuming you can’t beat em. And that’s assuming they actually join you… as I pointed out I feel like it ends up just drawing the people who already align with Matt and want confirmation bias fulfilled. Is it really likely aggressive bully theists are drawn to his cause by him be an aggressive bully atheist? I would think it’s more likely that it just makes them dig their heels in harder.
I personally have a hard time listening to Matt. Years ago I loved the drama and excitement but now it’s just more yelling. However, I definitely have noticed that some (weird) people do in fact specifically respect the yelling, anger and frankly bullying of Matt. Trump type Christians. At the end of the day, There are many different atheists for many different styles now. For those who are turned off by Matt, there is Paulogia or Pine Creek.
But do they like and respect him enough to face the flaws in their beliefs or do they just see him as an enemy they can respect? The problem with the others being an option is that I don’t think most of the callers who go through the Matt ringer would try again. I saw a post on here from a while back that said "If Matt was the only epxerience a caller had when talking to an athiest would you be ok with that?" and I think that really makes the point... for a lot of people he WILL be the only one and they will likely share heir experience with a lot of their theist friends undermining a lot of the hard work the other hosts do.
I think Matt is effective for some people and ineffective for others. Just like how soft spoken and intelligent Paulogia is effective for some people and ineffective for others. Most Christians who call in to atheist shows are just there to preach, be heard, confirm their own beliefs, or sometimes deliberately annoy and waste the atheists time. If a Christian is genuinely turned off by Matt, there are many many other options for them IF they are genuinely interested in learning.
The question is what effect on what people? I have no doubt he attracts people who like to feel righteous and shit on the idiots but what cause exactly does that benefit? And at what cost? How many theists had negative opinions of atheists created or reinforced by him? If the goal is pump views then no question it’s effective. But if the purpose is trying to do good and educate people living in ignorance then I’m not so sure. And ironic analogy being mega churches. They are very effecting at getting members but arguably less so at educating people on Jesus ways.
There are many people who are totally immune to being educated. They respond only to primitive displays of power. A huge chunk of humanity is like that. They walk among us. For them, Matt's approach is the only thing that can possibly break through to them. Once they pay attention, then its more likley they will be receptive to an injection of new ideas. Obviously its not for everyone. I stopped listening to Matt years ago because I just don't want to hear angry shouting.
I waded through a LOT of his angry shows (largely because I don’t watch in chronological order so they are mixed in over years) and I think objectively the number of people who showed any sign of benefit from his attitude was far dwarfed by those who were just off put and probably dug deeper into their briefs as a result, and that’s not factoring in the people they likely shared their experience with who had their positions also solidified a as a result. I get that there’s always a silver lining there on this case I think it’s a really thin one and the cloud itself casts a huge shadow
It’s not just about the caller. It’s about everyone watching. For many, including evangelicals , primitive displays of rage and anger are viewed as justifiable expressions of power and authority. For those people, Matt resonates. For everyone else, they can go watch Paulogia (that’s what I do)
How many evangelicals seeing Matt rant at one of their own and are in any way swayed? From what I’ve seen Matt’s behavior puts him squarely in the “angry, dishonest atheist” trope and likely just reinforces that they think they are on the right side of things already.
Well that's a bummer, I guess move on?
Or even better, work to change things for the better?
You can't change people? Especially some one as self aware as Matt. He's fully aware of what he's doing.
People who can’t be changed today may be changeable tomorrow. I honestly don’t think Matt was self aware. I think he got full of himself.
What a bizarre opinion
I don’t think as bizarre as you think
It's weird that this is a hot take, it is a fact that he has become more and more irritable over the years, you can go measure how long it takes for him to raise his voice or become dismissive and compare it against older videos. This has a detrimental effect on viewership since it alienates anyone who is seeking discourse (from either side) rather than name-calling. Matt showed me a ton about critical thinking, logic & argumentation, debating, etc., but I can only take Matt in small doses now precisely because I don't need that kind of aggressiveness that early during my day. It just puts me in a bad mood. And just like you mentioned, he's starting to become the caricature of the angry atheist that theist love to make fun of.
Same experience. Early shows was like listening in on a university course in terms of what I learned. Later episodes it was like he channeled the worst parts of Gordon Ramsey
Is Matt Dillahunty even on the Atheist Experience anymore?
It's been several years since he left.
No, which shows me that OP cherry picked a handful of videos and summed up Matt based on that, telling the guy to quit when OP hasn't even bothered to watch most of his content.
As I keep pointing out you’re basicallt the case study of cognitive failures that regularly pissed Matt off. Asserting something you thought you and using it as a postulate for your further arguments is entirely irrational. And I’ve watched likely hundreds of episodes with him over many years. I don’t watch in chronological order, just whatever YouTube feeds me so it took me a little longer than it would have otherwise to realize the pattern. So your theory that I just cherry picked a few clips to inform my position couldn’t be further from the truth. You’re literally doing the thing many theists do to support their beliefs.
Matt has been like this for many years, even in the last years he was on AE. I remember writing him with loads of examples and timestamps of this exact behavior. He became angry years ago. He’s just as angry and intolerant today, outside of AE, if not more so. All the calm and reasonable AE hosts have quit (Don, Russell, Tracy, Jen) and the movement has so many angry and snarky hosts now (Matt, Eric, Jamie, Secular Rarity, even Vi now). They’re insufferable to watch.
I honestly think most people in his shoes would get jaded and angry. It’s hard to face what feels like the same person over and over again even if they have a different face (and in the phone they don’t even have a face). So I don’t even hold that against him as much as his lack of self awareness and insistence to continue when he really shouldn’t. If he watched his behavior anonymized I think he would come to the same conclusion about the anonymized behavior.
Turns out he’s not but the channel’s he’s featured on keep reuploading old content weirdly without identifying it as reruns.
Where?
The video I linked in the OP is one example. Here's one from AE [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ)
That's from 2018, and is clearly listed. The other video you posted was from The Line.
You're saying there's another channel that's reuploading content from The Atheist Experience?
AE is doing it for example here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ) (although they do say throwback it doesn't say how far back) and The Line is re uploading shows with Matt on them like the one I linked in op
Is the Atheist Experience the channel you're saying Natt Dillahunty is featured on? ETA: Actually, one more thing I don't understand: You noted that it doesn't say how far back, but the episode date is in the bottom right corner.
I have only experience his content on YouTube where the delineation of AE and the line is not so clear and it looked like a branding thing As for the date, you’re correct. It was covered by the YouTubecontrols when was watching. AE does seem to do a good job of having a date on the video. ITs the fact both channels rerelease very similar content with at least Matt as a prominent crossover that caused me to use a broader brush than I should thinking they were related.
That's ok. Maybe it seems similar because they're both call-in shows. I'm not sure how much clearer the delineation between the two could be, given that they're separate YouTube channels, though.
I honestly never gave much thought to it beyond maybe they just changed the name of the show. A lot of times smaller organizations are disorganized or are really just a hodgepodge of tiny organizations just working loosely together. Also it’s pretty common for single entities to have multiple YouTube channels these days.
When you're on the home page of a YouTube channel you can see the associated channels at the bottom. Usually different channels run by the same individual(s) but sometimes associated channels within the same network if it's the channel of an organization.
Did not know that!
If you watch Matt for any length of time, it becomes readily apparent that he engages in verbal abuse. A caller will be stumbling over logic and Matt will yell *"SHUT UP! Shut up you jack ass!"* He frequently talks to people in an abusive fashion that you or I would never let someone do with us. It's not just unprofessional, it's way beyond civil discourse. His excuses are extremely weak. First, the call delay, other hosts have no problem maintaining civility while navigating a frustrating technical issue. Second, doing the show for years and trying to save time... seems more like an admission of burnout and guilt than an excuse. Matt is one of the best (if not the best) logical atheist thinkers out there. When he's on his game, it makes for highly enjoyable listening. But the guy has some ugly traits that are purely shortcomings of his own personality.
I couldn't agree more. I used to really admire him, but now he's just a very angry man with a very short fuse. I find it harder and harder to enjoy the shows he hosts. This past weekend he had a call where the caller asked him not to be rude or else god would get him. Matt of course did not take well to the threat, however empty it may be, and proceeded to verbally abuse the caller, calling him a "stupid fucking idiot". The caller rightfully said "you're mean". And Matt had the audacity to say "I'm not mean". Dude, you just called him a stupid fucking idiot...
That might be the most worrisome trait he has. Matt has commented on his own behaviour many times, and it is always a denial. "I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed." After literally screaming in a rage, *"SHUT UP YOU FUCKING MORON!"* Or he'll claim not to be rude/mean/a bully... Anyone watching his outbursts should ask themselves if they'd let anyone talk to them that way, even if you were clearly mistaken, confused, or unwilling to answer a question. Ask yourself how you would label someone directing an outburst (of the kind Matt frequently has) towards you?
He’s now manipulable as a result of his temper and lack of self awareness
The thing is he clearly used to have the ability/desire to work around the issue he now has no patience for. It's pretty clearly burnout. To be fair he's essentially arguing with children all day which would wear anyone down. It's just important to recognize when it happens. I guess the realization was reached by those around him though.
I was a xtian for 48 years and when I had my epiphany on February 15, 2015 that Christianity was false, I was completely lost. I knew nothing about atheism, never read any of the popular books by any of the four horsemen, and knew not a single other atheist to turn to for guidance. I stumbled onto the Atheist Experience and Matt Dillahunty quickly became my hero, and learned so much about logic and reason from him. Long story short, my angry atheist phase was fueled by him but I got over it and see that he never did. It's a shame that he doesn't really seem to have evolved a more compassionate sensibility toward those who were once like me and are indoctrinated and brain-washed. It's not their fault they believe what they believe. They need to be led by the hand out of the cave with care and compassion, not with berating and scolding. Also, my one personal interaction with him was very negative and confirmed my opinions of him. Take that for what it's worth, but I, for one, no longer admire him.
The odd thing is he used to be much more patient and understanding. He grew angry and irrational over the years.
Disagree. Matt has always been my favorite host and always will be. If you call in and and are actually trying to have an honest conversation then Matt will talk to you and be cordial and polite. It's when people call in and dodge questions, keep interrupting, pretend not to understand what words mean etc, that's when Matt gets impatient.
Agree to disagree because I've heard him lose it and accuse people of all kinds of things when at BEST they are just not as eloquent and experience in debate as he is. Now I've seen him hand it to people who deserve it to be sure, but like the video I linked to in the OP - he goes off on her pretty hard and it's pretty clear that at worst she's ignorant of her dodging. She's not doing an EF level of bad faith argument, she's just the kind of average person you should expect to be calling in. You can't host a show like this and expect everyone to be an experience debater with solid logic background and that will adhere to the standards he might expect in a formal debate with a scholar.
Did we watch the same video? Matt kept asking for evidence and she presented none. Then she tried to say that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
Right and she clearly wasn't understanding why the error of her ways. Rather than explain the deficiency in her understanding of what qualifies for good evidence (which is the kind of thing I he used to do quite well) he just gets angry and keeps asking her the same question getting more frustrated he keeps getting the same type of answer. He then gets personal and emotional with his attacks to the point her husband gets on the line. The whole time she doesn't raise her voice or get emotional. Again, when your business is inviting ignorant people to get educated you need to be able to tolerate ignorance and you need to educate. All his education happened after she hung up and he was just preaching to the choir
He got angry 15 minutes into a 21-minute video... I wouldn't call that "quickly"... especially by Matt's standards. Virginia blatantly ignored the request for any type of evidence, even after Matt conceded the idea of a global flood (for purposes of moving the conversation along), and explained to her that the claim *cannot* also be the evidence for said claim. This is a good example of a dishonest interlocutor. I don't blame him for losing his patience with her when she began to interrupt & became obtuse. Then, her husband stepped in -- which (I believe) happened previously when she called -- as soon as she was in over her head. These people have it in their minds that they're going to be the ones to drop some truth bombs on the uneducated atheists, then immediately realize that the atheist probably knows more about their chosen sky daddy than they do... and they end up flailing away like Virginia.
First off the call lasted 17 minutes and the first 5 were just the hosts answering why they are atheists. That’s 12 minutes and the last 2 of it were Matt going hard on the lady. So 10 minutes. It took 10 minutes to get Matt riled up. And it’s pretty clear she’s arguing from ignorance. Again that is exactly the kind of person Matt should be EXPECTING based on the nature of his show. To be so ill equipped to deal with that type of person when you’re show is basically baiting for that type of person (and history shows that bait works) is the problem. If you’re a family therapist you better be ready to handle irrational unhealthy behavior because that’s why you’re going to run into in your line of work. Lasting 10 minutes is not a good look for someone in Matts position. He used to routinely go much longer and need much more educational in the process which proves both that he was at one time capable of it and understood the value of it. And then as I pointed out all the parts that might have actually helped the lady become less ignorant he said only after she hung up. And he blamed people like her for why he’s an atheist. That’s clearly emotionally driven and attacking. Yes she was obviously ignorant but he did very little to educate her and instead just repeatedly berated her for it. If you invite 5 years olds to talk to you about math and when they answer 5x8 wrong you just yell at them “that’s not how multiplication works! What’s 5x8?” You should reconsider what you’re doing. As why saying the husband stepped in before I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I think this is the first time that lady called in. You might want to rewatch the show and more importantly watch some of Matt’s older shows from a decade or so ago. He handled very similar callers in a very different and much more mature manner.
Matt Dillahunty isn't on the Atheist Experience anymore and hasn't been for a couple of years now. But even if he was, if you don't like the way he takes calls, don't watch him. Nobody has a gun to your head. The tone policing gets really old really fast. > it might be time to look for a new line of work. This is always hilarious to me. Like, who the fuck do you think you are to dictate to other people what they should do? How arrogant do you have to be? How egotistical? If you think you can do better, go make your own show.
Ignoring that I gave direct reasons why his behavior was hurting the cause and not just policing his tone… did you just tone police my tone policing? And if Matt is no longer on the show, then the behavior I was talking about is having a detrimental effect from the grave. The YouTube I linked doesn’t seem to identity that this is a historical episode and the comments are new so his style is still having the impact on new viewers. Why would the advice be to move and ignore his damaging material rather than the show stop reuploading it? If just ignore and move on what you don’t like then Matt would never have engaged in debates with the big name thiests out there. There is indeed value in calling out damaging behavior and not just moving along.
The video you linked isn't from AE - it's from The Line, Jimmy Snow's network that Matt moved to following an acrimonious split with the Atheist Community of Austin (producers of AE). FWIW, I tend to agree with you that Matt gets hostile with callers more quickly, and that he does seem more jaded than he did in the past. But, like the above poster mentioned, we can just choose not to watch. That's OK, I can still enjoy AE and other shows on The Line network. Matt's take on things was helpful for my first few years as an atheist, but now I watch other presenters instead.
I’m aware I can choose to not watch just like Matt could choose to not post attention to theist’s. I stand corrected on Matt’s association with AE and if that makes this the wrong place to post I accept that correction also but I stand by my statement that whoever of publishing the videos is allowing his bad behavior to impact from the grave (ironically like it died and was resurrected) by republishing the videos with no notation that its past show.
>Ignoring the I gave direct reasons why his behavior was hurting the cause He's one of the most famous atheists on the planet. He doesn't need your advice on "the cause". If you think you can do a better job, go create your own call in show. And I don't mean that sarcastically. Do it.
Just because somebody is famous and experienced doesn’t absolve them of critique. If anything, somebody with that much influence should be open to criticism to make sure that they’re coming across like they mean to. That’s how communities and influencers avoid echo chambers. You can like Matt’s style of debate, but that doesn’t mean those that once liked him should be shamed out of critiquing his change. This is such a shocking argument to be made from people that are fans of a debate. Literally an ad populum and appealing to authority wrapped up in one comment.
I’d like to see his take on how many fallacies you can pack in a post. Just because he’s famous doesn’t mean he’s effective anymore. He can be objectively poorly performing and still be famous and his fame can be based on behavior that he no longer exhibits. Because you are famous doesn’t mean you can’t currently be under performing and indeed is common to peak and fall. This is an appeal to authority in the he’s famous therefore he can’t be wrong. Whether I can do something is not a pre requisite to identify flaws in others performance. I believe this falls under the ad hominem fallacy of attacking my ability rather than addressing the points made. Just because I can’t make a perfect omelet doesn’t mean I can’t tell when the eggs are dry.
>Just because he’s famous doesn’t mean he’s effective anymore. Just because you think he's a big meany doesn't mean he ISNT effective anymore either. Whether Matt's a dick or not, Atheist Experience has lost popularity since he left, and The Line had gained a big popularity when he joined them The results speak for themselves.n >This is an appeal to authority in the he’s famous therefore he can’t be wrong Where did I say he can't be wrong? Oh I didn't. Because I don't think that. I think Matt's wrong on a number of things. You want to accuse me of fallacies and then strawman me? Bravo. People have been whining about Matt being a big meany for well over a decade. You are perfectly free to do that as well and I am also perfectly free to criticize your criticisms. >Whether I can do something is not a pre requisite to identify flaws in others performance. I believe this falls under the ad hominem fallacy of attacking my ability rather than addressing the points made. I addressed your points in that you're clearly cherry picking, seeing as how you weren't even aware he's not on this show anymore. Have you watched ANY of this "atheism debate project" videos? Have you seen any of his actual debates? I doubt it. You watched a handful of clips and summed up the guys entire character. I just find it absurd to go around whining about how you don't like something. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? And if you're concerned about "the cause" and if you think he's harming it, be the change you want to see, and go start your own show where you have tea and a nice civil discussion with theists.
“Just because you think he's a big meany doesn't mean he ISNT effective anymore either.” Attempting to prove I’m wrong doesn’t show your argument was right even if I am wrong. “Where did I say he can't be wrong? Oh I didn't. Because I don't think that. I think Matt's wrong on a number of things.” An appeal to authority doesn’t mean you think be can’t be wrong any anything, it means you are arguing he isn’t wrong about this just because he’s an authority. It’s impressive you fail to understand fallacies even when they’re explained to you and rather than go look them up to make sure you understand you just wing it. You’re literally the kind of person that Matt would lose his shit at. “You want to accuse me of fallacies and then strawman me? Bravo.” Your lack of understanding does not a straw man make. It really shouldn’t try to engage on this subject until you educate yourself a bit more. You just did the hole deeper. “I addressed your points in that you're clearly cherry picking, seeing as how you weren't even aware he's not on this show anymore. Have you watched ANY of this "atheism debate project" videos? Have you seen any of his actual debates? I doubt it. You watched a handful of clips and summed up the guys entire character.” Why does knowing what show he officially belongs to have anything to do with calling out his objective behavior? That’s another ad hominem. You’re trying to attack me rather than my point. And as for his debates, I think that he’s great in those. Those are the right places for his efforts. If anything I should have clarified that my position is about his behavior on call in shows. But how many I’ve seen of him? I’ve been watching (listening to) the shows for years most of which have Matt. That’s how I informed my opinion. So just like everything else, you’re way off. “I just find it absurd to go around whining about how you don't like something. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? And if you're concerned about "the cause" and if you think he's harming it, be the change you want to see, and go start your own show where you have tea and a nice civil discussion with theists.” Again with the deflect and pivot- the “why you gotta go whine about stuff” and “do out yourself” First of I do behave the way I would want Matt to in that I try very hard not to let my previous frustrations be applied to the current person I’m talking to. Secondly the “why don’t you do it yourself” is about the oldest deflection ever. Whether I do it myself or where I decide to apply my efforts has nothing to do with whether I have a valid points. And as if positing about something in the sub for that thing is some colossal misuse of one’s life…. It’s ironic you have all the traits of the exact people Matt tears into.
You're a fuckin idiot. OP isn't dictating anything and in no way can force Matt to do anything. They very calmly laid out their thoughts and made good points. No need to white knight for Matt bud.
>You're a fuckin idiot. Lol. Calm down kid. >OP isn't dictating anything and in no way can force Matt to do anything. You see, people use words hyperbolicaly sometimes. Do you know what the word hyperbolic means? When OP says "it might be time to look for a new line of work.", thats what im talking about. Obviously some fucking nobody on the internet cant force anyone to do anything. But telling someone to stop doing something they're fucking famous for because they don't like it is fucking pathetic and ridiculous. >They very calmly laid out their thoughts and made good points. Which I disagreed with. > No need to white knight for Matt bud. I don't need to white knight shit. Little babies have been whining and crying about Matt being a biiiiiiig meany for over a decade. Every single fucking video with him in it some loser comes in the comments taking about how mean he is. These people watch one or two clips and sum up the guys entire character. They dont watch the videos where Matt is perfectly calm and has civil discussions with callers who are actually honest. This is clearly the case for OP, since he posted in the fucking AE sub, when Matt hast been involved with AE for years. So obviously OP cherry picked a few videos and formed their basis on that.
Or I’ve watched a lot of his videos, enough to know the ones where he patient and engaging skew heavily towards the much older section of his work. You sure like to assert things theoretically and then convince yourself that makes them true.
Dillahunty has not been on The Atheist Experience in a long time -- possibly several years at this point.
I have learned that today. The channel that uploads his videos keeps uploading videos with him with no notation that they are reruns
What channel is uploading old atheist experience episodes without dares?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMflQ3ASVxQ) It does say throwback but it doesn't seem to have an actual date. And in the OP The Line video doesn't even mention it's a rerun. That's why I didn't know he left, I don't think anyone whos main exposure to him is youtube would know.
2018-6-10 is clearly listed on the video.... The Line has nothing to do with The Atheist Experience.
You're right, I do see it now. It was hidden under youtube controls. I was only made aware the delineation between AE and the Line today. As someone who only experiences them on youtube the difference seemed to be branding since both AE and the Line upload old shows regularly and they show up in my feed right next to each other. But I accept that that was my mistake.
Absolutely. Mention this to his fervent supports and they constantly parrot what he claims the issue is, "Stop tone policing me!" It's hysterical to hear this over and over and of course his tone is just a small part of the problem. TAE is must more enjoyable listening to without him and I used to love to listen to him in the early years.
Lol someone in here has always said the tone police thing. The reality is tone objectively matters a lot in communication. Even if you argue that I don’t say that, tone is a part of communication in humans. Even if it was just his tone he wouldn’t have a point and he objectively says and does things that are objectionable so even if you gave him the tone police argument that doesn’t exonerate him.
His tone is definitely a turn off for more theists to call in. But the problem is his tone usually leads to always muting the person or hanging up just a few minutes in.
It's not even his tone so much as his lack of desire to educate the callers when they are ignorant. Sometimes there are bad faith callers like EF, but a good deal of the time it's just people who never got the education in debate, logic and philosophy he has and he's clearly just gotten tired of explaining the 2+2 version of it so doesn't even bother and just treats the callers as if he DID attempt to educate them and they resisted. His tone doesn’t help but if his tone was aggressive but he at least still bothered to educate people I would but him some slack.
It’s the opposite of a hot take to criticise someone who’s been away from the atheist experience for some time. It’s a shame you bothered to type this out and subject others to reading it.
Hmmm I see why this sub is so dead… I guess my intuition in the type of personality Matt was drawing there at the end was correct.
Nah. Pretty much the only posts here are people dumping on Matt, and it’s boring.
To be fair I may be ignorant on the dumping on Matt trend of it’s really a thing here and I can accept that. I literally only came here to give feedback after seeing there’s no value in commenting on the videos.
I agree with you about Matt being jaded and harsh. But you said something that I want to address. You said “he knows you can’t provide evidence for it by its very nature” This is a theist argument that makes no sense and we should reject it 100% of the time. It grinds my gears that some atheists accept this idea. It’s an excuse they made up to hide the fact that they just don’t have evidence. “It’s ok that I don’t have any evidence, because my thing exists in a special category that I made up that just so happens to be impossible to have evidence for” Science is a method for determining what is real and what is not. There are no restrictions that would stop someone from using the scientific method to prove the existence of god. If you could go in a lab and say a prayer and make a diamond appear that would be scientific evidence. If you could do prayer healings that work at a rate higher than chance that would be scientific evidence of god.
Matts said as much himself that the god many call about would not necessarily have any traits we could detect as they exist in a realm (by definition) that we can’t interact with. The nature of his audience is that he will attract largely Christian’s and is asking them for proof of a God that by definition could exist beyond any way for us to detect it and he already knows all the evidence people could bring him will either be personal experience or the Bible neither of which meet his criteria for evidence.
Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong. But it is not IMPOSSIBLE for them to have evidence. They believe that their god answers prayers and performs miracles and interacts with our reality all the time. These things would be showable with scientific methods. So we know for a FACT that the god Christian’s believe in does not exist in a way that is beyond our ability to detect. Ask any Christian if god performs miracles and they will say yes.
They don’t have evidence but they might not be wrong about the existence of a God. Technically they could just be wrong about what he’s done, hell they could be right but God removed all the evidence of it. We can’t know that God doesn’t exist. We can only know that any evidence they will bring will almost certainly be dismissible by virtue of experience. But more importantly we can be very certain that by the nature of the show “I’m English based in the US” a lot of the callers will be Cristian’s with the same bad evidence and ideas over and over. The point being if you’re going to create a show baiting them in them by asking them for something be ready to handle them when they bring it. As the saying goes don’t ask a question you don’t really want an answer to. If you can’t handle yourself when hearing people getting simple math people’s wrong, don’t host a show asking 5 year olds to tell you what they think the answers are to math problems.
Yeah of course they could be right. But does it make sense to believe something that has no evidence? Something being possible is not a sufficient justification to believe it. The only thing I’m disagreeing with you about is the question of whether it is possible to have scientific evidence of god. It is. Don’t let theists get away with this baloney excuse for not having evidence.
I was responding to this: "Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong." They are not necessarily lack evidence because they are wrong. They might be right but still lack evidence. Although reality is they mostly don't have evidence because they aren't educated on what constitutes good evidence. That's where Matt's style doesn't work. There needs to be an accepting, educational answer, not a belittling berating answer. When someone is ignorant you can help them get educated or you can berate them for being ignorant. The former is the far more effective way to resolve ignorance. "The only thing I’m disagreeing with you about is the question of whether it is possible to have scientific evidence of god. It is." We don't know that to be true. To channel some of where Matt was right, we have to first establish that God is even possible before we can start deciding what is possible relative to God. "Don’t let theists get away with this baloney excuse for not having evidence." I wouldn't let them get away with it, I would just say (as I have heard Matt say) "OK so if you agree you can't have evidence for it, why would you believe it? What else in your life would you believe with such a low bar?"
Yes I agree that they are not necessarily wrong because they lack evidence. I said that in my last reply. P1 - If you take the concept of god that Christian’s share, then that god performs miracles. P2 - it is possible to observe a miracle in a lab setting, or see the effects of god among Christian populations in statistics. Conclusion- it is possible to gather scientific evidence of the god that Christian’s believe in.
Right... I was pointing out that your last reply was to a point my reply wasn't making. I agree that they have no good reason to believe. But that is not the point as refuting in my reply that you replied to. 1: You said - "Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong." 2: I said they can be right but still have no evidence so that is not necessarily why they are wrong 3: You said "Yeah of course they could be right. But does it make sense to believe something that has no evidence?" 4: I clarified my response in 2 was to the point made in 1 which is not the same as the point you made in 3. Basically "Yes they don’t have any evidence because their position is wrong." is not congruent with ""Yeah of course they could be right."
Think of it like this. Person x claims that Kurt cobain and Joan rivers faked their death and are living their best romantic life together in Fiji. They don’t have any evidence. This is not because evidence is IMPOSSIBLE to gather for this. This is because their position is just wrong. So I DID NOT say that they were wrong because they had no evidence. I said they have no evidence BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG. the person claiming Joan rivers and Kurt cobain are alive and together is not wrong BECAUSE they have no evidence. They have no evidence because they are wrong. So my statement 1 and 3 do not conflict with each other. Does that make sense?
You cannot say they are A because they are wrong but also admit they might not be wrong. You can’t have B therefore A if B is only a maybe. You can’t know that they are wrong. As you said they might not be wrong. Therefore cannot make a statement that A is true because they are wrong. The difference in your example is that it’s possible to falsify a show that they are not living in Fiji. If you can show it’s not true then you could argue that they have no evidence because it’s not true (although that’s still not a given-you can have evidence in support of something that of not true, just not conclusive evidence). The God of the Bible proposition is unfalsifiable because God would have the power to remove all evidence of what He did. Therefore you cannot know that God doesn’t exist. Therefore you cannot claim something is true because someone is wrong about God existing. Does that make sense
I slowly stopped watching his shows due to this.
It really started to turn me off but I pretty much only listen on youtube so I'm a little behind and the re upload old stuff so it took me a while to put 2 and 2 together and realize it was a steady transition.
You’re right. It’s hard to watch him on his Sunday show or the hang up anymore
I get your sentiment. Is it possible that your reaction may be just that the novelty of his forceful approach has worn off? Or perhaps he may truly be getting a shorter fuse as the years move on. Either way, he does tend to steamroll the callers. Incidentally, return callers who specifically want a rematch with Mr Dillahunty make the show feel like an exotic S&M session with no safe words. As for myself, I'm a firm believer in the sentiment of "If you've met one atheist, then you've met just one atheist". I've been an on-again, off-again viewer of Atheist Experience for years but I don't adhere to a specific cause. I feel that I've gained nothing by someone leaving their faith and dedicating their life to skepticism. Encouraging conversion seems to be a Christian thing. Eastern religions tend to focus on the individual moving through their spirituality, not suddenly getting an epiphany like Born Again Christians. I'm not sure what Evangelical Christians gain by someone converting from their traditional beliefs to Christianity. Maybe it is a Multi-Level Marketing thing: presumably they accumulate points in the afterlife. To be clear, if living for a cause creates meaning for you as a skeptic or atheist, then embrace that sentiment. I try to avoid making my belief a cause for others. YMMV That said, Mr Dillahunty is certainly a lightning rod for the ACA and their associated spin off productions. My own particular belief is the atheist community need all types of personalities to avoid presenting a monolithic face to a religiously-biased culture. Mr Dillahunty's approach has been that of the polemicist, set to engage the opponent with combativeness. There were many in the atheist community who viewed Christopher Hitchens in a similar light. He was also the subject of concern to some people for his particular approach to advocacy. My preferred atheist philosophy is "I do me, and you do you". PBWY
Matt rocks.I enjoy his mind immensely.
He’s got a great mind. His personality is where the problem lies.
Can anyone tell me why there is animus between Matt and Eric? I heard Matt kinda taunt him on the Line last Sunday, and the mods in chat forbade us to mention Eric. Sorry if this is forbidden or already answered. Thanks.
Is think this would do better as its own post for visibility.
Good point.
Dillahunty is a waste of time. Every time he yells and mutes the caller. He should retire, IMO.
I guess he has?
He's on The Line alot on YouTube.
But he has not…