Basically theists call in, and the atheist host has a bit of a debate with them. It can be entirely civil, and you get calls sometimes where the caller shares difficulties they’ve had with faith, that can be quite powerful and valuable for all sides.
But much more often it’s someone who’s called in spoiling for a fight, who then gets “owned” by the host. Which might seem to have value too, but I think two things makes me think they might be a net negative:
Despite being an atheist myself, there are plenty of things I disagree with the hosts on, particularly when they get into science and philosophy. However, I can’t call in, because they explicitly say they only take calls from theists. Furthermore, if you point out their mistakes in the comments or on discord, people jump on you, as they assume any criticism whatsoever means you are the “enemy”.
I’ve seen a few debate channels now on the theist side of things, and it’s more obvious to me that it’s just meant to be beating up on atheists and not learning anything.
I don’t think the situation is entirely symmetrical – most atheists tend to be agnostic atheists, whereas most theists seem to be gnostics, so to do this kind of “owning”, the christian or muslim hosts often need to begin with saddling the caller with beliefs they haven’t stated and do not hold. But still, it is an eye opener to see it from the other side.
I’m ignorant of the show, so speaking in generalities. …
IMO genuine debate is a useful way for participants and audiences to learn and grow.
When it’s just two unshakeable partisans, at least one of whom is shouting at the other, that’s just rage bait. Which serves to inflame and entrench the audience members on both sides.
I think current events clearly demonstrate that 20+ years of stage-managed rage bait mislabeled as debate serves only to incite violence and hate.
I am also unfamiliar with that show, but I’ve seen videos of the late Christopher Hitchens, in which he openly debates clergy and other people of faith, explaining how there are rational explanations for the world’s existence without divine intervention. He would also sometimes say that science can’t explain everything about the universe, but that doesn’t mean it won’t someday.
The debate ultimately boils down to a conflict between science and faith, and people hold strong opinions on either side. Faith is defined as a strong belief in a person, cause, or something unseen, without proof or evidence. As long as the debate is respectful, I don’t see any problem with it, and I’m always open to hearing both sides, but when it simply becomes a shouting match, I usually walk away.
I listen to far more of these than is good for me. First, it is not true that they only take theist calls - most give theists priority, but take atheist calls if there is time. That seems reasonable to me, since that makes for more interesting shows.
I correct the hosts in the comments all the time, and have never been beat up for it, even in the slightest. The level of science knowledge from the hosts has vastly improved over the past five years - it used to be embarrassingly bad.
I can imagine that these shows are helpful to atheist in the Bible Belt, since they may feel isolated. Those of us who live in more secular environments should empathize with them.
On the other hand there is a lot of the same old arguments with the same old refutations.
This can be a major problem when a point is refuted by an atheist, the host seems to accept the refutation…then makes the same point the next time with another atheist as if the same argument never happened previously.
Yes. Apparently most of them have never bothered to look up the standard answers to their killing questions - and this applies not just to callers but content creators.
I can’t say that I have ever heard a really good debate between a theist and an atheist, even when top-rated speakers are involved. I like to think that science could be applied without supporting or antagonizing either side. When speaking of religion science is best applied when it studies objectively what religion does to a person. I believe it is simply an operating system that is permanently installed. It is never perfectly installed and will always need maintenance to remove the bugs. The maintenance is where a lot of problems arise as it is infected with viruses that can cause it to crash. It is the job of the clergy to help maintain this system.
My take is that live debates are mostly about entertainment, and “winners” are determined on who’s best at debate tactics, especially sleazy ones like Gish galloping - and not on who has the best grasp of facts.
Haven’t listened to atheist-theist debates, but if they’re anything like debates featuring science vs. pseudoscience, no thanks.
I listen to some of these “debates” – they’re more like discussions – and I am amazed at the same old invalid, religious points regurgitated again and again. Some of them were used by my parents (didn’t work on me). I have several of their favorite books, all of which I can now soundly refute, since they have numerous, glaring, gross assumptions and logical flaws.
Are the shows a positive thing? The caller rarely gets convinced. I think the most beneficial outcome is that the public (all types) can see what concerns people of a religious bent, and how illogical they can be when blinded by faith.
I admire hosts like Matt Dillahunty, with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, far greater than most callers (or me). Callers typically think they have found the one argument to devastate an Atheist, yet it proves not to be. They are woefully unprepared for Matt and other hosts.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard an atheist deny that religion does things to a person. Or even that religion provides community (unless you are trans, that is) which can improve mental health.
The problem is when certain types of religions make truth claims about the universe, which get falsified by science. You’ll also see that they are very selective in the scientific findings they accept.
Maybe you watch more than me, but I haven’t seen this in a long time. Most shows are either explicitly theist callers, or if an atheist calls in, they’ll politely say “we’re just taking calls from believers today” or words to that effect.
If I could find an open call-in show, I’d call in.
In terms of the reason why, sure, the calls with an antagonist position are more entertaining, but this is a bit of what I am getting at in the OP.
Again then, your mileage has apparently varied. A recent example for me was where the host said that the recent DESI satellite data showed that the universe’s expansion was decelerating, and so indicated that a big crunch* was now more likely than the heat death.
So, on his Discord channel, I pointed out that this wasn’t accurate and got flamed by about a dozen people.
Now; it’s quite possible that my tone might have come across as snark – it wasn’t intended, but I do sometimes read back my posts on forums like this and realize my tone can come across that way. But it wasn’t like I went in there insulting anyone, in fact I began my post with saying how much of a fan I was of the show.
\* The host is a strong proponent of the cyclic universe hypothesis, I think because he has the popular misapprehension that as long as there is no specific start point in time, there is no philosophical explanatory gap as to why anything exists. Let’s put this to one side though, as that’s a topic in itself and I didn’t mention any of this on Discord.
Yes, you’d also enjoy Deconstruction Zone then. Justin also has an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible and can also read biblical hebrew and greek. Matt and Justin did a show together recently…that sure wasn’t a good day for people to call in trying to preach their understanding of the bible
If it’s not clear enough already, I’m a massive fan of these shows and really admire these guys for what they do. People say Matt gets angry but he’s been doing this for decades at this point, I think he has the patience of a saint. I just wonder if these shows are part of the bubble that we’re all in now?
This is what I was going to say. I’ve spoken with a lot of now-atheists who had long periods of questioning their religious beliefs/disbeliefs, and they say they felt completely alone until they found like-minded people. One woman was home-schooled by fundamentalist parents until she finished the equivalent of high school, and had had no opportunity to communicate with other people who questioned what they’d been taught. [She said that when she finally came out to her family as not believing in god, her aunt told her, “Well, it’s okay if you don’t believe in god, as long as you’re not an atheist!”]
I forget that in some parts people can be completely surrounded by christian culture. That was never an issue growing up in the UK. We have devout christians of course, but for most people it’s just there as an option within a secular culture.
That is a good point, and you are correct. There is some bad programming involved when installing this operating system. I would think that most people who take all that literally would have jobs where it wasn’t all that important. If someone told me to put my finger in a light socket, I wouldn’t do it because I am absolutely certain it would shock me. If someone tells me I am going to hell for having recreational sex, it doesn’t stop me or a lot of other people. But it does leave me with enough guilt that, as I get older, I try to be a little more responsible about it. Everything has to be exaggerated to make any point at all. I believe that as we mature, we are left with a conscience built around Christian principles, and more importantly, we see that God is the final authority over any man. This is where it gets a little funny; the atheist knows we can’t deny the Bible as written because it is part of our being. I believe they play on this a bit.
Yes, I’m familiar with Justin. Interestingly, his name does not appear anywhere on his own YT site that I can find. He’s perhaps more “scholarly” than Matt, and less easily rattled.
I want to cherry-pick something that comes up in the debates all the time. I have heard Christians say that it is an indisputable fact that historical records passed by word of mouth over generations is accurate or reliable. We all know that is false. What is interesting about it though is that these things were able to stick around for those long periods of time. They had to make a strong impression on people to be passed down. They were probably edited and improved on with each passing. This might partially explain what seems to be supernatural wisdom compared to what they should have known in those days.
That’s simply not true of The Atheist Experience. They say they prioritize theists, but as @Voyager says, they absolutely do take calls from atheists. I’d say it probably averages one such call per show. Sometimes it’s an atheist reaching out for help, but other times it’s someone who, like you, disagrees with them on something.
