Transcript from Charlie, The Atheist Homophobe
Call #1
Episode 710
Atheist Experience #710: Post-Apocalypse
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... se-5201994
Time Range: 28:17 - 36:36
-----
Martin: Okay, who are we at? Call one, this should be interesting, we're going to talk to Charlie in L.A.
Tracie: Hi Charlie.
Martin: Charlie. Thanks for waiting.
Charlie: Hello, how are you guys doing?
Martin: We are good.
Charlie: Yeah, you know what? I'm an atheist homophobe. How do you like that?
Martin: I doubt that because people who are actually homophobes never really call themselves that.
Charlie: You know what? That is because they are afraid of punishment by gays.
Martin: I mean, well I mean, that just goes to show how silly they are.
Charlie: I'm sorry, wait, I'm sorry could you repeat that?
Martin: Yeah, I'm just saying that's very silly isn't it. That's a silly thing to be afraid of.
Charlie: Actually, a lot of people are afraid of punishment, I mean if you're going to be harassed and get called names, and being falsely accused of being gay
Martin: You mean like gay people put up with everyday, yeah that must really suck.
Charlie: Well yeah, so are you really saying it's okay to pick on gays?
Martin: No.
Charlie: Well then so then why you doubt, wait excuse me, why you doubt when people pick on people who label themselves homophobes?
Martin: Well I'm simply saying that people who are homophobic usually reject that label because they see it as being a negative, and they don't actually see the fact that they dislike gays as being negative. And they deny, they don't like being called homophobes because they always say usually, oh I'm not afraid of gays, I just disapprove for X, Y, Z and whatever reasons they give, and it's usually religious reasons.
Charlie: Do you know what homophobe, what is homophobia?
Martin: Homophobia I think involves fear of the possibility, someone who is a homophobe I think is afraid that they themselves might experience unwelcome homosexual attraction.
Charlie: Oh really? Guess what? You're dead wrong.
Martin: Oh really. Okay.
Charlie: Yes. Studies show homophobia is rooted in disgust not fear, and disgust is actually an evolutionary instinct.
Tracie: Okay, wait a second, wait a second, if it's not fear, then it's not a phobia.
Martin: Yeah.
Charlie: Of course, because the word homophobia is a misnomer to begin with.
Tracie: Then you're not homophobic.
Martin: So why would you call yourself a homophobe if, have you just admitted that you're afraid of gays?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Martin: I mean so the fact that you refer to yourself as a homophobe means that, and you say the word, it has nothing to do with, you know disgust and fear are two different things, so if you're calling yourself a homophobe, have you not just admitted that you are afraid of gays?
Charlie: Are you ready to get debunked? Because I'm about ready to do it right now, are you ready?
Martin: Wait a minute, I just asked you a question. That's all.
Charlie: Listen, I'm about to debunk your claim. Are you ready? I'm asking are you ready to get debunked.
Martin: What claim did I make?
Charlie: Okay, okay, here's the deal. The term homophobe, when people use the term homophobe, they describe people who are simply disgusted by gays. Because an expression of disgust is being labeled a homophobe. So being the fact that, you are familiar with the term homophobe, using the word to associate it with people who are being called homophobes. But my point is, studies show the term homophobia is not a phobia. So even though it is the suffix is a phobia, it's not a phobia, the word is misleading by default.
Tracie: So why do you call yourself homophobic?
Martin: Yeah, if it's misleading, why do you yourself use the term to refer to yourself?
Charlie: Why? Because, listen, the word homophobe itself is deceitful by default so
Tracie: So why do you use it?
Charlie: Why?
Tracie: Why do you use it?
Charlie: Because, because studies show homophobia is rooted in disgust.
Tracie: Why do you label yourself homophobic if you know that it's an incorrect label?
Charlie: Because, because, I said it's a misnomer. You're using the strawman fallacy.
Tracie: Why do you use a label on yourself that you know does not correctly define what you are? Do you just want to confuse people?
Charlie: No, actually, the term, listen to me.
Martin: We're trying.
Charlie: Listen to me. The term homophobe, studies show that it's not fear-based. Are you with me? Are you with me?
Tracie: It doesn't matter. I understand what you're saying but
Charlie: That does matter, because the term is not fear-based to begin with.
Tracie: Then it's not a phobia. Then you shouldn't use the label. You called up and said you were homophobic.
Charlie: Okay, if that's the case, no one should use the label because the
Martin: Then why do you?
Tracie: Put him on hold.
Charlie: the feelings associated, listen,
Tracie: No you listen. Put this guy on hold.
Charlie: associated with, the word is rooted in- [Charlie is on hold]
Tracie: Okay, you're on hold. You called up and said you are homophobic. And then you said you don't have fear of anything that's related to this, and you said that phobia does equal fear, and that it's wrong to use it, if fear is not involved. If there's no fear involved, then what you're describing as your position, and it's wrong to use homophobia when there's no fear in that position, why the heck did you call and say you're a homophobe? [Tracie pushes the wrong button] Go. Did I do it? [Martin pushes the button and Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: First of all, I never, first of all you made a false statement. You said that I said I claimed that homophobe is about fear. I never said homophobe is about fear. I was saying it is not about fear.
Tracie: It has to be because phobia is about fear.
Charlie: The term homophobe is mis- the suffix misleads people about what homophobia is all about. I didn't say the term homophobe, I didn't say the term homophobe is about fear.
Tracie: No, the dictionary says that any phobia is about fear, the dictionary says that phobia means fear. If there's no fear involved then using phobia is incorrect. You've called up and said you were phobic.
Charlie: No I didn't use phobia, I used homophobia.
Tracie: It doesn't matter what you put in front of it, phobia means fear. It means an irrational fear.
Charlie: I agree, because the word
Martin: Okay, so then why use it to refer to yourself if you don't have fear in your position?
Charlie: Because, all right, studies show-
[They hang up on Charlie]
Tracie: You're done.
Martin: You're done, all right, you are done.
Tracie: I'm sorry but that was just not going anywhere, it's just wasting time, and we have real callers. So let's go.
Martin: Yeah, talk about, I mean that wasn't even going in circles, it was
Tracie: I want to apologize to the viewers for that travesty of a call.
Martin: Yeah, I mean, good grief.
Transcripts from Charlie Check'm, The Atheist Homophobe
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Transcripts from Charlie Check'm, The Atheist Homophobe
by Mattmon » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:40 pm
Last edited by Mattmon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mattmon
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:20 pm
by Mattmon » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:41 pm
Transcript from Charlie, as "Evolved Atheist"
Call #2
Episode 712
Atheist Experience #712: Viewer Calls
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... ls-5246649
Time Range: 2:50 - 13:01
-----
Russell: So we are going with, oh the Internet is leaking into the TV show, because this person just has a screen name and no real name. Evolved Atheist in Los Angeles, how are you?
Charlie: Hi, I'm good and you?
Russell: Fine.
Charlie: Yeah, I've been talking to some atheists, and I'm bothered by something that's going in the atheist community. I believe that many atheists are actually delusional. Mainly I'm talking about the pro-gay atheists.
Martin: Oh you're that guy.
Russell: Are you the same guy who called in last time?
Charlie: No comment.
Martin: Okay, we'll take that as a yes.
Charlie: Okay, yeah, so uh,
Martin: See you could have just said that.
Charlie: Before I ask any loaded questions, I'm going to ask you, do you believe atheists who oppose gay marriage are irrational?
Russell: Pretty much.
Martin: What would the reason be for opposing it?
Charlie: No, that's the question, I asked a question, you're asking a question with a question, that's what Christians do.
Martin: Well I mean, why be opposed to gay marriage? If you have
Charlie: That's not the question. Could you answer my question.
Russell: Okay, if it's going to be this kind of call where you play lawyer, I might just hang up on you right now.
Charlie: No I simply asked you a question.
Martin: It depends on the reasons that they give.
Russell: People ask me if Christians are irrational.
Charlie: Marriage to me is the identity of the ultimate commitment, it specifically represents the identity of men and women, the ultimate relationship between men and women.
Russell: Okay, but in my point of view, marriage is a legal contract between two people who agree to basically tether their lives together, and it doesn't really matter that much if they're a man and a woman.
Charlie: Oh well you know what? Guess what, you don't need the word marriage for that.
Russell: Well you kind of do, because one of the things that the legal contract entails basically is a whole bunch of stuff, like being able to share insurance, automatically being the beneficiary when someone dies.
Charlie: It's possible, it's possible for gays to obtain full rights and benefits without the word marriage.
Russell: It's possible, but it's a huge pain in the ass, and there's no good reason to deny it.
Charlie: Actually, actually it is a lot easier
Russell: Oh well then why should straight people get married?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Russell: Why should straight people get married then?
Charlie: Because, the word marriage has been established to be the identity of the ultimate commitment between men and women, it's already been established.
Russell: Established by who?
Charlie: By the majority of societies in the world. People around the world have already come on, another name for, it is so established, another name for marriage, another phrase for marriage, is husband and wife.
Russell: So this is just a case of majority rules, so if a majority now decides that it's okay for marriage to apply- No, okay.
Charlie: No, actually, actually that is a strawman fallacy. I never claimed that. Nice try.
Russell: That's exactly what you claimed.
Martin: That's exactly what you claimed. You said that marriage, the definition of marriage was defined by the majority of people in society, that right there is majority rules.
Charlie: No I didn't say that. I said the word marriage has been established.
Martin: Yes, by?
Charlie: It has been established as the identity.
Martin: By, and we asked by whom and you said by the majority of people in society.
Charlie: No no no no, you asked me why, why the word marriage is for men and women, I think you asked me why is it that way, and I said because it's been established. I didn't say the majority, I said it has been established.
Martin: Okay, well then by whom has it been established, what's what we're asking you now.
Charlie: How has it been established?
Martin: Yes, who, by whom was this establishment made? That this was, that identifying marriage as a heterosexual union
Charlie: Man and woman, all right, another name, wait wait wait, before you cut me off, before you cut me off, let me respond, I said another term for marriage is husband and wife, that's what I said. Now that was established by the dictionary, not the majority.
Russell: Okay. I listened to the call that you called in with last week, and I feel like-
Charlie: That's a red herring, that's a red herring fallacy, that is a red herring fallacy.
Russell: You don't even know what I was about to say.
Charlie: Well go on to what you're about to say, go on to what you're about to say. And I noticed how you jumped off the subject because you're basically losing, and now you want to talk about- [Charlie is on hold]
Russell: Shut up.
Martin: You know the whole yammering over other people so they can't get in a word edgewise?
Russell: What I was about to say
Martin: That's what Christians do.
Russell: What I was about to say was that, the problem with last week, the thing that annoyed me about last week's call, was that everybody spent so much time worrying about the definition of a word, that we never actually got to the practical issue that was at the root of it, so what I would like to ask is,
Martin: And you're doing it all over again, you know this whole definition of marriage, man, woman, the definitions
Russell: Who cares what the words are agreed on to mean, what I want to know is, from a legal point of view, do you think there is something that a gay couple should not get, under the force of law, that a straight couple should get? Was that line one? [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: Hello? I believe gays should have full equal rights. Without the word marriage.
Russell: What do you care?
Martin: Yeah, I mean why is
Charlie: Know what, actually because I simply value the identity, if it's no big deal, why do you care about the word? The cat got your tongue, huh?
Martin: Well I mean because it's the same thing. You're obsessing over calling it marriage.
Charlie: You asked me why I cared about the word, I told you because I value the word marriage.
Martin: Why does the word marriage only have value when it refers to a heterosexual union? Why does the word marriage suddenly not have value when it refers to a same-sex union? Why, the word, the importance of, you're assigning a certain kind of importance to the word.
Charlie: Because it has already been established, just like I said, another term for marriage is husband and wife, and people have grown, wait, people have grown to value that identity. If you claim that the word is no big deal, then why are you so much after it?
Russell: All right, forget about the word, hold on a minute.
Martin: You're the one obsessing about it.
Russell: Suppose, suppose that we decide to grant you this dictionary argument, and say, okay from now on, we will have a new institution, which we will call, Schmarriage. Okay? And schmarriage will be functionally identical to marriage in every single way, except that two men or two women can get schmarried, and enjoy exactly the same rights under the law as a married couple. Would you be okay with that?
Charlie: I would be perfectly fine with that. I would support it. I would go out and root for gays.
Russell: So your whole argument is one about the English language not about anything practical.
Charlie: No, my whole, my whole, nice strawman fallacy. My whole argument is, my whole argument is the simple identity. There's nothing wrong with placing value on an identity. Okay, know what, I have a question for you. Would you oppose people changing the term homophobia to mean, I mean would you oppose people changing the term
Martin: I think we've had that discussion too much already.
Russell: I do not care about the word homophobia.
Martin: We had that discussion, we had that discussion last time.
Charlie: Would you oppose people changing the term homosexual to mean anyone with an abnormal brain structure?
Russell: That would be stupid.
Martin: Yeah, yeah, that would be stupid.
Charlie: Well it's just a word right? It's just a word. Why can't schizophrenic people be called homosexuals if it's only a word?
Martin: Because words have meanings, and they have definitions.
Charlie: I know but what's wrong with changing the word? I can use your same argument, why not change the word to mean anyone with an abnormal brain structure?
Martin: You're the one obsessing about words, which i find really really strange.
Charlie: I'm using your own argument against you, and you oppose schizophrenic people using the word homosexual.
Russell: The reason I think that's stupid is because
Martin: Because schizophrenia means one thing and homophobia means another, homosexual means another.
Charlie: No I said homosexuals, I'm talking about homosexuals, if they change the term homosexual to mean anyone with an abnormal brain structure, would you oppose it?
Russell: So then homosexual would no longer mean attracted to same gender anymore.
Charlie: No, no because it would have a broader
Russell: Okay, so you're not actually just trying to switch words around, you're trying to use a linguistic trick to force people to say that homosexuals have an abnormal brain structure.
Charlie: No I am not, I'm saying what if schizophrenic people and bipolar people wanted to be labeled homosexual
Martin: But this is completely getting beside the point, what I don't understand is
Charlie: How is that hurting homosexuals? See, you oppose that right, well now you see why I oppose gay marriage.
Russell: Can I count on you from now on to support gay schmarriage?
Charlie: I support schmarriage or gayrriage or payrrage
Russell: Then we're in agreement, and I don't care about your silly word games. Thank you for calling.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Martin: Yeah, because at this point that's really all you're obsessed about, is this word has to refer to this one thing. And apart from that
Russell: Bringing people together, that's what we do.
Call #2
Episode 712
Atheist Experience #712: Viewer Calls
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... ls-5246649
Time Range: 2:50 - 13:01
-----
Russell: So we are going with, oh the Internet is leaking into the TV show, because this person just has a screen name and no real name. Evolved Atheist in Los Angeles, how are you?
Charlie: Hi, I'm good and you?
Russell: Fine.
Charlie: Yeah, I've been talking to some atheists, and I'm bothered by something that's going in the atheist community. I believe that many atheists are actually delusional. Mainly I'm talking about the pro-gay atheists.
Martin: Oh you're that guy.
Russell: Are you the same guy who called in last time?
Charlie: No comment.
Martin: Okay, we'll take that as a yes.
Charlie: Okay, yeah, so uh,
Martin: See you could have just said that.
Charlie: Before I ask any loaded questions, I'm going to ask you, do you believe atheists who oppose gay marriage are irrational?
Russell: Pretty much.
Martin: What would the reason be for opposing it?
Charlie: No, that's the question, I asked a question, you're asking a question with a question, that's what Christians do.
Martin: Well I mean, why be opposed to gay marriage? If you have
Charlie: That's not the question. Could you answer my question.
Russell: Okay, if it's going to be this kind of call where you play lawyer, I might just hang up on you right now.
Charlie: No I simply asked you a question.
Martin: It depends on the reasons that they give.
Russell: People ask me if Christians are irrational.
Charlie: Marriage to me is the identity of the ultimate commitment, it specifically represents the identity of men and women, the ultimate relationship between men and women.
Russell: Okay, but in my point of view, marriage is a legal contract between two people who agree to basically tether their lives together, and it doesn't really matter that much if they're a man and a woman.
Charlie: Oh well you know what? Guess what, you don't need the word marriage for that.
Russell: Well you kind of do, because one of the things that the legal contract entails basically is a whole bunch of stuff, like being able to share insurance, automatically being the beneficiary when someone dies.
Charlie: It's possible, it's possible for gays to obtain full rights and benefits without the word marriage.
Russell: It's possible, but it's a huge pain in the ass, and there's no good reason to deny it.
Charlie: Actually, actually it is a lot easier
Russell: Oh well then why should straight people get married?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Russell: Why should straight people get married then?
Charlie: Because, the word marriage has been established to be the identity of the ultimate commitment between men and women, it's already been established.
Russell: Established by who?
Charlie: By the majority of societies in the world. People around the world have already come on, another name for, it is so established, another name for marriage, another phrase for marriage, is husband and wife.
Russell: So this is just a case of majority rules, so if a majority now decides that it's okay for marriage to apply- No, okay.
Charlie: No, actually, actually that is a strawman fallacy. I never claimed that. Nice try.
Russell: That's exactly what you claimed.
Martin: That's exactly what you claimed. You said that marriage, the definition of marriage was defined by the majority of people in society, that right there is majority rules.
Charlie: No I didn't say that. I said the word marriage has been established.
Martin: Yes, by?
Charlie: It has been established as the identity.
Martin: By, and we asked by whom and you said by the majority of people in society.
Charlie: No no no no, you asked me why, why the word marriage is for men and women, I think you asked me why is it that way, and I said because it's been established. I didn't say the majority, I said it has been established.
Martin: Okay, well then by whom has it been established, what's what we're asking you now.
Charlie: How has it been established?
Martin: Yes, who, by whom was this establishment made? That this was, that identifying marriage as a heterosexual union
Charlie: Man and woman, all right, another name, wait wait wait, before you cut me off, before you cut me off, let me respond, I said another term for marriage is husband and wife, that's what I said. Now that was established by the dictionary, not the majority.
Russell: Okay. I listened to the call that you called in with last week, and I feel like-
Charlie: That's a red herring, that's a red herring fallacy, that is a red herring fallacy.
Russell: You don't even know what I was about to say.
Charlie: Well go on to what you're about to say, go on to what you're about to say. And I noticed how you jumped off the subject because you're basically losing, and now you want to talk about- [Charlie is on hold]
Russell: Shut up.
Martin: You know the whole yammering over other people so they can't get in a word edgewise?
Russell: What I was about to say
Martin: That's what Christians do.
Russell: What I was about to say was that, the problem with last week, the thing that annoyed me about last week's call, was that everybody spent so much time worrying about the definition of a word, that we never actually got to the practical issue that was at the root of it, so what I would like to ask is,
Martin: And you're doing it all over again, you know this whole definition of marriage, man, woman, the definitions
Russell: Who cares what the words are agreed on to mean, what I want to know is, from a legal point of view, do you think there is something that a gay couple should not get, under the force of law, that a straight couple should get? Was that line one? [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: Hello? I believe gays should have full equal rights. Without the word marriage.
Russell: What do you care?
Martin: Yeah, I mean why is
Charlie: Know what, actually because I simply value the identity, if it's no big deal, why do you care about the word? The cat got your tongue, huh?
Martin: Well I mean because it's the same thing. You're obsessing over calling it marriage.
Charlie: You asked me why I cared about the word, I told you because I value the word marriage.
Martin: Why does the word marriage only have value when it refers to a heterosexual union? Why does the word marriage suddenly not have value when it refers to a same-sex union? Why, the word, the importance of, you're assigning a certain kind of importance to the word.
Charlie: Because it has already been established, just like I said, another term for marriage is husband and wife, and people have grown, wait, people have grown to value that identity. If you claim that the word is no big deal, then why are you so much after it?
Russell: All right, forget about the word, hold on a minute.
Martin: You're the one obsessing about it.
Russell: Suppose, suppose that we decide to grant you this dictionary argument, and say, okay from now on, we will have a new institution, which we will call, Schmarriage. Okay? And schmarriage will be functionally identical to marriage in every single way, except that two men or two women can get schmarried, and enjoy exactly the same rights under the law as a married couple. Would you be okay with that?
Charlie: I would be perfectly fine with that. I would support it. I would go out and root for gays.
Russell: So your whole argument is one about the English language not about anything practical.
Charlie: No, my whole, my whole, nice strawman fallacy. My whole argument is, my whole argument is the simple identity. There's nothing wrong with placing value on an identity. Okay, know what, I have a question for you. Would you oppose people changing the term homophobia to mean, I mean would you oppose people changing the term
Martin: I think we've had that discussion too much already.
Russell: I do not care about the word homophobia.
Martin: We had that discussion, we had that discussion last time.
Charlie: Would you oppose people changing the term homosexual to mean anyone with an abnormal brain structure?
Russell: That would be stupid.
Martin: Yeah, yeah, that would be stupid.
Charlie: Well it's just a word right? It's just a word. Why can't schizophrenic people be called homosexuals if it's only a word?
Martin: Because words have meanings, and they have definitions.
Charlie: I know but what's wrong with changing the word? I can use your same argument, why not change the word to mean anyone with an abnormal brain structure?
Martin: You're the one obsessing about words, which i find really really strange.
Charlie: I'm using your own argument against you, and you oppose schizophrenic people using the word homosexual.
Russell: The reason I think that's stupid is because
Martin: Because schizophrenia means one thing and homophobia means another, homosexual means another.
Charlie: No I said homosexuals, I'm talking about homosexuals, if they change the term homosexual to mean anyone with an abnormal brain structure, would you oppose it?
Russell: So then homosexual would no longer mean attracted to same gender anymore.
Charlie: No, no because it would have a broader
Russell: Okay, so you're not actually just trying to switch words around, you're trying to use a linguistic trick to force people to say that homosexuals have an abnormal brain structure.
Charlie: No I am not, I'm saying what if schizophrenic people and bipolar people wanted to be labeled homosexual
Martin: But this is completely getting beside the point, what I don't understand is
Charlie: How is that hurting homosexuals? See, you oppose that right, well now you see why I oppose gay marriage.
Russell: Can I count on you from now on to support gay schmarriage?
Charlie: I support schmarriage or gayrriage or payrrage
Russell: Then we're in agreement, and I don't care about your silly word games. Thank you for calling.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Martin: Yeah, because at this point that's really all you're obsessed about, is this word has to refer to this one thing. And apart from that
Russell: Bringing people together, that's what we do.
Last edited by Mattmon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mattmon
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:20 pm
by Mattmon » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:43 pm
Transcript from Charlie, as "Evolved Atheist"
Call #3
Episode 713
Atheist Experience #713: Viewer Calls
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... ls-5271056
Time Range: 32:22 - 49:42
-----
Matt: All right. This is, oh, Evolved Atheist.
Charlie: Heh heh, yeah Evolved Atheist, how are you doing?
Jeff: Just hang up on this guy.
Charlie: Oh, hey, aren't you tolerant
Jeff: Your calls are just
Matt: Hang on, hang on, hang on
Charlie: Don't you want to hear other people's views?
Matt: Hang on, [Charlie is on hold] Hang on. [Charlie is off hold]
Matt: I'm in a really pissy mood today because I spent Saturday in the ER. I haven't had a chance to catch up on the episodes that you're called into, and I'm willing to let you talk for a minute or so, just so I can get my taste, go ahead.
Charlie: Okay, am I on and everything, I just heard some guy say hang up on this guy.
Jeff: Yeah, that was me.
Matt: You're on the air. Are you not watching the show?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: Are you not watching the show?
Charlie: No I'm not watching it, I'm not even watching it. Why? Because I'm on a computer, I'm actually
Matt: Yeah, you can watch it on the computer.
Charlie: I know, but I'm watching a Michael Jackson thing right now.
Matt: Sure. Go ahead, get to whatever
Charlie: I've been sort of paying attention to some atheists, and listening to their responses to some of my claims, and it seems like, for some of them, their whole motivation of caring for atheism is because of, they feel that it would help gays. It seems like that's their driving force behind even, I don't know if it's their driving force behind being an atheist, but it seems like it's the driving force behind why they care for atheists.
Matt: Well that's not the case here.
Jeff: And can we just set aside, the, that criticism of the motives you imagine that atheists have, and just deal with the arguments? Please?
Charlie: Oh, actually the argument is, a lot of atheists are, their primary motivation behind being interested in atheism, is they want to use atheism to fight for gays.
Matt: Where's your evidence?
Jeff: You're just asserting this.
Matt: Where's your evidence?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: Where is your evidence for this claim?
Charlie: Well you know what? I don't think there have been any studies on it yet, so it's sort of like a hypo-theists, but one thing I have noticed is when I mention, [Matt does a facepalm and mutters "hypo-thesis"] I'm an atheist, right? And I'm, I've been an atheist for a long long time, I'm so much of an atheist to when I, I've moved so far from religion, I can view things without connecting it to religion. For example, when I think of marriage, I don't think of of religion, that's how far I am away from religion. What religion has done to the world, it hasn't had a psychological effect on me because I'm so far from it. But I believe that, for example like, some, some pro-gay atheists have told me that there's no way I could be an atheist if I oppose gay marriage. To me
Matt: Well they're wrong. They're wrong.
Jeff: They're wrong. There are people out there that believe that humanity was created by space aliens, they're called Raelians, they're atheists. They're complete morons, but they're atheists. Just being an atheist does not mean you're somehow, you know, on top of every issue.
Charlie: Yeah, I agree, but my point is, being the fact that they can make a claim, like in order for you to oppose gay marriage, you can not be an atheist, that tells me that their whole, their whole purpose, drive, their whole motivation
Jeff: So what? Suppose it is? Wait a minute. Suppose it is, so what?
[Charlie and Jeff both talking]
Jeff: So what? Are you, excuse me, excuse me, woah,
Matt: [Charlie is on hold] Hang on, you're on hold.
Jeff: Woah, hang on a second. I just want to know, what difference does this make? Suppose they are, okay? You've been calling our show, and you've been critical of the idea of gay marriage, or is it just being gay in general that you're critical of, I'm not sure. So what, what the motives of people are? When I said can we dispense with the personal attack on the motives that you think other atheists have and just deal with the arguments, I was not asking you to justify your attack on those atheists' motives. I was asking you to get off of that, and back on the subject. Okay?
Charlie: Okay, the subject is, the only claim I'm making, is, this is the subject. The subject is as follows. I believe many atheists, they only care for atheism, they mainly care for atheism, their primary driving force behind why the care for atheism is because, they feel that they can use atheism to fight for gays. That is the subject.
Jeff: So what, so what if they do?
Charlie: Okay, so what if they do? Okay, let's examine that for a minute, so what if they do? Now the primary motivation behind why they care for atheism can cause some things to happen, like for example, it can cause, it can cause them, actually it can, if there was a group of atheists who opposed gay marriage, it would most definitely be decisive among atheists, because there's some atheists who only care about atheism because
Jeff: Okay, so there'd be disagreements. And? So what?
Matt: We have disagreements in the atheist group over all sorts of things.
Charlie: Yeah, but there's a difference between simply disagreeing
Jeff: You're unhappy, you're unhappy because there are some atheists that disagree with you, and you think that, and you think that
Charlie: Strawman fallacy
Jeff: One moment.
Charlie: Okay, go ahead.
Jeff: If you're not, if you're perfectly okay with this, then, then we're done, right? Because if it's okay
Charlie: No, if it's interesting to me, that's a strawman fallacy. That's a nice strawman fallacy.
Matt: What is
Charlie: I'm not unhappy- [Charlie is on hold]
Matt: Please, shut up. What is the strawman fallacy? We cannot have people talk over each other back and forth, or nothing gets said. [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: - some atheists. I'm sorry?
Matt: You talked all the way through that while I had your ass on hold?
Charlie: That, hello?
Matt: What is the strawman fallacy you're talking about?
Charlie: All right, will you let me, am I on right now so people can hear me? Because every time I try to answer you I think I get cut off.
Jeff: I can answer it.
Matt: You got thirty seconds. Go.
Charlie: All right, this is the strawman fallacy. You told me I was unhappy because I believed a lot of atheists' primary motivation behind being interested in atheism, is because they want to use atheism to fight for gays. I'm not unhappy because of that, that's not making me unhappy, I find it interesting and intriguing. And I think it deserves to be examined.
Jeff: Okay, so you're okay with it.
Charlie: Yeah, I find it interesting and I think that
Jeff: Okay, fine anything else?
Charlie: it can be, that it can be
Jeff: Have you got anything else?
Charlie: it can be, I think it can be divisive.
Matt: Okay.
Jeff: You know what's divisive?
Matt: You know what, here. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any other question other than whether or not a god exists. Yes, there are some things, some views that many atheists share. But there's no requirement that they necessarily share those. And so there are people within the ACA who for example are, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gay-marriage, whatever, it doesn't matter. What the hell is your problem that you're calling about? I don't know why you're calling us.
Charlie: Okay, all right.
Matt: Because you talked, hang on, because you mentioned that some atheists have come down on you because you're opposed to gay marriage. I'm saying that those atheists who say that you're not an atheist for doing that are wrong. Um, what is your point?
Charlie: All right, my point is it can actually, some of these pro-gay atheists are so radical, it would divide, if there was a group of atheists who oppose gay marriage, the atheists who support, the pro-gay radical atheists I'm talking about would start a major, they would start a major fight.
Jeff: And why would that be bad? The atheists fight amongst ourselves all the time about all kinds of various issues.
Charlie: Know what, put it this way, they tried to boycott my atheist rap music because I oppose gay marriage.
Jeff: And? They have every right to do that if they disagree with your views.
Matt: You know what? Hang on, you know what else happened? There's a group called Black Atheists of Atlanta, who are a bunch of racist bigots who are doing a bunch of gay bashing and other stuff on their YouTube channel, and I called them out for it. I'm not saying that they're not atheists, I'm saying that they're idiots. They're racists and they're bigots.
Charlie: Oh, so you called them bigots because you are intolerant of their views? I mean, isn't that the meaning of bigotry, when you are intolerant of somebody else's views?
Matt: No, no, no. I made a rational case that pointed out that the "facts" quote-unquote that they were spewing, were actually not facts. These guys are a bunch of
Charlie: I know but you called them, all right, what facts were they spewing? What so-called facts did they spew?
Matt: I'm not reviewing their show. I don't want to direct people that way.
Charlie: Okay, I have a question, is there anything I said that you think is not a fact? Because I'll debate with you right now about it. I oppose gay marriage.
Matt: I still want to know, I would still like to know why you oppose gay marriage. Because if you have a good rational reason for it, you might be able to convince me.
Charlie: First of all, I think gays should have all, the same rights as everyone else.
Matt: Cool, so they can get married.
Charlie: No.
Matt: Why not? You just
Charlie: I believe that
Matt: You just said, you, [Charlie is on hold] You're on hold. You just said you believe gays should have all the same rights as everybody else has, and that would include marriage. Why not? [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: Actually, the word and identity is not a right. For example, I'm african-american and you're white. Do I have the right to, do a group of blacks have the right to be labeled caucasian if they're like darkening Michael Jordan.
Matt: You can call yourself whatever you want, I don't know what the hell this has to do with anything.
Charlie: Okay, so you think the government should consider african-americans like darkening Michael Jordan, that has the DNA set that proves they're african-american, do you think the government should recognize them as caucasian?
Jeff: May I?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: Go ahead.
Jeff: I think the government, I think the government should not discriminate between white people, between people by the color of their skin. And, woah, slow down, and I think the government should not discriminate between people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Those are the same as far as I'm concerned. So when you say, when you ask me, hang on, when you ask me, do I think a black person should have the right to say that they're white, I think a gay person should have the right to say that they're straight, and a straight person should have the right to say that they're gay, and the government should stay the heck out of it. That's what I think.
Charlie: Okay. That a strawman fallacy. I can tell you how you strewed the strawman fallacy.
Matt: Do you know the name of any other fallacy?
Charlie: Are you ready, you know what
Matt: Hypo-theist?
Jeff: Please, I'm begging you to get rid of this idiot.
Charlie: If you strew a strawman fallacy, that's what I'm going to call you out on. If you strew another fallacy, I'll mention that one too. But this time you strewed the strawman fallacy. Do you think that my-
Matt: There has not been a straw- [Charlie is on hold] There has not been a strawman fallacy. You don't just toss it out there, you have to actually explain it. I'm wanting to know why you're opposed to gay marriage. [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: Are you ready for me to explain it?
Matt: I've been waiting for twenty minutes.
Charlie: All right, here it is, first of all a strawman fallacy is when you distort the person's claim
Jeff: He's not answering your question.
Charlie: and argue against a distorted version of the claim. Now you argued against a distorted version of my claim, because I specifically mentioned, is it right for the government to recognize african-americans as being white, now I'm talking about like
Jeff: Please get rid of this idiot.
Charlie: if a person is black, right? Should the government recognize them as being white even though they're black?
Jeff: The government shouldn't care.
Charlie: You in fact spewed the strawman fallacy.
Matt: No, he said the government shouldn't care.
Charlie: So you said the government, okay, so how do you want to take a census then, of the population?
Matt: Okay, first of all
Charlie: You're cornered aren't you.
Matt: I'm cornered?
Charlie: Yes, because listen-
Matt: Shut up. [Charlie is on hold] Listen. I'm not cornered you tool. You're trying to play games with definitions. There are specific dictionary definitions that relate to the lineage of some individuals, so that we end up putting them into these little boxes, like caucasian, african-american, hispanic, whatever, but those little boxes, people don't actually fit into those narrow little boxes, and your narrow little mind should be able to pick up on this eventually. Because the spectrum is a little broader with that and it's really hard to fit people into different categories. And none of these labels have anything at all to do with the original question, which was about gay marriage. Now answer it or hang up. [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: All right, what is the question?
Matt: Why are you opposed to gay marriage if you support equal rights for gays?
Charlie: I oppose gays using the word marriage.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Matt: You're done.
Jeff: And if I may respond to his attack on my last point. When I said the government should not care what color your skin is, I did not mean to say, that if we were in a situation, I don't mean to imply that if we're in a situation in this nation where people of a particular skin color need a special assistance because they have been crapped on for centuries, I do not mean to say the government can't then notice and try to, try to fix that problem. Because that's an imbalance that already exists, and the government is recognizing the problem in order to fix it. The same thing goes with gay marriage. There is a problem now, the problem is that straight and gay people are not being treated equally. Then of course the government can recognize that they're not being treated equally and take steps to fix it. Told you that guy was going to be a waste of time.
Matt: I know, but I hadn't dealt with him yet, so now I don't have to. The thing is here, I'm not aware of any good secular arguments against gay marriage that wouldn't also apply to for example, interracial marriages, really what I find people objecting to is just their personal opinions or their disgust, but this playing games with the wording of, you don't think that gay people should be able to get quote-unquote "married", because there's some existent definition of marriage that doesn't include them, too damn bad. You know, you don't create, you don't dissolve all of marriage and then have everybody get Schmarriage, or civil unions
Jeff: You're going to stand in the way of equal rights for everyone
Matt: Can I finish?
Jeff: Yeah, sorry.
Matt: You don't do that. You don't get rid of one word, and then reapply a new word with everybody. Should we take everybody whose name is currently Jeff and force them to change their name to Sarah? And do all the documentation and paperwork? It's much simpler and much more cost-effective to grant the equal rights to everybody, as it should be by the Constitution, than it is to say, well this one group has had this marriage label for a long time all to themselves, so now we're going to disband that and create a new label that we can then fit everyone else underneath it. No, because there's nothing intrinsic about marriage that means that it has to apply to one man one woman, anymore than it has to apply to a white person or a black person, gay or straight. You're an idiot.
Jeff: If you want to stand in the way of equal rights for everyone on the basis of a, a definition of a word,
Matt: It's the label.
Jeff: Yeah, if that is your sticking point, you're just an asshat.
Matt: We're going to create a whole new thing that's the exact same thing as marriage, but we're going to call it something else.
Jeff: Is that what he wants from his other calls? What an idiot.
Matt: We're going to call it something else, so that we don't have to call it marriage.
Jeff: Let's move on.
Matt: You tool.
Call #3
Episode 713
Atheist Experience #713: Viewer Calls
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... ls-5271056
Time Range: 32:22 - 49:42
-----
Matt: All right. This is, oh, Evolved Atheist.
Charlie: Heh heh, yeah Evolved Atheist, how are you doing?
Jeff: Just hang up on this guy.
Charlie: Oh, hey, aren't you tolerant
Jeff: Your calls are just
Matt: Hang on, hang on, hang on
Charlie: Don't you want to hear other people's views?
Matt: Hang on, [Charlie is on hold] Hang on. [Charlie is off hold]
Matt: I'm in a really pissy mood today because I spent Saturday in the ER. I haven't had a chance to catch up on the episodes that you're called into, and I'm willing to let you talk for a minute or so, just so I can get my taste, go ahead.
Charlie: Okay, am I on and everything, I just heard some guy say hang up on this guy.
Jeff: Yeah, that was me.
Matt: You're on the air. Are you not watching the show?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: Are you not watching the show?
Charlie: No I'm not watching it, I'm not even watching it. Why? Because I'm on a computer, I'm actually
Matt: Yeah, you can watch it on the computer.
Charlie: I know, but I'm watching a Michael Jackson thing right now.
Matt: Sure. Go ahead, get to whatever
Charlie: I've been sort of paying attention to some atheists, and listening to their responses to some of my claims, and it seems like, for some of them, their whole motivation of caring for atheism is because of, they feel that it would help gays. It seems like that's their driving force behind even, I don't know if it's their driving force behind being an atheist, but it seems like it's the driving force behind why they care for atheists.
Matt: Well that's not the case here.
Jeff: And can we just set aside, the, that criticism of the motives you imagine that atheists have, and just deal with the arguments? Please?
Charlie: Oh, actually the argument is, a lot of atheists are, their primary motivation behind being interested in atheism, is they want to use atheism to fight for gays.
Matt: Where's your evidence?
Jeff: You're just asserting this.
Matt: Where's your evidence?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: Where is your evidence for this claim?
Charlie: Well you know what? I don't think there have been any studies on it yet, so it's sort of like a hypo-theists, but one thing I have noticed is when I mention, [Matt does a facepalm and mutters "hypo-thesis"] I'm an atheist, right? And I'm, I've been an atheist for a long long time, I'm so much of an atheist to when I, I've moved so far from religion, I can view things without connecting it to religion. For example, when I think of marriage, I don't think of of religion, that's how far I am away from religion. What religion has done to the world, it hasn't had a psychological effect on me because I'm so far from it. But I believe that, for example like, some, some pro-gay atheists have told me that there's no way I could be an atheist if I oppose gay marriage. To me
Matt: Well they're wrong. They're wrong.
Jeff: They're wrong. There are people out there that believe that humanity was created by space aliens, they're called Raelians, they're atheists. They're complete morons, but they're atheists. Just being an atheist does not mean you're somehow, you know, on top of every issue.
Charlie: Yeah, I agree, but my point is, being the fact that they can make a claim, like in order for you to oppose gay marriage, you can not be an atheist, that tells me that their whole, their whole purpose, drive, their whole motivation
Jeff: So what? Suppose it is? Wait a minute. Suppose it is, so what?
[Charlie and Jeff both talking]
Jeff: So what? Are you, excuse me, excuse me, woah,
Matt: [Charlie is on hold] Hang on, you're on hold.
Jeff: Woah, hang on a second. I just want to know, what difference does this make? Suppose they are, okay? You've been calling our show, and you've been critical of the idea of gay marriage, or is it just being gay in general that you're critical of, I'm not sure. So what, what the motives of people are? When I said can we dispense with the personal attack on the motives that you think other atheists have and just deal with the arguments, I was not asking you to justify your attack on those atheists' motives. I was asking you to get off of that, and back on the subject. Okay?
Charlie: Okay, the subject is, the only claim I'm making, is, this is the subject. The subject is as follows. I believe many atheists, they only care for atheism, they mainly care for atheism, their primary driving force behind why the care for atheism is because, they feel that they can use atheism to fight for gays. That is the subject.
Jeff: So what, so what if they do?
Charlie: Okay, so what if they do? Okay, let's examine that for a minute, so what if they do? Now the primary motivation behind why they care for atheism can cause some things to happen, like for example, it can cause, it can cause them, actually it can, if there was a group of atheists who opposed gay marriage, it would most definitely be decisive among atheists, because there's some atheists who only care about atheism because
Jeff: Okay, so there'd be disagreements. And? So what?
Matt: We have disagreements in the atheist group over all sorts of things.
Charlie: Yeah, but there's a difference between simply disagreeing
Jeff: You're unhappy, you're unhappy because there are some atheists that disagree with you, and you think that, and you think that
Charlie: Strawman fallacy
Jeff: One moment.
Charlie: Okay, go ahead.
Jeff: If you're not, if you're perfectly okay with this, then, then we're done, right? Because if it's okay
Charlie: No, if it's interesting to me, that's a strawman fallacy. That's a nice strawman fallacy.
Matt: What is
Charlie: I'm not unhappy- [Charlie is on hold]
Matt: Please, shut up. What is the strawman fallacy? We cannot have people talk over each other back and forth, or nothing gets said. [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: - some atheists. I'm sorry?
Matt: You talked all the way through that while I had your ass on hold?
Charlie: That, hello?
Matt: What is the strawman fallacy you're talking about?
Charlie: All right, will you let me, am I on right now so people can hear me? Because every time I try to answer you I think I get cut off.
Jeff: I can answer it.
Matt: You got thirty seconds. Go.
Charlie: All right, this is the strawman fallacy. You told me I was unhappy because I believed a lot of atheists' primary motivation behind being interested in atheism, is because they want to use atheism to fight for gays. I'm not unhappy because of that, that's not making me unhappy, I find it interesting and intriguing. And I think it deserves to be examined.
Jeff: Okay, so you're okay with it.
Charlie: Yeah, I find it interesting and I think that
Jeff: Okay, fine anything else?
Charlie: it can be, that it can be
Jeff: Have you got anything else?
Charlie: it can be, I think it can be divisive.
Matt: Okay.
Jeff: You know what's divisive?
Matt: You know what, here. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with any other question other than whether or not a god exists. Yes, there are some things, some views that many atheists share. But there's no requirement that they necessarily share those. And so there are people within the ACA who for example are, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gay-marriage, whatever, it doesn't matter. What the hell is your problem that you're calling about? I don't know why you're calling us.
Charlie: Okay, all right.
Matt: Because you talked, hang on, because you mentioned that some atheists have come down on you because you're opposed to gay marriage. I'm saying that those atheists who say that you're not an atheist for doing that are wrong. Um, what is your point?
Charlie: All right, my point is it can actually, some of these pro-gay atheists are so radical, it would divide, if there was a group of atheists who oppose gay marriage, the atheists who support, the pro-gay radical atheists I'm talking about would start a major, they would start a major fight.
Jeff: And why would that be bad? The atheists fight amongst ourselves all the time about all kinds of various issues.
Charlie: Know what, put it this way, they tried to boycott my atheist rap music because I oppose gay marriage.
Jeff: And? They have every right to do that if they disagree with your views.
Matt: You know what? Hang on, you know what else happened? There's a group called Black Atheists of Atlanta, who are a bunch of racist bigots who are doing a bunch of gay bashing and other stuff on their YouTube channel, and I called them out for it. I'm not saying that they're not atheists, I'm saying that they're idiots. They're racists and they're bigots.
Charlie: Oh, so you called them bigots because you are intolerant of their views? I mean, isn't that the meaning of bigotry, when you are intolerant of somebody else's views?
Matt: No, no, no. I made a rational case that pointed out that the "facts" quote-unquote that they were spewing, were actually not facts. These guys are a bunch of
Charlie: I know but you called them, all right, what facts were they spewing? What so-called facts did they spew?
Matt: I'm not reviewing their show. I don't want to direct people that way.
Charlie: Okay, I have a question, is there anything I said that you think is not a fact? Because I'll debate with you right now about it. I oppose gay marriage.
Matt: I still want to know, I would still like to know why you oppose gay marriage. Because if you have a good rational reason for it, you might be able to convince me.
Charlie: First of all, I think gays should have all, the same rights as everyone else.
Matt: Cool, so they can get married.
Charlie: No.
Matt: Why not? You just
Charlie: I believe that
Matt: You just said, you, [Charlie is on hold] You're on hold. You just said you believe gays should have all the same rights as everybody else has, and that would include marriage. Why not? [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: Actually, the word and identity is not a right. For example, I'm african-american and you're white. Do I have the right to, do a group of blacks have the right to be labeled caucasian if they're like darkening Michael Jordan.
Matt: You can call yourself whatever you want, I don't know what the hell this has to do with anything.
Charlie: Okay, so you think the government should consider african-americans like darkening Michael Jordan, that has the DNA set that proves they're african-american, do you think the government should recognize them as caucasian?
Jeff: May I?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: Go ahead.
Jeff: I think the government, I think the government should not discriminate between white people, between people by the color of their skin. And, woah, slow down, and I think the government should not discriminate between people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Those are the same as far as I'm concerned. So when you say, when you ask me, hang on, when you ask me, do I think a black person should have the right to say that they're white, I think a gay person should have the right to say that they're straight, and a straight person should have the right to say that they're gay, and the government should stay the heck out of it. That's what I think.
Charlie: Okay. That a strawman fallacy. I can tell you how you strewed the strawman fallacy.
Matt: Do you know the name of any other fallacy?
Charlie: Are you ready, you know what
Matt: Hypo-theist?
Jeff: Please, I'm begging you to get rid of this idiot.
Charlie: If you strew a strawman fallacy, that's what I'm going to call you out on. If you strew another fallacy, I'll mention that one too. But this time you strewed the strawman fallacy. Do you think that my-
Matt: There has not been a straw- [Charlie is on hold] There has not been a strawman fallacy. You don't just toss it out there, you have to actually explain it. I'm wanting to know why you're opposed to gay marriage. [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: Are you ready for me to explain it?
Matt: I've been waiting for twenty minutes.
Charlie: All right, here it is, first of all a strawman fallacy is when you distort the person's claim
Jeff: He's not answering your question.
Charlie: and argue against a distorted version of the claim. Now you argued against a distorted version of my claim, because I specifically mentioned, is it right for the government to recognize african-americans as being white, now I'm talking about like
Jeff: Please get rid of this idiot.
Charlie: if a person is black, right? Should the government recognize them as being white even though they're black?
Jeff: The government shouldn't care.
Charlie: You in fact spewed the strawman fallacy.
Matt: No, he said the government shouldn't care.
Charlie: So you said the government, okay, so how do you want to take a census then, of the population?
Matt: Okay, first of all
Charlie: You're cornered aren't you.
Matt: I'm cornered?
Charlie: Yes, because listen-
Matt: Shut up. [Charlie is on hold] Listen. I'm not cornered you tool. You're trying to play games with definitions. There are specific dictionary definitions that relate to the lineage of some individuals, so that we end up putting them into these little boxes, like caucasian, african-american, hispanic, whatever, but those little boxes, people don't actually fit into those narrow little boxes, and your narrow little mind should be able to pick up on this eventually. Because the spectrum is a little broader with that and it's really hard to fit people into different categories. And none of these labels have anything at all to do with the original question, which was about gay marriage. Now answer it or hang up. [Charlie is off hold]
Charlie: All right, what is the question?
Matt: Why are you opposed to gay marriage if you support equal rights for gays?
Charlie: I oppose gays using the word marriage.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Matt: You're done.
Jeff: And if I may respond to his attack on my last point. When I said the government should not care what color your skin is, I did not mean to say, that if we were in a situation, I don't mean to imply that if we're in a situation in this nation where people of a particular skin color need a special assistance because they have been crapped on for centuries, I do not mean to say the government can't then notice and try to, try to fix that problem. Because that's an imbalance that already exists, and the government is recognizing the problem in order to fix it. The same thing goes with gay marriage. There is a problem now, the problem is that straight and gay people are not being treated equally. Then of course the government can recognize that they're not being treated equally and take steps to fix it. Told you that guy was going to be a waste of time.
Matt: I know, but I hadn't dealt with him yet, so now I don't have to. The thing is here, I'm not aware of any good secular arguments against gay marriage that wouldn't also apply to for example, interracial marriages, really what I find people objecting to is just their personal opinions or their disgust, but this playing games with the wording of, you don't think that gay people should be able to get quote-unquote "married", because there's some existent definition of marriage that doesn't include them, too damn bad. You know, you don't create, you don't dissolve all of marriage and then have everybody get Schmarriage, or civil unions
Jeff: You're going to stand in the way of equal rights for everyone
Matt: Can I finish?
Jeff: Yeah, sorry.
Matt: You don't do that. You don't get rid of one word, and then reapply a new word with everybody. Should we take everybody whose name is currently Jeff and force them to change their name to Sarah? And do all the documentation and paperwork? It's much simpler and much more cost-effective to grant the equal rights to everybody, as it should be by the Constitution, than it is to say, well this one group has had this marriage label for a long time all to themselves, so now we're going to disband that and create a new label that we can then fit everyone else underneath it. No, because there's nothing intrinsic about marriage that means that it has to apply to one man one woman, anymore than it has to apply to a white person or a black person, gay or straight. You're an idiot.
Jeff: If you want to stand in the way of equal rights for everyone on the basis of a, a definition of a word,
Matt: It's the label.
Jeff: Yeah, if that is your sticking point, you're just an asshat.
Matt: We're going to create a whole new thing that's the exact same thing as marriage, but we're going to call it something else.
Jeff: Is that what he wants from his other calls? What an idiot.
Matt: We're going to call it something else, so that we don't have to call it marriage.
Jeff: Let's move on.
Matt: You tool.
Last edited by Mattmon on Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mattmon
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:20 pm
by Mattmon » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:44 pm
Transcript from Charlie, as "Truth Hurts"
Call #4
Episode 714
Atheist Experience #714: Dan Patrick's Confusing Beliefs
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... fs-5297532
Time Range: 43:05 - 53:55
-----
Matt: We've got, is it Truth Hurts?
Charlie: Hey, got a question for you.
Matt: What a name.
Charlie: Do you oppose [muffled] gay incest?
Matt: What's that?
Charlie: Do you oppose gay incest?
Don: Gay incest?
Matt: Do I oppose gay incest? Um, it depends. I mean, in general, among consenting adults, I really don't care if they happen to be related.
Charlie: Okay, so you would support gay incest though. How about [muffled] gay polygamy.
Matt: I'm sorry, what?
Charlie: Would you oppose gay polygamy?
Matt: Um, I'm not sure what my position is on polygamy, but the gay thing on it doesn't make any difference, my position on polygamy, or incest, or marriage, or whatever, all of my positions don't change just because you put the word gay in front of it.
Charlie: Okay. I'm surprised.
Matt: It's called equality, you shouldn't be surprised.
Charlie: Oh okay, so you basically said, so would you support [muffled] infertile incest?
Matt: I'm sorry, what?
Charlie: Infertile incest. Would you support that?
Matt: Infertile incest.
Charlie: Yeah.
Matt: I'm not even quite sure what you're getting at, or why one should object, because I've already said that what consenting adults
Don: What does this have to do with atheism?
Matt: Yeah, what does this have to do with our show?
Charlie: Because atheists, when it comes to marriage, not all atheists, but some atheists, well I would say the pro-gay atheists, try to claim that any type of marriage, if anybody wants to marry, it's their right regardless of what type of
Matt: No, I don't think that, even amongst humanist atheists, liberal atheists, who support equality, I don't think the position is as simplistic as you're putting it forward, that anybody who wants to marry for any reason. We're not necessarily advocating the rewriting of marriage laws to include, you know corporate marriage of, in the polygamy sense, or to change the legal age of consent, or anything along those lines, the only position that, personally, and I'm advocating on behalf of myself, and in this sense, the ACA, is that marriage is among the many rights that we offer to people that are currently being denied people based on their sexuality. And that this is wrong, and it needs to change. That's it.
Charlie: Is that hypocritical?
Matt: Is what hypocritical?
Charlie: Because I mean polygamists and incest couples could make the same argument that gays make.
Matt: First of all, first of all
Don: No they're not.
Matt: First of all, they're not making the same argument, but second of all I'm not saying that I'm necessarily opposed to that, and third of all, this entire argument is really stupid. Because, hang on, I'm going to explain to you how it's stupid, because we are going to draw lines on occasions, It's just a necessity, you're going to start driving, let me finish or I'm hanging up I swear. You're going to start driving legally at age sixteen, it's kind of an arbitrary line, but it kind of makes sense. But we can change that, we can be flexible with it, and you're going to be able to vote at eighteen, and you're going to be able to drink at twenty-one, and we have these lines, and they're different in different places. But they exist. So the fact that we happen to change where the line is, doesn't mean that we throw caution to the winds, and remove all lines and allow everything. When we allowed interracial couples to marry, we allowed them to marry. We didn't make them pick a new word for it, we didn't make them civil partners, we said hey, we've been denying a right here, that you should have had the whole time, and we're going to correct that, and we are going to redefine things in order to allow it. And when we did that, we didn't have this cavalcade of people marrying sheep, or anything absurd like that. So these nonsensical arguments that people come up with, as they thought, come up with some [air quotes] clever counter to the gay marriage thing, are absolutely stupid, and all they do is demonstrate a prejudice and an ignorance.
Charlie: And you just demonstrated a faulty analogy fallacy.
Matt: Really.
Charlie: You just demonstrated a faulty analogy fallacy, and you're also still being hypocritical, and you're also. Now I'm going to explain
Matt: A faulty analogy fallacy?
Charlie: Yeah. Because interracial couples are man and woman.
Matt: Oh my gosh, are you a complete idiot, do you not realize that this used to be illegal, and now it's legal? We changed, we changed the law.
Charlie: Do you know what a faulty analogy fallacy is?
Matt: Sorry what?
Charlie: Do you know what a faulty analogy fallacy is?
Matt: No, because there's no such damn fallacy, it's just a flawed analogy, it's not a fallacy.
Charlie: I'm going to explain to you how it is a faulty analogy fallacy.
Matt: Okay. You can explain how it's a faulty analogy, but stop using fallacy, because you just sound dumber.
Charlie: All right, well you used a faulty analogy fallacy [Matt puts his head down, and there's laughter from the control room] because there are major differences that you're not considering
Matt: No. No, no, the difference is that one thing was illegal, and it was made legal. Give me an argument, give me an argument, go ahead.
Charlie: Incest is illegal, so
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: So that's the whole thing, right?
Matt: No. Okay, what do you not understand, stop, stop, stop and listen. What do you not understand about the slippery slope, that we can change something without allowing everything. That we could move the driving age to fifteen, but not allow five year olds to drive.
Charlie: Okay, what you fail to, what you fail to understand is, what I'm suggesting is not a slippery slope, because I didn't say allow gay marriage and allow everything else. My point is, gay incest couples can make the same exact claim, as a matter of fact, you just violated your own argument by saying, interracial couples were once illegal, and now they're legal.
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: Well guess what? Polygamy is illegal now,
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: and so, if we make that legal, it would be
Matt: It would be legal.
Charlie: You're in violation of your own argument.
Matt: I'm not in violation of any damn argument. I would take something that's illegal, and we made it legal.
Charlie: [breaking up] atheists - we discuss - gay marriage - get upset with the -
Matt: What? Look, first of all, get a better phone, before you call back, if you get to call back, because you're breaking up like crazy. Second of all, you're still in the line, we haven't hung up. Yes, A was illegal, we made it legal without making B, C, and D legal. And it doesn't matter what you sub in for A, I didn't violate my argument, because first of all, I didn't make an argument. You asked what my position was.
Charlie: I'm going to explain to you how you violated your claim. You violated your claim because
Matt: What claim have I made that I'm violating?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: What claim have I made that I'm violating?
Charlie: All right. You made two claims, and I'm going to tell you how that claim violated the other claim. First you claimed that interracial couples, interracial marriages were once illegal.
Matt: They were once illegal, yes.
Charlie: Yeah, but now they're legal, right?
Matt: Yes, correct.
Charlie: - turned around and said, well uh, polygamists, it's illegal right?
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: If I use your same exact argument, if I said well polygamy is illegal, just like interracial marriages were illegal, just like gay marriage is illegal. They all have the same thing in common.
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: Gay marriage, interracial couples, polygamy, were all illegal.
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: And I can say, if they legalized polygamy, I could compare that with interracial marriages too.
Matt: YES! YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD! That's the argument! That's the point, it's not a contradiction. It's a demonstration that while we have made one thing legal that used to be illegal, we can do that for other things as well, but we're not required to.
Charlie: Okay, and that's how you're biased. Because you're biased towards marriages other than gay marriage because incest,
Matt: No. No. No.
Charlie: polygamists, what is your argument against gay incest?
Matt: No. Did you not listen to me at all when you first called in? First of all, I said I don't know what my position is, are you going to stop, or are we going to hang up?
Charlie: Okay, go ahead.
Matt: Did you not listen when you asked earlier, I said I don't know what my position is on polygamy, I'm still weighing it, I could see possibly making polygamy legal, so I'm not being hypocritical there, because I don't have a position, but your other thing was, when you asked about gay incest, and I said I don't have an objection to what two consenting adults do, I don't care if they're related, that's not an issue.
Charlie: Okay, all right, so you, just the fact that you don't know if polygamy should be legal or not, but you do know that gay marriage
Matt: Yes, I support gay marriage. I support gay marriage, yes.
Charlie: Okay, so why do you support gay marriage, but so sure about polygamy?
Matt: Uh because, I don't see any reason to exclude two loving people from engaging in the same union that any two other loving people could, solely on the basis of gender. I think that is an absurd minimization of rights that should have been afforded long ago.
Charlie: All right, now I'm talking about polygamy, what is your rational argument against polygamy?
Matt: I told you, I have not settled on a position on polygamy, and I can see, and I can see, I swear I'm going to hang up on your ass.
Charlie: What's holding you back? What's holding you back?
Matt: I haven't, okay unlike some people, I don't like to make knee-jerk decisions based on gut instinct, so instead I'm evaluating the various arguments for and against something, and when I come to a position, I will make up my mind, and it will be based on evidence, and it will be as morally correct as I can make it. It won't be based on an argument from ignorance, good bye.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Call #4
Episode 714
Atheist Experience #714: Dan Patrick's Confusing Beliefs
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... fs-5297532
Time Range: 43:05 - 53:55
-----
Matt: We've got, is it Truth Hurts?
Charlie: Hey, got a question for you.
Matt: What a name.
Charlie: Do you oppose [muffled] gay incest?
Matt: What's that?
Charlie: Do you oppose gay incest?
Don: Gay incest?
Matt: Do I oppose gay incest? Um, it depends. I mean, in general, among consenting adults, I really don't care if they happen to be related.
Charlie: Okay, so you would support gay incest though. How about [muffled] gay polygamy.
Matt: I'm sorry, what?
Charlie: Would you oppose gay polygamy?
Matt: Um, I'm not sure what my position is on polygamy, but the gay thing on it doesn't make any difference, my position on polygamy, or incest, or marriage, or whatever, all of my positions don't change just because you put the word gay in front of it.
Charlie: Okay. I'm surprised.
Matt: It's called equality, you shouldn't be surprised.
Charlie: Oh okay, so you basically said, so would you support [muffled] infertile incest?
Matt: I'm sorry, what?
Charlie: Infertile incest. Would you support that?
Matt: Infertile incest.
Charlie: Yeah.
Matt: I'm not even quite sure what you're getting at, or why one should object, because I've already said that what consenting adults
Don: What does this have to do with atheism?
Matt: Yeah, what does this have to do with our show?
Charlie: Because atheists, when it comes to marriage, not all atheists, but some atheists, well I would say the pro-gay atheists, try to claim that any type of marriage, if anybody wants to marry, it's their right regardless of what type of
Matt: No, I don't think that, even amongst humanist atheists, liberal atheists, who support equality, I don't think the position is as simplistic as you're putting it forward, that anybody who wants to marry for any reason. We're not necessarily advocating the rewriting of marriage laws to include, you know corporate marriage of, in the polygamy sense, or to change the legal age of consent, or anything along those lines, the only position that, personally, and I'm advocating on behalf of myself, and in this sense, the ACA, is that marriage is among the many rights that we offer to people that are currently being denied people based on their sexuality. And that this is wrong, and it needs to change. That's it.
Charlie: Is that hypocritical?
Matt: Is what hypocritical?
Charlie: Because I mean polygamists and incest couples could make the same argument that gays make.
Matt: First of all, first of all
Don: No they're not.
Matt: First of all, they're not making the same argument, but second of all I'm not saying that I'm necessarily opposed to that, and third of all, this entire argument is really stupid. Because, hang on, I'm going to explain to you how it's stupid, because we are going to draw lines on occasions, It's just a necessity, you're going to start driving, let me finish or I'm hanging up I swear. You're going to start driving legally at age sixteen, it's kind of an arbitrary line, but it kind of makes sense. But we can change that, we can be flexible with it, and you're going to be able to vote at eighteen, and you're going to be able to drink at twenty-one, and we have these lines, and they're different in different places. But they exist. So the fact that we happen to change where the line is, doesn't mean that we throw caution to the winds, and remove all lines and allow everything. When we allowed interracial couples to marry, we allowed them to marry. We didn't make them pick a new word for it, we didn't make them civil partners, we said hey, we've been denying a right here, that you should have had the whole time, and we're going to correct that, and we are going to redefine things in order to allow it. And when we did that, we didn't have this cavalcade of people marrying sheep, or anything absurd like that. So these nonsensical arguments that people come up with, as they thought, come up with some [air quotes] clever counter to the gay marriage thing, are absolutely stupid, and all they do is demonstrate a prejudice and an ignorance.
Charlie: And you just demonstrated a faulty analogy fallacy.
Matt: Really.
Charlie: You just demonstrated a faulty analogy fallacy, and you're also still being hypocritical, and you're also. Now I'm going to explain
Matt: A faulty analogy fallacy?
Charlie: Yeah. Because interracial couples are man and woman.
Matt: Oh my gosh, are you a complete idiot, do you not realize that this used to be illegal, and now it's legal? We changed, we changed the law.
Charlie: Do you know what a faulty analogy fallacy is?
Matt: Sorry what?
Charlie: Do you know what a faulty analogy fallacy is?
Matt: No, because there's no such damn fallacy, it's just a flawed analogy, it's not a fallacy.
Charlie: I'm going to explain to you how it is a faulty analogy fallacy.
Matt: Okay. You can explain how it's a faulty analogy, but stop using fallacy, because you just sound dumber.
Charlie: All right, well you used a faulty analogy fallacy [Matt puts his head down, and there's laughter from the control room] because there are major differences that you're not considering
Matt: No. No, no, the difference is that one thing was illegal, and it was made legal. Give me an argument, give me an argument, go ahead.
Charlie: Incest is illegal, so
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: So that's the whole thing, right?
Matt: No. Okay, what do you not understand, stop, stop, stop and listen. What do you not understand about the slippery slope, that we can change something without allowing everything. That we could move the driving age to fifteen, but not allow five year olds to drive.
Charlie: Okay, what you fail to, what you fail to understand is, what I'm suggesting is not a slippery slope, because I didn't say allow gay marriage and allow everything else. My point is, gay incest couples can make the same exact claim, as a matter of fact, you just violated your own argument by saying, interracial couples were once illegal, and now they're legal.
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: Well guess what? Polygamy is illegal now,
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: and so, if we make that legal, it would be
Matt: It would be legal.
Charlie: You're in violation of your own argument.
Matt: I'm not in violation of any damn argument. I would take something that's illegal, and we made it legal.
Charlie: [breaking up] atheists - we discuss - gay marriage - get upset with the -
Matt: What? Look, first of all, get a better phone, before you call back, if you get to call back, because you're breaking up like crazy. Second of all, you're still in the line, we haven't hung up. Yes, A was illegal, we made it legal without making B, C, and D legal. And it doesn't matter what you sub in for A, I didn't violate my argument, because first of all, I didn't make an argument. You asked what my position was.
Charlie: I'm going to explain to you how you violated your claim. You violated your claim because
Matt: What claim have I made that I'm violating?
Charlie: I'm sorry?
Matt: What claim have I made that I'm violating?
Charlie: All right. You made two claims, and I'm going to tell you how that claim violated the other claim. First you claimed that interracial couples, interracial marriages were once illegal.
Matt: They were once illegal, yes.
Charlie: Yeah, but now they're legal, right?
Matt: Yes, correct.
Charlie: - turned around and said, well uh, polygamists, it's illegal right?
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: If I use your same exact argument, if I said well polygamy is illegal, just like interracial marriages were illegal, just like gay marriage is illegal. They all have the same thing in common.
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: Gay marriage, interracial couples, polygamy, were all illegal.
Matt: Yes.
Charlie: And I can say, if they legalized polygamy, I could compare that with interracial marriages too.
Matt: YES! YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD! That's the argument! That's the point, it's not a contradiction. It's a demonstration that while we have made one thing legal that used to be illegal, we can do that for other things as well, but we're not required to.
Charlie: Okay, and that's how you're biased. Because you're biased towards marriages other than gay marriage because incest,
Matt: No. No. No.
Charlie: polygamists, what is your argument against gay incest?
Matt: No. Did you not listen to me at all when you first called in? First of all, I said I don't know what my position is, are you going to stop, or are we going to hang up?
Charlie: Okay, go ahead.
Matt: Did you not listen when you asked earlier, I said I don't know what my position is on polygamy, I'm still weighing it, I could see possibly making polygamy legal, so I'm not being hypocritical there, because I don't have a position, but your other thing was, when you asked about gay incest, and I said I don't have an objection to what two consenting adults do, I don't care if they're related, that's not an issue.
Charlie: Okay, all right, so you, just the fact that you don't know if polygamy should be legal or not, but you do know that gay marriage
Matt: Yes, I support gay marriage. I support gay marriage, yes.
Charlie: Okay, so why do you support gay marriage, but so sure about polygamy?
Matt: Uh because, I don't see any reason to exclude two loving people from engaging in the same union that any two other loving people could, solely on the basis of gender. I think that is an absurd minimization of rights that should have been afforded long ago.
Charlie: All right, now I'm talking about polygamy, what is your rational argument against polygamy?
Matt: I told you, I have not settled on a position on polygamy, and I can see, and I can see, I swear I'm going to hang up on your ass.
Charlie: What's holding you back? What's holding you back?
Matt: I haven't, okay unlike some people, I don't like to make knee-jerk decisions based on gut instinct, so instead I'm evaluating the various arguments for and against something, and when I come to a position, I will make up my mind, and it will be based on evidence, and it will be as morally correct as I can make it. It won't be based on an argument from ignorance, good bye.
[They hang up on Charlie]
- Mattmon
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:20 pm
by Mattmon » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:27 am
Transcript from Charlie, as "Tommy"
Call #5
Episode 718
#718: Camp Quest Drag
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... ag-5386607
Time Range: 13:05 - 16:34
-----
Matt: We've got Tommy in LA, how are you?
Charlie: Hey, how you doing?
Jeff: Hi Tommy.
Charlie: Hi, I have two points I want to make. First of all, I disagree with you about gender roles, and second of all, what do you think about the belief in God, and the behavior of the immune system, just like disgust of gay men is also a behavior of the immune system?
Matt: Can you do the question part again real quick?
Jeff: And control room, the volume is kind of low. We're having trouble hearing the caller.
Charlie: Okay, can you hear me now?
Jeff: Yeah, go ahead.
Matt: Yeah, try again.
Charlie: My claim is, I believe that gender roles should be respected and valued, because most likely they evolved to benefit offspring, you know and, the behavior of the immune system, excuse me, the belief in God could actually be a behavior of the immune system, just like disgust of gay men, is a behavior of the immune system. This is Charlie by the way.
Matt: Hey, this is Check'm Charlie?
Charlie: Yeah.
Matt: Yeah, bye.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Matt: Thanks though. Thanks for calling in as Tommy, you batshit crazy liar. Yeah, I don't care what your views on gender roles are. But with regard to God as a possibly evolutionary belief, or a belief that has some value, his actual claim was along the lines of, this might, having a particular God belief might protect you from more harmful beliefs.
Jeff: And in response to the idea that anything that evolved should therefore be something that we just automatically accept and don't question, evolution happens over very long periods of time, and the long period of time over which those gender roles you're talking about evolved, even assuming that there's any validity to the idea that gender roles are an evolved trait, which I think it's a lot less clear than that, but even if that was the case, we don't live the way people lived over the last several million years, and the idea that we should just you know, close our eyes and accept whatever evolution has foisted on us, without thinking about it, without being willing to move on from that if we have a better, fairer, more just way of doing things is ridiculous.
Matt: Yeah, it's typically referred to as the naturalistic fallacy, that because something is "natural", it is somehow right. And what you're doing in that case is, you are taking the natural world, the process of evolution which is mindless without intent, that is just casting about in whatever the reality happens to be, and you are infusing it with some intent, and purpose, and a goal, and then declaring that that goal is good. As if you know, my five fingers, that's the way nature intended me to be, so there's something wrong if a mutant is born with six fingers, even if it turns out to be more beneficial, I don't know maybe they can play the piano better.
Jeff: Not to mention the fact that if it weren't for those kind of variations, we wouldn't have evolution in the first place.
Matt: Yeah, it's just absurd.
Call #5
Episode 718
#718: Camp Quest Drag
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t ... ag-5386607
Time Range: 13:05 - 16:34
-----
Matt: We've got Tommy in LA, how are you?
Charlie: Hey, how you doing?
Jeff: Hi Tommy.
Charlie: Hi, I have two points I want to make. First of all, I disagree with you about gender roles, and second of all, what do you think about the belief in God, and the behavior of the immune system, just like disgust of gay men is also a behavior of the immune system?
Matt: Can you do the question part again real quick?
Jeff: And control room, the volume is kind of low. We're having trouble hearing the caller.
Charlie: Okay, can you hear me now?
Jeff: Yeah, go ahead.
Matt: Yeah, try again.
Charlie: My claim is, I believe that gender roles should be respected and valued, because most likely they evolved to benefit offspring, you know and, the behavior of the immune system, excuse me, the belief in God could actually be a behavior of the immune system, just like disgust of gay men, is a behavior of the immune system. This is Charlie by the way.
Matt: Hey, this is Check'm Charlie?
Charlie: Yeah.
Matt: Yeah, bye.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Matt: Thanks though. Thanks for calling in as Tommy, you batshit crazy liar. Yeah, I don't care what your views on gender roles are. But with regard to God as a possibly evolutionary belief, or a belief that has some value, his actual claim was along the lines of, this might, having a particular God belief might protect you from more harmful beliefs.
Jeff: And in response to the idea that anything that evolved should therefore be something that we just automatically accept and don't question, evolution happens over very long periods of time, and the long period of time over which those gender roles you're talking about evolved, even assuming that there's any validity to the idea that gender roles are an evolved trait, which I think it's a lot less clear than that, but even if that was the case, we don't live the way people lived over the last several million years, and the idea that we should just you know, close our eyes and accept whatever evolution has foisted on us, without thinking about it, without being willing to move on from that if we have a better, fairer, more just way of doing things is ridiculous.
Matt: Yeah, it's typically referred to as the naturalistic fallacy, that because something is "natural", it is somehow right. And what you're doing in that case is, you are taking the natural world, the process of evolution which is mindless without intent, that is just casting about in whatever the reality happens to be, and you are infusing it with some intent, and purpose, and a goal, and then declaring that that goal is good. As if you know, my five fingers, that's the way nature intended me to be, so there's something wrong if a mutant is born with six fingers, even if it turns out to be more beneficial, I don't know maybe they can play the piano better.
Jeff: Not to mention the fact that if it weren't for those kind of variations, we wouldn't have evolution in the first place.
Matt: Yeah, it's just absurd.
- Mattmon
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:20 pm
by bijane » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:17 pm
Mattmon wrote:Transcript from Charlie, as "Tommy"
Matt: Hey, this is Check'm Charlie?
Charlie: Yeah.
Matt: Yeah, bye.
[They hang up on Charlie]
Can I just thank you for the effort you made with gaining these transcripts, as well as for this little gem of a quote.
I've had the misfortune of arguing with Charlie in the past (on gay rights as a whole rather than belief), and you would not believe how satisfying it is to read these.
Disproving the Bible in a signature:
Revelations 22:18 ...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book
Revelations 23:1 And God said 'hi'.
(I'm still fine)
Revelations 22:18 ...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book
Revelations 23:1 And God said 'hi'.
(I'm still fine)
- bijane
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 7:39 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
by riverwestein » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:08 am
God damn you guys have some moronic callers
bless your patience
bless your patience
- riverwestein
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:19 am
- Location: Milwaukee, WI
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Non-Prophets / Atheist Experience Forum
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest