Transcript from Charlie, as "Evolved Atheist"
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.
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.
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
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.