Science asks questions that might never be answered; religion preaches answers that may never be questioned.

Charles is alive because smart people made the world livable for him. He is incredibly lucky

@tracer740

2 жыл бұрын

... and oblivious to reality!

@tommystyx

2 жыл бұрын

Charles is alive because stupid people have sex.

@jonnawyatt

Жыл бұрын

Excellent point.

To quote Mr Dillahunty, if the claim fails to meet the standard of evidence, that is the fault of the claim. Not the standard.

@hereticapostate9560

2 жыл бұрын

Jeez

@electric_screams6581

2 жыл бұрын

@@hereticapostate9560 Louise?

@timsmith530

2 жыл бұрын

atheists aren't capable of setting any standard

@theresawilliams4296

2 жыл бұрын

@@electric_screams6581 look at the trees.

@electric_screams6581

2 жыл бұрын

@@timsmith530 can you support that claim with some evidence? My standard of evidence for your response will be for you to provide neurological findings which support your claim. However, as an atheist it should be noted, my above request negates your claim… so don’t spend too long flicking through psychology text books, Tim.

The beauty of the no true scotsman fallacy is that each excluded group makes the purpose of the universe smaller. It wasn’t made for life, or humans, or believers, but for three people in a trailer park in Arkansas.

As soon as this guy opened his mouth about the previous caller, I knew how this call was going to go.

I am almost 100% certain that Charles did not care so much as to what the standards of evidence should be till he realized he cannot produce any evidence for his deity. As always theists are more concerned with deciding what should count as evidence of their deity rather than providing an evidence at all. The reason they want to change the rules of the games so much is because they know that they will lose it with the current rules. This why so many theists turn to philosophy rather than science to validate their deity.

@theboombody

2 жыл бұрын

Well we'll never have scientific evidence of the supernatural by definition. We only call it supernatural until it's well-documented, and then we don't call it that anymore. Remember that girl who had two heads? Very common type of character in fictional works. Can't call it fictional anymore.

@teresaamanfu7408

2 жыл бұрын

@@theboombody The time to believe that something exists is after it’s been demonstrated to exist.

@theboombody

2 жыл бұрын

@@teresaamanfu7408 What if someone doesn't want to go by that rule? Even if it is a common sense rule?

@ericscaillet2232

2 жыл бұрын

@@theboombodyfair point , nevertheless a rule is as magical as a thought and as real once applied.

@jeffparent2159

2 жыл бұрын

I think his problem is that he believed before he ever understood people seek evidence first. He was told these stories, that this is how the world works and if he questioned those questions were squashed. So when someone objects and he says that burden is too high, he doesn't grasp that his bar was set way way too low. The god of the universe can't meet basic scientific standards???

Ahh yes.. I do so love it when Christian B leads off by telling us that Christian A is not actually a Christian at all It's pretty well clear that these people were born with a non-functional sense of irony.

@ejflor1313

2 жыл бұрын

A non-functional sense of irony is indistinguishable from not having a sense of irony.

You really see how little this man uses his mind. He thinks “science is bad cause it can change, but ‘got dun did it’ can always be the answer.”

@mattslater2603

2 жыл бұрын

I've heard that a thousand times from theists. They don't understand what honesty is, I dont think

@4ndytrout46

2 жыл бұрын

I don't understand why they think that basically saying that learning new things is bad, is some kind of gotcha.

@theresawilliams4296

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattslater2603 The so called evidence for their extremely fragile beliefs make them dishonest to the point, they have to lie to convince themselves that it's real. They just don't see it the way we do.

@UngoogleableMan

2 жыл бұрын

The "science bad cause it changes" is so stupid. That's what "learning something new" entails.

@johnscaramis2515

Жыл бұрын

I always wonder if these people still believe e.g. lightnings are caused by god. Because in former times people could not explain them, so they filled the gap with a god. And by their definition, god is the final answer, there's no need to look further into things. Even most fo the Christians know that lightnings have a natural cause and with that they contradict themselves without even noticing

The route that Charles is trying to go down is a dishonest one that we've seen dozens of times before. They'll ask, "What's the standard of evidence that you'd expect to see to prove a god exists," and when the person can't say what that would look like, they'll try to point to it as a way to show that you just have unreasonable expectations. But the fact of the matter is that, no matter what the claim is, the burden of proof is on the claimant. We don't even have to have any idea of what that evidence might look like, it's still up to them to provide SOMETHING, and then we can examine that evidence. It's not the fault of the listener that you can't come up with anything.

@starfishsystems

2 жыл бұрын

Bravo. That's my understanding exactly.

@lebojay

2 жыл бұрын

What would persuade you that there’s life on Mars? What would persuade you that your Mother doesn’t love you? What would persuade you that populations evolve? You don’t need to know, and it doesn’t f**king matter. If these things are true, there’s evidence for them whether you can imagine what that might be or not. Matt’s answer is the best: If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then he knows what would persuade me and is capable of providing it. Therefore, if an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists and I’m unpersuaded, it can only be because that is God’s will.

@theboombody

2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes rather than prove a claim, you just would rather instill doubt in the other side. I can never prove a deity, so usually I just attack the concept of human-made morality. Because how many atheists are satisfied with conforming with human-made morality when that morality advocates mandatory worship on Sunday mornings? None. Or perhaps very few.

"not enough evidence" is a really generous way to put it.

@CyberBeep_kenshi

2 жыл бұрын

I think we can round it down to 0 ;-)

@chuckybang

2 жыл бұрын

Technically there is evidence, very bad evidence but evidence nonetheless.

@pmtoner9852

2 жыл бұрын

@@chuckybang so if someone lies in court is that technically "bad evidence"?

@chuckybang

2 жыл бұрын

@@pmtoner9852 yes it's called testimonial evidence

@bengsynthmusic

2 жыл бұрын

@@chuckybang If the evidence fails, it's not evidence.

If God is Omnipotent, he should know exactly what I need to see to be convinced that he exists!

@stevepierce6467

2 жыл бұрын

Amen brother (pardon the choice of words)!

Yes. It’s too high when the bar is set so insanely low to begin with.

The time to believe in something is when there is valid and verified evidence to support its existence. Without evidence, belief is not warranted. I ask all theists with whom I interact for the valid and verified evidence they have that supports the existence of a god. So far, they've offered me no valid and verified evidence, and all they've offered me are opinions and unfounded claims.

*Golden Rule #2:* The time to believe that something is true or real is when the preponderance of objective evidence makes its existence more probable than any other explanation, including its non-existence...not a moment before.

@timsmith530

2 жыл бұрын

Your behind 2000 years

@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00

2 жыл бұрын

@@timsmith530 Why are you talking about the age of OP's behind?

@theboombody

2 жыл бұрын

Did we do that back in the day with the luminiferous aether theory? That was something that we thought existed because of evidence and then we found out it didn't.

@spectreskeptic3493

2 жыл бұрын

@@theboombody The operative words are "...then we found out it didn't". All beliefs should be held tentatively and further updated according to the evidence. It is a continuous process of refining our understanding of how the world works. Note that Luminiferous aether was a naturalistic theory and was replaced by another naturalistic theory... no deities required. This has been the history of human discovery. Supernaturalism 0, naturalism 10 to the nth power.

@theboombody

2 жыл бұрын

@@spectreskeptic3493 SHOULD? Should according to who? You think nature cares whether we understand it or not? Or even if we tell the truth about it or not? It doesn't. That SHOULD is only justified by two things. One is your own personal preference. The other is the supposed prolonged existence of humanity due to better understanding and ability to adapt. But even with all of that understanding, humanity's existence may not outlive that of the cockroach, and those have WAY less understanding than we do. The only other way SHOULD could mean a darn thing is if it exists as some sort of ideal.

The caller demonstrates that his god revolves around him. His mind has created a christian god that is so inflexible that other Christians cannot be true believers. They must necessarily follow a false god because they can never fully meet the callers expectations. The caller inadvertently demonstrates that humans create gods in their image, not the other way round.

@ashwayn

2 жыл бұрын

God who? LOON use its names All 3 Abrahamic cults their books are full of evil all the mad prophets would be locked up to day in a loony asylum

Can’t see electricity? Has Charles never seen lightning?

Can’t see electricity?! LIGHTING! Hello!

Charles: What is your standard of evidence? MD/Dan explains 4 times Charles: What is your standard of evidence? Oi gevalt.

How can people still believe things like this?

@shanewilson7994

2 жыл бұрын

a lack of education

@jerrylanglois7892

2 жыл бұрын

Stupidity, delusion and emotional appeal.

@morbidrob

2 жыл бұрын

I really find it intriguing.

@stephenhill8790

2 жыл бұрын

ego. their ego needs to feel special

@theresawilliams4296

2 жыл бұрын

Ignorant indoctrination passed down to children, who in turn grow up to be ignorant people and do on. It's a nasty circle of ignorance that is slowly dying out.

If electricity can't be observed how does the electric company know how much to charge each month?

@CeezGeez

Ай бұрын

they just check the bible /s

My man thinks air can't be seen

My guy said we can’t observe “cold”

@burningmisery

6 ай бұрын

My froz3n toes beg to differ every Winter.

"Thank you for taking the time to conversate with me" at 10 seconds in. Automatic click away.

Why do you need to counter it? Because "throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be: not magic." -Tim Minchin

Charles was shifting the goal posts ALL THE TIME. He sounds like a man who would have been happy with "The Spanish Inquisition".

@tonydarcy1606

2 жыл бұрын

Nobody expected that remark !

@davidewersphotography1013

2 жыл бұрын

he would have been involved

@ericscaillet2232

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidewersphotography1013 and you probably being skewed unfortunately ,projection due to one's verbal position is a dangerous thing.

@burningmisery

6 ай бұрын

His goalposts had wings 🧚‍♂️

Charles is a silly boy.

@markmiller7317

2 жыл бұрын

This is DARTH DAWKINS. What is M.D. "AWARE" of.?!

MD aware and objective dan have the patience of a saint, cuz this guy literally called on the show to be butt hurt about people not believing in not only God but his particular version of God. I've learned over the years there are many different versions of people's beliefs in Gods. This particular caller is offended that atheist don't believe in God because when you attack his belief, he feels that you are attacking him personally and people like this particular caller will lash out and try to make you look foolish for not believing in a God because, he dedicated his life to believe in a lie to the point if you try to challenge his belief,he take it as a challenge to himself and they will lash out at you for your non-belief and what I tend to discover is when you deal with people like this ,it doesn't make sense to try to have a philosophical conversation with people like him because you got to get blunt and straight to the point with these people. let them know that they are delusional about their God belief and the belief in their religion is all full of 💩 you can't play around with these delusional Christians, you have to get direct and to the point with delusional religious people. People tend to judge Matt Dillahanti for being rude and arrogant to caller like this particular caller .it is an example of why matt has got to the point where he cuts through the bull crap and go for the jugular when it comes to callers like this particular person, and I love him for it.

Charles defines God as supernatural then when confronted with a request for contemporary supernatural miracles says supernatural is too broad of a term -a shining example of cognitive dissonance.

Charles says these are historical things, but Charles.....these are not historical things. They've never were. These are religious claims from religious book, period. Never happened.

This is somehow more pathetic than hard solipsism, to appeal to the fact that we have some unsolved scientific queries to justify your belief in something with zero evidence for it whatsoever

@88mphDrBrown

2 жыл бұрын

You think hard solipsism is pathetic?

@Julian0101

2 жыл бұрын

@@88mphDrBrown more like appealing to solipsism to sell something else as true.

@Krawnbundungle

2 жыл бұрын

@@88mphDrBrown what Julian said, but also taking hard solipsism seriously at all. It’s practically just mental masturbation at this point

@88mphDrBrown

2 жыл бұрын

@@Krawnbundungle i get what Julian said, but I don't know of any good refutation for hard solipsism. It seems like the core of the human experience, best first axiom, and only thing that I know for sure is that I exist. I'd agree that it's a giant douchebag move to use that to justify believing and acting like you're the only real thing in your life.

@Krawnbundungle

2 жыл бұрын

@@88mphDrBrown that’s what I mean though, it’s so played out like we all know it’s an unfalsifiable proposition, why waste time with it? It’s like baby’s first philosophy or something

Maybe it's time to change it to "No true Christian" fallacy.

Haha at around 8 minutes “Do you believe God intervened in the world?” Bear trap click, “yes”.

Remember somehow GOD showed up for ADAM and EVE and they didn't need "FAITH" or a bible so we fast forward to current times and we have excuses for why GOD can't show up and never does anything in reality.

if god could beat the undertaker for the strap at wrestlemania, id believr

"the last caller was not a true Christian.." Och, aye. Mon....

@MrCanis4

2 жыл бұрын

About 30% of the world's population claims to be Christian, but if you count the non-true Christian off that, you're left with less than 5%.

@skindred1888

2 жыл бұрын

Obviously it's just a phrase...but it's annoying to hear Scotland brought up in religious debates. Our government aside...we're close to 50% atheist here, the ones that are Christian... It's a wishy washy type of belief.

@MrCanis4

2 жыл бұрын

@@skindred1888 Didn't mean to offend. Maybe next time I'll take a different example. My apologies. Just want to make a point of the division among Christians themselves. Who is the TRUE Christian. Belgium. 50% Anteist and so am I.

@skindred1888

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrCanis4 you didn't haha. Something being annoying isn't the same as being offended

You can't observe electricity!!! As he's using fucking electricity to communicate.

@chuckybang

2 жыл бұрын

You can observe electricity

Charles: "Why don't you just accept what my holy book says? Let me shift the burden of proof to you!"

Has Charles never observed lightning? Seriously? Lightning IS electricity!

@CyberBeep_kenshi

2 жыл бұрын

And a LOT of it 🤣

@markmiller7317

2 жыл бұрын

​@@CyberBeep_kenshi 😅Laugh it up.

@JayJay-two

Жыл бұрын

Each bolt having more than 1.21 Giga watts. Great Scott !!! 😂😂😂

Charles is so utterly confused. It takes a lot of work to learn, I hope he eventually puts in the time and effort

This guy is making the It's Always Sunny argument of "science is wrong sometimes".

"People believed it historically because they supposedly had good reasons, people today believe it without good reasons and that should be fine because it's about a purported part of history" -Charles

Charles from OH at the 5 minute mark: "What do you mean by material? Can you define it?" And ... we're done.

“Evidence” is not merely “natural phenomena.” “Evidence” is a tendency of natural phenomena to show the likelihood of other phenomena because of known associations between them. The term “creation” includes in it an assumption (“creator”), which is the proposition to be proved.

Why should you believe in something that has no evidence for its existence? That goes for everything.

@tracer740

2 жыл бұрын

But Scott, theists don't need "evidence", they got ... 'faith' (boink!!!) LOL!!! ... as well as... superstition, .fear,. guilt,. denial of their mortality. incumbent stupidity and self-fortified ignorance. Need I say more?

God I hate when theists say “atheism isn’t true”…. It shows they don’t even know what atheism is. It’s not a “true” or “false” type of thing. Atheism is not an assertive position and isn’t making any claims.. it just means “not convinced there’s a god” period. How can that be true or false?

Why does this person need any criteria? He has a thing that he believes is real, he should be able to give specific attributes of it and then provide evidence and/or arguments that support those things. Done. Scientists don't ask you what criteria you need to believe in black holes, they provide you the evidence.

The fact that he started with a fallacy is pure gold.... then the opening about his beliefs... he said "Supernatural" PURE GOLD HAHAHAHA I only get sad when I remember he can vote HAHAH

It’s not often you hear the word “conversate”! Well done

The minimum standard of evidence is that amount of demonstrable evidence substantial enough to propound a solution to the question that is better than “I don’t know@.

Make the blind see without the use of technology, multiply food, raise the dead... - Those are a good start for trying to convince me of the supernatural... - I say that's a start because I would have to investigate and test those observations... - If you can't reproduce a talking snake, don't expect me to believe in it...

@rrpostalagain

2 жыл бұрын

But he literally said all those things were in the past, so they don’t count. He needed something else. He was sooooooo frustratingly stupid and uninformed and uneducated.

@The5armdamput33

2 жыл бұрын

@@rrpostalagain Yeah... But that's not really an excuse though... - Those ridiculous, impossible things are really just examples... > If you can't repeat those ridiculous, impossible things (for whatever dumb reason) just do some other ridiculous, impossible thing... >> Make the sky fall, move a mountain to a different continent, reverse-age an old man into a teen, etc... I'm still struggling to understand why those things can't just be repeated... - Bread still exists... As do bodies of water and the dead...

@_Somsnosa_

2 жыл бұрын

So we have to just believe based on faith and fear whereas people in the past got to see burning bushes and miracles? How convenient.

@rrpostalagain

2 жыл бұрын

@@The5armdamput33 I’m not disagreeing. Dude was super frustrating to me.

@The5armdamput33

2 жыл бұрын

@@rrpostalagain I see... Understood...

Charles Spent too many years in 4th grade

@CeezGeez

Ай бұрын

big of you to assume he got there in the first place

"evidence of the supernatural" feels (very close to) equivalent to "the results of division by zero".

@karlrschneider

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking division by infinity....

I do not have a singular universal standard of evidence (sufficient to be convinced of a claim). I need to sufficiently understand the concepts presented for any given claim to even begin to contemplate what information would convince me of the probability of the claim itself.

If we can't observe electricity, unplug your computer and enjoy using it. I guess he thinks light bulbs are supernatural.

Charles is so lost...He can't quite get his shrunken head around the logic of the discussion, he's baffled, can't figure out why others aren't brainwashed like he is. Give it up Charles, it doesn't suit you (actually maybe it does). Get a real life Charles, you'll have a much more rewarding time.

@Anonymous-md2qp

2 жыл бұрын

The devastating effect of indoctrination syndrome.

😲 Wow, Religious people, just wow 😳

if only the x-tian "god" could give miraculous powers to devout modern day x-tians to prove before the multitudes that their supernatural "god" is real, it would save a lot of time and argumentation, but apparently the x-tian "god" is too busy hiding behind faith.

Charles, the Middle Ages just called. They said, "Come home!"

"...conversate..." That was different, but not really surprising...

60 to 100% of the illusions we know of now have been done for hundreds if not thousands of years and people are fooled by them until this day so just imagine a goather seeing this illusion they would believe that it was something divine or something that be only can be explained by a deity or that this person really had powers to do such a thing

Why is it that when you ask for a definition of a god, it always is the most unscientific and untestable nonsense...... take the hint, if that is all you got, you got nothing. Pointing to creation as proof for the thing that created it, when 'creation' has not been proven to be creation is asinine. It's 'just' the universe. You can call it creation when you prove it is, NOT before. And before you can even go there, you need to prove the god who supposedly made it.

That was awesome. Both hosts brought the a game. MD kicked but

Poor Charles and his kindergarten mind

Wow, that was pretty painful.

"Conversate". I'm pretty shore the term he wanted was Converse.

@ejflor1313

2 жыл бұрын

“I’m pretty shore the term he wanted was Converse.” I’m pretty shore the term you wanted is sure.

The caller Charles isn't a REAL christian 😆

Talking about the standard of evidence is one way religious apologists keep avoiding showing they have no good evidence.🤡

You can't see electricity? Ever seen a lightning bolt, Charles?

MD Aware, I like your style.

caller definitely has no standard of evidence, his default is to first believe. he should of said what would convince you a god exists. asking whats your standard of evidence is like asking how long is a piece of string. the question needs clarifying.

A few seconds in, and my guess is the caller is going to complain that he has no evidence, evidence may even be impossible in his view, and as such he feels it is not fair to ask him for any because if you do, he can't win. A bonus is if he asks what evidence he needs to prove a trickster god.

You can see lightning very clearly.

Standards of evidence should match the claim (or vice-versa)... A great claim should withstand great standards for evidence

Can some theist answer this question? Christ tells his followers he is the son of God (which makes him a God according to the Bible). Gives up his physical life on the cross knowing he is going to rule with his father for eternity ( according to the Bible. How in the name of common sense is this a sacrifice for humanity. HE'S ETERNAL right? No sacrifice at all. Please someone take this on.

You’s think that if anyone could be up to a high standard of evidence, it’d be an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

My standard of evidence is fairly simple actually. Good evidence should be verifiable by testing or observation. Evidence should point to a specific conclusion. Ambiguity in evidence needs more testing or observation before drawing a conclusion.

Oh, your gawd Charles! 🤦🤦🤦

cHARLES GOES HOME AND TELLS HIS WIFE HE IS LYING.

Charles, you can't use creation. It presupposes something or someone created something. You are beginning with a circular argument.

Buddhist proverb : '' believe nothing without the proper evidence ''. Evidence for jesus as man\god '' savior '' ?... only hearsay.

a god would know what would convince everyone on earth,. but so far as chosen not to do so.

Evidence for ANYTHING is: objects or actions that comport to the known facts of reality, are repeatable in actuality or in an analog, and can be demonstrated to be reliable. Listing miracles, prophecies, doctrines, etc. just confuses the fact and lends to the idea that there is some kind of "special" evidence required for religious beliefs. And that's exactly what Charles uses against you. Extraordinary claims require MORE evidence.

17:16 you don’t even need KZread. Just get a Tesla Coil… Or if you’re risky (or stupid) you could always stick a fork in the outlet, pop literally anything metal into the microwave, drop a plugged in toaster in the bathtub, stand outside with a metal rod during a thunderstorm. You know, usual stuff.

The way he lists stories in the bible as historical events makes me want to laugh.

Why do so many Christians insist in striding into minefields wearing clown shoes?

17:10 well... you're seeing the side-effects of electricity to be precise.

Too high? Are you joking? So far we had ZERO evidence, let alone a working hypothesis. So now he is lowering the bar for nonexistent evidence..... If you want to know criteria, first we need to know what to test for. And right now, there is no specific measurable evidence, definition, testing method, observable effects, nothing! His way of evading, ahum i mean answering, seems to be asking questions back.... This is getting increasingly silly

I don't know what I would accept as evidence for the existence of any god but I would think that an all-knowing god would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me. I have not been presented with that unless god is dirt.

I will believe in « god » when the claims meet their burden of proof. So far, they get nowhere near.

Lighting is electricity .

Charles entire "argument" was just a desperate attempt st shifting the burden of proof.

"What standard of evidence would I need to accept christian god claims? I don't know - but if he existed the christian god would know - let this god show me proof he exists.

By 9:50 the caller has heard multiple times that the standard of evidence for a claim is related to the specifics of that claim. The host has just asked what evidence the caller has of ANYTHING supernatural. The caller, without producing any evidence whatever, obtusely returns to "what's your standard of evidence?" Why is this obtuse? Because "something supernatural exists" is a claim, and with that claim comes a burden of proof. The hosts aren't the ones making this claim, so they carry no burden of proof. The caller doesn't want the burden of proof either, so he deflects by being obtuse, instead of honestly addressing his options, which are: a) Reject the claim. Admit that he has no reason to believe that something supernatural can exist, and so no evidence will be forthcoming. Then he's off the hook for that, but meanwhile therefore, he has no reason to believe that any god which exists can be supernatural. b) Assert the claim and take on its burden of proof. Now this next part is important, and a bit subtle. Because the burden is on the CLAIMANT, it's up to the claimant to produce the evidence that HE thinks is convincing, based on HIS OWN standards of evidence. The audience can subsequently decide whether they have been able to follow his presentation and agree with it. In other words, the burden of proof is necessarily broad, since we can't predict what a claim might entail or how it might be argued. There is an infinity of possible claims, after all. So, rather like the flawed arguments for the existence of an objective morality, it's not as if the audience is standing around with some perfect universal yardstick all ready to measure claims in order to see if they have met their burden of proof. No single yardstick exists, either for measuring claims or for measuring morality. Instead we have some domains, such as formal systems, in which the yardstick takes the form of mathematical logic, and other domains, such as the material world, in which the yardstick is empirically derived and thus subject to change. For example, one of the most important ways in which science advances is by means of improved technology that gives us better access to evidence. Sometimes that new evidence (or higher standard of evidence, such as from greater telescopic accuracy) obliges us to revise our theories. So the proper sequence in science is evidence first, then standards of evidence, then argument, then claim. With religious apologists the order is reversed, which is one reason why religion and science tend to be very difficult to reconcile.

I fucking HATE when people say "atheism isn't true". I also hate when they don't get corrected. Atheism is merely a position. It isn't a claim nor does it make any. It's literally like saying the disbelief in Santa isn't real. Please correct people on this!

Existence has one standard. It is the same for all existence claims.

I have now reached the point where I want these people to live the truth of their convictions. I want them to severe a finger on video, confirmed by at least one doctor who DOESNT believe as they do. I then want the believer to pray, to fast, to smoke or do whatever they must to contact their deity and beg for the restoration of the severed body part. As soon as it reattaches LIKE NEW, then sign me up!

It's always funny to hear theists bawk when given scientific evidence and shrug it off as "well that's just your opinion" when the entirety of their argument and evidence is "but mah storybook sez so!"

Wow, Charles said “that’s a standard no one can meet”. So god has a pretty significant limitation.

It's pretty simple really. If people wrote down stories of a man who claimed to be a god and performed miracles in ancient books, it's believable. If someone claimed that now, it's ridiculous. Case closed atheists.

The hosts need to allow at least the caller point, then, destroy it.