Radio reminder

Slightly off topic, the latest Tina Fey SNL VP debate is online for those that missed it.

You mean, completely off topic?

Haha first thing I hear is a Ben Stein advertisement.

55331 is a Minnesota zip code in case you are quizzed trying to listen to the live feed.

I have absolutely no idea how to listen to it.
Could someone ask Stephen Matheson which of his ancestors was the first to have a soul, and why that ancestors parents didn't?

Ugh, Stephen Matheson decided to answer hard questions with "I don't know" and took the stance that everything that is true is evidence of god (regardless of its compliance or contradiction with the bible).

And then when asked (by PZ no less) why he choose christianity over other religions, he basically said he hadn't looked at any others: he just knew christianity was the right one.

The only real content I heard in his section was his admission that creationists were Really Bad News.

Next week - Hector Avalos!

Q: How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Well, they can't see it so they don't believe it exists.

What the hell? We can see lightbulbs. Humans invented them based upon an understanding of science. Hope that's not theistic humor at its best.

Matheson did a lot of bobbing and weaving and, well, climbing over the ropes and running out of the gym altogether. Why Christianity (in response to PZ Myers' question)? He was "triggered to believe by God himself." Why are we such a miniscule speck in space and time, and why have we come about through the processes we have? We may not have been God's main purpose, and anyway he already believes so he wouldn't expect God to do anything in any specific way - that would be presumptuous. Everything else isn't waste, but should be seen as "extravagance." The problem of evil? Great question, he doesn't know, not enough time for his answer, not saying that's not a problem...

His efforts to distinguish himself from fundamentalists only made him sound lame and conflicted. Frankly, I don't know why his head doesn't explode.

SC, I took the feeble joke as meaning that atheists couldn't see the light bulb because they were in the dark, even to the extent of preferring the dark (out of moral or intellectual laziness) to granting the existence of a light bulb in the first place. I suppose it was to be assumed that atheists would be so contrary that they would never act on the advice of someone, presumably the more "enlightened" joke teller, about such things as light bulbs.

Come on SC! Are you honestly making a serious argument against a silly joke? He's not the one that looks bad when you do that.

If you really wanted to criticize his joke, either explain why it's not funny, or point out that, despite his introduction, it wasn't actually (nor was the other one) a knock-knock joke.

You can get the atheist talk audio on iTunes, but for some reason the quality is really poor. I tried listening to several than gave up. Maybe the live is easier to understand. Disappointing.

While writing to complain about the podcast, I went back and listened to a few, and on my computer it wasn't as bad - I wonder if there is something in the iPod or radio/speakers in my car that make it hard to understand (it was definitely worse than what I just listened to). It's odd, since I listen almost solely to podcasts on my hour-long drive to/from work, and I have problems with no other one. I wonder if I was listening to older 'casts (I have some going back years) which had problems that had been corrected.

Weird.

Come on SC! Are you honestly making a serious argument against a silly joke?

Come on, Science Pundit! Are you really making a serious argument against my criticism of a joke?

He's not the one that looks bad when you do that.

If I "look bad" for calling a lame joke lame, so be it. I've noted in the past that I find the joke "Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lighbulb? A: That's not funny!" amusing. Some other jokes about feminism are stupid and unfunny and I'm happy to point this out. I'm perfectly willing to laugh at myself if someone says something funny about me or my ideas. This wasn't.

If you really wanted to criticize his joke, either explain why it's not funny,

I thought I had explained why it was illogical and lacking in insight. That makes it unfunny in my book.

or point out that, despite his introduction, it wasn't actually (nor was the other one) a knock-knock joke.

That portion was garbled and I didn't hear it clearly, so I couldn't make a point about it even if I had thought it worthy of mention, which I didn't.

I can't believe I'm participating in such a stupid conversation. I'm hoping you were joking.

SC, I took the feeble joke as meaning that atheists couldn't see the light bulb because they were in the dark, even to the extent of preferring the dark (out of moral or intellectual laziness) to granting the existence of a light bulb in the first place. I suppose it was to be assumed that atheists would be so contrary that they would never act on the advice of someone, presumably the more "enlightened" joke teller, about such things as light bulbs.

That's a charitable metaphorical reading, but it's pretty much my point. Nothing is required to grant a lightbulb's existence because we have physical evidence of its existence. That's how it differs from a deity. They want to draw an equivalence in the joke between material and supernatural phenomena, and - in your reading - posit "enlightened authorities rather than empirical investigation as a source of knowledge, and I want to call them on it. I don't care if they put it in the form of humor, and I use the term loosely; I just don't think we should give them an inch.

Midnight Sunday??!?
Oh well, who needs sleep? I guess Australia really is the arse-end of the world.