Dissecting a Phone Call
On September 24th, 2024, I called into an online, call-in show, called "The Line". They have a YouTube channel, and I called into one of their shows, in order to speak with two atheists. The experience was very revealing.
Over the years, I've written several articles, and have engaged in quite a few online conversations with atheists. The conversations have almost always come off as adversarial. However, regardless of how spirited the conversation would get, each person always had the chance to state their case. They'd post something, and I'd post a response. It'd be a back-and-forth dialog that could last for days, or even weeks. Though the process could be lengthy, both parties always had the opportunity to communicate freely, and openly, with no restrictions. So, when I chose to call in, to speak with two atheists, the experience was a bit of a shock. This is because the experience wasn't, at all, similar to what I had been accustomed to.
It didn't take long for me to realize just how different the format is. They run the show; literally. I'd get asked a question. However, once I started to respond, I'd, almost immediately, get interrupted by one of the hosts. If I tried to continue speaking, I was muted. It slowly became clear that a useful dialog would be next to impossible. Needless to say, the call didn't go as planned. I was already nervous. However, being cut-off, and not having the chance to finish most arguments, left me with a handicap that couldn't be overcome.
I've just stated my perspective of that call. If the atheists were writing about it, they may state something else. One of the great things about recorded media, whether it be text, video, or audio, is that any observer is able to read, watch, or listen to, information, and make up their own minds. It provides a fair playing field for ideas and discussion.
For this reason, I really hope that people will read this article, as well as watch the video of the call that I'm referring to. It's the best way to be fair, and transparent, about facts and perspectives.
When the call was over, I couldn't help but think about why the exchange was so ineffective. As is explained in one of my writings, I knew that I had solid arguments. In the past, when those arguments were thoroughly laid out, every conversation was always conclusive. The arguments and facts, forces this to happen. Either a person's eyes would be opened, or the conversation would, definitevely show, that logic had failed. However, in this case, that conclusion was never reached, because the entire conversation had been sped along. There was no opportunity for me to thoroughly, systematically, call out every misconception, and whittle down to an undeniable, definitive conclusion, to which, any rational person would arrive.
Ultimately, I knew exactly what I'd do. I'd thouroughly scrutinize the call, as one of the hosts had suggested, and would take the time to make the points that I wasn't able to make; due to being interrupted. My endeavor to analyze that call, and make those points, is the purpose of this article.
The following link provides the call that took place. It's a YouTube video of the show for that night. My call came in at about 24:21, into the video.
After watching the call, I've been able to recognize that I was interrupted twenty-four times. The call is twenty-three minutes and forty-eight seconds long. Twenty-four times, I was kept from being able to finish my argument.
If you listen to the call, the hosts, repeatedly, suggest that I'm repeating myself. However, they don't realize the fact that I keep going back to the central issue, because that central issue hasn't been thoroughly examined. The central issue must be examined because, in examining it, more and more observations can be explained to solidify the point I was trying to make.
For example, one quick, knee-jerk statement, that most atheists give -- and this call is no exception -- is that "lies spread easily, and the claim that Jesus performed miracles, is just another lie that has happened to spread throughout society."
This is a seemingly simple explanation as to why many people believe that Jesus performed miracles, even though, according to atheists, he hasn't. However, in order to refute this argument, many aspects have to be mentioned, so that the statement's flaws may be revealed. So, while a person can make this one statement, it'll require many observations to show why the case of Christ performing miracles, doesn't fall into this over-generalized, "lies spread" category.
There's no single-sentence answer that will be satisfactory to refute the refutable, "lies spread" claim. However, the claim can, easily, be shown to not apply to the case of Christ performing miracles. All that is required, is for a person to be given the time, and complete opportunity, to make the case.
So, lets take that claim, and point out why it doesn't apply to the instance of Jesus performing miracles. The counter-argument has to be made, systematically.
First, I have to point out that, not all lies are the same. Some lies are drastic and big, while others are more minor and are more feasible to believe.
For instance, because of Donald Trump's lie that he won the 2020 election, half of the country believes that there was massive voter fraud, in that election, and that Trump actually won.
Although this is a lie that has significant consequences, it's a lie that's not completely outlandish, and is, therefore, easier to spread. After all, voter fraud is, certainly, possible.
In order to figure out whether or not significant voter fraud took place, average citizens must turn to their government officials, and believe the resulting assessment that is given to them, by that government.
It's true that our government can perform an audit, and a recount. They can perform investigations. However, the citizens, then, have to trust the government. This may not convince a firm conspiracy theorist, because a government is capable of lying.
So, while this lie is easily refutable in a general, sensible, sense, the refutation only works if people choose to believe multiple facets of their government. Some people are sensible, while others aren't. So, in order for the lie to spread, all that is required, is for a sizeable portion of the population to choose not to trust their government. As a result, this lie of Trump winning the 2020 election, has managed to spread.
1