Is Science a Liar? A Philosopher Reacts to It's Always Sunny

Dec 18, 2020
219 048 Views

Try 5 pairs of glasses at home for free at www.warbyparker.com/wisecrack
Thanks to Warby Parker for sponsoring this episode!
It's Always Sunny: Can Mac finally solve the science vs. religion debate?
Some of the greatest philosophical debates in history took place while over jugs of wine in ancient Athens or steins of beer in nineteenth century Berlin, so who’s to say that philosophy can’t happen in a Philadelphia dive bar? In this episode of A Philosopher Reacts, we’re heading to It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia’s Paddy’s Pub to see if Mac can convince us that science is a liar . . . sometimes.

Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► wscrk.com/32Q7huu
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/

=== Watch More Episodes! ===
A Philosopher Reacts to the NXVIM Cult ► wscrk.com/2KdfEZW
It's Always Sunny: The Perfect Anti-Sitcom? ► wscrk.com/IASIPWE
It's Always Sunny: How to Not Suck After 13 Seasons ► wscrk.com/2SpGDk5

Analyzed and Hosted by: Michael Burns
Directed by: Samantha Hollows
Video Title Card by: Amanda Murphy
Motion Graphics & Editing by: Brian M Kim
Produced by: Evan Yee

#alwayssunny #fx #wisecrack
© 2020 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc.

Comments
  • So johnny sins is also a philosopher? He really does everything

    David GergelyDavid Gergely10 hours ago
  • This guys eyes are so mesmerising

    aurghhaurghh22 hours ago
  • Sometimes

    mulatsomulatsoDay ago
  • Science and religion are not important. Just don’t be mean and a selfish a hole and everything they teach us will come about.

    snowissjsnowissjDay ago
  • Reason Will Prevail!

    Colby ChavezColby ChavezDay ago
  • Yeah but hat about the implication?

    Adam GardinerAdam GardinerDay ago
  • Yeah I still don't see the difference between Faith and "Blind Faith". Just seems to be a matter of severity.

    Xplorer228Xplorer2282 days ago
  • Thats why right wing people are morons they disregard fact because they don't agree with it

    StarVault 67StarVault 672 days ago
  • Peer review my ass, fossil records are questionable science. Not in existence, but timeline, taxonomy, and morphology in every fossil species.

    Chris and Katie BrookeChris and Katie Brooke2 days ago
  • Where can I get a copy of 'Beyond Germ Theory?"

    Chris and Katie BrookeChris and Katie Brooke2 days ago
  • A big problem in today’s hyper capitalist world is that people don’t replicated experiments bc there’s little profit to doing so

    Julian VargasJulian Vargas3 days ago
  • Looking at the current state of the world = No more parrot-dime shits for you!

    P. D. LP. D. L3 days ago
  • Those shirts are like the Cadillac of Hawaiian shirts. I have two.

    P. D. LP. D. L3 days ago
  • Changed my mind. Your argument is ignorant of the verious scietific groups and their fuckery, i.e. Evolution vs. Punctuated equilibrium. This is a fools video for the unfamiliar.

    ArmouroArmouro3 days ago
  • Data like ancel keys and cholesterol... science has been tainted when it comes to to health for a long time.

    EddieEddie4 days ago
  • to be fair we still don't know anything about eel sex so that mud theory isn't 100% impossible lol

    princeyprincey4 days ago
  • The amount of ads throughout made me unsubscribe I’m sorry I’ll still click on recommendations tho

    T. D. FitzpatrickT. D. Fitzpatrick5 days ago
  • LOL

    Skyler ThorvalssonSkyler Thorvalsson5 days ago
  • There's one argument I can make for Mac involving Aristole. Aristotle single handedly held back scientific advancement for about 2000 years with his theory of elements. Of course he had no way of knowing about atoms, but a man named Democritus had actually come up with the concept of atoms while Aristotle was shipping his elements theory. The entire scientific community agreed with Aristotle and it wasn't until John Dalton discovered atoms that this false idea ended. I.e. we all had faith in the incorrect earth, wind, water, and fire for millenia.

    CariumCarium7 days ago
  • Science is a liar *sometimes*

    BeckhamBeckham7 days ago
  • Of course she is. A big, dumb, flightless one

    Brent SegristBrent Segrist9 days ago
  • Science also currently has cancel culture for scientist who won't tow the line on gender based issues. Proving they are not free from problems that have plagued religions in the past.

    Smoking RoomSmoking Room10 days ago
  • 🤔

    ali efafali efaf11 days ago
  • Is that why I have two girls lol

    J ButzJ Butz15 days ago
  • When is someone being a TROLL in the comment section? 1. When they put up the same WALL OF TEXT about something as answer to ANY question 2. When someone put up THE SAME argument as an answer to ANY question 3. When someone put up a LINK that leads in a totally different direction than the discussion at hand ... Conclusion: Respect each other enough to engage thoughtfully with THE ARGUMENT that is being made! Caveat: A joke is not necessarily trolling (particularly if you engage with the humor of the clip)

    busylivingnotdyingbusylivingnotdying16 days ago
  • Have you considered the philosophy of Princess Mononoke or Anon? Those would be great choices.

    vagrantlibertinevagrantlibertine18 days ago
  • Man maybe I remember more gcse history then I thought

    FrothyFrizFrothyFriz18 days ago
  • Reason is out the window and bad things are gonna happen; south park vaccination special...

    Cody StaintonCody Stainton18 days ago
  • At 13:58 your confirmation bias took over and distracted you from an objective analysis. You took a solid position and started looking for evidence to support it. (You get back on track by 1700) And Dee is a bird.

    Jesse ParkerJesse Parker20 days ago
  • Okay but do you have a certificate saying you arent donkey brained

    Noah BrownNoah Brown21 day ago
  • Wait, you should shout "that's a spicy meatball" when finishing the yogurt, oooooorrrrrrrrr.....

    IceMetalPunkIceMetalPunk23 days ago
  • In addition to all the safeguards and self-checking inherent in the scientific method, there's one more big difference between science and religious faith: if you've never seen the evidence for a scientific theory yourself, *you can.* If you want to see the fossil record, you can go to a museum. If you think the museum is BS, you can go on a paleontological dig and find the fossils yourself. There is *empirical* evidence behind scientific knowledge which, if you truly want to put in the effort to see with your own eyes, you certainly can. Whereas with religious faith, there's nothing to see. Nothing to find. You *have* to take it all on the trust of someone else's words because *that's all there is behind it.* So even if you really wanted to see the evidence for a religious idea yourself, and put 200% effort into finding it, you couldn't, because there's nothing to find. It's *all* about abstract ideas and whether you think they sound good or not. And that... is why I have a problem with faith-based worldviews. The universe exists a certain way regardless of what we humans think sounds good about it, so the only accurate way to understand the universe is to find and follow the empirical evidence the universe shows us. Anything else -- believing the universe operates a certain way just because humans said it should without evidence -- is just hubris. Unless, of course, you subscribe to solipsism, in which case nothing exists and I'm not real anyway, so who cares?

    IceMetalPunkIceMetalPunk23 days ago
  • 'Scuse me, I seem to have a touch of the consumption.

    tense99tense9923 days ago
  • How could you bring up my guy Robert Koch and not pronounce it right

    Imperial British MappingImperial British Mapping24 days ago
  • Yes it is.. sometimes

    Ryan WeareRyan Weare24 days ago
  • Donkey brains. All of yous

    Viago TanegaViago Tanega26 days ago
  • It's always interesting reading comments of people siding with Mac. It's like people are not only desperate to be contrarians and "unique thinkers", but also eager to side with stupid assholes, because they probably relate to the stupid asshole character. They need justification for being a dumb asshole. Too bad there is no justification for willful ignorance.

    VultureCloneVultureClone27 days ago
  • ''let's watch some bad things happen''...zero alcohol beer commercial comes on...

    jackie thompsonjackie thompson28 days ago
  • If suspended particles infectious disease are suspended in it. Then you could say it is bad air

    james ostendorfjames ostendorfMonth ago
  • 5:00 as someone who grew up in this sort of fanaticism: YES OMG YES

    Josiah MillerJosiah MillerMonth ago
  • If this were an objective analysis it would have touched in the fanaticism of the scientific community as well, but it’s clearly just a bash on God atheist circle jerk with no real insight desperately trying to convince themselves that their favorite show didn’t just make them look like stupid science bitches.

    real Traxreal TraxMonth ago
  • I've met modern day fanatics. They normally have their pro nouns listed in their bio.

    LemuresXLLemuresXLMonth ago
  • My guy has a doctorate? Damnnn

    Jabari ErmonJabari ErmonMonth ago
  • When we finally realize that we are all in our own personal simulation experiment, we will all surely look like bitches. Simulated bitches in a simulated reality. Thanks science.(sarcasm intended)

    badfishy911badfishy911Month ago
  • The entire point of life: Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve. Mathew 20: 28. We are no different. This entire life is a representation of the spiritual warfare going on. Good vs evil. God isn't a flying man in the sky, but the actual representation of Love, Hope, Joy, Peace, Light, etc. Not metaphor, but literally, like an extra demintional wavelength of thought, emotions, and intent. The devil is the opposite wavelength, pain, fear, hate, anger, darkness, etc. Human life is serving one of these two. Not a man in the sky, actual sentient collective universal Love. However, humans are primatives, we make mistakes. It's in our nature, since the fall, to go down the wrong path. This means at some time each one of us has served darkness to some degree. God understands our limited understanding of our own actions, so he gave us forgiveness, though sacrificing himself in human form as Jesus Christ. It is our duty to accept that sacrifice, get the forgiveness, and be better, helping others be better, and spreading this wavelength of Love, Hope, Joy, Peace, Light, etc, thoughout the universe. But God had to make a way for us to get to this place spiritually, this is why evidence is not allowed. Evidence will make you believe, using the fear of absolute punishment to change your behavior, but that won't make you better, just scared. Faith makes you better. It is what redeemes us, not our works. Faith is the hope that things get better, that justice always prevails, that we're at least loved by our creator. But it has to be Faith in Jesus, because of his sacrifice. And there can't be evidence to point us to him, because Love had to be fair. If there were a code in our DNA, what about everyone born before genetic sequencing? If there were a book with the solar system thosands of years ago, what would stop an evil person from hiding/destroying it? If it were something you had to go to, what about the geographically isolated, imprisoned, or enslaved. If it were a train of logic, what about the uneducated, or mentally slow? Not to mention all the people born before schools. Love cannot give to one without giving to the other. So the key to salvation had to be something everyone has access to. The only thing is Faith. This is why God puts it upon your heart to learn about these things, even if it's only to criticize, or hate. God is everywhere, because Love is everywhere, and so is the devil, because hate is everywhere. They're in your head all the time, regardless of weather or not you accept that. They whisper inside your heart, giving you ideas. But more than that, they're inside everyone's heart. This is how they get things done. They corrordanate us like pieces on a chess board. The only difference is, we get to chose who's side we're playing for. At the end of our life, we go to that team's home base, Heaven, or Hell. A place where all that exists is those wavelengths. Hate, pain, anger, fear, darkness; or Love, Hope, Joy, Peace, Pleasure, Light. The choice is yours to make. But you cannot go to Heaven with hate in your heart. You must forgive, repent, and spread joy for those around you. These are sentient eternal controlling forces in our universe. Heaven and Hell are very real places, I've seen them. Those steps prime your soul for a meeting with God. Very literally. Once you've done all four, in that order, you get divine revelation, with all the evidence you'll ever need. They are, forgive your parents, brake down before Jesus, ask for forgiveness, and read the Bible. Step four takes three books to get the revelation. I recommend Genesis, Mathew, and then either Luke, Psalms, or proverbs. The order of the steps is important, step 1 has to come before step 3. I can state that for an absolute certainty that these steps always work. Please, take your salvation seriously. See for yourself. Do those steps. Jesus Christ is Lord. It's all True

    James MayleJames MayleMonth ago
  • Yes

    Joseph GreenJoseph GreenMonth ago
  • so this guy is like dennis...ignorant 😂😂

    taylor drntaylor drnMonth ago
  • Science is not a liar because science is an observation of the universe in search of truth. Our perception and scientists are liars because of a variety of reasons. Mainly in that we lack accurate perception of things like the entire color spectrum and the constant interference of corporations prevents accurate findings from reaching the public.

    Rusty ShacklefordRusty ShacklefordMonth ago
  • By proving that previous scientific "facts" were thoughts that came from "bitches," shows that it is all faith. What we believe to be true right now, may be completely disproved in the next 1000s of years.

    Francisco GuerreroFrancisco GuerreroMonth ago
  • Please let's not validate magical thinking. As someone who also has a philosophy degree, I'm baffled by the conclusion that there's no contradiction, that religion can be made more intellectual, and the parade of names meant to show harmony is the goal. Science and religion generate knowledge in fundamentally different ways. One can update itself with new information, one cannot admit it was wrong. One is falsifiable, one isn't. There's testable predictions from science but not religion. The Catholic church will never make an ex cathedra dogma that has any testable claim. A religion by definition inserts a god as an explanation in gaps of knowledge, and this is thought terminating. Once we have "goddidit", there's no incentive to look further. It's anti-science. Newton does this in his astronomy. He figured out a great deal, but reached a point where instead of saying "I don't know", pointed to god magic as an explanation. Religion cannot escape doing this, it necessarily has this anti-science strain in it. At some point, the religious person must point to god as an explanation, or they're not religious. Science presupposes methodological naturalism. Religion presupposes supernatural intervention in the natural world is possible -- and in some goddidit fantasies, god interacting with and sustaining the world "just so" is the norm. She isn't just intervening occasionally but apparently She's super active. These are diametrically opposed. If anyone must leave open the possibility of "actually maybe god made the lawnmower start" then it renders our ability to understand the natural world as it actually is... impossible. Whatever lab test is done, however consistent the results, they must always come with an asterisk that maybe a god is interacting with the system, and when She ceases to do so, the experiment's results would change. Or, maybe she's not screwing with the system, but that no reason to assume She won't screw with it in the future. The fact is science proceeds on the assumption there is no god, and will be no god, interacting with the natural world. The assumption that the explanation is *never* magic, is an assumption that serves us well. We cannot do real science and make allowance for the supernatural.

    Stephen GalanisStephen GalanisMonth ago
  • I don’t think you beat Mac’s argument. Your trust in peer reviews comes from faith in the institutions that govern them. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I certainly do that. But science is wrong sometimes, and so we can say that there is a shadow of a doubt. That is part of why the best scientific breakthrough is a “theory,” and theories can never be fully proven, but only disproven. I think theories are a good thing to based your life on, but that still does come from faith.

    Will LovendahlWill LovendahlMonth ago
  • Although yes, Enlightment-era philosophers have tried to bridge the gap between reason and faith, in my opinion, they're not compatible with modern understanding (paradigm shift?), because if your reasoning and understanding of the world still leads to a supernatural conclusion because of your religious bias, this is basically intelligent design, which has been much critiziced for being basically criationism disguised as science. I'm with Nietzsche on this one, my understanding of the world through scientific reasoning makes the belief in the supernatural obsolete. But I've never really been inclined to believe it anyway. Have always had questions I don't think my parents have ever asked themselves because "god" is the obvious answer, since I was a kid, and my "faith" during childhood was mostly out of fear of death.

    Thierry AlmeidaThierry AlmeidaMonth ago
  • Litteraly anyone can be a philosopher just think about existence you dont need a title for philosophy dumb title lols just regular dude who thinks alot watches its awlays sunny

    fallout was lifefallout was lifeMonth ago
  • Eh science is a religion 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

    John mackJohn mackMonth ago
    • They still believe the covid #s 😂😂😂😂

      John mackJohn mackMonth ago
  • Are we going to ignore the bell? CLANG!

    oAPXooAPXoMonth ago
  • I don’t think this guy has poured through the data himself.

    John MillerJohn MillerMonth ago
  • Reason will prevail!

    Yeng LeeYeng LeeMonth ago
  • Mac's argument is brilliant. It's all true and is how I explain god to my friends and how evolution is stupid. Science can't explain the miracle of god. Ps. Gods going to make you nerds burn one day.

    AaronAaronMonth ago
  • Dee is a bird

    AbbyAbbyMonth ago
  • I think it points out that alot of people rely on science without understanding the principles. Or relying on faith. I once had a conversation with someone defending climate change. I agree with climate change being real but also knew that they had no idea what they were talking about. So I had a ten minute discussion with them about how there isn't enough CO2 in the air and we need to create more to stop climate change. They agreed, even mocking those who didn't believe it. I never told them I was lying just though it was interesting that they could be so committed to something they know nothing about.

    A PacA PacMonth ago
  • Social Justice is both scientific fanaticism and a cargo cult.

    Devin HeapsDevin HeapsMonth ago
  • With a head full of mushrooms, I'd like to request some Monty Python material. Particularly "Monty Python and philosophy (nudge, nudge, think, think.)"

    Tim HodgsonTim HodgsonMonth ago
  • I definitely like the argument here but I don’t think there was enough light shown on the idea of fanaticism of science and the faith of scientific figures or even the entire scientific system. I think too many folks do what Dennis does in this episode and write off anything supernatural in the idea that it’s all just silly nonsense from humans of the past and that with all the information we know now that there’s no need for religious faith. People criticize others who blindly follow in faith of a religion but then regardless of how trustworthy this scientific system is supposed to be blindly follow it. It’s important to ask questions and to be skeptical of the status quo and of what we think of as undeniable truth. Too many people don’t question it which makes these paradigm shifts all the greater but once that shift happens people forget and tend to think they live in a time when scientists can no longer be wrong because they can’t conceive what scientific breakthroughs are yet to come. With this I by no means am saying deny science or deny religion. I am saying be skeptical and try to educate yourself as much as possible in what institutions have to offer. Fanaticism is wrong, always. It’s wrong in science, it’s wrong in religion, you have to use reason and skepticism even among well accepted truths. That’s what pushes conversation and humanity forward.

    Dalton SaylorDalton SaylorMonth ago
  • incorrect. i t was obviously Dee's fault

    TheEpicSpireTheEpicSpireMonth ago
  • Tbf there are some cases of dogmatic scientists even in recent history. Ostrum and Bakker with theories that Dinosaurs where close relatives to birds was a hard opinion to change especially within previous (and I would say anthropomorphic bias) ideology that Dinosaur where slow evolutionary failures. But that's more to do to our species superiority complex and not being able to accept that other organisms could be on the same level as ourselves (being successful though that is very debative that we aren't that successful compared to previous lineages especially if we wipe ourselves out in a short period of time) and that intelligence (among our other characteristics) is the best characteristics for survival and a pinnacles for evolutionary development. But yeah science can be a subject to bias especially when we have to reflect on ourselves and imperfections.

    Rónán McGleenanRónán McGleenanMonth ago
  • The magic of this scene is the audience getting as uncomfortable with Mac's argument as Dennis does. It may be filled with fallacies, but it makes you *feel* like it's not.

    Sean CahillaneSean CahillaneMonth ago
  • if theres no damage to the bumper its dennis's fault for the milk stain!

    bct782007bct782007Month ago
  • Aviation wasn't a good analogy because you can observe a plane in flight on the daily so you wouldn't the data or figures

    Canaan_Crystal wingCanaan_Crystal wingMonth ago
  • TLDR: Falsifiability is the key to science being a better system of attaining knowledge

    Joseph ParkerJoseph ParkerMonth ago
  • This video is basically scientific Dogma

    Point-Blank FilmsPoint-Blank FilmsMonth ago
  • For anyone wonder Mac's shirt is from Tommy Bahama

    Mack ViskMack ViskMonth ago
  • Mac was right.

    chris scorpiochris scorpioMonth ago
  • I disagree with the distinction he made between faith and fanaticism. I would argue that fanaticism is imbedded in a religion meant to be proselytized. The presence of unshakable belief without evidence and withstanding to many trials and rebuttals, is considered being a "good christian", for example. Granted not all religions are such, but the ones that become popular have this mechanism integrated as a protector against reasoning and outsiders trying to sway believers. For example see these verses in the bible "For we live by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7, "But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." James 1:6, "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong." 1 Corinthians 16:13. Many more instances can be presented where Bible asks for an unshakable belief and makes it the bedrock of salavation.

    Iulian BaxanIulian BaxanMonth ago
  • oh god I really thought something was wrong with my ears at the 5:11 mark (if u can’t hear, it’s high pitched looping music I think?)

    Hannah LomaxHannah LomaxMonth ago
  • If I may make an observation here that I’ve noticed a lot in political discourse over the validity of evolution; it seems that the argument here from the anti-science side use a bastardized form of scientific uncertainty. In other words, use doubt to its greatest extreme of if there’s a single doubt, rather than reform the theory, just throw it out altogether.

    StarDragon77StarDragon77Month ago
  • 12:32

    Maya BartholomewMaya BartholomewMonth ago
  • evolution is the same as faith.they both work on the mentally weak

    MegaAtooMegaAtooMonth ago
  • You forgot to mention he also created the foundations of all western theatre but nbd

    nosearchwarrantnosearchwarrantMonth ago
  • Oi! Never hurts to point out that the miasme theory was also quite racist. I know you cant go into detail over all the folks you quote and theories you mention - but you give it more credit than it desrves. Or at least shine it in a better light than what i think is appropriate

    emilio madrazoemilio madrazoMonth ago
  • I think the question of faith/fanaticism/trust is a bit more complex. What faith entails has always been a contentious point among religious philosophers. Just read Aquinas and Augustine to get a glimpse of two substantially different perspectives.

    KING GHOSTKING GHOSTMonth ago
  • Get greg in this. He's better than Jared even. i love mike's vids especially for the insights he provides but i'm trying to fight for the change i want to see. more greg, thug notes is long gone but ffs the man does an amazing job.

    kevtinokevtinoMonth ago
  • Aviation degree gang

    Captain JettCaptain JettMonth ago
  • By one Ronald McDonald haha

    Trevor MillerTrevor MillerMonth ago
  • The defense of the scientists used is not necessary. He’s just using some cases where they where wrong as an example. A bit over sensitive huh? There are many people who will not admit that anything science accepts as theory could possibly be wrong. That is fanaticism. They just read second hand info from politics or science news magazines through a lens of confirmation bias. Their egos are so huge that they can’t even imagine somebody who “believes in science” could possibly be a fanatic or have a cult mentality. When was the last time you heard “we don’t know” in a scientific sense? A science fanatic believes they can’t be fanatics or have a cult mentality because science is always right, and therefor they everything they believe is right. It’s nothing but egomania and superiority complex. There is literally no room for anything in science to be questioned today. Everything is one way and that’s it. If you disagree you are stupid.

    Rowland BuckRowland BuckMonth ago
  • Jabroni, ha. Cool word.

    erikbarrett85erikbarrett85Month ago
  • I would argue that believing in certain things as a "matter of faith", regardless of the facts, means that every religious person is a fanatic on a spectrum. Even if I don't share it with anyone else, am I not a little fanatical to believe the creator of the universe and all space-time might change his grand design because I whispered a prayer in my mind? I like Stephen J. Gould's idea of non-overlapping Magisteria ... this way science is free of religion's vestigial grasp.

    Henry ToromorenoHenry ToromorenoMonth ago
    • @Rowland Buck I agree that on the surface then, both people who just accept another's words without doing their own lab work are the same ... kind of. But the difference is that Science has lab work behind it that (if done well) has been verified by others and might even be in use right now for example on this computer ... so accepting science's words is NOT REALLY about faith. But accepting whatever the burning bush said to Abraham or the angel Gabriel told Mohammad or the letters of Paul to all sorts of people around the Middle East about Jesus ... that's a different kind of leap, no?

      Henry ToromorenoHenry ToromorenoMonth ago
    • The point was that even people who “believe in science” are doing the exact same thing. When they read a science magazine or whatever, and don’t look at anyof the evidence or do their own lab experiments, they are relying in the words of other men. Second hand information, and taking their words on faith.

      Rowland BuckRowland BuckMonth ago
  • Hey, I like Kirk Cameron, you bastard.

    Byron HotchkissByron Hotchkiss2 months ago
  • Adam22 got his tattoos removed

    Jonathon KlemJonathon Klem2 months ago
  • Regarding Ronald MacDonald's religious schooling; my guess. Mac was poor, so his religious instruction was free. His Catholic schooling on religion was most likely taught by nuns who were ignorant of the Vatican II reforms of the early to mid 1960s. Vatican II brought Catholic liturgical practices and ideological stances into the modern Era. Mac, born late 1970s had teachers who were not religious scholars and passed on what they learned in the 1920s-1940s. Those old nuns were still teaching him circa 19th Century Catholicism. I'm Macs age give or take a year or two. In the early - mid 1980s, I attended CCD class for Catholic instruction. As a result of Vatican II reforms, the existence of dinosaurs and human evolution were discussed as being in line with Catholic (Roman) belief. Biblical literalism is not part of the modern Catholic Church. Mac's stated beliefs place him in the Evangelical fanatic realm. It is possible Mac had impeccable CCD instruction, but retained nothing because, let's face it, Mac is not very smart.

    One DeSanctisOne DeSanctis2 months ago
  • Fat Mac wears Tommy Bahama shirts. They may be vintage. Edit: Tommy Bahama "Camp" shirts is the style he wears

    One DeSanctisOne DeSanctis2 months ago
  • dee is definitely a bird.

    DabbzeeDabbzee2 months ago
  • And Michael did a great job with this video, making Mac look like a...BITCH!!!

    Noah VanceNoah Vance2 months ago
  • Both have their truths....

    NICE ASFNICE ASF2 months ago
  • That' shirts a Tommy Bahama bruh

    Dillon DabbsDillon Dabbs2 months ago
  • Why would you tell me to go into aviation mid way through my 5th year in a philosophy degree? 😭😭

    kieran sudlowkieran sudlow2 months ago
  • I mean, dennis did not have proof that he is does not have donkey brains..

    IsthatanAfricanIsthatanAfrican2 months ago
  • Faith is the opposite of reason. "Reasonable Faith" is an oxymoron.

    Jason BladzinskiJason Bladzinski2 months ago
  • Dee is absolutely a bird! A beutiful human bird! ❤ lol

    D. Brian Burns IID. Brian Burns II2 months ago
  • The fact that many philosophers and the Catholic Church don’t see a contradiction between faith and reason, does not mean that there is no contradiction between faith and reason.

    Chuck Van RyzinChuck Van Ryzin2 months ago
  • When science has been proven wrong, it was never religion that proved it wrong, but better science!!

    Kwahu JakquaiKwahu Jakquai2 months ago
USworlds