Image credit: Scott Jacobsen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, The Humanist, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332-9416), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Matt Dillahunty is an American atheist activist, public speaker, and former president of the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA). Born on March 31, 1969, in Kansas City, Missouri, he was raised in a Southern Baptist household and served in the U.S. Navy from 1987 to 1995. Initially pursuing a career in Christian ministry, extensive study and reflection led him to atheism. From 2005 to October 2022, he hosted The Atheist Experience, engaging in live call-in discussions on religion and skepticism. Dillahunty co-founded the counter-apologetics wiki Iron Chariots, lectures widely, and shares content on his YouTube and Twitch streams.
Dillahunty discussed his 20-year journey in online activism, which began after questioning his Christian beliefs post-9/11. He transitioned to hosting The Atheist Experience, growing to challenge common theistic arguments and build community conversations. Dillahunty noted that debates often recycled familiar arguments and highlighted the difficulty of changing beliefs through single engagements. He also discussed the decline in atheist conventions, increased political focus, and funding challenges within secular organizations. He acknowledged parasocial dynamics, branding, and personal experiences, emphasizing mission over monetary gain and reflecting on community development and internal conflicts.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Matt Dillahunty, a prominent voice in atheism and commentary, particularly in North America. You have been doing this for many years and have been on the scene for a long time. I was probably not even born then, so that’s the first question: How long have you been doing this?
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve been involved in online work where people would recognize my contributions for about 20 years, give or take.
Jacobsen: What prompted that transition to online work and gaining more visibility for what you do?
Dillahunty: I started finding my way out of my religious background around 2001, along with many others after 9/11, although my journey had begun years earlier in different ways. After about a year and a half of intense prayer and study, I realized I didn’t have good reasons for my Christian beliefs. However, I also lacked a comprehensive understanding of the relevant subjects to determine whether any other god might exist. This led to a lengthy process of exploration, learning, and developing a foundation of skepticism grounded in philosophy.
During that period, I was learning a lot online. The first time anyone heard about me was when I was writing counter-sermons for an e-magazine that was self-published to around 50 people. This magazine had an editor who allowed dissenting views. One contributor, who wrote under the pseudonym “SkipToMaloo” (though I don’t remember exactly how it was spelled, as this was over 20 years ago), would post a sermon based on a specific passage and share their interpretation.
On the same day, I would take that same passage, present an alternative analysis, and highlight which parts were justified, sophistry, and potentially incorrect. Essentially, it was a skeptical critique of everything they posted. This work eventually led someone to suggest I watch The Atheist Experience show.
At first, I questioned why I would want to watch a show featuring people I already agreed with. They clarified that it was a call-in show that regularly featured discussions with people who held opposing views. Initially, I ignored the suggestion. Coincidentally, Jeff Dee, one of the cohosts, lived in the same apartment complex as I did and had posted a flyer for the show in the mailbox. One Sunday, about an hour before the show was set to air, I checked my mail, saw the flyer, and decided to see what it was about.
I watched the show and even called in that day. They invited me to dinner afterward, and I attended. A week later, I was screening calls for the show. Then, in March 2004, I worked in the studio when Jeff Dee didn’t show up. I had written an article about a First Amendment case involving Ten Commandments monuments. Hence, Russell Glasser, the host, then asked me if I wanted to discuss it on air. I agreed, and from that point on, I became a regular host and did the show for 17 years before stepping down.
I’m working with The Line on YouTube, doing a Wednesday night show. It’s much more politically focused than the Sunday shows and any additional shows we may do, so I’m working more than ever.
Jacobsen: The common phrase is that you cannot talk people out of their beliefs. In your experience, over two decades of taking calls, how much of that is a myth?
Dillahunty: Well, the one I hear frequently is, “You can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.” While that may be true, it’s also trivial because everyone was reasoned into everything they believed. Everything you believe is the result of a reasoned conclusion, though it may be bad reasoning or flawed reasoning.
There may also be protective mechanisms in place that make a typical conversation about what evidence would be required less impactful for some people. The reality is that there are people who may never change their minds and others who can. I must learn to tell those groups’ differences without engaging with them. It often isn’t a single engagement—one conversation with me isn’t going to change someone’s religion. They may need to hear it multiple times, in various ways, from different people. Until we develop some mechanism to identify those who will never change their minds, they’re worth engaging with.
Jacobsen: Over two decades of taking calls, what trends have you noticed regarding the ebbs and flows of atheist conversations and the objections you receive?
Dillahunty: One of the things I’ve noticed over the years is that these conversations are cyclical. An argument will become popular for a while, and we’ll get many calls about the Kalam cosmological argument. We go through it, debunk it, and then it falls out of favour for a year or so. Then, callers move on to other topics, like the anthropic principle, moral arguments, or questions about the foundation of logic. They cycle through these arguments to see which ones are more popular at the time. This has happened repeatedly during the 20 years I’ve been doing this. It’s happened since the beginning of such discussions.
At no point in those 20 years has anyone presented a novel argument backed by good evidence. That’s all it would take for me to believe—solid evidence. It doesn’t have to be a new argument; it could be a variation of one we’ve already discussed a million times but with new evidence or a fresh understanding.
Jacobsen: What happens when discussions get heated? What kind of epithets have been directed at you, your cohosts, or the atheist community in general?
Dillahunty: I understand that people take these things personally. When you say you don’t believe in their God, some perceive it as an attack on their character, even when it’s not. I’m quite free to handle these situations—I give as much as possible. If people are being dishonest or aggressive, I’m comfortable raising my voice or even name-calling if that’s the conversation’s direction. The alternative is allowing someone to bully you into not objecting to something on legitimate grounds. What I never do is present bad-faith arguments.
I’m always willing to try and teach, and I exercise a good deal of patience. But you can’t do this for 20 years without it getting heated sometimes. The actual threats launched at us are fewer and farther between. There have been a handful of times when we’ve had to call the FBI over death threats, but most of the time, it’s just, “I’m going to come down there and punch you in your face for Jesus,” or homophobic and sexist slurs.
It’s a constant stream of the worst aspects of machismo bro culture. I don’t know the perfect language to describe it. Still, I graduated from high school in 1987. I joined the military, so I’m familiar with hazing and name-calling, where it’s meant in camaraderie and where it’s meant as genuine hostility. What we get is more of the latter—people who feel embarrassed because they couldn’t make a strong enough argument for their religion or because they witnessed someone with similar views being publicly embarrassed.
That sense of embarrassment is sometimes a goal because people are less likely to change their minds once they’ve made a public commitment. When I speak with a caller on the show, I always say what I think should change their mind or allow them to present a strong case for their position. Sometimes, they succeed, and sometimes, they don’t, but providing that opportunity is crucial.
Jacobsen: What happens when you give them that chance, and they lash out instead?
Dillahunty: They lash out due to frustration from being unable to prove what they believe is true and real, even if it seems intuitively obvious. You often hear simplistic arguments like, “Look at the trees—only God can make a tree,” or, “I’m no monkey’s uncle.” These are baseline arguments rooted more in emotion and a lack of understanding of science, epistemology, and critical thinking.
Jacobsen: Have you ever convinced someone to live during a call? I suspect it has happened, but what is the nature of those moments?
Dillahunty: It does happen, but less often than you’d think. Sometimes, someone says, “That’s a good point; I hadn’t thought of that,” or, “Okay, you changed my mind on that, but let me think about the rest.” I’ve also had emails from thousands of people saying the show changed their minds, but I don’t wonder if it happened during the show. These realizations don’t usually occur when someone is in the spotlight; it takes time for them to reflect afterward.
Jacobsen: So, in public settings or during family dinners, when these conversations come up, even when people don’t want to have them, do they still happen?
Dillahunty: The initial conversation might lead to something other than an immediate change, but it plants a seed. People need time to process and reflect, leading to deeper consideration and potential change later on.
Jacobsen: What are your suggestions for having, at a minimum, an amicable conversation when it does come up?
Dillahunty: The important thing to remember is that you don’t owe anyone an explanation for who you are or what you believe. In daily life, you get to be yourself and think what you think without having to justify it to anyone. You must participate honestly and openly if you engage in a conversation. If you reach a point where someone asks a difficult question you don’t have an answer to, you can pause the conversation at any time and say, “That’s a good point. I want to think about that and get back to you.” Then, reflect on it and follow up because you should do what you say you will do.
If you find yourself overwhelmed—where you’re confronted with too many new ideas, unfamiliar terminology, or different interpretations of concepts—it’s okay to acknowledge that. For example, when someone uses terms like “reasonable” or “logical,” it’s important to clarify definitions. People often throw these words around casually, and I used to get frustrated when “logic” was used as if it was subjective, like “your logic” or “a logical line of thought.” But in reality, something is either reasonable or it isn’t. Establishing shared definitions and agreeing on terms is key.
More importantly, agree on how you could conclude. For instance, if one person believes in God and the other doesn’t, can you agree on a method to determine whether God is real? Discuss the method until there’s agreement. If agreement isn’t reached, the issue isn’t the belief in God itself but the methods of reasoning that led to that belief.
Jacobsen: What arguments do you find are the most carefully thought-out among theists when you receive calls?
Dillahunty: That’s an interesting question because there are two aspects to consider: how well-thought-out the argument is by the person who originally crafted it and how well the person presenting it understands it. One of the first things I determine is whether the caller comprehends their argument.
Jacobsen: Good point. You mentioned you’re busier than ever. Given the significant changes in the media landscape over the past few decades, where do you see the main channels for atheist conversation, media, and opinion writing now?
Dillahunty: I’m not the best person to answer that because I don’t spend much time-consuming atheist media, including content from some of my friends and colleagues. I used to joke with DJ Grothe when we were both running podcasts simultaneously—he was hosting CFI’s Point of Inquiry podcast, and we’re both from Missouri. He’s a younger, gayer, possibly more attractive version of me, but we share similar skeptic and atheist perspectives. We were doing these shows together, and we’re both magicians. I remember sitting at an event once, showing him card tricks.
And he said, “Hey, I wanted to tell you that I love what I’ve heard from your work.” But then he added, “I don’t get a chance to listen to much of what you do.” I replied, “Don’t feel bad about it. I don’t get to listen to much of what you do either.”
I don’t sit around listening to podcasts. I used to, but I eventually stopped, giving myself the excuse that I wanted to be authentically me. I didn’t want to unconsciously mirror someone else’s thoughts or hear a podcast that sparked an idea and then repeat it similarly. I’ve had people blatantly plagiarize my content and pass it off as their own. And when called out, their response has been, “Well, I’m not doing peer-reviewed research, so it doesn’t matter if I cite Matt as a source. My fans won’t care anyway,” because, for many, it’s become about fan bases.
Though this will change, I’ve never made a penny from my personal YouTube channel. I have over 100,000 subscribers, and while the channel is monetized and there’s money available, I haven’t been paid for any of it, nor have I taken any ad deals. Now, I get paid for my work on The Line and receive Patreon support for my content. Those are contributions from supporters who believe in my work and help fund its production. I will be taking revenue from YouTube because it would be foolish to leave the money untouched when needed. But the point is that fans and money were never my original goal. I had a day job when I started this before transitioning into full-time atheist activism. I donated all my vacation time and life savings to ensure I could travel, speak, produce content, and teach because the mission was always the most important thing.
Jacobsen: Are you seeing an increase in quasi-personality cults or branding based on one’s atheist identity?
Dillahunty: Yes, it’s happening more and more, much like how various atheist organizations have grown and split apart, developing their focuses and divisions. I used to joke that when Atheist Alliance International split into Atheist Alliance International and Atheist Alliance of America, people would say, “Great, now we have the Second Baptist Church of atheism or something.” However, the positive aspect is that the movement has grown enough to support different focuses and directives while maintaining the overarching goals. It is a split in the sense of being against each other but a way of dividing focus while working toward shared, unified objectives.
As I watch these changes, the cult of personality will always exist. There will always be individuals trying to build a brand. Once people started making money on YouTube, I saw that firsthand—even though I hadn’t received payment directly, I ran an organization that paid five employees using content I produced for free. Now, I see some tribalism, where people say, “That person I want to listen to.” I’m exempt from this. There are Matt Dillahunty fans and stans who, frankly, would probably annoy me if I met them in person.
Some people have problematic parasocial relationships. But when it comes to the mission, I noticed that even before the pandemic, there was already a decline in the number of atheist conventions in the U.S. There was a time when I was speaking at a local or national event every month or two. That has changed, and it isn’t just because of the pandemic. It could be because we have bigger political issues to address, even though I have recently shifted my focus toward political matters.
Jacobsen: What are the major disagreements within the American freethought community?
Dillahunty: Money. I’m on the board of directors for American Atheists, and I’m friends with people in other organizations where I’m on the board. Churches and religious organizations are incredibly well-funded, and it takes much money to keep secular organizations running. Even The Line network, which benefits all of us, requires funding for employees and operational costs. This work has a business aspect, especially in the system we use around it.
Suppose someone donates $1,000,000 to one organization and $100,000 to another. In that case, there can be disputes, sometimes even lawsuits, about why funds are not distributed equally or differing opinions on their use. By the time the money is allocated to organizations, a portion is already gone due to legal fees, and more fees can follow. This leads to ideological disagreements—one group might prioritize Supreme Court First Amendment cases, and another might focus on community outreach. At the same time, a third emphasizes national policy and politics.
Everyone thinks their focus is the most important. When one organization is thriving and another isn’t, it’s easier to criticize than to work on improving one’s efforts. I often say, “Work on the lawn on your side of the fence instead of pointing out the weeds in mine.” Ultimately, we’re the same property, and we all benefit when the grass is green everywhere.
Jacobsen: Matt, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Dillahunty: No problem. Take care. Later.