Talk Heathen 09.43 with Jimmy Jr. and Scott Dickie 2025-10-26

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/talk-heathen--3195702/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What else could it be? Seems like such a harmless question,
but if you listen for it, you can find statements
like this popping up all over in theists arguments for God.
The problem with statements like this is that they're very
often used as cover for fallacious reasoning, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Sometimes it's an argument for ignorance fallacy, Sometimes it's the
God of the gaps, and sometimes it's just plain old

(00:20):
unreasonable bias or equivocation. Does your argument for God ask
what else could it be? Or maybe you've heard someone
else make an argument that includes this appeal. In either case,
we would love to put those arguments under the microscope
and examine them together. Give us a call at Talk Heathen.
We have operators standing by and the show is starting
right now.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yes, outstanding, outstanding. Hello, everybody. Today is Sunday, October twenty sixth,
twenty twenty five, and I am your host, Jimmy Junior.
This is Talk Hethen. You know what time it is,
It's one pm Central. You could be a church, but
here with us and we're hoping to get a call
from you. If you are a believer. We do have
callers on the line and callers, please stick with us.

(01:06):
We're gonna be bringing you up shortly. But like I said,
I am your host today, Jimmy Junior. I am joined
by the whiz Kid, the master of mathematics, my good
friend Scott Dickie Scott, how the heck are you?

Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'm doing good, Jimmy, I'm doing good. Haven't seen it
and we haven't. We haven't shared the screen for quite
a while, and so I'm excited to get back into
it here with you today.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah excellent. I am super thrilled that I not only
get to work with you today, So there. I think
the gods of scheduling have made sure that they they
recoup what they've taken from us, right, and so we
are not only on today, but at the end of
next month or at the end yeah, at the end
of next month as well. So it'll be part two.

(01:47):
For any callers who want to call Jimmy and Scott
and chat with us. You get not one, but two
opportunities if the conversation needs to get cut.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
So bring bring your a game, Bring your a game.
We're ready for you.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
Talk.

Speaker 2 (01:59):
Heithan is a live call and show. We have open
lines right now, so get your calls in at five
one two nine nine four two from your computer at
tiny dot CC forward slash call thh and on this show,
we're open to all of your questions regarding religion, secular humanism,
atheistic morality, cosmology, philosophy, science, history, life, the universe, et cetera.

(02:21):
But today, specifically, we are hoping to talk about how
God is the conclusion when considering where the universe came
from and how life started, especially when we have no
reason to really conclude anything, let alone or to.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Even consider that as an option. Yeah for sure, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Yeah, you know. And actually, Scott, I think it was
you that I was hosting with the first time something
this came or when you and I first hosted together
something like this came up, and you said this to
the caller, Wait a minute, how did God even get
on your list of outcomes?

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Right's it?

Speaker 2 (02:54):
You've got this list of outcomes, but how did God
get on the list? And I thought that was an excellent,
excellent way of asking that caller to make that leap
right show us show your work. As as my good
friend Scott would say, the math the mathematician is, so folks,
please get to yeah right, chime in, give us a call,
let us know your thoughts. The Atheist Community of Austin

(03:15):
produces talk Ethan. We are a five oh one c
three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking,
secular humanism, the separation of religion and government. Very important,
my favorite one. And so Scott and I don't just
show up and things work out magically.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Takes awesome. If that how that's how life worked, that'd
be so cool.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Well, it's it's not how my life has worked.

Speaker 4 (03:39):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
Not to say that I'm complaining, but uh, I have
always needed support. It takes a village. It takes a village,
and we're going to show our village today.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
Here's our village.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
The crew, Thank you, video audio.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
Modern, beautiful, awesome, damns.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
Everybody chiming in. Yeah, look at them all, Look at
them all.

Speaker 5 (04:00):
Man.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
That makes me feel good. I'm actually motivated. You know,
I wasn't motivated. I saw I saw that Scott was on,
and I was like, eh, I'm just kidding, just kidding.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
I was super I appreciate you putting up with me, Jimmy.
You know, it's it's it's part of the package. You know,
it's the deal, right, it's what you signed up for.
So sometimes you get high ball strikes and gutters, right,
strikes and gutters.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, I don't know how I can say something like
that when I just gave you such high praise.

Speaker 5 (04:24):
I do.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
I do default to the high praise for sure. Okay,
And so yes, we've got our crew. We've got our
excellent guest host today, Scott Kelly Laughlin is in the background, folks.
He will save the day if we have a technical problem.
But right now, what we are going to do is
go to our first caller and I am going to
talk to Donald from Louisiana. And actually, Donald, you are

(04:49):
calling back to pick up a conversation that you have
previously had with Scott. So why don't you go ahead
let us know what it is that you want to
talk about, and I'll let Scott chime in.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
Yes, just continuing from before, I'm trying to lay out
basic arguments that some ideas are prescriptive, not just merely descriptive.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
Okay, yeah, So can you can you just give us
a little quick, little recap of our discussion last time, because,
by the way, I'm so excited that you called back.
It was so it was so cool. So I appreciate that,
so thank you for that. But last time I was
on Donald, you and I talked a little bit. I
was talking about how the concepts of mathematics can be

(05:32):
seen as at least a descriptive and that there we
don't necessarily make that next step to prescriptive. And you
had some arguments, and you gave me some homework, and
I have to admit to you that I have failed
you in doing your homework, although in my own defense,
you asked me to read the Critique of Pure Reason
by CONTs in the last month, and that that was

(05:53):
a little bit too much for me. I did order
the cliff Notes version of it, but I did not
get a chance to look it over. So I'll apologize
in advance that I have failed in doing my homework.
But maybe you can, you can bring us up to speed.
So what do you want to add to our discussion
from last time?

Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yes, I wanted to lay out an argument, that is
ideas that some ideas in mathematics and other things are
pretty scriptive. And from the conversation before, I was like
I was laying out a possible interpretation of God that
could that could exist and just and trying to lay

(06:35):
that out. And one of the major things I was
relying on is ideas of the transcended forms in synthetic
abriori knowledge. And you contested that there that there isn't
any synthetic abriori knowledge, that all knowledge are like you

(06:57):
get from inter acting with empiricism and your senses and that,
and that all of math and science is just merely
descriptive and that's why. And I was arguing, like the
fact that math works so well and it's so ordered,
Well you were arguing, well, obviously it's obvious that it

(07:18):
works because we're merely interacting it with it with our uh,
with our senses and our reason to then explain it,
and we're just noticing basically patterns, and and you brought
up you brought up stuff of like counting stones and

(07:38):
like the gravitation gravitational coefficient and things like that.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Well, well, let's let's cut to the chase here. I mean, yeah,
that is a pretty good summary of what we were
talking about. My my point was saying that when people
come on and say, how could math so perfectly describe
the universe? And and you know what I was saying
about that is well, of course it does. We developed
math by observing the universe, and so math is a

(08:07):
We use math as a description of the universe as
a way of describing relationships between different quantities and values
that we that we experience, uh, you know, from day
to day. And so we we observe those patterns and
those those relationships and those connections.

Speaker 3 (08:23):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
And then when we go then when we go out
and look at something new, and we say, hey, that
perfectly matches these patterns that I've that I've been talking about.
But my point was that the patterns were created as
a description of what we saw, so we shouldn't be
surprised that that it does happen to match things that
we see, and you know, because that's the way it was.

(08:44):
If we if we write up a description of an apple,
for example, like apples are read. I think that was
the example I used, and then we go out and
we find wait a minute, what's making all these apples read?
We said, we said before that apples were read? So
now how does the apple know to be I'm read?
And so that's the difference then between a descriptive analysis
and prescriptive analysis. Are we merely observing a pattern and

(09:08):
then describing it, or is there something forcing nature to
and maybe forcing is a little too strong of a word,
but something that is prescribing something directing the nature behind that.
And so do you have a reason for us to
believe that math is more than just descriptive. I'm open

(09:29):
to the possibility that math that some concepts that are
described in mathematics are in fact prescriptive. I don't see
any reason for making that leap though, right we develop
it as a description, and we know that things that
are descriptive could also be prescriptive. And that's the connection
that I'm looking to find out today. So do you

(09:51):
do you have anything on those lines?

Speaker 3 (09:53):
Yes, I have. I have a list of I have
an argument here. It's a couple of andes in some
But okay, but before I do that, since could I
could I just summarize con arguments before I go on that,
because I'm kind of relying a little bit on that.

(10:15):
So so okay. So Kan basically agrees with Locke that
human cognition starts when the senses are affected by objects.
The senses provide intuitions immediate awareness of experience without sensory stimulation,

(10:40):
the mind would have no context to uh, no content
to think about so so. And the next premise he
starts to differ with Locke is, but not all knowledge
arises from experience. Some judgments or are a prior necessary

(11:02):
and universal, not derived from specific experiences versus empirical, like
a posterior or a judgment never be necessary, like experience
only tells what is, not what must be. Yet we
do have necessary knowledge in some things like mass, for example,

(11:25):
the law of non contradiction, or ideas. He argues, some
ideas of about triangles are are uh are necessary, but
that the problem You can bring up a problem of
his things on like the one eighty degrees of triangles
only works in a flat plane, But he did he

(11:47):
didn't have that mathematics at the time, But and and there,
and then his third premise is like their exit is
necessary and universal judgments synthetic abriori, like seven plus five
equals twelve is not derived simply from just counting pebbles.

(12:07):
It is known necessary and universally. He basically argues, you're
not going to find a patch of space where all
of a suddenly you take seven seven of a thing
and plus twelve of a plus five of the thing
and not equal twelve. It's it's necessary and universal.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
Universal does not necessarily mean necessary by the way, I
can we agree with that that's something that is logically necessary,
is more than just universal, right, because something that for example,
you know, all of the Scott Dickies in the universe
right now are sitting right, that doesn't that doesn't logically
entail that there if there's some other Scott Dickey in

(12:51):
the universe, that they must be sitting. And so we
want to make the judge. We want to make the
leap from things that we that we observe, even in
the case of universals, and I would I would also
posit in there that we're making some assumptions too, that
that seven plus five equals twelve throughout the universe. I
think that's a reasonable assumption, but it is in fact

(13:12):
an assumption.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
Okay, Yes, you can argue that we're using our reason
we're using our reasoning, and we're using this and we're
using inductive logic that every single case we have ever
seen seven plus five equals twelve. And you could argue
that maybe if somewhere seven plus five didn't equal twelve,

(13:35):
maybe we just won't be able to comprehend it. You
could argue that's a possibility.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
But so may I interject for a moment? May I
interject for a moment before before we get on the
topic or off topic in a sense that we're starting
to consider what ifs. I would just like to ask you, Donald,
what is your claim that you're making. You've given us
these three premises, you wanted to kind of talk about

(14:01):
how those provide the foundation for what you called to
talk about today, and I think that you are edging
towards saying that because not all knowledge comes from experience,
that there must be some other thing providing that knowledge,
and that knowledge is what That's where I feel like
this is going. And so i'd like you to maybe summarize,

(14:25):
wrap up your premises, connect them, and give us your claim.

Speaker 3 (14:28):
Okay, well, okay, I had Okay, I was kind had
three more after this, but so I think.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
You gave a good introduction and I think I know
where you're going. I don't really need to hear any
more from Kant I would. I would really like to
know what it is that Donald is wanting to talk about.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
Okay, Well, I was going to then go on to
my own argument and try to I'm trying. I'm trying
to show that there there necessarily has to be a prescriptive,
prescriptive knowledge, and then from that I would then from

(15:12):
that that was the base argument to try to then
to try to then support my conjecture about a possible
interpretation of God that could work. From the previous conversation, so.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
What do you mean by prescriptive knowledge? What do you
mean by you mean? I mean, knowledge itself is just
it's a it's a content, it's you know, content in
our own minds, Okay. And so when you say prescriptive knowledge,
you mean like a law of the universe that is
prescriptive that we know about. Or I mean, how can
knowledge itself be prescriptive in that? In that manner, I

(15:47):
think I might just be missing that connection there.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
Maybe I shouldn't have said knowledge. Maybe I should have
said we have knowledge about prescriptive ideas like the law
of non contradiction in some kind of concepts of space
and time. That that's another. That's another one of con
premises is that we have to have a synthetic a
priori knowledge because we have concepts of space and time,

(16:11):
and if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to make
sense of our of our senses.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
So let's use that law of non contradiction. That's something
that's fairly not controversial to you know. Law of non
contradiction just says that a statement can't be both true
and false in the same way at the same time. Right,
is that what we're talking about? Yes, okay, And so
you're saying that that is something that is molding the
way the universe is and unfolds and so forth, and

(16:39):
so how can we h I could I could easily
say that we have observed that kind of thing, and
that we we want we see things happening. We see
we look at a duck, right, and we see that
the duck is white, and and we we know that
the duck is not not white. And so by by
doing that, we can come to conclusion based off of
our observation that's thing can't be the thing and not

(17:01):
the thing at the same time, in at the same way.
And so from there we we notice a pattern, and
then we make generalizations, and then we make the assumption
that that is a universal truth about this universe. And
so what I'm asking you is, how do we know
then that there's something making the universe be that way.

Speaker 3 (17:21):
Okay, Well, if if you okay, if you go off
of the idea that are reasoning in our sense, in
our in our senses are relatively relatively accurate, like they
could be, they could be wrong on the stuff, but
on the on the whole, like if you if you

(17:44):
take that like seven plus five is going to equal
twelve everywhere, as long as you give that as a
core premise, then there then and you believe in the
idea of cause and effect, and then it's a proper
it's a property that these things are obeying ideas of

(18:07):
addition and of non contradiction throughout throughout all of existence
and for that and for and that's a property. So
what causes okay, what causes that property?

Speaker 2 (18:21):
So I need to I need to pick something apart
that you just said, Donald, and that is that though
that situation, those set that set of circumstances, let's just
take seven plus five or math in general, are obeying
something that adds agency to this this thing that you're
talking about, the set of circumstances that seem to be

(18:42):
universal and seem to be true all over are obeying
something and that speaks to the premise of what Scott
and I wanted to talk about today, which is, you know,
how do you take the leap to add agency to
the structure of the universe. It could just be that
the this is the way that it works, because it's

(19:02):
the way that it works. Seven plus five is always twelve,
and it is that way because the universe is built
on certain tools or excuse me, certain a certain structure
that allows it to exist, but built as a matter
of coming about and not as a matter of design
or as a matter of obeying something that is out there.

(19:23):
That is forcing and again maybe forcing, you know, to
echo Scott, maybe forcing is a little bit a little
bit much. But dictating determining that that's the way that
the universe operates. We have a set of rules, we
have physics. We know that things operate the way that
they do, and this is the situation that we are
all in. But there's no way of determining, at least

(19:45):
to my knowledge, there is something making that happen, and
rather it is something that has just developed. And so
that's where that's what I'm getting from you. I wonder
if you can just reflect on that.

Speaker 4 (19:55):
Okay, Well, okay, I I would say, okay, these are
two separate arguments, because first.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
I do believe, I do believe there is prescriptive knowledge,
and there is and there is a cause of it.
But I'm making this for I was making this for
another argument of that that cause could be conscious and

(20:28):
and have it and make decisions. Now that is another lead.
That's a separate argument. But first tackling the smaller thing
that that there is something just causing it.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
That's a pretty big smaller thing, by the way.

Speaker 2 (20:44):
Yeah, and I forgive me Donald, and thank you for
you know, Hey, look I asked you, I gave you
my interpretation because I want you to clarify, So thank you.
But I'm not I'm not so sure that they're all
that different. Something's causing it and then that thing conscious.
I mean, there there's a difference there. But either way,

(21:04):
you're taking a leap. And I just want to know,
you know, how do you get to the point where
you can determine that there there is something causing it?
That is I guess, uh, the dictator, the dictator of
the circumstances that we're in. That's that's basically it. And
to be honest with you, I don't know if you
don't mind, Donald, I don't know that I picked up

(21:27):
your definition of prescriptive knowledge. I'm so a little fuzzy there.

Speaker 3 (21:31):
Okay, okay, well, for well, first I was talking about
anthetic afriy or I knowledge, which is it's knowledge that
it's not like you can know it prior without using
any of your senses. You can come to it through

(21:51):
pure reasoning. And but it's not just like true by definition,
like a a bad is an unmarried man. That's that's
true by definition. It's synthetic because it adds to the
it adds to the concept like you can take the
rules of a of a trap of trying angles and

(22:14):
then you can and then you can reason that they're
going to be one hundred and eighty degrees assuming the
planet is flat. Uh, you can you can get that. There.

Speaker 1 (22:24):
We're still straying. We're still straying. Okay, I want let's
let's try focusing on your concrete example. You said you
mentioned the law of contradiction, and I'm really happy that
Jimmy brought up the pointed out that the word that
you use to obey. Okay, So if we have the
law of non contradiction. Like I said, it's rather non
controversial to accept that this is true. And so how

(22:46):
do how do you make that jump from the law
of contradiction is a description of the universe versus the
law of contradiction is the universe obeying prescriptions that are
laid out for it to follow. How do how do
we make that jump? How do we how do we
determine what that cause is? What's the nature of that cause?
What to the extent is that cause happening? How do

(23:08):
we know that something's forcing the universe to obey this law?

Speaker 3 (23:11):
Okay? I okay, I would say to meaningly assert something exists,
there must be at least the concept of that thing.
Like when you talk, you're referencing something, right, Only contradictions
like a square circle failed to reference anything since they

(23:33):
negate their own possibility. Can we agree on this that? Okay?

Speaker 1 (23:38):
So well, no, I mean you can describe something and
that thing doesn't exist.

Speaker 3 (23:42):
Yeah, all right.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
I could describe lots of things that don't exist as
a concept.

Speaker 6 (23:47):
Okay, all right, So exists as a as a concept? Okay,
So if you get a if you get a concept
that that like a like a rule or axiom that.

Speaker 3 (24:02):
Is seems to be seems to be universal, and you
can and in any in any thought of and any
thought thought out of it not not uh not following
that like it contradicts itself, like you try to, you
try to think of a way it's it can't exist.

(24:24):
Every single time you you do, it negates itself and
disobeys the law of non contradiction. And assuming our ideas
of like our senses are relatively true, that uh, that
we have this, we have this order, and the universe

(24:46):
obeys these these physical laws, I'm arguing that that the
concept at least has to connect to some to to
some to some cause that is, uh, that makes all
of these universal properties. If we if we agree that
cause and effect exists, and we agree that there we

(25:09):
have this universal concept that every way we think about
it seems to be necessary. Then and we and we
take that our reasoning and our senses are matching up
with real with reality, then I'm that I'm saying our
concept in some in some form is connected to a

(25:30):
a universal that is that causes the effect of these
properties that the universe is obeying.

Speaker 2 (25:37):
Okay, Uh, I want to point out a few things.
So again, we're we're we're stuck on obeying, right, We're
stuck on obeying. We're adding agency to this problem, which
is a little bit of a problem to maybe the obeying. Well,
well maybe well listen adhering to that's fine, But you're
saying some things that make your argument makes sense without

(26:00):
explaining those things. So, for example, you're saying, well, if
we can rely on our senses, that's a problem because
we can't always rely on our senses. Okay, I don't
know that. Maybe some of the things I'm exp seeing, hearing,
et cetera, the things that my brain is processing are
actually the way or processing the way that they exist

(26:23):
in actuality. So if we're relying on the reliability of
our senses, that could be a problem too. You're saying,
we have to assume that our senses are true. Well,
we shouldn't be making any assumptions. Okay, we should be
able to connect all of the pieces to this argument
and make them work without skipping over any steps. And
when we make assumptions, we've got an intelligence gap there,

(26:46):
and that gap in intelligence needs to be filled in.
What we can't do is take the idea that there
could be some being out there and stick it in
that gap. What we need to do is use the
same methods that we do for determining everything else and
apply it to that intelligence gap. And that would bring

(27:06):
me to the point where we are basically just saying, look,
everything has a cause. There must be a cause for
the universe. Therefore that cause is probably God or it
is God. And that is a problem for me because
that is not how we test anything else. And why
does the intelligence gap there get a pass? Why do

(27:27):
we get to give God a pass on meeting those
standards that we use for everything else. And so I'll
allow you to respond p certify here.

Speaker 3 (27:37):
Okay, okay, Just to be clear this, I haven't got
into the argument for possible interpretation of God, but I
do not. Just to be clear, I do not believe
that my argument after this for God is the most
likely it's the most likely to be true. I just

(28:00):
think it's a possibility. But but but I don't believe
eve is is the most My argument after this is
the most uh the most likely argument to be true.
I'm not I'm not trying to argue that God has
to exist here. I am trying to argue that there

(28:23):
is a there is a uh, there is a set
of arguments that could be true. And it's the difference
between like saying, oh, I'm I'm an atheist and I think, uh,
the arguments of God are less likely than these arguments,

(28:45):
versus I'm an atheist and I and I it disprove
that I I prove the negative that God cannot exist.
Those are two things.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
Confused as to what conclusion I'm supposed to come to
when you are presenting prescriptive knowledge as being an axiom
and that something out there is causing that prescriptive knowledge
to be axiomatic in the way that the universe works.
So what let's establish that that is what you are

(29:20):
trying to posit here? Where does that then bring us?

Speaker 3 (29:23):
Okay, well, okay, if I'm gonna.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
Be honest with you, I'm not really sure. I'm still
not sure what you mean by prescriptive knowledge. Like we
have knowledge that there are things that are universally true,
we would still need to use our reasoning to come
to that conclusion. Right, So you have I haven't heard
you say anything. You started to present knocks or excuse me, knocks,
I mixed up can't and lock. You started to present

(29:49):
Kant's premises. One is that human cognition starts with the senses,
but then other knowledge does it need to be in
warmed by the senses. And I haven't really heard you
say anything yet that doesn't require senses because you're you know,
you're talking about Well, you could get information that's seven

(30:10):
plus five equals twelve, or that the three angles of
a triangle equal one hundred and eighty degrees, I would
still need to And then you say what you would
have to reason to get to those conclusions, And reasoning
is my cognition using my senses. So I'm still lost
on what prescriptive knowledge means. And I'm going to allow
you to respond, and I think I want to kick

(30:30):
it back over to Scott. Maybe he's got a better
idea of how to respond to this.

Speaker 3 (30:34):
Okay, okay, so okay. If you learn to count with
let's say, as growing up, you learn to count with
pebbles and stuff, and then you get the idea of, oh,
here's one pebble, here's two pebbles and stuff, you don't
have to you don't have to count five plus five

(31:00):
pebbles and seven pebbles and get twelve. You you abstracted
the idea of numbers and sets in your mind, and
you can come to you can on to the conclude
conclusion as long as you have the as long as
you accept the few axioms.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Sure, sure, yeah, that's fine, Donald, But what you're describing
is not what your conclusion is claiming. Okay, so we know, yeah,
we don't. We haven't counted. We haven't done every possible
addition problem that exists. Obviously not there's that would be
an infinite number of possibilities, and we don't, you know,
we just don't have the time to do that kind
of thing. My point though, and this is something we

(31:42):
talked about last time. Even if I'm abstracting, you know,
I do, in fact learn how to add things by
using objects. Two apples and three apples gives me five apples,
et cetera. But from there we develop a pattern. The pattern.
Learning the pattern is also so based off of our observation. Yeah,
our observation tells us two plus three is five. Yeah,

(32:05):
our observation tells us one plus one is two. Yeah,
our observation tells us five plus seven is twelve or whatever.
But then on top of that, we observe that Hey,
when I do addition, this is how the answers turn out,
and so we noticing the pattern doesn't mean we're not
basing it off of our observations. It means we're basing
it off of abstractions that we made based off of observations.

(32:29):
It was our observation that supported that abstraction. But even
if we consider all of that, it seems to me,
and maybe I'm not maybe it's just not connecting for me.
It seems that you're arguing for versality and then jumping
to the conclusion that it's a prescripted universality. Okay, just
because things always turn out one way does not necessarily

(32:51):
imply that there's something making those things turn out that way.
And that's the connection. I want. We keep bringing up
new examples, I would like it if we could stick
to the one that you brought up first, the law
of non contradiction. I want you to tell me. I
want you to give me lay out your argument. Why
do you think that the law of non contradiction is

(33:11):
being enforced from without on the universe or as opposed
to it's just the way things work. How can we
make that jump? That's the connection that that we were
missing last time, and I still don't see a connection
happening here. You know, we can the what once. Once
you've determined that it is pre you know, being forced

(33:33):
that way or being indicated that way, or being directed
that way, then we can talk about well, what's doing
that prescription? Okay, but you still have to make you
still have to show me that there's a prescriptive thing
happening here, that's something is being imposed from without, and
that's the connection I missed last time, and I want
to hear that now. So I'll give you some time
to kind of go with that.

Speaker 3 (33:54):
Okay, Well, what do you mean by it? It just
it just works? Because I didn't say it works if
it is, I mean, okay.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
Just how do you how do you determine that it
just doesn't happen that way or that it was being
enforced to happen that way?

Speaker 3 (34:11):
Okay? Well if okay, do you you grant the idea
of like cause and effect? Right? I will?

Speaker 1 (34:19):
I will go along with you with that assumption. Yes,
that cause and effect is a thing. Okay, it's an assumption,
I'm but I'm I'm willing to grant you that assumption.

Speaker 3 (34:28):
Yes, Okay, well if if you're if you're saying, uh,
things are this way and it and there, and if
they're you, if they're universally that this way just it happening,
it happening by some by just random chance, that it

(34:52):
is that way.

Speaker 1 (34:53):
I never said random. I never said random.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
Okay, Okay, well then I don't. I'm I'm trying to
understan and I'm saying, we have a universal property, and
we believe in cause and effect, So what causes? So
what causes that property? And I don't and I don't
under I'm supposing that there is a cause that makes

(35:19):
that happen, and you're from what I'm understand, you're trying
to have me.

Speaker 1 (35:28):
I wants you to show that there has to be
a single cause, or that there has to be a
cause that's enforcing that from without. I'm saying, we watch
the universe, we see that some things are universal and
some things are not. Would you agree with me on that? Yes, okay,
so some things are universal, some things are not. We
look at the universal things and you say, something must
have made them to be universal. How do you come

(35:49):
to that conclusion? Couldn't it be just that there are
the universe turns out a particular way. We look at
the things that are universal and we call them universal.
We look at the things that are not universal, and
we call them not universal. What you're saying is there's
something else that is being that is dictating how the
universe unfolds, and you're you're still not making that connection.

(36:11):
You're getting if the thing, yeah, yeah, something is causing
the behavior, but the thing that's causing the behavior could
just be the universe, the universe just behaving. There are
some things that are universal. We call them universal. We
don't say, oh that that that there. We don't make
the assumption that there's something making them to be that way.
That's a very risky and fallacious way of approaching things,

(36:33):
and that's very non scientific. Science. Science is observational. Science
is descriptive. Now we can then go on to make
a case for uh, you know, cause and effect and
that kind of thing, but that's a separate issue. You're
saying that there's something outside of the universe making the
universe be the way that it is.

Speaker 3 (36:51):
Okay, okay, okay, if you're saying the universe, if you're
saying the universe is being that way, it has this
it has this property? Where where does that come from?
And then you keep on reducing down and then you
get to concepts of space and time and and like

(37:16):
and quantum information. If you my my point is, if
you keep on reducing things, reducing things down about the
about the universe, it seems it's you could argue, it's
just it's all just conceptual, that it's just it's just

(37:37):
in our our mind. But the but the but the
fact that it's it seems to keep it seems to
reduce down to these to these seemingly necessary concepts. I'm
I'm arguing there there and that it seems to go

(37:57):
down to information.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
Are you asking me what else can it be? Did
you hear my my cold open for the show today?
Are you saying it's got to be something? What else
could it be?

Speaker 3 (38:08):
That?

Speaker 4 (38:08):
Why?

Speaker 1 (38:09):
What else could explain why the universe turned out this way?

Speaker 3 (38:12):
Right?

Speaker 1 (38:12):
Is that what you're saying it had to be something?

Speaker 3 (38:15):
No? Well, I'm not. I see the fallacy and that
in that logic I'm trying to I'm trying to get
get to. If you, if you keep on reducing things
and infinitum, I.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
You which is not what I did?

Speaker 3 (38:34):
I will oh Okay, then, well.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
Well didn't reduce anything. I just said maybe the universe
just happened to be that way.

Speaker 3 (38:41):
Well, what do you mean to just happen to be
that way? That doesn't seem to follow the cause and
effect that it just happens.

Speaker 1 (38:49):
Things can be causing without being caused from outside. If
I drop a ball, it, yeah, gravity makes it fall.
But there's not something outside of the universe saying that
ball we got, we got, we got, somebody released a ball.
Let's check the check the rules here it says the
ball has to fall, all right, make the ball fall
according to the gravity. That's what you're saying is happening.
You're saying that there's something outside of the universe that's

(39:12):
dictating the rules of the game. Here. What I'm saying
is if we observe that a ball falls when we
let it go, we can say balls fall when we
let them go. What you're saying is there's pixies making
the ball fall, or you know, somebody pushing it down
or something like that.

Speaker 2 (39:26):
That I.

Speaker 1 (39:28):
Didn't say that literally, but you're implying that. You use
the word to obey multiple times, and I'm not saying
that you're trying to sneak something in intentionally. But I'm
saying that that's your mindset at this point. You're saying
that there's you're saying, well, you're to be fair, You're
saying that it's a possible explanation, right, And so what
I want to know is why should we assume that
possibility rather than just you know, considering it a possibility

(39:51):
rather than something that's happening.

Speaker 3 (39:53):
Okay, I'm I'm trying to get.

Speaker 2 (39:58):
To so Donald, this has been this has been a
good conversation. Okay. I appreciate that you have called back
and continue your conversation with Scott. I will say that
Scott will be on again on November twenty third, And
we've covered some ground here, and I think you're at
a point where you know you're ready to move further

(40:20):
into your argument. So why don't you take the next
few weeks to kind of come up with what your
argument is going to be and give Scott a call back.
I want to leave you with a couple of things.
When Scott says, and Scott, forgive me, I'm gonna I'm
gonna speak for you, I'm gonna tempt to. But when
Scott says, you're assuming pixies. You know, pixies are just
as likely as any other thing that we can come

(40:41):
up with, because we don't know. And that's where you
have the responsibility to say, no, actually it's this, it's
this thing and not the pixies.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
Right.

Speaker 2 (40:50):
Otherwise, pixies are credible if we're going to use the
logic that you're using, and then you know the terms,
obey the terms, assume these are problems for the argument,
all right, And so with that, I want to leave
you and say thank you very much for giving us
a call. This has been outstanding. You were a great
caller on the last call, you were a great caller today,

(41:13):
and I really appreciate your involvement with us and your
willingness to engage with us. So I'm going to bid
you ado and Scott and I are going to move on.
We do have other callers on the line, So thank
you very much. Donald, Scott. Anything to wrap up there
before we move on.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
No, I think I think you put a bow on
that nicely. Donald. Again, I really appreciate the fact that
you called. I do hope we get a chance to
talk again, and I'll try to do some more of
my homework in the meantime.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, hey, Donald Scott bought a book for you.

Speaker 1 (41:43):
I mean, holy smokes, this guy, this summary, This guy Scott.

Speaker 2 (41:49):
You are dedicated. You are dedicated, and I appreciate that.
All right, So what we're going to do right now,
I think we got some super chats to do to
talk about. We're going to talk to another caller. I
thought we had some super chats come in where the
super jets go. Cru will help us with that, CREU
will help us with that. But actually what we can do.

(42:12):
What we can do is remind all of our viewers
that Talk Heathen is available on Patreon, and so I
want everybody to know that if you are a Patreon member,
you get exclusive access to our recordings from our Talk
Heathen live segments we do Tuesdays at three pm Central
and Thursdays at seven pm Central, And so as it

(42:35):
goes right now, either I on Thursdays or Richard Gilliver,
our producer on Tuesdays, we'll be hosting an hour to
two hour long session where we're taking calls on TikTok
or excuse me, we're engaging with the audience on TikTok
and those episodes actually get shared to our Patreon and
all of our Patreon subscribers get to access those. So
definitely check us out on TikTok, just check us out

(42:56):
talk ethen and definitely check us out on Patreon. And
with that, I think it's time to move to our
second caller.

Speaker 1 (43:04):
Absolutely, we are going to we are.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
Going to go to Lease. I think I'm saying that right,
but Lise can correct me when she comes up. Lise,
what is up? You are on with Scott and Jimmy.
How can we help you? Hey, Lise, I can't really
hear you. Scott. Are you getting audio on that?

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Yeah? I hear. I hear an attempt, but I can't
really understand you Lese.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
Yeah, Lise, got some mumbling in the background, but nothing clear.
Can you fix your your audio real quick?

Speaker 5 (43:32):
Okay? Can you hear me better?

Speaker 4 (43:34):
Much better?

Speaker 3 (43:35):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (43:35):
There you are? All right?

Speaker 2 (43:36):
So am I saying your name right?

Speaker 3 (43:37):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (43:38):
Excellent? Okay, So what did you want to talk to
us about today?

Speaker 5 (43:42):
Well, I'm an atheist and I was online and there
was this God debate and they said the claim of
the theist was that atheism is irrational, and I'm wondering,
like what you guys would think of that claim because

(44:03):
I'm not sure. Like, I'm not saying that their religion
is rational. I just just think like my perspective, I
guess is that I can't prove to you that there
isn't a god. But based on the claims the said
person has made, I have doubts that that their reality

(44:24):
is factual.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
Scott, I'd like to deflect to you on matters of rationality.
I have an understanding, well, I have an understanding of rationality,
but I know that that is a concept that is
applied in mathematics, and I just want to give I
want to give you the opportunity.

Speaker 1 (44:39):
Sure. Well, the first thing I would say is atheism
can be irrational. If I don't believe in any gods
because my dog told me not to, then i'm i'm
I'm I'm I mean, I'm an atheist due to irrational reasons,
for for poor reasons. And so when when it talks
about rationality, we're talking about is it well supported? Okay, Now,

(45:00):
atheism depending on how you present it. Most of us
here at the ACA, when we talk about atheism, what
we mean is we don't believe that a god has
been demonstrated to be true, or we don't believe that
it's been justified the existence of that God has been
justified with good reasons. Now you can also there are
other people, including many theists, that define the word atheism

(45:23):
as somebody who makes the assertion that there is no God. Okay,
And so whether or not a claim is rational depends
on is it well supported by supporting evidence and argument.
And so if you tell somebody that you don't believe
that there's a God and they're calling you irrational, then
all you have to ask them is, Okay, what's the evidence?
And I see that you did make a brief comment

(45:45):
on there, but what did you try that? Did you say,
what's the evidence for God? And what did they say?

Speaker 2 (45:51):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (45:52):
I did ask that and they said, well, the Bible,
And I'm like, well, you can't. The Bible is not
a historical document, not a scientific document either. That's not
credible evidence.

Speaker 3 (46:03):
But that's that's the.

Speaker 5 (46:05):
Only that's that's what they say every time. Oh, the well,
the Bible, the Bible. And I'm just sorry.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
So now we've just shifted the conversation, which is fine.
So now what they're saying is that I'm basing my
belief in God on the Bible. Okay, So now we'll
set aside the God question for now, and we'll say, okay,
why do you think the Bible should be believable? Now,
if somebody is explaining to you why they think the
Bible is believable, they shouldn't also then assume that there's

(46:31):
a God. If they assume that the Bible comes from
a God, they have to assume a God exists, which
was supposedly their conclusion that they're trying to support. So
that's very vulnerable to circular reasoning in that regard. But
if they if they say the Bible and then like
they that's a mic drop moment for them. Okay, now
tell me, let's do that now. Next step, what's what?

(46:51):
What do you why do you believe the Bible is
good evidence? And you can take it from there, right, Jimmy,
what are your thoughts on that?

Speaker 2 (46:57):
I have thoughts at least tell me tell me what
you think about that, and then I have something deposit
as well, which isn't that much different, to be honest
with you.

Speaker 5 (47:05):
Okay, Well, I tried using I tried using their their
arguments in a different way. I said well, I believe
in leprechauns because I've read Celtic folklore and then you know,
they elapsed, and I thought, do you not see the
irony in that? Like, you know, it's just, uh, you know,
it's the same rationale.

Speaker 2 (47:26):
But it absolutely is. And so so for something to
be rational, it has to be considered in a calculated
manner within an existing framework that sets somebody up to
be able to make decisions based on that framework. For example,
and a very complex, uh talking point in explaining rationality, uh,
would be suicide bombers. Right, So let's take an Islamic

(47:48):
fundamentalist suicide bomber. Is a suicide bomber fund excuse me?
Is a suicide bomber rational? And so the the consensus
there is, yeah, suicide bomber is rational because they make
calculated decisions based on a framework that is presented to
them in which they will obtain something after completing certain steps.
And so so that calculated mindset is rational. However, what

(48:11):
you would then need to do, and like Scott said,
you got to you gotta take it to the next
step and show them why the framework is based on
something that's actually irrational, And that would be the the
events of the Qur'an, for example, or the events the
the big picture of the Bible that really is not

(48:31):
based on logic, reasoning or something calculated. For example, a
talking serpent, right, a talking serpent, the story about a
talking serpent does not reflect any kind of reality that
any human being can possibly experience. Uh. And so to
consider that irrational process like a snake talking, that's that's irrational,

(48:55):
that is outside of the bounds that the universe has
provided for us. But to write a book that instructs
you to live your life based on a set of
rules that developed from that talking snake, you can be
rational by following those rules. It's just that the foundation
of your rationality can actually be questioned. And so what
we would then need to do is show them the

(49:19):
error in that foundation, and you did the right thing.
I think that making an adjacent claim of leprechauns based
on folklore is absolutely it could be presented as rational
and absolutely a good comparison, because if you're going to
believe in the Bible, then why not believe in all
of these other frameworks that are provided by a similar

(49:40):
deity or set of circumstances. That is, where you have
the real argument. Okay, not necessarily the way that they
live their life and the rules that they follow, but
how those things developed, and I think, and why one
is better than the other. And I think that that
boils down to just having a knowledge of that development.

(50:01):
I think, I'm I think I'm flailing a little bit.
I'm going on a bit of a tangent and I'm
trying not to So how does that strike you so far?

Speaker 3 (50:08):
Least?

Speaker 5 (50:08):
No, that makes sense, I guess sometimes like like I
think sometimes people have they start online debates because I
think it's just rage baited some half.

Speaker 2 (50:18):
Of the time.

Speaker 5 (50:19):
But I also think that like the way I analyze,
the way I was taught to analyze different religions is
not based on presupposional beliefs. It's kind of like taking
a ideological system and putting it kind of dissecting it
under a microscope. And you know, I can say, uh,

(50:43):
I don't know. It's sometimes it's like disingenuous when they
try to like I know that, yeah, But I also
feel like it's important that how did I say this?
It doesn't make sense to me to say to someone
and that you have to have blind obedience and not

(51:04):
question anything, and then at the same time say that
atheism is irrational. That doesn't really hold water to me.
And it's kind of like, I do want to be
able to have good faith discussions, but it sounds kind
of it sounds the reasoning that they're using is it

(51:26):
doesn't add up really, And I'm not saying that there
isn't a god. I can't prove that, but it's just
kind of I think, well.

Speaker 1 (51:35):
Let's consider your response to them when they brought this up.
You brought up your example of leprechauns, and you said
that they just laughed at me. Okay. So rather than
taking offense to that, or rather than you know, having
that rub you the wrong way and say, okay, so
you're saying that my suggestion is laughable and your suggestion
is not. Now, let's sit down together and examine both
of them, and let's figure out why one of them

(51:57):
should be laughed at and one of them should not.
You know, so really you're just breaking it down. You
want them And I say this all the time. I'm
a math teacher in my day job. Show me the
work right, show me how do you get from A
to B. I don't want just I don't want just
your conclusion, I don't want just your answer. I want
you to show me how you got there, because if
you're right, I want to be able to follow that
same path and become more right myself. And so if

(52:19):
you if you try to present your discussion more as
a mutual examination or a mutual exploration, that can take
off some of that. That can take the edge off
of some of that, you know, that confrontation, or that
you know you can point out you just laughed at
something I said. I didn't laugh at when it's something

(52:39):
you said. So let's find out what the difference is there.
And so if they if they realize that they are
being unfair to you in a way that you are
not being unfair to them, that can have an effect too.
But if you just just go down to the next level,
do do what a kid does with their parents, right,
if you answer a question or if you think you
answer a question, because that's usually what's happening when a

(53:00):
parent has talking to an annoying kid that's bothering them
with questions. They just want to get on. They don't
want to get that, they don't want to solve that problem.
And so What you can do then is just do that.
Just say okay, why is that the case? Or the
case is because X, Y and Z. Okay, well what
about this X? I don't really believe I don't accept that.
So I can't come to your conclusion because I don't
accept your premises or I don't accept your reasoning. Why

(53:22):
should I? Why should I accept what you say? Why
should I accept the Bible? Why shouldn't I laugh at you?
You laughed at what I said. Why should I not
be laughing at you? Does that make make any sense
to you?

Speaker 5 (53:32):
Yeah? Because I would like to have more good faith
kind of discussions. But at the same time, they have
to both sides have to be willing.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
To uh do kind Yeah, both sides have. It has
to you have to have a meeting of the minds, right,
and you can you can call You can say that
too before you even address what they say. You can say,
are we looking to come to an agreement here? Are
we going to explore this together?

Speaker 3 (53:56):
Are we?

Speaker 1 (53:56):
Or are we just seeing who can yell the loudest?
Because if it's the ladder thing, find you win, I'll
you know whatever, I'm gonna I'm gonna go and talk
to these other people who want to have an actual conversation,
and so, you know, lay lay the groundwork ahead of time,
say what are we going to have a conversation? Are
we going to explore this together or or what what
do you want to do? What do you want to happen?
Have happened here? Do you want a virtue signal and

(54:18):
stand up for Jesus in spite of lack of evidence
in anything that you know comes your way? Or are
you interested in finding out what's true? If they're interested
in what's finding out what's true, then that opens that
door to what exactly what you're looking for? You want
to have a good faith conversation, That's a good way
to get it started. Get them to say, yes, let's
have a good faith conversation, and then that can kind

(54:39):
of that helps with filter out some of the you know,
the confrontation and the antagonism and that kind of thing. Obviously,
it's not always going to be the case. Otherwise are
the show would have ended years ago?

Speaker 2 (54:50):
But let's get Lisa's response right.

Speaker 1 (54:53):
Sure, yes, please, I'm sorry I was wondering.

Speaker 5 (54:56):
Well, I attended back when I I guess you could
say questioning was questioning my faith. I attended a Bible
study and it was led by a sister and she
we were looking at this passage and she said, God's
rules are always good for us, even if we don't

(55:18):
agree with it, and I put my hand up and
I said, yeah, but there are rules like, for example,
like if you see someone working on the Sabbath, you
should unalloy, you should kill them, and like, we wouldn't
do that today, and she Later I was told that
my participation was inappropriate, and I was kind of like,

(55:40):
I don't understand, though it's a discussion.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
Well, I think that your experience there is what a
lot of people, especially children experience as well. Because I
grew up a Christian, and I routinely, especially when we
got to be around like thirteen, like eighth grade, saw
several students question and challenge the clergy members that were
teaching us things, me being one of them, and you know,

(56:04):
there really is no good response. In fact, I think
the reason why religion has been so successful is because
they attack and target children. They target their vulnerability, they
target their naivete and they're able to kind of get
people when they're young. It's when it's when you have
to deal with the adults they ask you to have
a meaningful conversation something of substance is where you run
into the problems and then, like like you're experiencing least,

(56:27):
you end up with adults that really have no good
reason or yeah, really no good reason to explain what
they believe and why, and so that instead they just
laugh and they shit all over the chessboard and then
they clean victory for the game. And so you really,
you know, you're not always going to find a conversation
where people want to have good faith arguments. And unfortunately,

(56:49):
when people are backed into a corner, a lot of
times they tend to lash out. This happened to me
on Thursday night talk Keathen's TikTok. I had two Christians
just gang up on me, shout over me, and I
respond in kind. I'm not too proud of myself for that.
But they kept dropping new questions, new information, diverting, deflecting,
and not wanting to engage and instead keep pointing out

(57:11):
that you know, I couldn't answer their questions when there
are questions were getting back to your point. Irrational in
my opinion, But Lise, I really appreciate you. So this
is like the second or third time you've called in
the last few weeks. I really appreciate you being here
with everybody week by week. We are actually going to
get going because we have other callers on the line,
and so I'm gonna let you close out. You can

(57:32):
just give us your parting comments and then we're gonna
move on. So what did you have to say?

Speaker 5 (57:36):
Oh, it's not a bad thing that I called more
than once?

Speaker 1 (57:39):
Is your go?

Speaker 2 (57:40):
No? No, no, no, not a bad thing for your call.

Speaker 1 (57:43):
We we Oh that's great.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
Hey, look I saw your name and was like, we
got to get to her, especially after all the time
you spent waiting. But you know, we've got some theist
callers on the line that want to talk about their beliefs,
and you know, of course talk here than being designed
that way, we are going to get to those people.
So I really appreciate you calling in. Please feel free
to call back and hang out with us again. All right,

(58:06):
have a and have a good rest of your Sunday.

Speaker 1 (58:08):
You took all right, Thank you?

Speaker 2 (58:11):
Excellent, excellent. All right, So now we are going to
go to our friend Nathaniel from Texas, who were following
up last week as well. So, uh, Nathaniel, you are
on with Jimmy and Scott. How can we help you today?

Speaker 7 (58:24):
Oh there's well, I guess I'm trying to help you guys.
If you want to talk to theists and whatnot, I
kind of want to come. And especially like some of
the complaints I heard about how religious folks treated you,
Hopefully that can be a nicer guy.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
And oh, I don't. Hey, you know what, I I
know that treatment from one person is not a reflection
of the whole group. And I appreciate you starting there.
But what's on your mind?

Speaker 7 (58:52):
Well, I mean, I mean it's really important because, like
you know, I grew up atheists basically, and it's it's
the way that religious like my experience with religious folk
that converted me to become religious. And I was mistreated
by them plenty often too. So I think, like I
mentioned Virtue when he asked me, what do you want

(59:12):
to talk about? I think, for instance, it's it's something
you guys deserve, is to be be able to talk
to people. You know, most of my peers and whatnot,
they don't they don't go out and they can't like
come onto a talk show or anything like that, and
so I just think it's something you guys deserve.

Speaker 2 (59:28):
Makes it Well, that's interesting, So why why can't they
go out or come on to a talk show.

Speaker 7 (59:33):
Well, to be honest with you, it's so like, I
just put my children to sleep. I had a long day,
I've got to I had to work today, and I
guess I've had some bad like experiences talking to people
I disagree with, particularly atheists. I have a great experience
with atheists too, and so I think I think most
people just don't want to take the time away from
their family. And I think, uh, it does seem like

(59:55):
religious folks are more they have bigger families, more obligations
in the in like the traditional community, you know what
I mean, they tend to be more close off. I
tended to want to be away from the city and
that kind of thing. So they're afraid of.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
So if you're if what you're saying is that you know,
atheists deserve to have a conversation and theists deserved it,
I think you'll find nothing but agreement on this end
of the line here. I mean, we all agree. That's
why why we have this show. We want to have
these conversations. And so yeah, I agree with you. Do
you think that, uh, there are going to be many
people that are religious that feel that they are directed

(01:00:32):
to not have those types of conversations. What would you
say to your fellow religious people that are that feel
that you are cavorting with the with the devil or
you know, you're you're violating some kind of stricture. You're
you're mixing the sheep and the goats here, right, is that?
And so there are people in your camp that do
that kind of obviously there are people that are atheists

(01:00:54):
that do that as well. But you know, as far
as I'm concerned, that's why I'm here is to have conversations.
That's why. You know, ever since I started watching Talkie
than years ago, I knew as I could, if I
want to be on a show, I want to be
on that one. And it was because of those open
conversations about thoughtful conversations, be considerate conversations. And so if
that's if that's your point here, then then I agree

(01:01:17):
with you. What would you say to your fellow theists
that disagree with you?

Speaker 7 (01:01:22):
I think it's about the virtue of prudence. I don't
I don't disagree with them. I think, uh, you know,
so I kind of come from a background where we
have our framework rather where we have structures, you know,
we have we think the men should be the ones
that are more exposed to the world, and the women
should be more protected. And also most of the men

(01:01:43):
should be more protected. Most of the men are not
equipped to deal with typical conversations. I don't even think.
I think in the normal scheme of things, I wouldn't
even be the one to go out because I need
to just be focused on my family. I think a
lot of it has to do with the way the
world's set up right now. And I actually of the

(01:02:03):
people in my church that kind of like told me,
while you should send your children out in the public school,
and you should try to evangulate your neighbors and whatnot,
I've always tried to be a good example of my neighbors.
My first duty is to my children, so I actually
agree with them that they shouldn't be going out. And
the main reason I am going out in this way,
A lot of it has to do with economic principles
and what's promoted by the economy, but also it's just

(01:02:26):
because you know, and without blaming particular people, but the
church right now is not doing a good job of this.
And people have no idea what my religion even believes.
And I can give you an example, and a lot
of people are just confused about it. You know.

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
Now, hold on, I want to stop you right there, Nathaniel,
because there are some things that you said that almost
triggered me a little bit. Okay, So for example, you know,
you believe that men should be out and more worldly
and women should be kind of in the house and protected.
But what about the women that want to go out

(01:03:02):
and live their own lives and have self determination? Why
do those women And I'm not saying that you said this,
but based on the model of Catholicism, and you are Catholic.
Based on the model of Catholicism and the rules of Christianity,
if you will that state that you know, a woman
shouldn't talk in church. A woman needs to be obedient
to her husband the same way the husband is obedient

(01:03:24):
to Jesus. The way that makes women secondary. Why do
women have to be born into a system where they
do not have equality with men? Number one?

Speaker 3 (01:03:32):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:03:32):
So that is a question, and that's not necessarily a
question for you, although you could answer that if you
want that is because I don't think that you need
me to ask you that to be prepared with an
answer for that. I think that that is a critique
of religion worldwide, across many different faiths. And that's not
some new that's not some new piece of information that
I'm giving you or a new request. Really, But to

(01:03:55):
say that you're going out in the world for economic reasons, okay,
but then there's more of a model that doesn't have
a woman going out going out to work is counterproductive,
it's contrary, and it's a little bit hypocritical. I did
a study when I studied when I was doing my
master's degree in international relations and diplomacy. You know, my

(01:04:16):
subject matter was on women and their contributions to a
country's economics status. It saw that countries that were more
religious had women that were less likely to work, and
therefore that government's or that country's economy was actually smaller.
But when you have countries that are less religious and

(01:04:38):
they've got a greater portion of their workforce comprised of women,
they actually have larger economies, particularly per capita. Right, So
the United States is, for example, you know what I'm
actually dumping on you a little bit because I'm not
giving you a chance to respond. I want to give
you a chance to respond. So what do you have
to say so far?

Speaker 7 (01:04:57):
I mean there are different parts of that kind of
like want to unpack, but I would say it has
to do with what's your what do you value? So
like I don't because because you were talking about women
and I disagreed with you, and then when you made
the switch to saying there were secondary and there was
a problem inequality. I actually think and I think that

(01:05:18):
this is exemplified in the Catholic religion of the Blessed Virgin.
I think the economy is the lowest of things that
you can devote your time to. Personally, That's what I think.
I think the highest is a pure communion with God
and anybody that is just dedicated to prayer and it's living.
The hidden life is more privileged and in a higher.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
The hidden life, you know, as far as.

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
A hidden life. In a hidden life. In a hidden life,
a woman does not have self determination over what she
can do. If a woman really wants to go out
and drive for NASCAR, or a woman wants to go
and be a college professor or a business CEO. Your
model would tell them you cannot do those things even

(01:06:03):
though you really want to. And that's the problem with
this idea that women have this special role. It's not
a role that they got a voted. How many women
have been popes, how many women were at the Council
of Nicia. None of the women did not create this system.
Yet they're told that they have to abide by it,

(01:06:24):
and they are in fact equal just as long as
you stay in the house and don't do anything.

Speaker 7 (01:06:30):
I mean, I guess it depends on where you're talking about,
Like you're talking about like a government model or are
you talking about particular.

Speaker 2 (01:06:36):
I'm talking about the Christian the model of Christianity that
says that women must obey their husbands. It is, in
my opinion, a secondary citizenship. No matter where that Catholic
institution is grounded. We could be talking about a different government,
we could be talking about a certain dioceses. It doesn't matter.

(01:06:58):
If there is a Catholic followership, and there is a
family or a group of families, or a society that
is adhering to Catholic instruction, then the women will not
be able to seek their own desires, their goals, the
things that drive them. Instead, they have to do what
men tell them. That's oppressive.

Speaker 7 (01:07:17):
So is it the obedience in general that's the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:07:22):
Like that, Nathaniel, how are you not seeing the problem
with this? Like if I told you that I have
a religion that people from Texas are not allowed to work,
they have to pray, and the people from New York
will protect them and do all of the economic things,
would you agree with that model?

Speaker 3 (01:07:39):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
Well, I don't think that you would. I don't know.
Is obviously it's a it's an incredibly convenient position for.

Speaker 7 (01:07:47):
You to take, like work for money, Like I'd still
probably be like working around the house the holes and I.

Speaker 2 (01:07:53):
Am not talking about working around the house I have
given you, nathandid all right, let me let me just
take I'm going to take a step.

Speaker 3 (01:08:00):
Look.

Speaker 1 (01:08:02):
He's pointing out a difference between a submissive and a
dominant situation. He's saying that you're not given the opportunity
to dictate certain things about your own life. He's saying
that under the religi, under many religious models, you know,
certain uh, certain populations in the community are not given
the same freedoms in the same empowerment as other groups are.

(01:08:24):
And you so you mentioned before that you you place
obedience to God as a higher standard above that type
of freedom and that type of self empowerment and that
type of self determination. And so part of the reason
that we have this show is because that's the flaw
that we want to that we want to push against.

(01:08:45):
It's I mean, I'm sure you're a nice person. I'm
sure that you're considerate. You seem to you know, to
be considering various things. But if there if you have
this religion religious concept in your mind, that is that
is forcing you to adopt these beliefs that women have
these particular roles, that men have these particular roles, et cetera.
That's destructive. History and sociology and archaeology and all kinds

(01:09:10):
of ologies are pointing to the fact that those types
of oppressive societies generally flounder, and those types that those
societies that encourage equality and and that and and and
individualism and support and that kind of thing can develop
better successes in well being, in health, in happiness, in

(01:09:32):
scientific progress, in sociological progress, all these different areas. When
we all work together and treat each other fairly regardless
of these arbitrary distinctions. It's better. It's better, don't you think.
I mean, do you see what Jimmy is trying to say?

Speaker 7 (01:09:47):
Well, I mean the thing is is like I'm real
happy to deal with you, you know, honestly, like from
my framework, from your framework mine, I think everybody should
be submissive and obedient. I think it's like a it's
a general virtue and it's distinguished by who do you obey?
And then it has certain limitation.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
So do you get to choose who you obey? Because
if that's the case, then that's not obedience.

Speaker 7 (01:10:12):
I mean, there are certain things you can do, like like,
for instance, if you're like in a parish with a
parish priest, Uh, you have a problem with leading the parish?
Would would I believe, stop you from being his subject anymore?

Speaker 3 (01:10:27):
So that's one example.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
So when you say obedience is a virtue, here you're
saying that obedience to the people that you think we
should be obedient to is a virtue. We'll see the
risk there as.

Speaker 7 (01:10:37):
Far as the people, I think the church the people
I think the church wants us to be a leadient too.

Speaker 1 (01:10:43):
Yeah, So that's your choice, that's you think you agree
with the church on that. If you disagreed, you'd be
saying something else.

Speaker 7 (01:10:49):
Yeah, definitely, that's definitely Nathaniel.

Speaker 2 (01:10:52):
Nathaniel. You said you have a family, right, correct?

Speaker 1 (01:10:55):
All right?

Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
You have children?

Speaker 3 (01:10:56):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (01:10:57):
Do they play your children?

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
Okay? Do your children play sports or have any kind
of hobbies?

Speaker 7 (01:11:03):
They're very young? My oldest is four, Okay, so I
mean I would I don't they do different activities of them?

Speaker 2 (01:11:09):
Tell forgive me, forgive me for being graphic. Okay, your
son is my son is almost four. My son just
started soccer. Would you enroll your son? Would you enroll
your son or your oldest? Excuse me, uh in a
soccer camp where the coaches routinely molest children?

Speaker 3 (01:11:28):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
Okay? Why do you bring your children to Catholic.

Speaker 7 (01:11:31):
Church because my priest doesn't routinely molest children?

Speaker 2 (01:11:34):
Oh okay, But you do agree that you do agree
that in Catholicism child molestation is a problem, a rampant
problem that it has and it has been since its inception.
That's the rumor that is proven by that is proven,
that is proven by independent Christian groups. All right, there

(01:11:54):
was a study done and I'm going to look it up.
Actually I'm not going to do it right now, but
I am going to drop the link in this episode's comments.
So anybody watching now and you, Nathaniel, can go back
and look at it. Hold on, I'm gonna mute you.
I'm gonna mute you. Just let me say this. Let
me say this. There was a study. All right, let
me just hit the mute button real quick, because Nathaniel
is going to talk over me. So there was a

(01:12:15):
study done between nineteen fifty and twenty twenty three that
found that three hundred million children, it was either in
France or it was in all of Europe, were molested
by Catholic clergy members. And you know, those clergy members
were relatively not held accountable. In fact, there were multiple

(01:12:38):
instances in which bishops, cardinals, popes all examples given knew
about this, and instead of holding those clergy members accountable,
moved them to different churches, different cathedrals, across different countries
because they wouldn't then be subjected to the penal sysystems

(01:13:00):
and the legal systems of a said country if they
were moved to a different country. And so Catholicism, and
by the way, throughout history we have had popes that
have had families that have been incredibly wealthy and corrupt
and have ordered the genocide and mass murder of Jews
and Arabs, you name it. We should show obedience to

(01:13:22):
the people that you think we should be obedient too.
And that is this Catholic structure that also requires women
to be obedient. That's where we're at. That's where we're
at in this phone call. You can probably see why
I have such a problem with that. And you are
now off mute, and I will give you every opportunity

(01:13:42):
to respond to everything. I just said.

Speaker 7 (01:13:44):
Yeah, sorry, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to talk over
you when you said I'm going to meet you. I said, sorry,
So I think maybe there was a delay or something.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
Okay, fine, fine, appreciate it.

Speaker 7 (01:13:54):
So I was trying to say, I don't I don't
disagree with you. I'm just trying to establish that I
kind of I don't have enough expertise where I would
be like ready to like jump in and say, oh,
you know, this is a this is a huge problem
in the church.

Speaker 2 (01:14:11):
Why not, Daniel, I'm sorry, Why don't you have the expertise?
Why not you have children? Okay, I have just told
you and this is not the first time that you
have heard this in your life. You have heard it
your entire life. Okay, you've heard it your entire life.
And yet you have decided to absolve yourself of any

(01:14:32):
responsibility to look into this problem, and you still support
the organization. You wouldn't bring your kids to the soccer organization?
Why would you do it at church?

Speaker 3 (01:14:41):
No.

Speaker 7 (01:14:41):
I was actually really concerned about this, you know, because
I don't want to make it seem like I'm insincere
or something like that, because I converted to Catholicism like
five years ago, and when I when I converted, that
was that was actually a huge concern of mine, and
I was very, very very careerful about like which which

(01:15:03):
priests I went to effect. It was my one requirement
before I was Catholic, the married a Catholic ones and
it was that I would pick the priest. And so
it was a concern of mine. And I do think
that I have enough expertise to protect my children as
much as I can, Like I've done as much as
I can to protect my children from the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:15:22):
Uh.

Speaker 7 (01:15:22):
Like, on an individual level, the people I interact with,
I don't think like as far as the church as
a whole, which a massive organization. I don't think like
I have the expertise to diagnose or even say that
that's a problem.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
I just know that that that's a cop out. And
I'm sorry that's a cop out. There's just way too
much evidence. I'm really hung up on when you said,
that's the rumor. Okay, I think we're seeing some cognitive
dissonance happening live in action here, right because you want,
because you're you're, you're, you're telling us how you're so
concerned and how you go through steps and you make sure,

(01:15:56):
you know, you make sure everything is secure and safe
for your kids. And then Jimmy's asked, can you about
a widespread problem in the Catholic Church, which is well
documented with tons of evidence, including the fact that the
Catholic Church relocates all the priests to new churches whenever
things like this happen, or at least often when this happens. Okay,
And it reminds me of that scene from a Few

(01:16:16):
Good Men when he says, did you give the order
to not that he wasn't to be harmed? Yeah? Do
people follow your orders? People follow martyrs or else? People die, Well,
then why the need for the order? If they were
going to be safe, why the transfer right? And so,
if this was not an ongoing endemic problem in the
Catholic Church, why the cover ups? Why relocating the priests?

(01:16:38):
We know that this is an endemic problem to the church.
We know that this is happening on a widespread basis.
And you and I'm not saying that you're a bad
person because of this, because we all experience cognitive dissonance
on some level and in some circumstances, but not you're
backpedaling saying that's the rumor. I just I'm sorry, I

(01:17:00):
just can't get over that. How do you reconcile that
within your own self? On one hand, you're saying, I'm
taking I'm safeguarding my own children, and then on the
other hand, you're defending the church when all we're saying
is that there's this problem. How do you reconcile that?

Speaker 7 (01:17:16):
Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry for the tone I said that,
and I can see it.

Speaker 1 (01:17:21):
No, that's fine, and I'm kind of getting heated up too,
and I won't take it personal, and I hope that
you don't as well. But let's address I want to
address that. I want to address that issue. You made
that switch. It was a very different tack that you
were taking, and I want to. I want to. I'm
curious as to what you think about that, reflecting on
those comments that you made.

Speaker 7 (01:17:38):
Well. When I became Catholic, one of the reasons I did,
you know, and I kind of obviously I changed after
I accepted being Catholic, because you know, at a different
underhid a lot of things to learn. But I don't
think this has changed about me. When I became Catholic.
One of the reasons I did is because I knew
this was a problem in the church, and I also

(01:17:59):
saw simultaneously came to believe it was the true church.
And I thought that there were not enough fathers that were,
you know, strong and careful and willing to bring certain
things up with priests. And I think that that's a
bigger reason why. And I've actually been working very hard

(01:18:20):
on that side of things. I think that I think
that fathers. I think that the natural love and the
skills and the senses that fathers have would protect children
a lot better and would also prevent clergymen like that
from making it very far. That's what I think without
you know, I don't want to say too much more about.

Speaker 1 (01:18:41):
I can appreciate that you're tying in now the call
back to what you were originally talking about with these
gender roles, right, And it's not just the father's responsibility
to take care of the children. It's the family's responsibility
to take care of the children. But I still haven't
heard much, and I understand that what I'm asking you
to do is a difficult thing to do. I'm asking
you to reconcile this cognitive dissonance, and even as you're

(01:19:02):
trying to do that, it seems to me, and I
might be biased in my listening here too, but it
seems to me like you are defending the church. Is
that is that your case? Is that what you're saying.
Are you saying that they're not doing that? Are you saying, well,
I know that they do it, but you know, I'm
accepting it or what what is your position on that
or do you really think that it's just a rumor?

Speaker 3 (01:19:24):
Good?

Speaker 7 (01:19:24):
I think it is a legitimate problem, and I think
that I am doing and I want to do more
to descend the church from the people in the church
wearing the clothing of the church that are doing heinous things,
and that has been a concern of mine.

Speaker 3 (01:19:40):
I entered the church.

Speaker 1 (01:19:41):
Well, I think I think you couldn't. I think I
couldn't have pointed out better where that cognitive dissonance was happening.
Even in the same sentence, you're trying to say, I'm
trying to I'm trying to make I'm trying to make
efforts to do good, and that you're still and then
you backpedal, and then you say, but you know this
other thing, you know, I'm not so sure. It's it
seems like you're I don't know, and again I'm asking

(01:20:02):
you to do a difficult thing, but it's it's sorry,
go ahead.

Speaker 7 (01:20:05):
I just don't want I just don't want to like
come and assume every every you know, I think it
would be wrong to assume somebody is doing something so heinous.
I think that yous comes from.

Speaker 2 (01:20:18):
There is substantial there are substantial pieces of evidence. There
are substantial reasons for you to come in skeptical of
the church. You should never go to a Catholic church
and assume and think it's wrong for you to assume
that somebody could do some harm when all the Catholic Church.

(01:20:41):
Church has really done for society is do harm right.
Ever since again their inception, they have they have terrorized women,
burn them at the stake. They have colonized foreign countries
and raped and murdered and genocided very many people. The
directed murdering that numbers at about seventy million people since
the inception of the first Pope is a direct reflection

(01:21:04):
of the Church's ambition to become the leading power structure
in the world. And the way that they do that
is by subjugating people. And we're not eliminating women from that.
In fact, their ability to control women and control the
reproduction rates of society and create a structure where the
family is at the center and they can extract economic

(01:21:28):
contributions from that family by way of tithing directly into
the church allowed the Church for millennia to become powerful.
And you, for some reason have the audacity. Excuse me, Nathaniel,
but it is audacious for you to say that you
are aware of a problem in which the church has
routinely molested children, and that you are supportive of a

(01:21:51):
structure that oppresses women, and that you then are not
well versed in the problems, but you still are trying
to write by protect people. By protecting people, you have
got a lot of reconciliation to do. You cannot claim
to be a person that wants to protect people and
allow yourself to not understand the endemic problem of child

(01:22:15):
molestation and abuse that the church has carried out for millennia.
And that is a big, big problem to have. And
for you to consider yourself a possible solution, a possible
means of protecting people, you have got a responsibility to
become an expert, just like many of us in the
atheist community have done. We read the Bible, we studied history,

(01:22:36):
and we said this shit doesn't add up. And then
we went and studied and researched all of the problems
that the Catholic Church has started. I went and got
a master's degree in it. Right, people go and get
their doctorates. We have several several people in the atheist community,
pillars of the atheist community who went to seminary school,
who are going to be pastors, who got PhDs and

(01:22:57):
religious studies and said I can't do this anymore. And
for you to just absolve yourself, I'm sorry, you are
are are copping out big time and I cannot take
you seriously if you consider yourself somebody who can help
solve this problem and protect people. You're not protecting anybody,
my friend. You are upholding the structure. I'm going to
let you close out, and then we got to get moving.

Speaker 7 (01:23:18):
Sure. Well, I hope you guys got what you want.
That seems like you kind of were able to get
your cross what was entertained.

Speaker 3 (01:23:24):
To your audience.

Speaker 1 (01:23:25):
Yeah right, yeah finished there at the end there too.
And I'm sorry for getting heated up. It's just abuse.
Apologists just really rubbing.

Speaker 3 (01:23:35):
Sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:23:37):
You owe nobody in an apology. Scott, I am not
sorry for getting heated up. You know, time and time again,
we always say, hey, we'll have a nice, good conversation,
and you know what, that's the goal. But don't call
me and tell me you're protecting people and then tell
me your women belong or your woman excuse me women,
your wife belongs in the house, and that you're aware
of the problem of child molestation. But you're converted anyway, right,

(01:23:58):
and you want to protect people, but you're not really
sure about the problem, right. I don't get it.

Speaker 1 (01:24:03):
I mean, we just saw we just it was just
dripping with the cognitive dissonance right there. I mean, it's
he feels like he's being such a good protective parent
and then just releasing his kids out into that, you know,
into that quagmire, and it's just it's frustrating. It's frustrated
as a father, as a human beings, as a citizen,

(01:24:24):
as as somebody in the in the community of humanity.
It's offensive to me to hear that kind of thing.

Speaker 2 (01:24:30):
Offensive. Indeed, let's bring up Kelly speaking of being offensive. Kelly,
Kelly's tym just kidding.

Speaker 8 (01:24:39):
That was awesome.

Speaker 2 (01:24:40):
Yeah, Kelly, by the way, great tye, great tie. If
I'm going to pick on Kelly, I'm going to attack
the tie first, because he's got a new one every week.
But in any case, my friend, thank you for backing
us up today. What did you think of today's show?

Speaker 8 (01:24:53):
Thanks for having me. First off, I always love backing
up this show. I made a few notes, and I
have something tell to teach Donald. There's this thing. Now,
I am not an expert in any way, shape or
form of quantum physics. Fineman I think said if somebody
says they are, they're absolutely not. But somewhere or something
like that. But there is this thing called the indefinite

(01:25:15):
causal effect, right, or causal order, and on a quantum level,
cause and effect actually become indistinguishable and can actually reverse.
So if you're relying on cause and effect for your argument,
you might want to rethink that, because that's not how
the universe works.

Speaker 2 (01:25:33):
Excellently. I appreciate that, you know.

Speaker 8 (01:25:36):
And if you're going to define the cause of the
whole universe as God, then of course you are going
to see God throughout the entire universe. So that's another
thing you might want to think about. And in at
least those people aren't debaters. They're rage debaters. See what
I did there. And one of their tactics is to
keep you answering questions and always remember that don't be

(01:25:58):
on the defensive, stay on to stay on the offensive,
or even better, share questions. I'll answer one of yours
and then you answer one of mine, and that's the
way we're going to have this conversation. And it will
go a lot better for you that way too, because
they're trying to keep you down by keeping And I
noticed when you were saying yeah, yeah, but then they
asked me this, and then they asked me this, that's
their that's their tactic. So don't let them do that

(01:26:19):
to you, you know, make them answer some of your
questions as well, and just I'm not going to answer
anymore until you answer mine. I've used that tactic many
times and it does work. So and that's the other
than that. I don't know what else to say. I
was gonna say more on Nathaniel, but I'm trying to
stay chill.

Speaker 2 (01:26:34):
I am so I am so riled up right now. Yeah,
for real. Hey, hey, look, I always appreciate when Kelly's
in the background. You know. I think any out of
anybody that we've ever I've ever worked with, Kelly more
often has messaged me from the background and said, hey, Jimmy,
what you're talking about absolutely not true. He's like, you're wrong,

(01:26:57):
my friend. So I have actually brought Kelly up to
be like, hey, could you actually make this argument clearer
because I don't think I'm doing it right. But in
that case, you know, we are getting ready, but we
got a couple more things.

Speaker 1 (01:27:09):
Don't tune keeping to take care of her.

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
Yeah, don't tune out just yet. So Scott, you know
what you gotta do.

Speaker 1 (01:27:16):
What do you want super chats or.

Speaker 2 (01:27:19):
Take us away, top five patrons and super chats.

Speaker 1 (01:27:21):
All right, we'll do super chats first, since that's what
I have up here. We had a super chat from
Anne Johnson for five dollars, love to all at talk
ethen my favorite YouTube atheist YouTube channel. Thank you so much,
Anne Johnson. We really appreciate the compliment and the five
dollars as well.

Speaker 2 (01:27:37):
I love Ann Johnson.

Speaker 1 (01:27:38):
Yeah, awesome, awesome, all right. We also have a super
chat from space Barbarian ten bucks from space Barbarian regarding
Lisa's leprekn example, My experience is that irony is lost
on people who are wrong. It's a shame because I
love irony, and I too, Space Barbarian, I love irony
as well. I think I'm really a fan of the
subtle humor, and irony just fits perfectly right in that

(01:28:00):
right in that area there. All right, Let's also we
got some patrons we want to recognize here as soon
as I scrolled down to there. So our top five
patrons from this week are number one Oops all Singularity
perennial leader on the patron board here. Number two dingle
Berry Jackson, Number three, Colevi Helvetti number four is Ja Carlton.

(01:28:23):
Number five Casey Kikendall, I apologize if I mispronounced that name,
and an honorable mention. Number six we have Steven McDougall.
So thank you all for everybody who gives to us
on Patreon. If you want to have your name right
on the air, then please consider supporting us at tiny
dot c c slash Patreon thh. And that's a one

(01:28:43):
way you can keep quality content like today coming at
you on a weekly basis. So we really appreciate everyone
who is chipping in. That's that really makes it makes
it rewarding for us to involved in that and help
help get that message out. K.

Speaker 2 (01:28:58):
Yeah, thank you, thank you so much. And don't forget
you know, tune in on Patreon and you get our
TikTok lives that are recorded and uploaded, so another bonus there.
But you know, this was a great show. I feel
really good about it. Scott, thank you for reading the
top five Patriots and the super chats because it actually
brought me back down to calm me down a little bit.

Speaker 3 (01:29:15):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:29:16):
I was I was, I was in I was in
the zone there, man, I was angry, but I can't
leave today being angry. You know, I got two of
my good friends here with me. We had a great show. Remember, folks,
if you do not believe, then this is your community
and we appreciate that you were here with us. But
if you do believe, we do not hate you.

Speaker 3 (01:29:35):
We're just going We want the truth.

Speaker 4 (01:29:59):
So watch Truth Wanted Life Fridays at seven pm Central
Call five one two nine nine one nine two four
two or visit tiny dot cc forward slash call tw