The Atheist Experience 29.12 with Secular Rarity and Holy Koolaid

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Today is a pretty special day. March twenty third is
actually Atheist Day, and this day is all about normalizing
and celebrating non believers.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Now, yes we are atheists, and.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Yes we are live in the Free Thought Library right here.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
In Austin, Texas.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Baby wooeah, yeah awesome. But let me tell you what
the best part is. We are a community. And I
am so thrilled that on this Atheist Day, I have
a chance to let you know about a brand new

(00:40):
nonprofit organization that is focused on connecting and supporting atheists, humanists,
and secular people all throughout the South. I'm going to
tell you about an awesome fundraiser that we have coming
up next week and some really really cool opportunities to
connect with your people this year. But before we do

(01:00):
any of that stuff, let's just.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Get this show started. Show that beautiful audience again, that
is right. Look at those people.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
They are gorgeous and they are here today to celebrate
non belief in all its forms. I am so excited
to be here because it is, in fact, March twenty third,
twenty twenty five, that's Atheist Day. I'm your host Secularity,
and I am joined by the wonderful always amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Holy kool aid, What is up, Toma.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
Hey, it's fantastic to be here.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Yeah, you've just been stuck here for a few hours.
We've actually we turned the cameras off and everybody else
got a chance to go walk around.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
Was wondering does the chain ever? Do you take it off?

Speaker 1 (01:43):
I don't think so. Actually, you really should have read
that contract.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
Yeah, yeah, it was weird.

Speaker 3 (01:46):
I see you guys next week, on the next.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
Every day we're gonna be right now. We are live
right here in Austin, Texas. If you have never been
down to the Free Thought Library, you have absolutely got
to do it it.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
It is a wonderful, wonderful place for people to gather.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
And if you don't know about this, you guys, let
me tell you something.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
That's really cool. We get here, you know, once a week,
and we do.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
These shows, and a lot of people think.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
That's all that goes on, but it's not.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
Every single day. There is something going on in this area.
And that's kind of what we want to talk about
today a little bit. Because we're here on Atheists Day,
we're talking about all things atheism. But before we do that,
I'm gonna tell you some things, and we are going
to talk about last week's question of the Week. So
let me tell you first off that the Atheist Experience

(02:34):
is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin, a
five to one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the
promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation
of religion and government, all really wonderful things.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
And we are gonna give you the results of.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Last week's Share Your Experience Question of the Week. I
know that we have a bunch of people out there
that love this, and I can tell you right now,
foreverbody out there that hates it, Johnny p Angel is
the one that has the entire time been choosing and
directing everything. So all of your hate mail, all of
your mean comments and mean tweets, please tag Johnny pee Angel.

(03:16):
Just getting that out there. But last week we asked
you to complete the sentence. It was really it was
really petty when God blank and here are the three favorites.
Number three, Corey Stark Killer says, it was really petty
of God to hide my keys, so I would have.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
To pray to him to find them. That is true.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
They don't mention that, they don't like, God helps you
find the keys, but why the hell they go missing
in the first place?

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Mysterious ways.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
I'm sure it's you know, it's all got to be
Satan there.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
You know what.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
That's right, Satan hides your keys. That's the what a
weird path?

Speaker 3 (03:50):
You preemptively pray to keep your keys from getting lost?

Speaker 2 (03:53):
I've heard, I've heard if you tithe.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
Enough, be like God, can you dispatch a special anything?

Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (03:58):
Yeah, to keep my keys from you?

Speaker 4 (03:59):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (04:00):
What's that?

Speaker 1 (04:00):
What's that song? Angel's watching over me? That's what they're
talking about.

Speaker 2 (04:04):
Number two.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
Van Halen, isolated says it was really petty when God
killed Job's whole family just to win a bet with Satan.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
That is true, that's messed up.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
I've done some weird things in bets. We're not gonna
talk about him here. It'll probably get as kicked off,
But I've never.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
Done that one.

Speaker 3 (04:21):
That seems like a lot showing you a whole family.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
Yeah I will, Yeah, I can.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
I can happily tell everybody today, just in case they
were worried. I have never in my life killed a
whole family for a bet.

Speaker 3 (04:31):
Should we believe him?

Speaker 2 (04:32):
You guys are good skeptics, you know what to do
with that.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
Number one from last week, Sarah fev eighty four says,
it was really petty when God said passed to the
uggos bringing him bread or even coming in his house.
Which is interesting, and we've got we've got the reference here.
This is Leviticus twenty one, verses seventeen to twenty four.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
So it says, say to Aaron, for the.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
Generations to come, none of your descendants who has a
defect may come near to offer the food of his God.
No man who has any defect may come near. No
man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
No man with a.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
Crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or
a dwarf, holy shit, or who has any eye defect,
or who has festering or running source or damaged testicles. Oh,
my God, no descent of Aaron the priest who has
any defect is to come near to present the food
offerings to the Lord. He has a defect, he must
not come near to offer the food of his My God.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
This keeps going for another two three verses like that.
This is crazy. I am the lord who makes them.

Speaker 3 (05:34):
Holy fuck you do you think that they actually enforce this, Like,
hell on, hold up, you're bringing something to God. Quick
testicle check. Okay, they're both there, all hold up.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
That one's a little like.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
I just I also really like, I really like the
idea though of instead of like now, instead of trying
to tell somebody that they're not attractive, you're just like
m Leviticus twenty one over here, you know, seventeen through
twenty four? Am I right?

Speaker 3 (06:02):
So where do you draw the line? A dissipates absolutely right,
Like super botle question the scar, It's like, is it
too big of a scar? Is it like, oh, you
broke a bone?

Speaker 2 (06:13):
Lazy eyes that.

Speaker 3 (06:16):
You go into the temple and I mean you can
offer it. God just doesn't want to see you come
into his presence. You have to give the offering to
someone else, I see, to beautiful people, because otherwise when
you enter into the presence of God, God's just gonna
sit there and go like, brother, like, what's that?

Speaker 1 (06:34):
I love that? What an all loving, great God, you know,
perfect design and everything. But then was like, ah, some
of you guys are going to be fucked up.

Speaker 3 (06:41):
Gode my fault. But whatever invents hunchbacks gets grossed out
by them.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
That's a man. There's a meme there for sure. Yeah,
there's something there, you know. Gosh, gosh, that's good. Thank you,
Thank you so much, Sarah him eighty four.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
I apologize to the hunchback community on behalf of Leviticus. Y.

Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, seriously, like, you know, come on, there was a
famous one over in like yeah, I was gonna say.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
In Paris or something.

Speaker 1 (07:06):
I think there was a documentary anyway, that, folks, was
our last share your Experience segment on the Atheist Experience.
But don't worry because if you really love this segment,
keep participating in Truth Wanted. We want the truth and
talk Heathen's talk Heathen to me, and you will still
have an awesome opportunity there. Now, I'm going to talk

(07:28):
about this cool stuff that we got coming up here
in just a second. But before we do that, I'm
going to remind you, folks that the lines are open. Okay,
it is super duper easy. We are here, we are ready.
We want to know what you believe and why you
believe it. Hey, maybe there is somebody out there that
is saying to themselves, God, I don't think secularism is

(07:50):
a good idea. Maybe there's people out there that say
to themselves, if you're an atheist, you should be thrown
in jail. Well, today is a really good day to
try and make that fucking case, because we are here
to say we disagree. But as we are getting some
of those good calls, and we've already got a couple
stacked up, I am gonna tell you guys about this awesome,

(08:11):
awesome thing that has been happening in the heart of
the Bible Belt itself, right in Nashville, Tennessee. And I
am thrilled to be able to be working with the
ACA and getting the opportunity.

Speaker 2 (08:23):
To talk about this.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
So we we noticed over the last year or so
a couple of my friends that have been involved in
a lot of different secular activities right both online and
in person. We noticed that every time we were out
at one of these events, there were people that we
had never seen before. And we had just gone to
you know, some some March the other day, or we

(08:47):
had gone to a Recovering from Religion chapter or you know,
Americans United.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
For Separation of Church and State.

Speaker 1 (08:53):
We'd gone to these things and we'd seen these new people,
and every single time we asked them, Hey, why weren't
you at.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
That last event? They said, what event? I have no
idea what you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
And we realized one of the big hurdles that we
have on our side as the secular community, we don't
have networks of connection. See, on the on the religious side,
they've got the churches that brings everybody together every week,
but they've also got the religious group that just organizes
events around town or throughout the year. They've got an

(09:26):
entire group that all they do is print marketing materials
to pass out to the churches they are constantly connecting
and supporting. And it's just I mean, it's this whole
incestuous web.

Speaker 3 (09:40):
That's not even to mention their TV shows exactly.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
Yeah, and they've been doing it for how many hundreds
of years? Right, And so we realized what we need
is a dedicated organization to connecting and supporting our people.
And so that's why myself and a couple of other
non believers in Nashville, Tennessee founded Secular Rising US, a
brand new nonprofit organization dedicated to connecting and supporting atheist, humanists,

(10:07):
and secular people throughout the South.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
And we already have some really really cool things, you know.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
I know, for instance, you're familiar with Nanocon, the Nashville
Nuns Convention.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
We are bringing that back. It is the largest gathering of.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
Atheist and non religious people in the entire freaking state.

Speaker 2 (10:25):
Man.

Speaker 1 (10:26):
We're gonna have about four hundred people out there for
a whole week, and we are taking over this state park.
It is going to be so freaking amazing, man. And
we have so many other really really cool opportunities. The
biggest thing that's coming up right now is not tomorrow,
but the next Monday, March thirty first, we are actually

(10:46):
launching our organization with a really really awesome fundraiser livestream
kind of similar to what the ACA did just just
about a week or so ago, and that was so
much fun.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
There were so many people involved.

Speaker 1 (10:57):
Now, look, we are not going twenty five four hours,
you guys, Okay, but it will be about four or
five ish. We have a lot of incredible people that
are coming on. You're gonna be hanging out with us.
The wonderful Anthony Magna Bosco promise Eve was framed. I mean,
we have just a whole slew of incredible people, and
I know our wonderful chat moderators out there have been

(11:20):
thrown up some links and stuff for me, which.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
I greatly greatly appreciate.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
Guys, our goal is to help secular people find their people,
and that is what we are building.

Speaker 2 (11:31):
Twenty twenty five is going.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
To be a huge, huge year for us, and I
understand why there could be some people that are a
little bit bummed out right now. I could understand why
some people wake up in the morning and are not
particularly thrilled about the scene that they see in the
world right now.

Speaker 2 (11:51):
And I understand that.

Speaker 1 (11:53):
Honestly, it's easy to disconnect in those times. It's easy
to close the door and just not pay attention to
any of it.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
But I think that's the exact reason we need to
get together. I think that is the exact.

Speaker 1 (12:08):
Reason we have to start putting structure in place today
so that five, ten, fifteen years.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
From now we're unstoppable.

Speaker 1 (12:16):
You guys, so hang out with us five thirty feet
in Central Time, March thirty first. That's not tomorrow Monday,
but it is the next Monday. Come hang out with us.

Speaker 2 (12:25):
Because we will be doing it up.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
We haven't a lot a lot of fun, man, so
it will be a good time. And we've already had
a really good time this weekend. But we are here
to do business. Hell yeah, we got stuff to do, man.
So we we are gonna talk to some people that
we have on the lines, and again, folks, get those
calls in and as we make it easy for you
five one two nine nine nine two four to two,

(12:49):
or you can just hit us up online tiny dot
cc slash call AXP.

Speaker 2 (12:53):
We make it easy. So we are.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Gonna go out to Michigan. We're gonna talk with Bill.
He him once to talk about some gravity and some
university stuff. It sounds like, Hey, Bill, what you got
for us?

Speaker 6 (13:05):
Hi?

Speaker 5 (13:06):
That's a great leading to my particular theory here.

Speaker 7 (13:11):
Let me tell it to you.

Speaker 5 (13:12):
So, what is the purpose of life? Universe and everything?
I could show at a minimum it's to entangle every
particle with every other particle in the universe in order
to resolve uncertainty. In other words, to gain knowledge.

Speaker 8 (13:23):
I can show that it's a conserving function, which is
equivalent to a purpose.

Speaker 5 (13:27):
This is not merely philosophical. This is mathematical and logical.
Function of the heart is on blood. That function is
also it's purpose. The universe has a conserving function of
eternally gaining knowledge by entangling every particle with every other particle.

Speaker 8 (13:41):
It has no more other fundamental function and as a
precise definition of purpose.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
So hang on just a second, Hang on, just second, Bill,
I just want to I just want to clarify something
on my end, because I just want to make sure
you're not when you're saying this, it's you're not saying
it from the perspective of like an outside.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Imposed purpose or anything.

Speaker 9 (14:00):
Right.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
Are you saying like this is just how the universe operates,
or are you saying like, okay, okay, So you're just
saying this is more of like a description of the universe,
very similar to like how like the laws of logic
and the laws of physics and stuff are now.

Speaker 5 (14:14):
Right exactly okay, derives from the laws.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
That's interesting, So.

Speaker 5 (14:18):
Moral naturally fall out of this framework.

Speaker 8 (14:20):
Imagine the data richness in the collaborative, flat hierarchy network
of cultivated diversity and depth, whose purposes to resolve uncertainty
and spread knowledge instead of building towers all the ustead
of the destructive that is seeking greed driven celebrity cast
system approach that rewards bad behavior and entrenches the meritless oligarchy.

Speaker 3 (14:39):
Bill Bill, Bill, Bill, Can you can you slow down
for a second. It sounds like you're reading off of
a script. Can you reword it in a way that
is a little bit like I'm trying to follow you
as best I can, but it sounds very like technobabble,
and I was wondering if you could maybe like rephrase
it in a way that like us and our audience

(15:00):
easily understand.

Speaker 8 (15:01):
Okay, So basically, the universe has a lot of entanglement
where matter particles will bump into each other and then
they're entangled, and then it has to resolve the spin
for the second particle being measured. Now, all this happens
on cosmic horizons when two particles bump and their spin
needs resolved. So that way, if A is up and
B is down, the cosmic horizon actually correlates A and

(15:24):
B on the horizon, and when it does that, it
raises a piece of horizon, making the universe smaller. It
admits a hawking photon to conserve total energy. But basically
the universe from gravity is interacting particle to particle until
the cosmic horizons get so small that the universe resets
in a big bang.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
Let me so basically, let me say a second bill. So,
I don't want to be rude, right, I don't want
to be rude when I say this. But and I've
done this a bunch by the way, this was actually
something that when I left religion, this was the last
little bit of this kind of thinking that I had
to get away from. And it's difficult, but a lot

(16:03):
of times what happens is we'll see one or two
things out there in the world, and because we are
so good at finding those patterns and connecting those dots
to make a shape, we end up getting like four
or five different things that are all individually by themselves
maybe supported right, Like the entanglement of particles is a

(16:26):
thing that we have continued to learn more and more about.
But for instance, what exactly does that mean? What is
the entanglement of those particles?

Speaker 3 (16:35):
Exactly?

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Does it literally mean that they're twisted together? Because I
would argue, no, that is not what the physicists are
trying to say. But what happens is we get a
couple of those and then we go, oh, yeah, now
I get it. But in reality, our thing isn't supported
those individual things are.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Go ahead, brother, well, I guess one of the things
that I may have misunderstood, Bill, and please correct me
if I'm wrong. It sounded like you said that particles
are becoming more and more entangled until every particle in
the universe is entangled. And as far as my very
limited understanding of quantum physics is concerned, you can have

(17:12):
two particles that are entangled with each other, right, I'm
not aware that you can have them entangled with more
than one other particle. And it corrects me if I'm.

Speaker 5 (17:20):
Right, you actually can't. Okay, yeah, now you actually can.
But usually two particles is the most easiest to entangle.
But the point is, this is the cosmic horizons that
are built by particles that cross are encoded as negative energy.
So each particle that crosses the horizon is encoded as information.

Speaker 3 (17:38):
Are you saying the horizon of the black hole? No,
this is the cosmic horizon, the cosmic horizon.

Speaker 8 (17:43):
This is what causes dark energy that makes the universe
spread apart. That's the cosmic horizon that does that. It's
a gravitating it operates like a relative inverted black hole,
and it encodes particles through the holographic principle as bits
of negative energy on cosmic horizon. So when you use
gravity and the cosmic horizon projects the gravity down locally

(18:05):
from the information of that particle crossing in order to
resolve spins.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
Have you so that have you reached out if you're
I mean, if you're in Michigan. I mean, Michigan is
a fairly big state. And please don't don't tell us
where you're. Don't dox yourself or anything, Bill, But if
you're in Michigan, like I know that there are at
least a handful of universities in Michigan that you could
probably reach out to somebody in the physics department or something.

(18:32):
Have you Have you done that by any chance? Like
just hit somebody out there, like, hey, here's my thoughts.

Speaker 8 (18:37):
Yeah, and I did. And this guy, uh, he's a
gr person, so he's not really into quantum mechanics as much, okay,
but he actually afraid to do the math. Now I've
got the math for him, and you can see that.
If I have this online on research gate, you could
look it up. The math ties out.

Speaker 5 (18:52):
It's simple.

Speaker 8 (18:53):
The problem is I can tell he's afraid to do
the math.

Speaker 5 (18:56):
Because it will work.

Speaker 3 (18:58):
Explain why it worked, Bill, don't.

Speaker 8 (19:00):
Well, don't you I don't know.

Speaker 5 (19:01):
That's the weird because it's because it's it's so it's
so unusual. I found three ways I can calculate the
per plank area of gravitational energy of any black hole.
I've got three separate ways.

Speaker 9 (19:13):
Gr.

Speaker 8 (19:14):
I've got the land our limit at Hockey temperature, which
is a gr quantum mechanics hybrid.

Speaker 5 (19:18):
And I have an informational only using.

Speaker 8 (19:21):
Just a term of a photon, dividing out the fine
structure constance, and then multiplying that number by So.

Speaker 2 (19:27):
Why do you think you discovered this?

Speaker 1 (19:30):
I mean if I don't know, if you've thought about this,
but why why do you think you came across this
and and nobody else did?

Speaker 8 (19:36):
Well, that's an interesting story. So what happened was is
I have a guy who helps me out around the
house because I'm retired and I'm disabled. And he asked
we talk about science and stuff, and he asked what
can be done with the energy and a constrained degree
of freedom? And at first I gave him the hash
answer everyone gives nothing. But then he said that's weird,
and I said, you know what you're right, I owe

(19:57):
you a better answer. So I went and looked what
can you do with the energy to constrain degree of freedom?
And I found a land hour limit at Hawking temperature.
And I found out that the energy and a constrained
degree of freedom is exactly the same energy in gravity,
the same energy in Hawking information. And that's how I
found it. Was just to answer a friend's question, but
it took me down a rabbit hole time that I

(20:19):
found gravity.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
Bill, I think that's fantastic, and I don't want to
poop poo it. I also, as someone who I'm not
a physicist myself, I'm not going to try to. I
genuinely cannot confirm or deny your hypothesis one way or another.
But I do know that there the avenue for getting
something like this accepted in academia is to publish your work,

(20:39):
and you don't have to be affiliated with the university.
You can be an independent scholar. Thousands of them publish
all the time, but it has to pass muster by
experts in the field. I'm not an expert, so I
think like, it's great that you have this hypothesis. If
you're able to write it up in the math checks out,
and you have a legitimate theory that you can can
take to a scientific journal or a publication, then then

(21:01):
go for it. I guess where my reluctance comes into
play as someone who like I have people send me
messages like this all the time that will tell me
that they have an answer, that they've solved some big
problem of something in the universe. And sometimes it might
be something I genuinely don't know. Other times I see
stuff that's very crack potty, and it's it's just I'm

(21:21):
not I'm not the the the person to vet this stuff.
There are entire mechanisms in place in order to try
to figure out this stuff, and it's how we solve
and figure out and push science for it. So like,
if you've got something, man, if you've done the math,
like I really encourage you to get it published, because
like that's the way forward. It's not through a call in.

Speaker 8 (21:39):
Now I've got it on research Gates, and uh, I've
also got a bunch of YouTube videos and stuff.

Speaker 3 (21:46):
Was it what? What?

Speaker 2 (21:47):
What?

Speaker 3 (21:48):
What journal did you publish with? Out of curiosity because
like it's research Gate.

Speaker 8 (21:53):
The thing is I tried journals but there is so
much academia gatekeeping and sati.

Speaker 2 (21:59):
Yes, it's mean right.

Speaker 3 (22:02):
That is a warning flag to me because when I
hear that peer review is gatekeeping, I hear it so
many times from people who they're like, oh, they didn't
publish my paper, and it's therefore censorship, And a lot
of times it's like, no, they didn't publish the paper
because like they looked at it and they said, there's
this law, this law, this flaw that someone. And I
don't know your background. You could have a master's degree

(22:22):
in physics, you could have a PhD in physics. But
there's a lot of people who go in to publish
who don't and they'll they'll go to publish without even
having any prerequisite education, and they'll miss things that we've
already done decades of experiments to show don't work. So
I don't know, like I could be completely out of
my element, Bill, and I genuinely apologize if I am,
but that when I hear that to me, I just

(22:45):
want to communicate why that would raise the red flag.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
Well, I'll say this, Thomas, I've noticed that. Hang on,
just sec hang on just second, Bill, I'll say this,
I've noticed you know, there always seems to be gatekeeping
in like academic high level academia, but there's never gatekeeper
in like autobody mechanics.

Speaker 2 (23:01):
For some reason, for some.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
Reason, nobody's coming up with all these fantastic ways to
make cars run better. And then just you know, all
these all these you know, car manufacturers, you're just not
doing it or anything. It's like, no, the reason that
your your fucking vehicle doesn't you know, get built by
Ford next year is because they put it together and
it fell apart, you know. And and that's not to say, oh, well,

(23:23):
just it was a waste adventure, throw it to the side,
or and of course not like Thomas and I are
absolutely going to tell you Bill, like, please keep investigating this,
keep finding all of the places with this theory that
it currently is not well founded, and bolster those claims.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
And don't do it through self publishing, right through through
a predatory pay to play vanity press journal. And again
I'm not saying that your your research is bullshit. I'm
just saying this is not the avenue to go about it.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Yeah, so where's the thing.

Speaker 8 (23:55):
I'm not so much trying to talk about my research.
I'm actually talking about the implications of the entanglements and
resolving on.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
Swell in fairness, in fairness just to just to be
just to you know, try to be as charitable as possible. Bill,
that there is not really much point to talking about
that until we can demonstrate that the research that you've
provided that this thing is real. Right, Like we could
sit around all day and try to talk about like
the different flavors of grilled unicorn meat and like it's
better to spice it with cumin as opposed to mango.

(24:26):
Like fine, but like you know, we should probably make
sure that somebody's out there actually farming unicorns first, but
we are gonna let you go. Uh, Bill, thank you
so much. We do appreciate you. And again, I really
I want to say this because I know both of
us are on this this wavelength, man, like keep keep researching, like,
keep studying that stuff, and like how awesome would it

(24:48):
be Bill if if five years from now you are
able to call back in and be like, guys, look
at this Nobel Prize, Like I mean, that's gorgeous.

Speaker 2 (24:58):
Tell us where we're wrong.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
It's just you know, provide some sources that are backed up.

Speaker 3 (25:04):
Yeah, And that's where like when I hear someone like
Bill come on and he's he's very confident in his
theory and or his hypothesis, and he's spewing out a
lot of technical terminology, it's very very easy to get
caught up. And you hear technical phrases. You know, he
sounds smart. He must know what he's talking about. Therefore,
but it's like, do you understand what he's saying. Have
people who understand what he's saying say that it actually

(25:27):
makes sense and then say that, Okay, we've gathered the data,
We've looked at the experiments we've done, you know, rand
the numbers, and there's potentially something to this, And oftentimes's
like maybe the math adds up, but then can it
be demonstrated experimentally? And and if if none of that
is the case, and he's just like I self published
something on research Gate, then I'm like, well, if this
was really that groundbreaking, it's possible, as he's onto something, yeah,

(25:50):
it's it's possible. But nowadays, like the edge of science,
especially with something like physics, the boundaries that we're pushing
is on the level of spending billions of dollars, making
more and more and more more accurate experiments in order
to try to like get one tiny little measurement that
you know, by clashing millions of particles together. And it's
it's not that some guys like suddenly waking up and

(26:12):
having a revelation in this space, because you have hundreds
of thousands of scientists around the world that are also
struggling with these problems waking up and then they're going
out and they're testing and there and for a.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
Long time, we've been building on this for centuries. You know.

Speaker 3 (26:26):
It's not to say that we know everything, of course not.
I'm reluctant when I get calls like that to just
be like, oh, that sounds interesting. It's proved whatever I
proved God or something.

Speaker 2 (26:35):
Right, right, Yeah, I know, I know, man.

Speaker 7 (26:37):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (26:38):
Good news is we have a bunch of other really
great calls and you can't call into if you want
because the phone lines are open.

Speaker 3 (26:47):
But oh, you got a good one, you like, Yeah,
I was gonna say, we've got one caller's been waiting
for a while.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
Cool, Well we will, we will come right to you,
tim that. I am just gonna say, tell everybody out there,
you have one freakin' jobs.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
It Okay, it's it one job, just like the video.
It's really easy. It takes like five seconds.

Speaker 1 (27:05):
You it would be nice if you subscribe to the
channel and enable notifications and posted a comment below. But
if you so choose not to, then that is on you.
You may or may not be burned in eternity in how.
We don't know. I just you know it could be
the case. We're just asking questions, but now come on,
do it. Do it already, because we are having a

(27:26):
great time, and we are accepting super chats, and we
might read them live on air if they are funny
enough or worth our time enough, but we are terrible judges,
so we'll probably just read all of them if you
send them, like this one from Jonathan France for a
dollar ninety nine saying cubes unto all of us and
cubes unto you as well. Jonathan, thank you so much

(27:49):
for that portal reference, Yed. We've been talking about cubes
for a while here. It's a yeah, it's it's some
deep lore and I just I just hope it just
keeps going for is there another one hang on that
wasn't given to me? That that super chat was not
I can't be Okay, Hey Thomas, I might no see
you can't put those up there?

Speaker 2 (28:06):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (28:06):
What are you?

Speaker 2 (28:07):
Okay? Now hang on the cruse helping us out, guys,
hang on.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
We have five dollars from l h RPG official saying, Hey, Thomas,
I'm a huge fan.

Speaker 2 (28:16):
I love your Cringe Fails series.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
Thank you for shedding light on the insanity that is
religious in doctrination.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
You do have some good stuff, man, Thank you.

Speaker 1 (28:27):
Miranda Rinsberger been a member for a year, soding ten dollars,
saying I wear glasses. Who I guess I'm exempt from
going to church or tithing?

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Thank God. Yes, that's right, Moran, you know that's it.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
I can't go to church anymore. God, I can't offer
you anything. I'm not gonna tell you why. That is
for the after show.

Speaker 3 (28:50):
If I break my foot, am I disfigured?

Speaker 2 (28:54):
You're not allowed to go to church for that.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
It's kind of like the red tent when when women
are menstruating, it's like you just you're in there for
the period of time, and then once you're done, you
know you're clean again, you can go back to doing stuff.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
It follow them that menstruation is a disability, you know, what.

Speaker 2 (29:08):
That's fascinating. No.

Speaker 1 (29:09):
I do actually know some people that are ex Muslims
that when they were fasting for Ramadan, they would just
tell everybody that they're on their period.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
Because then everybody.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
Would be like, Yeah, you're good man, you don't gotta
worry about that.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
Drink your water, eat your food. Nobody's good.

Speaker 3 (29:24):
Every year it starts on the first period.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
Lay well, well, I have always heard that women are
more connected to the moon cycle. So and Ramadan is
based on the lunar cow, I think it makes sense.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
You guys, nobody check us, nobody fact check us or.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
Anything on that.

Speaker 5 (29:44):
We do.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
We do have Tim. We are gonna grab you. You
are up in New York.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
He him wants to talk about AI and some other
cool stuff. Hey, Tim, you were on AXP with Holy
kool Aid and secularity.

Speaker 2 (29:58):
What you got me?

Speaker 5 (30:00):
I've been watching the show for so long, most of
my life.

Speaker 3 (30:03):
Actually nice.

Speaker 9 (30:05):
So here's my best argument.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
Yeah, we're real.

Speaker 3 (30:08):
Quick, create real quick.

Speaker 1 (30:09):
Just just for a second here, because I see in
the call notes it says Tim is forty nine percent
atheist and fifty one percent believer. I just is that
an accurate description of where you're at?

Speaker 5 (30:22):
Tim, I'd say that's for the sake of argument. I
think those are like pretty numbers for me.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
So sure.

Speaker 1 (30:27):
But but I mean it sounds like you're saying you
believe in a god right of some kind.

Speaker 5 (30:31):
Yeah, oh okay, cool, because I think believe that it's
like more likely than not.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
Okay, why but on my argument here is can I can?

Speaker 1 (30:39):
I do?

Speaker 2 (30:39):
I have the floor? Go ahead? And man, yeah, why
why do you why do you believe this?

Speaker 9 (30:42):
Okay, because we've seen humans now create intelligence through like AI,
and we've never seen intelligence first by you know, not
you know, just naturally.

Speaker 1 (30:57):
We've only seen white swans. We've never seen a black swan.
S are so black swans obviously can't be the case, right,
we've actually seen well you've seen black swans. Oh no,
no way, holy crap. Wait a second. Also, isn't that
isn't that the black swan fallacy? So there's there's this
thing and it's you know, I'm.

Speaker 2 (31:15):
Sure you're I'm sure you're familiar with it.

Speaker 5 (31:17):
Tim.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
I imagine you're a very intelligent man.

Speaker 1 (31:20):
But these logical constructions sometimes fail just based on just
based on the actual like way that the argument is structured.
So for instance, I have been lucky enough to get
to do some car work recently, and there are certain
processes that just have have to happen a certain way.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
If you don't.

Speaker 1 (31:39):
Put this bolt exactly in this spot before you connect
this thing, it just ain't gonna work. Man. The car
just ain't gonna turn on. It's just not gonna move right.
And that's the way arguments work as well. And so,
for instance, if you're constructing this argument to get to
this conclusion, and somewhere along the way one one of

(32:00):
those structures doesn't exactly work, the whole argument has to
be reworked. It doesn't mean that your conclusion is necessarily untrue,
but it does mean that you can't get to that
conclusion that way. So if the argument is, well, hey man,
we've seen people build intelligence. We've never seen intelligence just

(32:21):
show up out of nowhere. Clearly something had to build
us because we're intelligent.

Speaker 2 (32:27):
God built us. God's real.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
That's that's you're using that bad construction there.

Speaker 3 (32:32):
Does that make sense proof?

Speaker 5 (32:33):
I'm saying I'm not saying it's proof.

Speaker 9 (32:36):
I'm saying it's evident.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
I'm saying it's not because it's fallacious.

Speaker 1 (32:40):
I'm saying it can't be by by the very definition
of argumentation, right, just like that, it can't be a
car because it literally does not have an engine connected
to axles and wheels.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
It can't be a car.

Speaker 1 (32:52):
It just cannot do the thing that you're saying it does.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
Does that make sense? Okay?

Speaker 5 (32:57):
Okay, repeat repeat that?

Speaker 2 (32:59):
Sorry, yeah, yeah, noorries.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
So when we reach conclusions, what we do is we
build this chain of argumentation. We may not be doing
it consciously, right, but always we go through this thing
where we say like, hey, this thing is the case,
and then this thing is the case, and because of.

Speaker 2 (33:18):
Those things, this is the conclusion.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
Thing is, though there are certain constructions like that that
we just know one hundred percent of the time are unreliable.
We cannot using that method get to a conclusion that
makes us feel comfortable about it, that makes us.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
Go, you know what, more likely than not that's the case.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
This is one of those and it actually has a name,
and it's called the black swan fallacy, and it literally
comes from an experience many many years ago in human
culture where a bunch of people were looking around and
they were like, wow, all of these swans are white.
We've never seen a black swan. Black swans must not exist.

(34:01):
Funny enough, black swans do exist. But more importantly, that
structure will never get you to a reliable conclusion. I
know I shouted a lot at you, man, but I
will shut up for a second to give you a
moment to process and shout back.

Speaker 5 (34:16):
So we know what I'm saying is just we know
with one hundred percent certainty that at least could be
the case. But we don't know that intelligence could have
just created without a spark.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Why not you don't know that?

Speaker 2 (34:31):
Why what's the different? What's different about the two.

Speaker 7 (34:33):
Cuning never seen it?

Speaker 5 (34:35):
So you never seen it.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
So you're saying that humans right, because we created artificial intelligence.

Speaker 9 (34:42):
Can I step one? Can I say one thing?

Speaker 5 (34:44):
Can I say one thing about the black swan? We know,
we know there's a black swan now, but at the
time when there were no black swans and they've gone
to end of the earth, then at that point it
might be reasonable to say there's no black swan.

Speaker 3 (34:57):
No, no, no. Because the point is that the argumentation
style itself, the way you formulate the argument, the conclusion
does not follow from the premises. It's not that it's
ruled out by it, or it could potentially be ruled
out by it, et cetera. It's that this line of
reasoning does not necessitate that you get the conclusion from

(35:19):
the premises. So if you say we've seen artificial intelligence,
we've never seen this, you know, naturally formed form of intelligence.
Therefore all intelligence has to be constructed. That line of
reasoning is the same line of reasoning as we've never
seen a black swan. Therefore they don't exist. It's like
they it could be true that there's no black swans

(35:40):
at the time that they were arguing that it could
have been true that there were black swans. The point
is that laying out the argument that way, it's not
evidential that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Speaker 5 (35:50):
However, however, my argument is only based on certainty. I'm
saying I'm fifty one percent certain because.

Speaker 6 (35:57):
I have evidence.

Speaker 7 (35:58):
I don't have thinks that it is that, you know.

Speaker 5 (36:01):
I'm not saying I know with one hundred percent certainty.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
We're not pushing back on that part in all honesty,
hang on, just second tim In all honesty, we we
don't need to worry about that. So Thomas and I
aren't pushing back on that, Okay. What we're saying is
when you come back to us and go, well, hang on,
hang on, guys, I'm not fan. I'm like one hundred
percent certain here, but I am saying that I do
have this thing right here in this folder.

Speaker 2 (36:26):
I got this on my side.

Speaker 1 (36:27):
What we're just trying to point out is that, hey,
actually you don't like and and that's okay, because in
all fairness.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
We can't do that either.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
We don't get to say, well, hey, you know, Thomas,
I've never seen a God.

Speaker 2 (36:43):
You know, Jesus has.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Never once showed up right here in studios, so therefore
God must not exist. No, we're using the same improper
argumentation structure that you would be using right there.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
And so that's that's not what we're doing. That's not
what we're saying. Now.

Speaker 1 (37:00):
You could say this, though, Tim, You could say, hey,
we have definitely seen people make some form of intelligence,
so we can say that that raises the likelihood of
the possibility that intelligence requires some type of manufacture or construction,

(37:20):
right it, Maybe maybe it raises the bart.

Speaker 3 (37:27):
We know that it's possible to create consciousness. Right Even there,
I would push back, We don't necessarily know that what
we have created is conscious. We could call it artificial intelligence,
you could even call it artificial general intelligence. But does
it feel, does it have emotion? Does it is it

(37:47):
self aware? Does it know that it's alive? Or is
it simply like And I know that now they're kind
of past the point of large language models, But is
it doing that same sort of method where it's predicting
the next word that it's going to come up with
just based off of an algorithm, And is that different
from regular intelligence? I don't know, right, But you're going
up against the entire field of neuropsychology and neuroscience and

(38:11):
computer science and artificial intelligence, like those are the people
who are having the argument saying like is it conscious?

Speaker 8 (38:15):
Is it not?

Speaker 3 (38:16):
But I don't think that that point is settled. I don't.
I think it's far from being accepted that what we've
created is intelligence in that way and like a conscious,
self aware form of intelligence. So don't I don't even
grant that point. And I would also push back on
the point that like, we haven't seen intelligence arise naturally.
Every single animal on Earth it gives birth, gives birth

(38:39):
based off of a non intelligent sperm and a non
intelligent egg made of purely natural substances that come together
by the laws of nature, and the brain develops on
its own, entirely, on its own forms naturally. We see
that with every species.

Speaker 5 (38:53):
Formed, however, almost always their sexual selection requires intelligence. No,
but it doesn't.

Speaker 3 (38:59):
It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter because I'm not I'm not
consciously forming this together in a way like it's the
chemical processes that are going on are purely natural processes.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
I can leave, I can leave an area right and
just have two cows, right, and those two cows can
just breed a whole bunch without any human being ever
doing jackshit, and all of those cows will will be born, right,
They will exist, They will have intelligence to some capacity.

Speaker 2 (39:30):
Right. Are is it the same level of intelligence as humans?

Speaker 1 (39:34):
No? I think there's good reason to say that there
is a gradient, there is a scale. But we do
see intelligence forming all the time naturally.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
It's honestly just the.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
Fact that you're starting this off, tim with the conclusion
that intelligence has to be created, that it can't just
form naturally, Because if you didn't start with that conclusion,
you would agree, like all of these animals I don't
know how involved you are whenever whenever your dog gives birth,
but I can promise you I have never been that

(40:08):
you know, intimate with it.

Speaker 2 (40:10):
So it just I don't know.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
You tell me, man, these cows are doing something and
they keep making more.

Speaker 2 (40:15):
Of them, so it shout shout back to us, Tim,
what what do you think?

Speaker 5 (40:19):
I'm just saying their their selection still does require some
level of intelligence.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
But how can you say that? What? What is it
that you are off of?

Speaker 5 (40:29):
I just can I just take a step back for
a second, because you're telling me, oh, Jesus doesn't show
up in the studio. I mean, I get that, but
I'm saying. All I'm saying is that it makes it
more likely. I'm not saying that it's absolute proof. I'm
saying that's why I'm only at fifty one percent, and
I'm saying it's I'm not even I'm not claiming it's

(40:50):
a conclusion.

Speaker 7 (40:50):
I'm not claiming, Oh.

Speaker 3 (40:51):
There you are.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
I mean you again, you are, Tim Or I'm not
are at that.

Speaker 5 (40:57):
I'm not I'm only at Oh, this seems like it's likely,
not a conclusion, not that I know.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
Look, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna harp on it, Tim,
but every single person can go back and watch how
you started this call, and I appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (41:11):
Now the language that you.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
Are using is one of a bit more of humility,
is one of a bit more of like, hey, it
raises the potential or you know, the.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Likelihood is slightly shifted.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
Those are the right terms to be using here, right,
But when you started this call, my brother, I mean, please.

Speaker 2 (41:32):
Go back and watch it. There was no uncertainty in
your statements.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
You were quite quite certain, which is okay.

Speaker 2 (41:40):
It is okay.

Speaker 1 (41:41):
To be passionate and be interested in presenting the information.
But let's take for sure, hang on just a second, Tim,
I'm in the middle of speaking, brother.

Speaker 2 (41:49):
I know you know how conversation works. You a smart man.

Speaker 1 (41:52):
When we are having these conversations, especially about things like this,
like Thomas was saying, this is stuff that is now
so well researched.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
This is deep, deep stuff. Man.

Speaker 1 (42:07):
You're talking about artificial intelligence. This isn't something that we
just we just you know, scratched around in the dirt
with a stick and figured out.

Speaker 2 (42:14):
This took a lot of.

Speaker 1 (42:15):
People doing a lot, a lot of research and demonstrating
that it is true over and.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
Over and over again. So in these in these discussions,
it's really really a good idea.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
To be like, hey, I think this may be sort
of increases as opposed to being like, well, yeah, obviously
intelligence has to be created, which again I really do
feel like you came in more with that energy.

Speaker 3 (42:40):
But what you got, man?

Speaker 2 (42:41):
What do you got?

Speaker 3 (42:42):
Thomas? Well, I kind of want to hear here Timers response?

Speaker 2 (42:44):
First, what do you think? Tim?

Speaker 5 (42:46):
I mean, I did tell the call screener that I
said it was fifty one percent, and I told you
that from the beginning as well.

Speaker 1 (42:51):
Yeah, I brought again. I'm not going to harp on
the point, man, just just move on. You you were
very confident when you called in. Okay, and it's okay,
you're you're using the right language now, so let's continue
the conversation and that all past.

Speaker 7 (43:03):
Thing.

Speaker 5 (43:03):
All I'm saying is that that puts me just tways
toward thinking. And that's what changes you from an atheist,
because atheist is just believed like you don't know and
I don't know. So that's why I think that it
being a source of evidence is important. But to the
black Swan argument, I mean We've never seen a pig
with a particular set of a green polka dots, like

(43:27):
purple and green and blue polka dots. So that's why
I think I would think that by the evidence I've
seen that that probably isn't. There probably aren't.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
Pigs, okay, so that's fine and probably aren't.

Speaker 3 (43:39):
I think that the argument that Temi is trying to
make is a case for inductive reasoning, which is it
is how science operates. It's you look at, Okay, we've
dropped a ball five hundred times, doesn't necessarily guarantee that
the five hundred and first time that the ball won't
just float up into the atmosphere, that everything we know
about gravity is wrong. But you do build cases based
off of what you've seen and what you've experienced. I

(44:02):
think there's a difference between saying we've tested this, we've
performed this, we've seen this, and so we're going to
operate within the realm of the world that we see.
But to say that intelligence can't exist or doesn't exist
because we haven't observed it, that's where I think Elliott
was pushing back. My pushback would be more on even
if I grant all of that and say like, Okay, yeah,

(44:24):
we've seen this, and we haven't seen this. I would
say we haven't. We don't know. For one, With artificial intelligence,
we might get there. In fact, I think there's a
good chance that we will get there to a point
where artificial intelligence is sentient and is self aware and
everything great. But just because we've figured out how to
replicate the natural mechanisms of the brain, everything that we

(44:45):
know about how the universe formed, everything that we know
about a biogenesis, we can go and perform studies, whether
it's the miller Ury experiment way back in the early
nineteen hundreds that found that things like amino acids, which
are like the building blocks of proteins, formed naturally in
a lap under conditions similar to what the early Earth
was like. We found not just amino acids, but nucleic

(45:06):
acids and stuff forming together in a recreation of what
early like. You have these little steam vents under the
ocean that where there's energy and there's heat that's coming up,
and you've got all of these little molecules and they
form together naturally using the laws of physics. They form
together into proto cells. They form little cell like cell

(45:27):
walls based off a lipid simply because one side is
hydrophilic and one side iss hydrophobic, and they form together
on their own, similar to little drops of oil and water.
We see these things coming together. And that's barely, barely,
barely scratching the surface of the amount of research that
has been done on the field of a biogenesis. And
the more pieces of the puzzle that you get, the

(45:48):
more you start to see that like, oh wow, we
don't know everything about how this came together, but we
know from all of the pieces that we do have
what the picture is of, and it's of life slowly
emerging naturally from non life slowly forming together and to
proto cells and then prokaryotes and eukaryotes and multicellular organisms.

(46:09):
And we have all of the different steps along the
way of the different fossils and the different you know,
little markers and stuff, and we can look at the
fossil record and see, you know, on the time scales
that we would expect to see it. That's how we
see it. And they're in the layers and the order
that we would expect to see and like you can
genetically test a lot of a lot of specimens and
like once you get it into like more recent times,

(46:30):
genetic material can survive for a while and you can
see the mutation rates and how quickly they change. So
like you get this picture, this big picture that comes
together that it's it's very hard to look at that
and say that this didn't come about naturally. So then
to just come along and just do a blanket statement
of we've never seen it come about naturally, I would argue,
we have only ever seen it come about naturally.

Speaker 4 (46:51):
Yeah, what do you think, tim, Well, that speaks like
far far, far far down in the process, but we
don't know that.

Speaker 5 (46:59):
You know, however, many billions of years ago that the
spark like for instance, and you guys don't seem to
like computer simulation arguments, Is that correct? Like, I don't know,
I've noticed you guys don't love that.

Speaker 9 (47:11):
But anyway, uh.

Speaker 5 (47:13):
We can probably we can create a computer simulation where okay,
so many x years into the computer simulation, this event occurs,
like we had we set.

Speaker 4 (47:24):
Up the the you know, the the uh, the surrounding circumstances,
so we don't know that and and I'm not I'm
just saying that's not strongly convincing because we don't know
at the beginning point that you know, some deity, some
god didn't spark.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
The But why is that even coming into the thought
process here? Tim, This is kind of that this is
this is a big problem. And this is why I
said you were you were already reaching the conclusion is
because where you start off in this chain here, in
this kind of thinking, right, you are starting off with

(48:00):
this conclusion that hey, actually a god is it's totally
possible that there was this deity that made all this.

Speaker 2 (48:08):
And Thomas and I are just.

Speaker 1 (48:09):
Kind of going like, well, hang on, wait a second,
like how are you showing that this god is possible?
And then when you when we get to that, what
we have is an argument construction that we know isn't reliable.

Speaker 3 (48:23):
It's basically it's a God of the gaps argument, right.
It's saying, well, you know what, we see all of
the steps of this this thing going all the way
back to this point, and there's this tiny little point
where we don't have this last puzzle piece there for God.
The problem is that this argument has been used, this
this way of arguing for God as evidence for God
has been used all the way back to like when
we didn't know how gravity worked, so it was the

(48:45):
gods were pushing planets along in the sky with chariots.
You know, Oh, we figure out how that works. Well, well,
God is responsible for this, and then it's responsible for
you know, for that, and then it's responsible and then
as we slowly get more and more and more pieces
of this puzzle, those gaps for God to hide in
have been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking until there's almost
nowhere left for him to hide. So God gets relegated

(49:08):
back to like the points of science that are very
very difficult to measure and observe. And when scientists will
look at that and say, okay, yeah, we don't know
exactly what happened before the Big Bang. We don't know.
We don't know if that was the beginning, we don't
know if there were infinite cyclical universes. We're figuring it
out still. And I think that's where the theists will
be like, aha, got them. They don't know therefore God,

(49:30):
And it's like, if you want to keep using that argument,
those those gaps are just going to keep shrinking, and
are you willing to when that gap gets filled to
give it up and say, okay, I was wrong about that.
You know, let's reconsider or are you going to be like, Okay,
well we figured that one out. But God is responsible
for this over here.

Speaker 2 (49:46):
Yeah, and Tim, I know, I know we've been shouting
at you a bit, but we do have a couple
of other.

Speaker 5 (49:52):
Can I make one more?

Speaker 2 (49:53):
You got? You got thirty seconds? Get going?

Speaker 9 (49:55):
Well?

Speaker 5 (49:56):
Like I said, we have a similar computer process where
the human can begin the simulation and give the parameters.
So that's why I'm saying only by a preponderance of evidence,
and I'm just saying it's not impossible, because.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Yeah, we're not saying it's impossible either.

Speaker 11 (50:15):
Though.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
What we're saying is that that that information. What we're saying, Tim,
is that information that you're bringing to the table as
saying is a preponderance of evidence.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
Does not meet that criteria. That's what we're trying to say.
We're not saying it's impossible.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
We are not saying that just because we've never seen
a God do it means it has to.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
That is not where we're at. Okay, But again, we
do have.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
A couple of other really good calls. Man, So we
are just gonna abruptly let you go. But man, seriously,
call us back. Okay, if you're forty nine percent atheist
and fifty one percent believer, I gotta be honest.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
I just want to know about that. That's fascinating to me.

Speaker 1 (50:54):
I don't know how that works in and of itself,
so please do do call us back.

Speaker 2 (50:59):
And yeah, let's talk.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
More about artificial intelligence and stuff. We have a couple
of other really good calls, but before I grab them,
I'm gonna let you know about some cool things because
if you are in the Austin area, you should follow
this group, the Atheist Community of Austin on meetup to
keep up with the community events because there is always

(51:21):
cool stuff that is happening. It is super duper easy
to find tiny dot cc, slash ACA meetup. You got
Philosophy under the Stars, game nights and more. I heard
something about some hiking going on. I don't walk long
distances very well. I'm much more dwarfish in that very
short short burst.

Speaker 2 (51:39):
That's right, that's sprint, that's right, that's right, and back
to the couch baby, that's it.

Speaker 1 (51:44):
I should also let you know that you can join
in on the weekly watch parties right here at the
Free Thought Library on Sundays for live viewings of Talk
Heathen and the Atheist Experience.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
It is every freaking Sunday, doors open at noon, and
it is a great place were building community, and that
is so freaking true.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
We got a couple of good good calls. I'm excited.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
I I'm thinking we go up to Illinois.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
We talked to Denny. He him as a.

Speaker 1 (52:12):
Theist and a gnostic Christian and just wants to talk
about science and God and all that good stuff. Well, Denny,
you're in the right place man, because you were on
the Atheist Experience.

Speaker 2 (52:21):
What you got for.

Speaker 3 (52:21):
Us good good.

Speaker 11 (52:26):
I wanted to start off by asking do you see
God as a human invention?

Speaker 1 (52:30):
I think that's probably one of the best descriptions. I
think deities in general were things that you know, were
created by various human cultures.

Speaker 3 (52:38):
I think it depends on how you define God.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
That's right. Yeah, that's true, But.

Speaker 11 (52:43):
Of course it does mismatter. So so you say yes
to this questionnaire again.

Speaker 1 (52:48):
I think our answer was a little bit more nuanced
than that, but you know, for the sake of it,
let's just say yes.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
Let's see, let's see where this script goes.

Speaker 11 (52:56):
So yeah, the script. So many people, philosophers, mathematis in
the past, they saw God not as a being in
the sky. So it is the foundation of existence, the
energy that sustains all living things behind the material that's
science calls it dark matter ninety invisible.

Speaker 3 (53:12):
So what that sounds like quivocation?

Speaker 1 (53:14):
Yeah, that sounds like do you know do you know
what equivocation is?

Speaker 2 (53:18):
Do you know what Thomas was just bringing up there?

Speaker 10 (53:20):
I'm not quite sure.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
Now, No, that's okay, I'm sure Thomas.

Speaker 7 (53:23):
What is it?

Speaker 3 (53:24):
So equivocation is where you will basically you'll present one argument, right,
that has one meaning of one word, and you'll lay
out the case for this argument, and then when you
jump to the conclusion, you jump to the conclusion based
off of a different definition of that specific word. So
when you present a case like this where you say,

(53:44):
well that your definition of God is a you know,
this man made construct, but actually the definition of God
is you know, something that's more that the energy of
the universe or something like that. And scientists have found
energy in the universe, therefore they've proved God. Well, you've
just basically redefined God as the energy of the universe.

(54:04):
And because that exists, then that exists. You haven't really
gotten anywhere. All you've shown is that, Yeah, scientists believe
that there's energy in the universe.

Speaker 2 (54:12):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 9 (54:14):
Denny?

Speaker 3 (54:16):
Sorry?

Speaker 2 (54:16):
Do you understand what we're saying here? Denny? Do you
get what what Thomas was explaining there? Cool?

Speaker 3 (54:21):
Yes, there're more that you wanted to get into.

Speaker 2 (54:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 11 (54:24):
Yeah, So I didn't refine I didn't redefine God. That's
what I see in the fiance books, in the fifteen
hundred and sixty one hundred sides.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Now what we're saying, Denny, hang on, we're not saying
that you redefined God.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (54:36):
Thomas and I are both fairly familiar with that type
of construction for the definition of a deity. We both
know that that's what people say, right Like, for instance,
you might have heard this, Denny, I don't know. It
says you're a gnostic Christian. So maybe if you've heard
this that Jesus Christ.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
Isn't a man. Jesus Christ is a relationship. Christianity isn't
a religion. It's it's how you live your life, man Like.
That's all fine and well and good.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
What that is is flowery metaphoric poetic language and it's
really pretty, but it doesn't have any actual connection and
bearing to the real world. And so what we're saying
is that you went out there and you found this
one esoteric definition of God that a lot of people
like to use, and the way that the definition is

(55:24):
constructed is one with a bunch.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
Of different terms.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
That have like six, seven, maybe eight different meanings. And
then you found this other piece of information over here
that uses one of those words with one of those meanings,
and you.

Speaker 2 (55:40):
Went, hah, there it is, got it proof.

Speaker 1 (55:43):
And that's what we're trying to say is that when scientists.

Speaker 2 (55:47):
Are talking about energy, when they.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Talk about the energy radiating outward from the Big Bang
or kinetic energy, potential energy, all that cool shit, what
they're talking about is something that is very different than
what the people that are talking about God energy are
talking about.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 7 (56:07):
Yeah?

Speaker 11 (56:08):
Again, I just explained one definition because I cannot explain
everything I know. But you have to understand that God
is the principle within man. So your conscious perception of
reality shapes the external reality and internal I.

Speaker 2 (56:19):
Don't really internalize what we said, Denny. I'm just gonna
be honest.

Speaker 1 (56:24):
I'm gonna move on because you know, every second that
passes today, I get closer to free pizzas. So I'm
thrilled no matter what the fuck happens with this call.
But I'll just tell you based on that response, Denny, honestly,
I believe you.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
Did not hear a single word either of us.

Speaker 1 (56:41):
Said, which is okay, Like whatever we do this regularly
call us back.

Speaker 2 (56:45):
But what are your thoughts?

Speaker 3 (56:46):
Tell me that I mean, I mean it very much
is equivocation because it's basically saying, like, God is energy,
Your God? Is this interconnected something or other? And we
have something similar to that defined by physicists. And it's
like usually when physicists are talking about energy, they're talking
about something very measurable and very tangible. Is this something?

(57:07):
Is it gravitational energy? Is a potential energy? Is it
kinetic energy? Can we measure it in heat? Can we
measure this in watts? Can we like? What kind of
energy is this that we're talking about here? And if
you just have this hypothetical energy in the universe, it's like, well,
is it bottled up and stored somewhere? Does it have consciousness?
That's a very very different thing. You know, if someone's

(57:27):
saying like, oh, yes, there's energy that connects all of
us together. Okay, yes, I guess I mean, like, right now,
there's particles in this room that are moving about with
kinetic energy technically, and my breath has particles that are
moving faster, so I have hot breath, and so I'm like, oh,
and I've just my particles have bounced off of my breath,
particles that have bounced off of Secularity and warmed him up,

(57:50):
and so we're all connected in this way. But it's like,
that's not what people mean when usually when I hear
them talk about how we're interconnected, it's some sort of
like psychic connection. We have some sore of you know,
I can read minds, I can see into the future,
or maybe God can read my mind, or God knows
where I am at all times, and he's somehow able
to interact with and change the laws of physics without

(58:10):
somehow changing the laws of physics. And it's it's just
it starts these definitions start being really wibbly wiggly wobbly,
and you'll see people make an argument for God and
it's like they'll they'll be like, oh, yeah, God exists
because of this, and then they start to then say,
and so therefore the Bible and therefore that. And when
you attack that and you say no, no, no, hold up,
you know you didn't make a case for you know,

(58:32):
God being conscious, you didn't. You know, there's there's no
proof that this this this, Then they'll be like, oh no, no,
I was just arguing that this energy thing that everyone
agrees upon exists and it's it's it's called a Mot
and Bailey argument set up basically like that, you have
the Mott and the Bailey, and like one of them
is kind of like with castle terminology, right, So one
of them is this far fetched, insane claim, and you

(58:52):
kind of like make the case for that, and everyone
draws the conclusion that that's the that's where the evidence leads.
But then if their arguments UN's absurd and someone pushes back,
they can drop back to the Bailey and just be like,
oh no, I never actually said that. I was. I
was really just arguing for this really simple thing that's
not really that controversial, and so that that's what I hear.

(59:12):
That's the vibes that I'm getting from this kind of argument.

Speaker 1 (59:16):
This is another good term there, vibes that gets thrown
around all the time.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
But what do you think, Danny?

Speaker 1 (59:20):
I know we've shouted a bunch at you, So what
what do you think I might have?

Speaker 11 (59:23):
But like you said, you just give very good examples.
But science explains the origins of God. Because ninety five
percent is a dark method, it's unknown to science, but
doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so we don't deny that existence.
It is considered God just because it's divine origins. We
have to accept and appreciate how beautiful it is.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
Did you just say all the hang on, hang on?
Did you just say that dark matter is God?

Speaker 2 (59:46):
Is that what you just said?

Speaker 11 (59:47):
I'm saying the ninety five percent of the invisible universe
problem is considered God because it's non measurable by any
mathematical or physical observation.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
So just real quick, though, just real quick, Danny, I
would love if we could have this moment together.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
Okay, When you tell.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
Me ninety five percent of the universe is this particular
undetectable material, do you see why I feel like that
statement is weird. I just want to know. Do you
let me let me try it again? When you tell
me that we have detected that ninety five percent of
the universe is undetectable. Do you see why I push

(01:00:28):
back a little bit, Denny? Do you see why I'm
a little exasperated with that thought?

Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
Does it make sense?

Speaker 10 (01:00:33):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
Why tell tell me for my own clarity, for my
peace of mind and sleeping well tonight. Why is that
a weird statement, Denny?

Speaker 11 (01:00:42):
Because we don't know therefore God, So that's your argument?

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
Thank you, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Hang on. I've got you on mute, just super abruptly
and rudely, because what you just said is completely wrong.
So it sounds to me like you're not following, which
is great because I have a chance to explain. Hey, Thomas,
if I tell you that I've detected that ninety five
percent of the Free Thought library is undetectable, does that

(01:01:08):
statement strike you a little weird?

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
It does?

Speaker 10 (01:01:10):
Why?

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
And I I want to push back, but I also
want to defend Denny here.

Speaker 2 (01:01:15):
Okay, okay, I want to do charity. Let's be charitable.

Speaker 3 (01:01:18):
What you're saying is we have detected it even though
it's not detectable, which is a It's a contradiction of terms, right,
If you can't detect it, then you can't detect.

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
How would we know that nine what universe is undetected?

Speaker 3 (01:01:30):
What I would push back, and where I think Denny
might have just been a little bit sloppy with the wording,
is that there there are things in the universe. There
are ways of detecting things, for example, like the gravitational
pull and the density of galaxies and things like that
that lead scientists to be like, there's something else. Okay,
there's some other force. Yeah, that is at work here. Okay, Right,

(01:01:54):
there's something else that's going on. And that's because the
models are not they're not account for this. And so
it's in a way he's right, we haven't straight up
measured or detected right, dark matter or dark energy. That
doesn't mean that there isn't reason to think that it's there.

Speaker 1 (01:02:09):
Sure, So so maybe just maybe just a little bit
a little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:02:12):
More, uh, I would give him a little bit. No, No,
I appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
That's good. That's good. I appreciate that. And so we're
we're all helping each other today, Denny. So it's not
that we haven't really detected it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Right. Again, this is that equivocation thing.

Speaker 1 (01:02:27):
There's multiple meanings for this word detection, right, there's multiple
meanings for whether or not something is undetectable.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
So again we had this with the last caller too.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
A little bit of humility in these spaces, I think
is really warranted.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
You're coming in here saying.

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
The foundation of dark matter, which is energy that sustains
all things, is called god like.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
A little bit of humility, my brother, would be wonderful
in this moment. Thomas and I are not saying.

Speaker 1 (01:02:56):
That dark energy definitively cannot when under cannot be got.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
That's not what we're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
But we are saying that, hey man, there's a lot
of this already on the face of it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
That's a little odd.

Speaker 1 (01:03:09):
Again, just like when somebody comes up to me and says, man,
ninety five percent we've detected ninety five percent of the
universe is undetectable.

Speaker 2 (01:03:16):
I perk up a little bit and I go, that's weird.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
Man. The other thing to point out is the reasons
that we say we have reason to believe in this
stuff is because there's certain interactions that you know, so, oh,
maybe it's the rate of gravity or the rate of
expansion or things like that that we have measured and
we have determined based off of those measurements what the
speed should be and stuff. So it's like our only

(01:03:38):
quote detection of And again I'm not an astrophysicist, so
I want to couch that up front. But are our
way of knowing about this stuff? It's like, that's what
we see in the universe. Is that the fact that
you know, maybe it's expanding too quickly or something like that.
It's not that we're detecting that this dark energy is
then suddenly like somehow spontaneously like just generating a planet
here and curing Grandma's cancer over there and doing this

(01:04:01):
over here. Like those are the types of things that
like we could measure. So if there wasn't interactive god
of some sort, then yeah, but I don't want to
put words. No, I know, I feel like we've been
a little uncharitable to them.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Well, no, I appreciate that, man, I appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:12):
Look, sometimes sometimes we get things wrong, we hear things wrong.
So I'm always happy to correct, you know. And anytime
if we're ever saying something that isn't right, Denny, you
just let us know, say, hey, that's not what I said.
But I know we shouted a good bit at you,
So give us a give us some thoughts. Man, where
what do you think here?

Speaker 11 (01:04:27):
Yeah, so you said some quite quite good things, and
I agree some of them. But again we just because
there's dark matter you say, doesn't mean there's God, doesn't
mean there's intelligence. Just because we detected something, you don't
even say, yeah, we didn't even detect it, So how
can we didn't know? It's ninety five percent? I guess
what you're saying. So science agreed there's an invisible lat
of reality which shapes the mathematical laws, a Fibernati sequence

(01:04:50):
and go the ratio which operates under an invisible wall,
which which many many scientists agree. Actually it proves that
most of the reality is beyond our perception, which suppose
the mystics which thought for centuries it's not only the
material world, it's just a fraction of existence.

Speaker 3 (01:05:06):
Yeah, you're losing.

Speaker 2 (01:05:08):
I wanted to give him.

Speaker 3 (01:05:09):
Yeah, the golden wall, the golden ratio hidden behind a
wall of something.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
Yeah, and the invisible stuff, the invisible like layer of
reality that influences the physical and stuff it. It almost
sounds to me a bit, okay, Danny, it almost sounds
a bit to me in what's called like a presuppositional
apologetics kind of line of argumentation. And this was actually
something Oh gosh, my buddy Gary knows this more than

(01:05:38):
I do. But this guy Bonson, he made this really popular.
Somebody else Cornelius something made it Cornelius till or something.

Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
I don't know any who.

Speaker 6 (01:05:47):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
It kind of has this flavor of like, hey, man,
like you can't even have logic or reasoning or matter
at all unless you have God, the ultimate axi medical
instantiation of substantive existence or something. It's just really, really,
it's a bunch of big words, and it's a lot

(01:06:08):
of it's a lot of terminologies.

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
That don't exactly connect up.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
But people say them very confidently and then move on
and expect the other person to have to answer those questions.

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
And I'm just I don't like that argumentation.

Speaker 1 (01:06:25):
And the reason I don't like that argumentation is because,
in part, well, we can just do anything like that,
and if we have two competing hypotheses and honestly they're
both as likely we do not have an answer, we
are still in the same boat of confusion at question
mark man. And so this line of argumentation, unfortunately, can

(01:06:49):
be used for everything. I mean, for everything, not just religion,
but for fucking unicorns, I mean, for Bigfoot, like.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
All of this stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:06:58):
I highly doubt you believe that there are actually magical
tree nymphs living in the forest in North America.

Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
And yet through this line.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
Of argumentation we could get to this place where we
would have to agree, Yeah, okay, these magical tree nymphs exist.
So I would love if I always give people homework. Okay,
and I'm terrible about this, and you don't have to.
You can tell me to go fuck myself.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
It's pretty easy.

Speaker 1 (01:07:23):
But I would love if you, after this call, spent
some time reading through some of that presuppositional apologetic script
and listening to some of the people that have some
really good, you know, responses to it. I have heard
that there is a channel on YouTube. It's this interesting

(01:07:43):
little place on the web. A bunch of people get
on there and like make videos and stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
I've heard there's this guy, Holy Cullade or something.

Speaker 1 (01:07:52):
I don't know if you've heard, but I've heard he
has some stuff on it, so it might be helpful there.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
But yeah, you ever heard.

Speaker 1 (01:07:58):
Of presuppositional apologetics?

Speaker 2 (01:08:00):
As am? I just am?

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
I like totally off base here or is this like,
are you flipping?

Speaker 2 (01:08:08):
Yeah? Great man, that that's awesome.

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
I love that.

Speaker 2 (01:08:11):
I love that. We do have a couple of other calls.

Speaker 1 (01:08:13):
But Thomas, was there anything else you wanted to you
wanted to say to Denny before.

Speaker 2 (01:08:17):
We we get going.

Speaker 3 (01:08:18):
I think I'm good on this one.

Speaker 1 (01:08:19):
Sweet Well, Denny, we are gonna just abruptly drop you.
But thank you so much for calling in and it
I really do. I know that there's a couple of
times I might have come at you a little hard,
and I apologize.

Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
You know, that's why Thomas is here to rain me
back in. But give us a call back. You know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:34):
We're here every Sunday, man, same time, same place. Please
keep looking into this because if we're wrong, we want
to know that, like if we've just totally missed this
super duper obvious thing. Like, guys, it's right there in
front of you, dark energy, it's the If it's that
fucking simple, man, I mean, show it to us, please,

(01:08:56):
because we're gonna change our minds and we're gonna we're
gonna get to place where we say, hey, you know what, Denny,
you are right, But I hope and this is always
our challenge. I hope that if we can show you
that by your criteria, this argument does not do the
thing you say it does, that you'll change your mind
too and say, you know what, guys, you're right, So

(01:09:17):
keep hanging out with us, Denny. I think I think
the call was really good, and I think you are
in a good place, and hopefully you know we can.

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
Convert more people to Satan an atheist.

Speaker 1 (01:09:27):
I'm not supposed to say it. I'm not supposed to
say that live. I'm so sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:09:30):
That's gonna be That's terrible. I do legally, legally have
to do this.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
I will be jailed, find imprisoned, beaten by somebody if
I don't give a massive, huge, incredible shout out to
the amazing crew that put this show together.

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
Every week.

Speaker 1 (01:09:50):
We have video operators, audio operators, note takers, call screeners,
chat moderators, We've got people providing snacks here at the
Free Thought Live. And I think I have been told
that Vern does the plumbing, so if you have any problems,
give him a call. But no, seriously, we have an amazing,
amazing crew and we are always so thankful because we

(01:10:13):
just get to come up here and sit and have
fun and all that good stuff. So we are going
to go to Mississippi because we are going to talk
to Hannah. She her wants to talk about the de
ontological case for being pro life. Well this sounds fun, Hey, Hannah,
you were talking with secularity and holy kool aid, what you.

Speaker 10 (01:10:32):
Got hey, So basically I wanted to give a reason
why I think the moral position is to basically have
a pro fu on the abortion debate. But basically I'd
like to present that case.

Speaker 2 (01:10:44):
Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (01:10:45):
I don't agree with the ontology in general, just so
you know. So it's going to be a tough slog
I'm much more on the utilitarian consequentialism side, so but
go ahead.

Speaker 10 (01:10:54):
Well, so basically my argument is that I take some
conscious idea like moral they should be universal, and so
I think because abortions unless it's to save the life
of the mother, is wrong, because it's basically saying that
there's an exception to the otherwise universal principles do not
kill innocent people, and so if it's to save the
life of the mother, I think there's an exception that

(01:11:15):
we made there because the principles do not go innocent people.
And if the fetus is a dreads to the life
of motherd And I think that's the case of still defense.
But if it's not a thread to the mother, I'd
just say it's a universal kind of goal comparative to like,
not not kill the innocent. Even if you could say
it's not an actual individual indivadion for the mother, it's
still protected under that universal kind of goal comparatives. That
makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:11:34):
Can I hate them?

Speaker 5 (01:11:35):
Follow?

Speaker 3 (01:11:35):
Can I ask you a quick question? What was your name?

Speaker 4 (01:11:38):
Aha?

Speaker 2 (01:11:39):
Hannah?

Speaker 3 (01:11:39):
Hannah? Okay, Hannah Hannah. Would you say that if I
were to kidnap you, and I were to take you
into a laboratory, and I have someone there in my
laboratory who they don't have working kidneys, but you do.
And I found a way to hook your bodies up
to each other. And you are keeping this person alive,

(01:12:02):
and it is against your will, and you don't want
to and you want to have your freedom. But I say, look,
for the next nine months, you are forced to carry
this person everywhere you go with you attached to their body,
and if this cord is separated between you and them,
they will die. Is it your obligation to give up
your autonomy as a human being to be forced to

(01:12:25):
have a parasite that you are keeping alive, even if
it is a conscious, sentient human being, regardless of that
person's story. Is it your duty as a human being
to do that?

Speaker 7 (01:12:34):
Well?

Speaker 10 (01:12:34):
Yeah, I mean based on the canical comparative of Like,
my principle is, I don't think it's ever justified to kill.

Speaker 3 (01:12:40):
Or no, you're misunderstanding me. Is it? Would you consider
it murder? If I kidnapped you hooked you up to
someone and you are their life support machine, and you
say no, no, no, I deserve bodily autonomy. I don't. I'm
not responsible to keep anyone else alive if I don't
want to, Like, they cannot use me parasitically as a

(01:13:02):
leech hosting off of my body. Do you have a
right you would consider that murder?

Speaker 10 (01:13:07):
I don't think there's a way.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
Yeah, you would say that that's murder.

Speaker 3 (01:13:10):
So then then you are arguing for a society where
all of us should be forced to give up kidneys,
should be forced to have our kidneys harvested in order
to keep other people alive, should be forced to depends.

Speaker 10 (01:13:22):
On what you're alive or dead, Because if you're alive,
you have a right to your kidneys. But if you're dead,
there's a case to be made that your dead corpse
that other people can do it.

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
But if you're alive, we can go down that route.

Speaker 1 (01:13:33):
There's a reason that we care about people's last wishes,
but it doesn't matter you.

Speaker 3 (01:13:37):
Do you or do you not as a person have
a right to bodily autonomy to not be forced to
have your body you be used against your will to
keep someone else alive, even if it's it's keeping them alive.
Do you have an obligation or do you have bodily
autonomy to be free and not be a host to
a parasite?

Speaker 10 (01:13:57):
I would say you have an obligation to not prevent
the death of another person.

Speaker 3 (01:14:01):
And that's not what I'm asking.

Speaker 1 (01:14:03):
Yeah, you're you're changing it, Hannah is this is very
very specific, and I would argue that. Okay, okay, So
so hang on in this specific case, colgies, follow what
he's saying.

Speaker 3 (01:14:13):
In this specific case, would you say that it is
my moral obligation to give up my own bodily autonomy
in order to keep someone else alive?

Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
Yes, okay, so you you don't think bodily autonomy is important.
You you do not, in fact agree with some of
the main things that Kant gave a shit about, Like
you are using this ideology that one hundred percent goes
against this that you're talking about.

Speaker 3 (01:14:43):
To lay that out, Kant his entire ontological reasoning, yeah,
was that you have these these these rules, these categorical
imperatives that have to apply in all cases. You can't
just say, well, you know, I want this to be
a rule in this case, but not this case. I
think stealing should be wrong for everyone, it should be universal,
it should be absolute. But now we're basically saying, like

(01:15:06):
we're arguing from a standpoint of bodily autonomy is important.
You should be able to be free and to not
have to be forced to be a host to anyone.
And I guess at least I respect the fact that
you have the consistency to stick with it. But I
think that you're pushing yourself into a very very indefensible position,

(01:15:27):
and it's a very fringe position that you're holding in
order to try to justify the pro life stance.

Speaker 1 (01:15:34):
And I honestly think, I honestly think, based on the
reasons why you are getting to the pro life thing,
the reasons why you have a problem with killing an
innocent person. That justification will go against the justification here
because it is bodily autonomy that you care about in
this case of pregnancy. You just are only paying attention

(01:15:56):
to bodily autonomy. On one side of it, you're calling
it the preservation of life. But the only reason that
matters is because of the fact that that life has
a right to do what the fuck it wants, which is.

Speaker 2 (01:16:12):
To keep living.

Speaker 1 (01:16:13):
So smuggled into this concept is the very thing that
you are then going against later and again just just
not not even following the universality aspect of this.

Speaker 2 (01:16:25):
So it just it's very interesting.

Speaker 10 (01:16:28):
The universal principle is the preservation of life. That's why.

Speaker 2 (01:16:31):
Why why do you preserve life? Why do you preserve life? Hannah?
Why should we preserve life? What's the importance there?

Speaker 10 (01:16:38):
Could I just formulate it just for a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
More, answer the question and then you can then you
can go why why would we preserve life?

Speaker 2 (01:16:45):
What is the importance for that?

Speaker 10 (01:16:46):
Well, the preservation of life is because as a universal
imperative to respect the freedom of people. But could I
explain the logical hierarchy of this imperative because the specific
formulation is really important.

Speaker 2 (01:16:58):
Okay, we'll get back by it.

Speaker 1 (01:16:59):
What you did said was autonomy, but that's okay, go
ahead say your thing.

Speaker 10 (01:17:03):
So I would say the specific formulation of the imperative
is this, there's a universal catecor work comparative to not prevent,
to not allow other people to live. And part of
this categorm comparative is that this is because people have
universal autonomy, and if somebody's autonomy conflicts with another person's life,

(01:17:27):
then that person's autonomy should be should be sacrificed because
life is a higher principle than autonomy. So if, for example,
my autonomy would be too let's say I could get
away with stealing or or killing you, well that I
don't have the right to do that because you know
you're and then yourself. In similar I would argue if

(01:17:49):
if in a case of abortion, if it's a saves
the life of the mother, I think there's an exception
made there. But if it's not to say the life
that I would say that the life was to see,
this matters more than the autonomy of the mother.

Speaker 2 (01:17:59):
I know that that.

Speaker 1 (01:18:00):
Yeah, But the problem with saying stuff like that Hannah,
is the fact that it contradicts every other aspect of
your argument. I understand that you think that that is better, right.
I understand that what you're saying is like, hey, in
this instance, I don't know that I like this universal
application of this moral code, but that kind of right

(01:18:24):
there is why there's an issue with it for me
at least.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
But again, you said it multiple times, and I really
I think this is just something everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
Should do on these types of things.

Speaker 1 (01:18:36):
If you ever have one of these kinds of conversations
and it's recorded, wait a week and then go back
and watch it. Because the very thing that I said
you were gonna say, Hannah, you said, na uh, I
ain't gonna say that, And then I said, oh yeah,
my bad.

Speaker 2 (01:18:51):
I could be wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:18:51):
I was wrong earlier today Thomas corrected me, go ahead, Hannah,
tell me. And then you said the thing I said
you were gonna say, which is fine, that's okay. Autonomy
is a very important principle. It is something that moral
philosophers have talked about the entire time we have had
moral philosophy. But what we're talking to point out go

(01:19:11):
ahead ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:19:12):
Also this notion that you know and I think Hannah
and I could be wrong, but it feels like Hannah
thinks that their position is internally consistent because it's saying
life always supersedes autonomy. But that's just not the world
we live in. If we're invaded by a foreign country
and they're about to take away our autonomies and our

(01:19:33):
freedom and our freedom of speech and freedom to live
and thrive and prosper, you better believe everyone in here
is going to run for the guns and fight back
and take other people's lives to defend your freedom like that.
That's it's just not a universal principle that applies. You know,
a lot of and I know some people wouldn't necessarily
agree with this, but a lot of people would argue
in favor of using violent force, even ending someone's life,

(01:19:58):
in order to protect yourself from someone who's who's attacking you,
even if they're not necessarily going to kill you. You
don't know, but you're protecting your freedom. You're protecting yourself
from getting kidnapped and taken off somewhere and maybe abused
in some horrific way. And like you're protecting yourself through
violent force, sometimes ending someone's life. And I think that
when we apply that value structure of like, yeah, autonomy

(01:20:20):
and freedom and stuff is important. Obviously, I can't just
go out and be like, h no, I want to
get away with and do whatever I want. And so
I'm just gonna, you know, kill Elliott and take his PlayStation.
Now you know that, yes, there are rules in place,
but it's not because there's this universal principle and the
idea that somehow an embryo or a fetus is a

(01:20:41):
fully functioning human.

Speaker 2 (01:20:42):
This is again, it's equivocation.

Speaker 3 (01:20:45):
It's no, I will not grant you that when it
doesn't have the neuropathways formed yet in order to have consciousness,
in order to even feel pain yet, And you're calling
this a human. You're assuming sentience and sapience, and you're
now restricted a mother's choice and freedoms and prospects, and
you're forcing her to carry it to terms regardless of

(01:21:05):
whether it was incest or rape or anything else, which
I don't think should matter in this case. To me,
it's like to be like, oh, and that potential human
has more value than someone with a fully formed brain
and feelings and emotions and hopes and dreams, who may
very well want to have other kids in the future,
but now is just not the time, and we're gonna
make those judgment calls and decisions just in order to

(01:21:27):
try to like be onto logically consistent, which even then
it's not like.

Speaker 1 (01:21:31):
Yeah, and again I I just I have a problem
with with deontology to begin with, Hannah.

Speaker 2 (01:21:36):
But but yeah, get give us, give us some thoughts.
I know we've shouted a lot at you, but.

Speaker 10 (01:21:40):
I would just say I never claimed that the fatus
is fully human. I mean I would say they have
a human in a sense that they're literally of the
species homa. But you did in a way they did
finish my statement.

Speaker 3 (01:21:53):
I'll let you finish, but I want to get back
to that point because I'm not going to let you
sneak that in.

Speaker 10 (01:21:58):
The point is that I don't think you have to
cop to this being like the fetus has this metaphysical
essence of a human being. I do think that's the case,
but you don't even have to cop there. The only
claim I made was that because the categorical comparative isn't
don't let an innocent life die, which I think is
a valid techical comparative, that that would include prohoviding abortion

(01:22:18):
unless it's to save the life to mother and only
because then it's a conflict between one life and another.
But that's a very specific formulation. It doesn't have to
go to any metaphysics about whether the fetus is a
human being. And all it says is that it's a
categorical comparative to not let in this life style.

Speaker 3 (01:22:35):
Okay, response that right there is where you did exactly
what I said you did when you're you're arguing that
you never made the claim or the statement that this
baby was a fully formed human, and then went on
in the very next sentence to say, I'm just arguing
from a geontological perspective that we should never take the

(01:22:55):
life of a human, right or of an innocent human.
You right there and back to back statement said I'm
not saying it's a human, but I am saying it's
a human because we shouldn't take human life, and I'm
saying we shouldn't take the life of an onboing fetus.
So you are doing exactly what I said. You're you're
you're you. This entire case falls apart if you're not
assuming personhood, if you're assuming that this isn't a person

(01:23:18):
and then you're arguing for the rights of people. Then
there is no argument. So you can't say, well, I'm
not really doing that, to try to like hide away
from that, and then do exactly that to make the
case for your argument. That's why I cut you off.
That's why I said, fuck no, this doesn't fly. I
caught it. I saw exactly what you're doing, and I'm
gonna call you out on that.

Speaker 10 (01:23:38):
I didn't say humans, I said innocent.

Speaker 2 (01:23:40):
Life, right, But you're equivocating on the term that.

Speaker 3 (01:23:43):
What kind of innocent life?

Speaker 2 (01:23:45):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:23:46):
You don't feel the same way if if a schnauzer
is mauling a three year old. You don't feel the
same way about bacteria. If I step on an ant
and it's innocent life is don't care.

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
Come on, I mean, we all know that's what you're saying, Hannah.

Speaker 1 (01:24:01):
But any of them here here, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
there is no there is no any other event. We
gonna stop right here for just two fucking seconds so
that we can all go hey, right, Hannah, and then
you'll go yeah, guys, and then we'll go hey, awesome,
that's so cool. You're a great person for doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:24:21):
Hannah.

Speaker 1 (01:24:21):
And we'll all move on happily to any other event
you want.

Speaker 3 (01:24:24):
So let's one more time, and if you've got another argument, yeah,
that's great. Yeah, I think we have time for it
right now because we've got other other callers to get to.
But this will be the point where you say, you
know what, Yeah, you're right, it's not onto logically consistent.
There was an equivocation going on there. Thank you guys
for calling it out, and then just come up with
a better argument and come back next week. But like

(01:24:45):
this shifting is.

Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
Let's let's one more time. So we're gonna we're gonna
we're gonna just rewind just a second. We're gonna say
that whole little thing where where Thomas is like, hey,
but there it is and you're like, no, it isn't.
And then we all get to that place where we go.
But that's kind of what you're doing, right, Hannah.

Speaker 10 (01:25:00):
Do I think this contive? Do I think to see
this is a human life?

Speaker 6 (01:25:04):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:25:04):
I do think that awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome, and and
and that is a great place for us to put
it pause right there, and you give us a call
back in the future, and we will help build this
argument to its absolute most strongest steel man position.

Speaker 2 (01:25:21):
I'll tell you this, sure.

Speaker 1 (01:25:23):
Definitely, And i'll tell you this, I think even in
that strongest, most charitable, most steelmanned position, this argument will
always fall flat, always so. But at least we can
help make it a little bit better. So thank you
so much.

Speaker 11 (01:25:39):
Annah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:39):
We are just going to drop you abruptly because I
am a rude asshole with no moral foundation.

Speaker 3 (01:25:45):
Oh the shame.

Speaker 2 (01:25:46):
I know, it's terrible. I have this hole in my heart.

Speaker 1 (01:25:49):
Actually it's a little bit lower. This hole is somewhere
below my ribs.

Speaker 3 (01:25:56):
Pizza. That everybody be eighted, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:26:01):
So you know they are a bunch of atheistss.

Speaker 3 (01:26:04):
Well, we've got we've got he got a couple of callers.
We'll try to get to them.

Speaker 2 (01:26:07):
We can get through them.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
But hang on real quick, because I think we had
a couple of awesome super chats. We've got one ninety
nine from Godwin saying thanks for Holy kool Aid and
not making SR do anything weird.

Speaker 3 (01:26:20):
Wow, don't give me idea.

Speaker 1 (01:26:21):
Yeah, the only thing I'm gonna say, because I think
if I say anymore, we will get taken off the air.

Speaker 2 (01:26:27):
But did you know that Sundays.

Speaker 1 (01:26:29):
You can come down to the Free Thought Library for
a weekly in person watch party where weird things may happen.

Speaker 2 (01:26:36):
We don't know. We got we got five.

Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
Dollars from should I be worried?

Speaker 1 (01:26:42):
Yeah, yeah, it depends on whether or not there's pizza
in a few minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
Greg.

Speaker 1 (01:26:47):
We've got five dollars from Lauren Misha Sadai saying I'm
one hundred percent certain that fifty percent of the time
that twenty percent of black Swans are ten percent of
the five percent of Swans that can't be intelligent to
two percent of the time at one percent. So if
you didn't follow all that math, that's on you.

Speaker 3 (01:27:07):
A lost stood uh.

Speaker 2 (01:27:11):
And then we have five dollars from Nika, a friend.

Speaker 3 (01:27:15):
Of remember for six months, a member for six months.

Speaker 1 (01:27:18):
Yeah, all of you should be ashamed because Nika is
in fact out shining you right now and just taking
five dollars to say, remember the Secularising US fundraiser on Monday,
March thirty first, please donate.

Speaker 2 (01:27:29):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (01:27:30):
I really really appreciate the crap out of Unika. And yeah, guys,
come hang out with us. I know those links are
being thrown out there by our wonderful chat moderators because
they are better than me.

Speaker 2 (01:27:41):
Let's go to New York. We've got Omega weapon.

Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
He him wants to run something by us that will
disprove most concepts of a god.

Speaker 2 (01:27:50):
Well, hey, what what you got for us? Omega weapon?

Speaker 6 (01:27:54):
Guys, Nice to talk to you, Nice to be on
Happy Atheist today. Everyone. Hey, sure, yeah, I've been the
fan of the XP and you know, a lot of
atheist content for a while. And one thing that drives
me crazy is how most people define God. And I
think just using some basic logic and cosmology, I can

(01:28:14):
pretty much falsify most general concepts. People have a right
first of all, this.

Speaker 3 (01:28:19):
Okay, but we won't play softball, so even if we're
on the same side, we'll be fair and shreds to
you if we see holes.

Speaker 6 (01:28:27):
Yeah, if there's problems, please I be appy to plision.

Speaker 2 (01:28:32):
Go ahead for us.

Speaker 6 (01:28:33):
Well, First, first of all, God is usually defined. I'm
not saying in all cases that's a big cat yeat
here as both space time independent and the creator of it. Now,
to me, that's just logically impossible, because first of all,
to even say something exists critically means it has location,
in space time or you're talking about space time itself. Secondly,

(01:28:57):
creation and causation requiring space time in order to happen
in the first place, and even bearent creation is an act,
and acts you require time. So to say a god
can quote unquote exist absence space time and be the
creator of the universe is just completely impossible.

Speaker 1 (01:29:19):
Okay, So let me let me jump in just for
a second, Omega, because I I do. I mean, largely
obviously again, I mean there's a reason that I'm here,
h So largely I'm on. I'm on the same side
with you. I could very much, especially from like an
ideal uh an idealism kind of uh A framework, right.
I think a lot of those people would probably push

(01:29:40):
back on the idea that existence by definition is necessarily
space time, like that has to be a part of it, right.
I think that that makes a lot of sense.

Speaker 2 (01:29:51):
I do.

Speaker 1 (01:29:51):
I do think there is good reason for us to
get to that definition for what we mean by existence.
But I do already see at least one place that
could be pushed back, which is that I that that
general concept of idealism basically being that like the the
immaterial and thoughts are what actually generates the tangible world

(01:30:12):
around us, and so in that construction, if somebody's coming
at it from that perspective, they could they could already
kind of push away this argument because what they would
just say is they would just say, oh, well that's
I don't I don't think existence requires space time, right,
And so then again, now again I'm just saying, like,
I'm with you here, Omega, I'm on your side, Like,
I think the definition you're using makes a lot of sense.

(01:30:36):
But for the idealist, it would you would just have
to shift some things a little bit before they would
agree to that.

Speaker 2 (01:30:42):
I think, does that make sense?

Speaker 6 (01:30:44):
Well, then I would say, how else would you identify
and that's thing without using location?

Speaker 3 (01:30:49):
Say again, I would you identify as something without.

Speaker 1 (01:30:51):
Well, then I would ask them, yeah, yeah, that's a
good question. I mean, I'm not an idealist, and I
don't think idealism makes a lot of sense.

Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
But but I would imagine.

Speaker 3 (01:31:02):
To play the devil's advocate, like I could imagine a
scenario where our universe operates by some certain laws of
time and space, but we could be in some sort
of multi version everything else does, and God would be
outside of that. I can also picture a scenario where like,
if we're all living in a simulation like the matrix
and God is the programmer, then he would be outside

(01:31:24):
of our time. So I could see a construct like
that where if you're thinking of God kind of within
a particular box, maybe it wouldn't work. But if you're like, okay, yeah,
he started the simulation, started the time and space that's involved,
and he's pulling the strings as the architect, as the
matrix runner, I could see a world like that where

(01:31:46):
it's plausible.

Speaker 1 (01:31:47):
But because I totally agree with you on all of that,
but I would say, Omega that if you are in
conversation with a believer and they accept the definition of
existence as you've laid it out and then describe their
God in that capacity, buddy, boy, that.

Speaker 2 (01:32:04):
Solid is as all fuck right there.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
I mean, you've got of one hundred percent because they've
agreed with you that that, by definition, existence has to
have this criteria, then their God literally fails on every
single one of them.

Speaker 2 (01:32:17):
I mean, yeah that I just.

Speaker 3 (01:32:19):
Think that they'll shift the goalposts the second you make
that art.

Speaker 2 (01:32:21):
Oh yeah possible.

Speaker 3 (01:32:22):
But maybe that's just a cynic.

Speaker 6 (01:32:23):
Because yeah, oh yeah, it's happened to me a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:32:27):
No, but I think yeah, I saying that, you know,
go ahead, I'm sorry, no, no, please.

Speaker 6 (01:32:31):
We're saying that acts don't actually require time, like and
in what regards to like you said a holy kool aid, like,
if God is a programmer outside somewhere in order to act,
that it would still be in some sort of some
kind of space time constript not necessarily ours. There would

(01:32:53):
still different, be even multiverse.

Speaker 3 (01:32:55):
Yeah. I mean, by definition, if God is going to
cause something, there has to be cause on effect, right,
That is kind of the ero of time a bit,
but differently so, yes, I agree with you, but it
wouldn't necessarily have to be within our experience of time
and space.

Speaker 1 (01:33:09):
But broadly speaking, though, Omega again, I think I think
both Thomas and I, I mean, we're getting really nitpicky
about you know, some stuff here, because yeah, I think
that is actually a construction that I myself have kind
of you know, come to in one form or fashion,
and I do think is really solid. Like, hey, wait,
if this is what you mean when you say when

(01:33:30):
you say to your friend, my home exists, you know,
in my fridge exists a ham and cheese sandwich, you know,
like you have very specific criteria, and that tends to
relate to.

Speaker 2 (01:33:43):
The physical, tangible material.

Speaker 1 (01:33:45):
Nobody, nobody would accept, you know, a slice of cheese pizza.
You know that is non corporeal, has no location in space, has.

Speaker 2 (01:33:54):
No time, and all like.

Speaker 1 (01:33:55):
No, of course not, you know, but yeah, I think
broadly speaking, that that does take out a lot of
constructions of God. So, but we are gonna drop you
very abruptly because one more right, I have the ability
to do so.

Speaker 2 (01:34:11):
So thank you so much for mega.

Speaker 3 (01:34:12):
This other person's been waiting a little while. I really
don't want them to get messed.

Speaker 1 (01:34:17):
Yeah, we are not gonna let you go without speaking
to you. We are gonna talk to Antoine out in
North Carolina, no pronouns, talking about the fear of hell
and how to get over it. Well, Antwine, you are
calling the right place.

Speaker 2 (01:34:30):
What is up?

Speaker 7 (01:34:31):
Hey, guys, Hey, can you hear me? Yeah? All right,
So I had a primary I guess the major question
that I've always wanted to go with them prison. I
am a huge fan of the show, all right, So
I guess my thing is I almost wanted to figure
out trying to lego my you know, my fear, you know,
fully lego this boy issue with hell being a deep

(01:34:52):
striking Christian. What methogs did you guys use? Because I
never really hear you guys talk about how you guys
got over your fear.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
Yeah, I'll tell you to start off, and then I'll
just say this one thing, and I'll let Thomas talk
about his experience and stuff. But you know one thing
that has been undeniably one of the most helpful things
for me, not specifically with this route, but with a
lot of things in my life is I found my
secular therapist through the Secular Therapy Project, which is this

(01:35:22):
amazing nonprofit organization, the affiliate to Recovering from Religion, which
is another amazing nonprofit organization. And I will absolutely every
single day of my life will tell people how great
those two organizations are, so that in and of itself
is a phenomenal jumping off point. Recovering from Religion Secular

(01:35:43):
Therapy Project. I promise you you typed that shit in
anywhere you are going to find stuff, and I bet you,
I bet you there is an in person peer support
group somewhere close to you too. But go go, go ahead, no, please, Antoine,
go ahead out.

Speaker 7 (01:36:00):
So yeah, yeah, because I live r to Charlotte and
they had the Stralia Agnostic as Age group, and I
really get a chance to hang out then because they
usually work on Sundays and they did meet on Sunday mornings.
But so I most a lot of a lot of
the information to obertain from my de construction will be
some of the stuff I learned from both M Dela.
Oh sorry, I'm Matt, Matt Devil Hunty. I'm a black atheist,

(01:36:21):
so we had to give me, you know, Matt Dela
Hunty and the name is m Della. But I know
one thing I've dealt with was, of course, you know,
you know hearing, you know how people you know let go,
you know, they they did this, they did that. Of
course my method was I was trying to be I
wanted to go. I wanted to be a preacher. And
that didn't really pan on too well once I actually

(01:36:41):
read the Bible of the cover. What the hell, you know,
I'm appreciate it. That happens to most people. You literally
did they read it, get to the Old Testament. They
don't know how the hell they get to the New
Testament and fin and keep going. But it's just that
once I learned that hell being a New Testament creation,
that kind of stopped me on the track there. And
then of course being a black man and then slavery
out of renovationue right there.

Speaker 2 (01:37:01):
Yeah, could see why, you.

Speaker 7 (01:37:03):
Know, so of course I wanted to go. Yeah, of
course I wanted to go through different methods to find out. Hey,
you know, having these people that go, you know, they
go this man, I go that man, Let go. But
everybody had a different methods, so you know, so of
course you said the RfR and the Secular.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
Therapist, Secular Therapy Project, both of those are great resources.

Speaker 2 (01:37:20):
But yeah, Thomas, what what was that experience like for you?

Speaker 3 (01:37:23):
Yeah? I would love to share just a couple things
that helped me and Twana if you've got them in it,
I do. The first is realizing just how many things
there are in our life that are difficult to explain
that people have attributed falsely to demons. That has helped
me tremendously. So when I was in college, I was

(01:37:43):
pulling a lot of all nighters. I was at horrible
sleep patterns because I was just studying non stop. And
one time I woke up in the middle of the
night and I was just paralyzed. I was frozen in
my bed and I was awake, but I couldn't move
and my muscles were locked down, and I felt just
this fear, this crippling feet, like I was being like
possessed by a demon, and there's like this pressure on
my chest and it's like darkness, and I was like,

(01:38:05):
this has to be a demon. And at the time,
I was Christian, I was religious, and I was praying
and crying out to Jesus. I was like Jesus, Jesus,
you know, save me, and like nothing's happening, it's not
changing anything. And then after about a minute, it just
kind of went away on its own, and I was like,
what the hell was that? And then it happened again,
and this this wasn't happening at points in my life
when I was like sinning and dabbling in the occult

(01:38:26):
and like playing with Wuji boards or anything like, I
was doing as much Christian stuff as you possibly could be.
And I had just had a point my life where
there was like a deep revival and I was on
fire for God. Like if any time in my life
I should have been under God's protection, it was that
moment and I had this experience happen again. It happened
again as I was like I was literally spending the
night in this like prayer and worship center, and like

(01:38:48):
I'm laying there like on the couch. I like wake
up and I look up and I see this cross
on the wall and my eyes are fixated on it.
I'm like Jesus, Jesus helped me. And it didn't work.
And then I found out later I started learning about
sleep paralo Is this something you're familiar with? Ant one?

Speaker 7 (01:39:02):
Yeah, yes, very much.

Speaker 3 (01:39:03):
Yeah, So I discovered sleep paralysis, which for any of
our viewers who aren't familiar, it's when when you go
to sleep, your body naturally freezes your muscles so that
you don't thrash in the night or roll out of
bed and hurt yourself. It causes you to your muscles
to freeze. Sometimes it goes wrong and people sleep walk.
Other times it goes wrong and you wake up, but
only part of your brain is awake. So the emotional

(01:39:25):
core of your brain is awake and alert, but the
prefrontal cortex that's rational and reasoning, it's not quite there yet,
and your muscles are frozen. This gabbing glycine have been
sent to them to keep them frozen. You're trying to
move your muscles, and so there's this mismatch in terms
of your sense of appropriate reception, like where your body
is in space, it's off, it's not matching up with
where your muscles actually are, and so you sometimes feel

(01:39:47):
a sense of levitating off the bed or pressure on
your chest. You have these hypnogogic hallucinations and you start
to see things in the room or hear things in
the room. And it's things like this that throughout history
have been misattributed to a hag, a vampire, a demon,
you know, some sort of witch or something. And it's
when you go back to the Bible, there's other very

(01:40:09):
natural things like epilepsy that they literally attribute to demons.
And we know exactly what's happening in the brain. We
know that there's just this misfiring of electrical activity in
the brain that we can measure, we can even stimulate
and cause we can prevent with epileptic drugs from happening.
And yet people in the Bible, it literally says they

(01:40:30):
brought the epileptic to Jesus and he fell on the
ground and had a seizure and was foaming at the
mouth and like rolling around, we know what this is,
and they're like, and they said, the demon periodically seizes
the boy, and Jesus cast the demon out of him
and he was at peace again. It's like, now, you
probably just stopped having a seizure because most seizures don't
last for more than a minute. And so if Jesus

(01:40:52):
didn't know what a seizure was because he's some cult
leader and the Bible didn't know how to attribute, you know,
how to under stand these different things. Now there's so
many other stuff. I have a whole series on my
channel right now that I'm doing on demon possession, exposing
things that people mistake for possession and for demons and
for exorcisms, and I'm showing that these are actually very normal,

(01:41:15):
natural things that we experience. And so it might be what.

Speaker 7 (01:41:19):
No, And I was gonna say, that's and that's a
good point that you bring up, because you know how
people would as we use the Bible to try to
prove that there's a demon other deeples investing you. And
one way I usually retort with that is that you know,
once again, the Bible says the book of claims, you know,
those little small, short, little short and simple about me.
I'm a student pilot. I'm at do the pilot. I
need God in a plane with me. Okay, So in

(01:41:40):
pilots we have you know, we have a POA to
POH is the hand, but that we use operator a craft.
Even that still is still a book of claims. You
still have to go out there and demonstrate that the
plane is going to do exactly what the POH says. Well,
I want the Bible to do the same thing. You know.
You know, if the Bible says that that God will
a bible to sell to those that color pint, you
know this eighty plus person, why would I showed that

(01:42:00):
God revealed So okay, cool, I need the word to
do yourself. But if you're not gonna do that, I mean,
at least come up with a way that I know
was you make the hood of my car stop talking
to me and my dogs start talking to something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:11):
But no, right, and and you know, I'll just I'll
say this to get back, you know, to the question
about you know, the fear of hell and how to
get over it. I just I'll put this out there
for people because I always love to be you know,
transparent and stuff. I was sitting over here as Thomas
was talking, and I was feeling like such a dick
because I couldn't remember what it's what the term exposure

(01:42:32):
therapy was. So I'm like trying to type this and
try to remember the term, but all I could type
was like slow therapy getting more intense over time, question mark,
And it was like, well, you're a dip shit, but
you might be trying to get to exposure therapy. So
I'm sure, I'm sure you're probably a little bit familiar
with it, you know, And I'll say, okay, well, so

(01:42:56):
it's really cool concept. It's basically like it, especially if
people have, you know, phobias or whatever.

Speaker 3 (01:43:01):
Like.

Speaker 1 (01:43:01):
So somebody's hardcore super afraid of snakes, can't be around snakes,
can't think about snakes. So the first thing we do
is we put you all the way on the other
side of a super large gymnasium with a snake in
a locked cage and a wrangler all the way on
the other side, and all you do is walk into
the room and just stand there for five minutes, knowing

(01:43:21):
that the snake is over there. Then the next time
you do it, you get a little bit closer, You
get a little bit closer, you know, so on and
so forth. So you're doing it in this place where
you are exposing yourself to these things that have these
very traumatic experiences for you, right, that have given you
these these very intense feelings.

Speaker 3 (01:43:39):
Now, how would you do that with? Hell?

Speaker 1 (01:43:41):
Well, so hang on or play around with the right, Well,
so hang on, So hang on. I'm getting there. Okay,
I'm making a connection. But I do just want to
remind everybody out there I am in no way, shape
or form a licensed therapist.

Speaker 2 (01:43:54):
I have no expertise or anything.

Speaker 1 (01:43:56):
That's why I said secular therapy project first.

Speaker 2 (01:43:59):
See with thinking.

Speaker 3 (01:44:01):
But this is not medical.

Speaker 2 (01:44:02):
It's not medical advice. No, it is not legal or
financial advice.

Speaker 6 (01:44:07):
But I have.

Speaker 2 (01:44:11):
I I have found.

Speaker 1 (01:44:12):
I have found that humor, that silliness, right, can be
one of the most powerful tools that we have as
people to deal with very difficult subjects. And I have
found that you can do a kind of exposure therapy
type of thing with this, where you know, the first
time you make a joke about God striking you down

(01:44:34):
with the lightning bolt.

Speaker 2 (01:44:36):
You cringe a little, You kind of look around and
you're like, okay, wait is five? Okay, yeah, he's good.

Speaker 7 (01:44:42):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:44:42):
I just do that shit all the time, Antoine, I
don't give a fuck.

Speaker 2 (01:44:45):
God, come on hit us like we got a building
that nothing. It means nothing to.

Speaker 1 (01:44:50):
Me anymore because I exposed myself in safe places just.

Speaker 2 (01:44:54):
A little bit more and more every time.

Speaker 1 (01:44:57):
And again that's something that if you find a secular
therapist through the Secular Therapy Project, or you just call
in to the volunteer chat line, these people that have
been trained and are there twenty four to seven to
talk with you, or if you show up to one
of these in person, you know, pre.

Speaker 2 (01:45:15):
Support groups in your area.

Speaker 1 (01:45:17):
A lot of what you're gonna experience is some stuff
like that where you have these really difficult concepts that
are just like man, I can't even fucking think about.

Speaker 2 (01:45:28):
That without breaking down and crying.

Speaker 1 (01:45:30):
You're going to be in a safe space where there
are people there to support you, where you can just
start to nibble away a little bit at that. And
I can tell you from my experience and every other
person I have ever heard that has been deconstructing and
have had these traumatic things still sticking with them It
definitely isn't a wake up tomorrow and it's all gone.

(01:45:51):
It's a little bit by bit and slowly as you
kind of go down that route again, I'm telling you, Antoine,
before too long, you'll.

Speaker 2 (01:45:59):
Be raising middle finger up to the heavens with all
of us.

Speaker 3 (01:46:02):
So and also, I think as you go through this,
I would say, there are too many people who they
go to school or they go to university and then
they stop. They're like, I'm done, my education's over. I'm
now an educated person. It's like no, no, no, no, it's
just getting started. And if you take the time, let's
say you really want to get over the sphere and
you want to understand. You want to know not just hey,

(01:46:23):
I'm comfortable with it, but I'm I'm I don't know,
I could be wrong. You really want to know, beyond
a shadow of a doubt that the Christian faith is bullshit.
Go out and learn more, study more, and like go
to actual text critical scholars like bart Erman or like
Dan McClellan, Dato over dog Man like look at their stuff.
Francesca Stravacopulu's book God an Anatomy literally looks at all

(01:46:45):
of the archaeological finds and the different descriptions of the
other pantheons within the area of the world that the
Bible sprang up out of, and it says, look, these
came before these gods are specifically mentioned in the Bible.
This is how it evolved. It was pantheistic, and then
it was like polytheistic, and then it was like monologistic,
and then eventually you get to monotheism. But there's all

(01:47:07):
of these different steps that we can see how this
religion evolved, how it changed over time, how it used
to be different from how it is today, how it's
literally we have changes of We can see changes in
the Bible between our oldest texts and the ones that
we have today. And if that doesn't tell you that
this is man made, when you really, really, really dive

(01:47:29):
deep into the history of it, and not by some
Christian apologetic source or answers in Genesis, but by actual
trained scholars, you look at stuff like that and it's
very very hard to continue believing that this is the perfect,
flawless work.

Speaker 1 (01:47:44):
Of God, and it all just starts to become a
lot sillier.

Speaker 2 (01:47:47):
It all gets a lot sillier man So.

Speaker 1 (01:47:50):
But hopefully, hopefully we answered something, Antoine, But you know,
here's the good news.

Speaker 2 (01:47:55):
If we fucking didn't, you can.

Speaker 1 (01:47:57):
Just call right back on in and uh Kuzker's we're
here a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:48:00):
We're here a lot. So we appreciate you, Mandy, right,
that's right.

Speaker 1 (01:48:03):
Sundays at four thirty pm Central for this and one
pm Central for the awesome show Talk He then and
then show will go on.

Speaker 2 (01:48:10):
Yeah, if you're just.

Speaker 1 (01:48:10):
Hanging out on a Friday at seven pm Central, we
also got a fucking show then called Truth Wanted, So.

Speaker 2 (01:48:15):
You've got ample opportunity.

Speaker 1 (01:48:17):
And I've heard I've been told I don't know, but
I've been told that there is a mythical place called
a discord, an atheist community of discord, that one can
find and go speak with people twenty four to seven
because there are motherfuckers in there that just never sleep apparently.

Speaker 7 (01:48:33):
So.

Speaker 1 (01:48:34):
But anyway, thank you so much, Ed Thod. We really
really appreciate you. And I'm just gonna rudely drop you
and hopefully I don't cut you off or anything too bad,
but hopefully you won't hate us.

Speaker 2 (01:48:43):
But hey, we've got some people.

Speaker 1 (01:48:45):
Given us some money, so I gotta say something about that.
We got David Haxer giving us five Atheist Experience memberships.
So if you got one of those memberships, just go
throw a bunch of emojis in the chat and stuff.
I think my face is one of them, so just
spam my face in the chat. That sounds very weird,
it sounds gross and uncomfortable, but just do it.

Speaker 2 (01:49:03):
I don't know you can.

Speaker 3 (01:49:04):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:49:05):
We've also got five Canadian dollars from David Hacker againsan.

Speaker 1 (01:49:08):
My significant other wants to know how to get sleep
paralysis to apply to my snoring muscles. That would be
very interesting. I don't know if that's possible.

Speaker 2 (01:49:17):
But I'll tell you. We've got a team working right now.

Speaker 3 (01:49:21):
I think there is a there are methods to help
with snoring. Yeah, but this isn't a medical advice.

Speaker 2 (01:49:26):
Yeah, yeah, we do not have right right, right?

Speaker 3 (01:49:28):
Doctor Ben is not on that true?

Speaker 2 (01:49:30):
That's true?

Speaker 1 (01:49:30):
Yeah, yeah, so, and and I feel confident he will
yell at me about I'm sure I've said something that
was medically incorrect today.

Speaker 3 (01:49:37):
It's just sweep paralysis.

Speaker 2 (01:49:38):
It wasn't right, right, right, you fucking idiot? What's wrong
with you?

Speaker 1 (01:49:44):
We have we have some wonderful people that are out
there that are waiting for us to get done, and
we are excited to get some pizza in us because
I am fucking hungry. But before we do that, Thomas,
where where in the world can people find you?

Speaker 2 (01:49:59):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:50:00):
Right now in the Freethought Library.

Speaker 2 (01:50:01):
Hey, right here in Austin.

Speaker 3 (01:50:03):
I have a show called Holy kool Aid. So you
can go and watch all these videos. I got stuff
on sleep paralysis. I did a video on that. I
got videos on demon possession and debunking that stuff, got
videos on I'm inhow Pascal's Wager you name it, Bible history,
Bible history, all this stuff about. You know, where did
this actually come from? Where did these belief systems come from?

(01:50:23):
What's the latest literature? Go check it out?

Speaker 2 (01:50:26):
Okay, well that's you guys, heard it?

Speaker 1 (01:50:28):
Holy kool Aid, real simple, And then remember not tomorrow,
not Monday tomorrow, but March thirty first, five thirty pm Central.
Come hang out with us, secularizing us as we launch
a brand new organization dedicated to helping you find your people.

Speaker 2 (01:50:42):
That is what we are here to do.

Speaker 1 (01:50:43):
But don't forget, folks, every single fucking Sunday, we are
right here in the hard Austin, Texas at the Free
Thought Library four thirty pm Central Time. Hang out with
us again, and I don't know, let's just go be
sinners man.

Speaker 3 (01:50:57):
Let's do it.

Speaker 2 (01:50:58):
It's atheist day. We gotta do someting. That's right. Gluttony
stop whatever we're getting.

Speaker 1 (01:51:03):
See you guys, start alpen. Stop listening the bullshit everyone
around you, your body, the ship, setting.

Speaker 2 (01:51:22):
Up your walk down maas diet Ellen.

Speaker 10 (01:51:30):
M.

Speaker 3 (01:51:31):
David of y'all.

Speaker 2 (01:51:52):
Watch Talking and Live Sundays at one pm Central. Visit
tiny dot c c slash y t t H and
call into the show at five one two nine nine
one nine two four two, or connect to the show
online at tiny dot c c slash call th ch

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Atheist Experience 29.12 with Secular Rarity and Holy Koolaid

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.12 with Secular Rarity and Holy Koolaid

Stuff You Should Know