The Atheist Experience 29.13 with Justin and Jmike 2025-03-30

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Thousands of years ago, people believed that lightning was sent
by an angry human like God just hanging out on
the top of the tallest mountains. The gods were quite
tangible in that river over there, in the dark forest
over here. Then we've developed technology and the skill to
explore the mountaintops and the forests and the rough waters,
and there were no gods there. So humanity reconfigured God's

(00:21):
location to the upper limits of the skies, just on
the other side of the firmament, a place that surely
nobody could explore. Then we made technology that allowed us
to explore the limits of the skies, and there were
no gods there either.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
So then God's home was moved.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
To outer space, a place totally intangible and unsearchable, until
we developed technology to explore space, and we found there
are no gods out there either. So then God became
completely immaterial, completely undetectable, and unfalsifiable. Over the course of
a few thousand years, God went from a humanoid just
over there to being completely indistinguishable from non existence. God

(00:57):
is now on the same level of reality as that
supermodel girlfriend that your friend had in.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
High school, you know the one.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
The guy who kept a picture of her in the
wallet would show it to you, but you could never
actually meet her because she lived in Canada, far away.
But he also couldn't let you talk to her on
the phone because international phone calls weren't part of your
night's weekend package. If you have proof that God is
not just a fictional internet girlfriend, we'd love to hear
about it. The lines are open and the show starts now.

(01:30):
Welcome to the show.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Everybody. Today is March thirtieth, twenty twenty five. I'm your host, Justin.
You might know me as a deconstruction Zone, and I'm
joined by the acute, astute, and brilliant Jami County Buddy.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
I like that. That was cool. I feel really special
about myself. Thank you. I'm good. I'm really hot. I mean,
I guess not anymore. When the show started, I like
cooled off. Seems like the air worked out. My ceiling
fans doing something weird, So you don't want adjust your screens.
I didn't cut my hair. I wanted to take about
twenty degrees off my shoulders in my head. So that's
what I'm doing today. So yeah, so I'm feeling a
lot better. I was like really hot before the show,

(02:04):
so we're moving on. Up. I was going towards hell,
I think is what was happening.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
You feel the flames creeping up as the show Villon exactly.

Speaker 3 (02:13):
Oh man, this is the one where God swallows me up.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, I'm glad to help.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
You know, I thought the hand of death was icy,
not hot. Now I'm getting conflicting data.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
Yeah, well you know they go to another school, right,
so thin you can just make up all these different
properties and stuff.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Obviously God is what you need him to be. All right, guys,
we're going to get into the show. We have a
couple announcements. The Atheists Experience is a product of the
Atheist Community of Austin, a five O one C three
nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking,
secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government. And

(02:55):
we've already got a couple of people U waiting in
the queue, Jay, Mike, should we grab our first gut?

Speaker 3 (03:00):
I like the way you think.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
All right, We've got Steve Atheist with us from Nebraska
saying Mosaic law and how it protects women against physical
or sexual abuse.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Steve, how are you.

Speaker 4 (03:13):
Doing yeah, Hi, Yeah good Hi. Justin and j Might
those guys were taking my call, and I just called
on to let you know. Mosaic law actually protected women
against physical or sexual abuse. For example, the Book of
Deuterontomy devised a virginity token which was constructed by placing

(03:35):
cloth over the betting and belonging to a newly wooded
couple who were consummating their marriage, whereby the blood discharge
from the ruptured himen occurring during the female's first time
sexual intercourse experiences she consummated her marriage was recorded in
order to demonstrate the woman entered into her marriage as
a tried and true virgin who was therefore unequally protected

(03:57):
against being costly accused. And Raleigh convicted the capital offense
of having lied about herself being a virgin until she
consummated her marriage. Furnamore the Book of Deuteronomy de Troy
to you man, would you raping women would do? Imposing?

Speaker 2 (04:11):
Let's will you let me address that.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
That's in Deuteronomy twenty two, verses thirteen through eighteen or so,
and maybe all the way through nineteen.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
Actually continues alway through twenty and twenty one.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
So in the narrative, God gives a command that if
a woman doesn't bleed on a sheet, then it's presumed
that she's not a virgin. If she does bleed on
the sheet on their wedding night, then it's presumed that
she lied about her virginity. Now, in the event that
she lied about her virginity, what happens to her?

Speaker 4 (04:40):
Well, I think we can appreciate the aferemention in women's
virginity token surprise his material evidence. We're triding through virgin
having entered or marriage, whereas if we're any total on
this woman was not all.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
Steve, Steve, Steve, just don't don't get carried away. It
was an easy question. What happens to her if the
token of her virginity the bloody sheet, What if that's
not produced, what happens to her?

Speaker 4 (05:05):
Well, there'd be an investigation, and then what she would
be investigated?

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Well, if, however, the charge is true that evidence of
the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall
bring the young woman out to the entrance of her
father's house, and the meta of her town will stone
her to death because she's committed a disgraceful act. In Israel,
by prostituting herself in her father's house. So you shall
purge the evil from your mythst This is not about
protecting anybody. This is about purging evil.

Speaker 3 (05:30):
Steve, you lied to me, man, You told me you
were calling and talking about protection. Here I'm standing out
here on the outside, and I'm a little confused right now.
How's that protection?

Speaker 4 (05:40):
Well, first of all, it's it protects the help of
the community, made sure that a woman's peer entering into
a marriage, and that personal sexually transmitted disease is going around.
And it puts about the men the integrity of people's family,
because you know, a daughter should not be a woor
in her father's house.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
So what about the men are not virgins?

Speaker 4 (06:02):
Well, men in the Bible had more than one white.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
So can you show me the test for virginity of
the man in the Bible.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
Well, this isn't about the man. This is what I
called it about the protection of women against price.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
Or doesn't sound like they're being protected. It sounds like
they're being executed. Are you aware that only about forty
five percent of women bleed the first time, which means
at least half of the women being subjected by this
test would have been innocent.

Speaker 1 (06:27):
So according to the test, if a woman doesn't bleed
on a sheet, then.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
She can actually be executed. And you think that's a
good test.

Speaker 4 (06:34):
Well, back in those days, the women didn't have the
strenuous physical uh you know, non you know, sexual physical
exercises like they have.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
I certainly did, yeah, Rebecca.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
In fact, there are multiple dialogues where women are carrying
jugs of water and doing a husbandry.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Work just like a man would be doing.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
And one of the leading causes of premature rupture of
the hymen is climbing and also writing animals like pack animals,
so something they were doing actively. And we know that
people were experiencing premature hymen rupture in the ancient world
because they wrote about it. We've got writings from the
Greeks and from the Hebrews and the Talmud talking about

(07:14):
women who had their hymens prematurely ruptured.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Some of them knew about it and some of them
didn't know about it. This is a common phenomenon.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
It just happened to be that when Deuteronomy was written,
they didn't know about it.

Speaker 4 (07:24):
But you know, if they would have a ruptured hymen.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
Before instead of instead of making Steve, Steve, if you
just like started off trying to make an excuse just
about like how you started that, can you like just respond,
would you just like assent to whether or not that's true?
Do you disagree with what justin just said? Can we
start there?

Speaker 4 (07:42):
Well, I agree to some extent that problem.

Speaker 3 (07:45):
Okay, great, so now now we should Okay, you agree,
That's all I wanted to hear. That's all and stop.
That's all I stopped, Steve. I just want to hear
whether or not you agree. Right, It's like I have
to go point by point because if you go into
a whole bunch of stuff and I can't get to
why I'm trying to bring the dialectic back to where
we're at. Right, if you agree and then you now
have this thing about the protecting and the stoning of
the women, can we proceed forward? Because it sounds like

(08:05):
your view is going to fall apart pretty quick, right,
like if you just assent to that fact in general, right,
if you already assent to that, so you would just
have I mean, putting away the obvious like issues with
this just in general, but like even on your own view,
even on your own view, you would be stoning women
that didn't even deserve. No one deserves to be stoned.
So I don't even know I have to even fucking
say this, But like, even on your own view, right,

(08:28):
you would just be making a mistake.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
Yeah, this is the crazy part is even if even
if she was guilty, she shouldn't be stoned. Yeah, the
fact that your God said if she's guilty, she should
be stoned is horrific.

Speaker 4 (08:39):
If she would have been always disclosed to her custodians
entering into the marriage contract, she.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
Was in her custodian that she had a ruptured him.

Speaker 4 (08:49):
Well, our women property women would enter into marriage. Well,
in ancient times they were women in property.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
If you think at any time a woman was property,
that's what that's your.

Speaker 4 (08:59):
View, Oh know, in the ancient time?

Speaker 3 (09:01):
So they aren't so then so then then they weren't.
Then they are property. Then they aren't property, right, which
one is it? No?

Speaker 4 (09:06):
No, no, they're not. No, they were to be no, no,
they were to be treated like children until they entered
marriage and had a husband.

Speaker 3 (09:14):
When the fuck did I say anything about children? I asked,
we asked you if they were stop, I asked you
if there were a property.

Speaker 4 (09:19):
On your view, I don't think at any time, I
don't think that they were treated exactly like property. I
don't think they were treated closectly like property. They were
to be protected and guarded over, but be treated like
children until they entered into marriage.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, because the men, you know, men can go free
and with women in Exodus twenty one seven and second,
oh no, they can't go free. The women can't go free.
The men can go free. But they were they weren't
treated like fucking property. What the fuck, Steve?

Speaker 2 (09:43):
Yeah, I mean all you got to do is backtrack
one more chapter, Go back one more chapter. Go to
dude on mid twenty one?

Speaker 1 (09:49):
What does God say you can do with the women
that you forcibly capture in war?

Speaker 4 (09:53):
Well, they were prisoners of war. You enslave them, so
they were property, their property, that's yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:59):
And then if you if you see a hotty toddy
among the captives, you can do what with their Well,
it's war.

Speaker 3 (10:04):
So I mean what happens if you if you if
I took your if if someone took your daughter, if
you had a daughter or wife, and then they just
get they did, they took her, They enslaved her, and
then they raped her. And then they responded, well it
was war. Would you be like, okay, yeah, it makes sense,
that's what you would do.

Speaker 4 (10:21):
Well, you know they had a chance to sleep. I
think you had the comforters come justin.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
I don't know how much longer I might have to
not talk to this guy much longer. I'm getting really irritated.
I think like, there's a lot I want to call
you a lot. I just I'm going to refrain from
doing that.

Speaker 1 (10:37):
Yeah, Steve, So, according to Deuteronomy twenty one, if you
see among the captives a hot woman, you can just
make your your your wife or your concubine.

Speaker 4 (10:46):
Right. Oh, if it worked for actual greats and then
had to pay a keep, fine, but they'll convict your
great that they had to pay, so.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
Well do I'll just read it for you. So says,
when you go to war against your enemies, and the
lord your guy hands them over to you, and you
take them captive.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
Suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom
you desire and want to marry. You bring her to
your home, to your house, and she shall shave her
head and pare her nails, discard her captive's garb and
remain in your house a full month mourning her father
and mother. After that you may go into her and
be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But
if you're not satisfied with her, you can let her

(11:24):
go free, certainly not sell her for money.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
Do you think that captive women can consent?

Speaker 4 (11:30):
War things happen?

Speaker 2 (11:32):
Do you think that captive women God have the ability
to consent?

Speaker 4 (11:36):
If the prisoners of war they have limited rights.

Speaker 2 (11:39):
Do they have the ability to consent? Or is consent
overridden by the fact that you're a captive.

Speaker 4 (11:45):
Well, you're a captive. You have to follow the terms
of your your.

Speaker 2 (11:50):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (11:50):
So what do we call it when you when you forcibly,
when you enter a woman that has not consented to
that transaction?

Speaker 2 (11:58):
What do you call that?

Speaker 3 (11:59):
Starts with I give you the first letter.

Speaker 4 (12:01):
It's a right and time the penalty.

Speaker 2 (12:08):
So God told you here that you're allowed to do it.
He said, when you go out to war against your
enemies and you see these women and you like one
of them, you can take one and you can go
into her. That's what it says.

Speaker 3 (12:19):
And don't say don't say no. You just said twice
it's war. You literally just said here's a condition where
you can rape somebody. Steve, that's what you called us
today and said, you called up two people and you said,
here are conditions where it's okay to rape somebody. That's
what you did, and own them as property. That's you, Steve.
That's Steve from New England. That's you, buddy.

Speaker 4 (12:39):
About I never said that. I never said that. I
never said that it was okay to own people is property.
I've never said that.

Speaker 2 (12:46):
Okay, Well, the Bible does say that.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
But that's a that's another facet of this women being
protected because according to Exus twenty one, which J Mike
already alluded to, you can just sell your daughter.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
It's a concubine just right out the door. You think
we you think that's a good law.

Speaker 4 (13:02):
Marriage contracts were common in the ancient world.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
I said, concubine. Concubines and wives are different.

Speaker 3 (13:09):
Steve, you're so worried about the next thing that Steve. Stop,
Stop You're so worried about the next thing that you
want to say, rather than digesting what Justin is saying,
it's really fucking irritating. It's really irritating. Just You know what.
Repeat back what Justin said to you, because I'm not
even convinced you were listening. Repeat back what Justin asked you.

Speaker 4 (13:29):
Is it okay to sell people's property? And the answer is.

Speaker 1 (13:31):
No, okay, because you're close, I said, is it okay
to sell a woman as a concubine? When a man
sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go
out as the male slaves do. If she does not
please her master, who designated her for himself, then he
will let her be redeemed. This is woman who is
a concubine. A slave wife is a concubine that is

(13:52):
different than an actual wife contract. In wife contracts in
the ancient Near East, they are not titled as slaves.
And again the little girl has no consent here.

Speaker 4 (14:03):
By the way, play slaves, you keep saving slaves that
I would rather use the.

Speaker 3 (14:07):
Term, you know, I would. I'd rather do not point
out what my what my view is, and what I
believe in what the Bible says. Yeah, it'd be very
convenient for for for you if we did that for you.
But we're we're not going to bullshit you, bud.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:18):
Ex of twenty one seven says the slave in the
actual Hebrew text.

Speaker 4 (14:23):
And by the way slavery were sent away, what would
be to treat others as you want to be treated?

Speaker 1 (14:28):
That was not not even closed.

Speaker 2 (14:31):
And isn't that command end slavery?

Speaker 3 (14:34):
And yeah, it said that, uh, justin he could tell me,
uh that like to stay with your masters, is it's
better to be? I can't remember this verse, but it's, uh,
there's like some there's a verse in the New Testament
saying stay with your with your masters, right even going
like two years in my head right now.

Speaker 4 (14:50):
So well, there's.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
One that says, even if your slave masters are cruel.
So the law you're referring to isn't a new law.
Jesus didn't invent that. That comes from Leviticus nineteen eighteen.
That was already there. The same God that said love
your neighbor as yourself also said you can enslave your neighbors.
Just a couple of chapters after that, he said, you
can enslave your neighbors.

Speaker 4 (15:12):
Not okay, in the new time. We're in the new
not the old pestivent the whole law.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
But in the new law, is Jesus God, you.

Speaker 4 (15:20):
Know, I don't know, honestly, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
That's did Jesus say about falling the love Moses?

Speaker 4 (15:26):
Well, until until the temple was destroyed? There were there
were there was a there were temple laws for the
precinct of the temple, but that was destroying in seventy eight.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
But what did Jesus say about following the love of Moses?

Speaker 4 (15:40):
Past and well? And tell and tell the temple uh
was destroyed, follow it at the temple.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
For you what was destroyed, Jesus says, Do not think
I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.
I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly,
I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not
one letter, not and stroke of a letter, will pass
away from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches

(16:07):
others do the same, would be called least in the
Kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them
will be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. So
Jesus said, until heaven and earth pass away.

Speaker 4 (16:16):
Well, I watch. This was a reference to the Temple
collhaps of the Temple in seventy eight.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
It didn't say temple, he said heaven and Earth.

Speaker 4 (16:23):
Well, heaven on Earth pass away. That doesn't even make sense,
like heaven on Earth that does the universe could be
eternal for all we know. I mean, that doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (16:32):
In Jewish theology, there's going to be a new Heaven
and a new Earth. It's described in Revelation chapter twenty one.
It's described in Isaiah chapter sixty five. It's described in
Ezekiel chapter thirty six. I mean, it's it's all over
the Old Testament and the New Testament. The new Heaven
and new Earth is a real thing.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Plus, you don't want to go to the whole like
the universe could have just always existed in the infinite sense,
because then there isn't like a node of the beginning
that God creates, right, so you would just be expressing
some like atheistically, could be a like cosmic that was
there always. You know, you could have that view, But
then it wouldn't be true that the universe is explained

(17:13):
by God because the universe always existed, and for any
moment in time, you just be able to say, well,
what explains that event is the previous event, and you
can just do that ad infinitum. No God would ever
enter that. So you don't want to make that move right,
You're just you're just implicitly saying I'm an atheist. Now right,
let me.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
Ask you questions, Steve. Do you think God cares about women?

Speaker 4 (17:31):
But I don't know.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
I think that the universe has always existed and that
God explains it.

Speaker 4 (17:35):
It's not I think it's not good. There is a
greater power that cares about people.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
Do you think he cares about women? Sure?

Speaker 1 (17:45):
Do you think that he thinks women are equal to men?

Speaker 4 (17:49):
What do you mean by equal? Wait?

Speaker 2 (17:50):
I didn't think I had to explain that. Do you
think do you think that the God of the Bible
treats men and women equally.

Speaker 4 (17:56):
Well because the men back had more different role?

Speaker 3 (18:00):
Do you think I'm a good Would you think I'm
a good person? I just want to see, like, I'm
just genuinely curious what you think is like constitutive of
a of a good person? Because we seem to differ
on the concept here. If I gave you conditions where
it was okay to rape somebody, would you think that
I'm a good person just with that? Just that I
haven't given you like the conditions, any condition to rape somebody.

(18:23):
Do you think that that's expected on somebody that's a
good person? What do you mean to find one? You
know what rape is?

Speaker 5 (18:29):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (18:30):
Yeah, someone doesn't consent to me having sexual.

Speaker 4 (18:34):
That would be sold on somebody who without their consent,
that would be great.

Speaker 3 (18:38):
Okay, So you you've perfectly well, we didn't need to
take this detour, y'all perfectly in the concept of rape
r I'd be very troublesome that if you if you didn't, right,
I could be very concerning you do. So we don't
know why we're making this move right now, Just answer me.
Is it expected under the hypothesis that I'm a good person,
a bad person, or like a moral right? Those are
like basically the only options you got if I give

(18:58):
you conditions to rape some I'm just trying to get
like a teaser on your view and see how you
how you feel.

Speaker 4 (19:04):
I think great we should become I asked you.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
I asked you if if that hypothesis is consistent with
a good person, a bad person, or an a moral person.
I'm looking for one of those answers, not not something else.
This is the problem I told you about Earth. This
is the problem I told you about earlier, Steve, Steve, Steve,
this is the problem I told you about earlier, because
I'm now very keen to your style of debate, which
is horrendous. I'm very keen, which is that what you

(19:28):
do is you think about the next thing that you
want to say, rather than listening to the person that's
talking to you. And it's very disrespectful. So I don't
want you to do that again to me. Right, I'm
not really worried about you being disrespectful to me, as
you are to the entirety of women. Right, So I
want what I want to ask you again for you
to directly answer me right. Maybe you can do that
in your forty fifty years of living. Am I a
good person or a bad person? Or a moral Is

(19:50):
it consistent with which? Is it consistent with which one
of those? If I say here's conditions to rape somebody,
which person do you think I am?

Speaker 4 (19:57):
You're bad? You're a moral?

Speaker 3 (20:00):
Great? God does the same thing. So, just by parody
of reason, God is a bad being? Where do we
jump off there?

Speaker 4 (20:05):
Well, there is no omni God, there is no all benevolent,
all good.

Speaker 3 (20:09):
I'm just trying to see if you think God is
good or bad. I'm not even getting a gotcha, right,
I'm just trying to see if you jump off and
say no, God is good even though you know, I'm
just going to contradict myself and say that these conditions
are you know, the same, but whatever, Or you're just
going to tell me why I think God's a bad person,
and that's going to help me in justin out a lot.
It's going to make a lot of sense why he's like,
go rape these people.

Speaker 5 (20:26):
Right.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
Then it's like, oh, now we understand it's a douche
bad God. Right, That's what we thought already. But now
you're telling us you already think that, right. I'm just
trying to understand.

Speaker 4 (20:35):
Okay. In the Bible it says God is a creator
of all calamity? God.

Speaker 3 (20:39):
Do you think God is good or bad?

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Just woun answer? I just want to hear an answer.
Is there an answer to the question?

Speaker 4 (20:44):
Sometimes sometimes sometimes you were good, sometimes they weren't.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
Oh my God, So God is not all good, is
what you're saying. Sometimes he's bad? Yeah yeah, okay, so
us God's not good? We agree?

Speaker 1 (20:58):
Then, So what do you do with versus? Like Deuteronomy
that says all of his ways are just. I think
it's a Deuteronomy thirty two four let me pull it
up real quick, says his work is perfect and all
of his ways are just. A faithful God without deceit
and is upright sounds to me like that's a pretty.

Speaker 4 (21:16):
Uh, that's the authors of being in the world.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
That's so.

Speaker 4 (21:22):
Now I disagree.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
Okay, did Moses write that.

Speaker 4 (21:27):
Knows even existed? Do we even really?

Speaker 2 (21:29):
I don't think he existed. Okay, So how do you
know that God gave any of these laws?

Speaker 1 (21:33):
If you don't agree that Deuteronomy was written you know
through inspiration it was Bill definitely Bill Doug.

Speaker 4 (21:41):
Okay, well, well you guys got me there. You guys
got me there. I don't know who wrote that. I
can't know that.

Speaker 3 (21:48):
Then how could you be justified? And why are you?
First off, I don't even care about the epistetic justificial thing.
Why are you? Why are you fucking defending this so much?
If you don't if you by your own like we
just talked to you like a person, right, why are
you defending it much? And you're you're on this point
you don't even know if it was given to Moses
or Jim or Bob or Betty Sue or whatever. Right,
you have no clue, but you're like coming in to

(22:08):
defend this to me. It just I think there's like
something more fundamental going on in that that you have
a specific view on women, and you don't you think
that women are inferior to you, And I could be
wrong about that, but that's what I'm thinking. I think
you're projected.

Speaker 4 (22:23):
I think there's some virtues in the point. I think
there's some virtues to what's in the Bible. I don't
think it's all you know, all perfect, all right.

Speaker 3 (22:33):
I'm done with you, man, because every time I've tried
to talk with you, you've talked to like Schmike, and Schmike
might be to my left or my right, but it's
not Mike. I'm Mike. Schmike might have asked you that
I fucking didn't. Okay, So I'm done with you, Steve.
If you want to talk with Justin, that's fine. I
just find you to be completely dishonest, and I just
have no interest in I do. I hope you develop
some reasoning skills. I really do.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Yeah, So, Steve, maybe I'll I'll mention one other thing,
I don't think that that the God of the Bible
actually cares about women, And I know that's kind of
the why you called in. You think the God of
the Bible cares about women, but neither in the New
Testament nor the Old Testament are they ever given the
same level of equality as men. In fact, Paul himself

(23:16):
famously said that they're not even permitted to speak in church.
They have to listen in quietness and full submission, and
then said that they'll be saved as long as they
still have children.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Like this is nonsensical.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
And if you read the story of David, do you
actually think the books of First and Second Samuel were inspired?

Speaker 4 (23:33):
You know, I'm not familiar with those works. I skied
in the Bible, but that was a long time ago.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
There's a really interesting story in Second Samuel twelve where
you remember the episode with Bathsheba, right where David took
the wife of your ride at the hit tit and
slept with her, knocked her up, and then turned out
that this was problematic and he had to send your
ride to the front lines to get killed in war
so that he can take you Bathsheba.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
I remember that next episode under battle, right, Yeah, did
I remember that?

Speaker 5 (24:05):
Now?

Speaker 4 (24:05):
You know that wasn't very right.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
Now there were two punishments. Now, first of all, David
should have been killed. But what God didn't do was
kill David. What he did was he killed the child
for punishment for what David did. And then listen to
what he did after that. The second punishment is even
worse than the first. He says in verse eleven, I
will raise up trouble against you from within in your
own house, and I will take your wives before your

(24:28):
eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he will
lie with your wives in broad daylight. For you did
it secretly. But I will do this thing before all
Israel in broad daylight.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
And then that happened.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
If you fast forward to chapter sixteen, a member of
his own household, his own son, Absalom, storms the palace,
chasing David away, trying to usurp the throne of David.
David leaves behind a couple concubines. He takes the concubines
to the roof of the palace in a display of
force over his father, and rapes them on top of
the palace in broad daylight. And God said, I'm doing

(25:00):
this thing, I'm raising up trouble against you from with
you and within your own house. So the God of
the Bible dislikes women so much that he's willing to
have them raped as a punishment for something their husband did.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
Do you see the problem?

Speaker 4 (25:14):
Yes, that's that's just wrong, right.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
So what's more likely that that the God who thinks
that women are pawns to use as punishment to their
husbands to be raped in broad daylight, that that God
exists and he's really that big of an asshole, or
that this book was just written by men from the
late Bronze Age and was putting words in the mouth
of God the ladder.

Speaker 4 (25:35):
It was, it was written that most it was it
was written by men in the Bronze from the Bronze Age.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
Probably, Yeah, we're with you. We respect women too much
to believe that this came from God.

Speaker 3 (25:46):
Steve, I really really appreciate you being honest. There really
do a lot of people, even if they agree you
won't say the answer that you gave. So I do
appreciate that, really do.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
It's a hard thing to realize, Okay, Steve, we appreciate it.
I've been talking to us totally ruined.

Speaker 4 (26:03):
You just totally ruined little shred of faith I've in
left you. Just I just can't believe in a monster
god like that even real.

Speaker 2 (26:11):
Anyway, it's a rough one, I know.

Speaker 1 (26:14):
I mean, we're sorry that you have to have this
realization live on air. I know it's not an easy
thing to do. I deconstructed from Christianity privately without people watching.

Speaker 3 (26:22):
Yeah, well, call in and you know, we'd be happy
to each week talk to you, see how you're doing,
you know, and see how it's progressing for you. Or
maybe you think in an hour we're full of shit,
right and you want to call back and go in.
I didn't really agree with what you said, but just
I mean, no, you're not alone on this. There's so
many people right now that are struggling with that and
making these realizations way late in their life, and so

(26:46):
there's communities built around this exact thing for sure.

Speaker 2 (26:49):
All Right, Steve, keep in touch. We appreciate you coming
up and chatting with us, and we'll talk to you soon.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
I'm sure taking call. Okay, thank you, Thank you for teachers, Okay,
thank you, yeah, yeah, thanks.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
It's a hard thing to realize live on air. I hope.
I hope the best for them.

Speaker 3 (27:08):
Yeah, I mean, my my worry is that because like
you know, it's like someone like and it's not really
good analogy at all, but you know, someone convinces you something,
and sometimes you just you go away for a little bit,
and maybe we could just say maybe with someone dishonest
or sketchy or maybe not, like you don't know, right,
you're coming from a different position and you seem like
they're motivated to tell you something, and it's easy for

(27:29):
you to go away and just stew in your own
head and be like, Okay, I'm actually reverting to what
I just came to. And I worry that that happens
when people quickly make those realizations that it's not that
they're not it's not like they're not being genuine or
something that they're really coming to that, it's that it's
kind of like hold on, you know what I mean,
because that is so deeply rooted, ingrained, you know what

(27:49):
I mean, My buddy Aaron, you know, Aarin, you know,
it's like you can cut off all those branches, right
that root is bigger than the tree underground man, and
it's it's holding on for dear life, So.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
Yeah, it really is.

Speaker 1 (28:01):
Well, let's grab the announcements in some super chats. Guys,
please like and subscribe to the channel, enable unifications, and
comment below on your favorite callers.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
We'd love to hear your guys' feedback.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
I actually read all the comments on the live streams
to see what people are saying, so your comments aren't
going into the void.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
We're actually reading them.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
And one great way to support the show is by
sending super chats. So go ahead and send super chats.
We're going to read them live on the air as
we get the opportunity to. And if you're in the
Austin area, follow us on meetup to keep up with
community events. You can see what's going on at tiny
dot cc Ford slash ACA meetup. Again, it's tiny dot

(28:44):
cc Ford slash ACA meetup and there's events that are
happening down in Austin like Philosophy under the Stars.

Speaker 2 (28:51):
Game Nights and more.

Speaker 1 (28:52):
So we'd love to see you there and also join
the weekly watch party at the Three Free Thought Library.
That's such a horrific sentence to say as someone with
a lisp.

Speaker 3 (29:02):
Yeah, like I did earlier, I remember what I said
to you before the line, but I was like, thoughts
about I was like, oh my god, let me just
start over again.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
I'm being punished. So anyways, Yeah, joined the weekly watch
party at the Free Thought Library on Sundays for live
viewings of Talk Heathen and the Atheens Experience every Sunday.
The doors open at noon.

Speaker 1 (29:21):
It's a great place to be with community, and we
want to send a big, big thank you out to
the crew who puts the show together every week.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
The video operators, the audio operators.

Speaker 1 (29:32):
Are note takers, call screeners, chat modern big shout out
to the team, and let me grab just a couple
super chats. How about we'll just altern it. I'll read
one and then you read one. J Mike, do you
have the script or do you want me to read them?

Speaker 3 (29:44):
I can pull Oh you know aunt on here, Yeah,
I do, pleasure to scroll down. Yep, we're good.

Speaker 2 (29:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
Our first one is from Tally Beck, a good friend
of the channel. Thank you so much for the nineteen
ninety nine Tally says J, Mike and Justin on the
same show. It's like all my Christmases are coming at once.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
Well, thank you so much. Tal, You really appreciate that.
Thanks for supporting the show.

Speaker 3 (30:05):
I'm gonna I'm gonna not say the word. I realized
like this, like saying this word could be triggering for people,
and so apologies through that conversation if that could have
happened to anybody. But so I'm gonna try to curb
my language. When I read this one NERO for ten dollars,
thank you so much. If a man meets a virgin
in the country and our word her, he shall pay

(30:26):
fifty shekels two hundred and today inflation, and her father
shall be his wife. They may never divorce. And that's
a quote from Deuteronomy twenty eight to twenty nine.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
She sounds really protected. Yeah, that's a rough one.

Speaker 4 (30:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
I was getting like really irritated, Like really it was
really driving. That call was really irritating me. So I'm
glad we went to where we win that went at
the end there because I was just like, I can't,
I can't do this shit.

Speaker 2 (30:53):
It's hard to watch somebody defending that kind of behavior.
It really is.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
Larry, thank you so much for the six hours and
sixty six cent super chat big w and we appreciate
the super chat. Says pretty work. I think you're referring
to j Mike, and we all agree. We all agree,
the beautiful main is always at work.

Speaker 3 (31:13):
Yes, and then we got ten dollars from good friend
of mine, Aaron. We got cafeteria Christianity is all too comforting. Yeah,
I have to yeah my body. Aaron has this idea
on cafeteria Christianity. It's a I think it's a really
good analogy to uh to get into. But uh yeah, all.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
Right, guys, thank you there. Aaron is a great friend.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
It goes by Fillow dragons sometimes if you see that
name floating around. We appreciate you, guys super chatting for
supporting the channel. We're going to get our next caller
in the box and it's gonna be a theist named
Art from Pennsylvania.

Speaker 2 (31:51):
There we go.

Speaker 1 (31:52):
Weish have a and Art saying that Spinoza's god and
Einstein's religion dot dot dot.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Can you elaborate on that?

Speaker 5 (32:00):
Yeah, yeah, sure, I've heard that on this show. I've
heard a few different hosts. In my opinion, sure, change
and misrepresents Spinoza's religion, and Einstein said at one point
that he believed in Spinoza's God. So that's the tie
in with Seinstein.

Speaker 2 (32:18):
Sure, is that what you believe in?

Speaker 5 (32:20):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (32:20):
OK, what would be? So there's like a deistic god?
So what would be?

Speaker 3 (32:24):
I mean? Would you just take like the quote that's
like often attributed to Spinoza. It's like that I don't remember.
It's like the sum of all physical and natural entities
or something. You know, I'm talking about me. If you're
a Spinoza person, then you would probably know what I'm saying. Yeah,
I can just find the quote.

Speaker 5 (32:39):
I'm not that quote doesn't coming to I don't think
i've seen that quote. If I have, I'm not recalling it.

Speaker 3 (32:45):
Yeah, I mean, I mean, I just want to make
sure I understand what you mean by it, because if
your concern is likes misrepresentation or straw manning the position,
I don't want to do that right, because I want
to build the best kind of version of what I'm
you know, either going to end up believing or dismissing
and objecting to. Right, So is it gonna be like

(33:06):
something with a mind like this is one way I
like to ask this because it becomes kind of uninteresting
to me, just honestly for me to you. I'm not
very interested in like this idea of god where you
divorce it from a mind that exists alone and then
creates the external world. That's the concept that I think
when I talk to people when they say they believe
in God, that if we were to look under the

(33:27):
hood and really press them, what they're saying is, I
think that you know, there was just this mind, nothing
external to it, and then it created the external stuff,
and all the external stuff is explained by that God
and he intended for those things. And if it's not
like that at all, It's like, I kind of check
out of those conversations quick, because I don't know if
I disagree with you. It just sounds like you're kind
of being poetic, you know, So I'm just wondering if

(33:49):
that might be what's going on. So what's what's is
that your is your view of mind? Or if it's not,
what is your view?

Speaker 5 (33:55):
Yeah? No, I got it. The idea of a god
with the mind who creach world is basically to me
a superhero god. It's like the guy sitting above the
clouds with a long white beer dressed up in a
cheap tuxedo. Okay, so that is definitely not the god
I'm talking about. Now, I understand what you're saying you're
absolutely right ninety nine percent of the people probably in

(34:16):
the world believe in a superhero god. Well maybe, but anyway,
a lot of them, Yeah, a large amount. Yeah, they
are large amount. But yeah, yeah, But if you're going
to it's you, and I don't mean you personally. If
someone's going to talk about Spinoza's god, I think they
should have an accurate idea of it or they shouldn't
talk about it. So that's ry is that?

Speaker 3 (34:33):
Yeah? And I don't talk about Spinosa's god. So I
guess I'm winning in your books. So why don't you
just tell me what it is that you believe and
then we'll see if, like we just if you believe
in that, I mean, I guess I don't know if
I've gotten you into a scent that if you're just
I mean, because maybe your gripe is just people getting
it wrong on the show. I can't really help you
with that because I don't talk about Spinoza, so I
know I haven't made that air. I don't think Justin's

(34:53):
made that air. No, So you want to talk about
what you believe?

Speaker 5 (34:57):
Sure, sure, Okay, Now just go back to I first
saw his view. In Dolkin's book two thousand and five,
he said that Einstein didn't believe in a personal god,
which is absolutely true. He didn't believe in a superhero god.
And then he went on to say that Spinoza's God
is metaphorical. Now, Spinoza was twenty three years old when

(35:18):
he was excommunicated from his Jewish community, and I don't
think he did it for some metaphorical like, oh, let's
call the universe god. I mean, the Jews had left
Portugal because they were persecuted. They'd moved to Answerdam which
was more a liberal, but Spinoza was saying something that
got the whole Jewish community worried that that, you know,

(35:40):
stories cracked down and on them.

Speaker 2 (35:41):
Okay, sorry to interrupt you, but like, I don't know
if Spinosa is here to defend his position. We're not
really I don't think we're concerned about what Spinoza believe.
We're trying to figure out what you believe.

Speaker 4 (35:52):
Exactly, yeah, exactly, well, I believe in Spinoza's God.

Speaker 5 (35:55):
That I'm gonna explain it to you as I understand it, right,
I mean, it's I mean, that's the way it is.
I mean you're right, He's not here, and I'm explaining
his God to you as I understand that. That's all
I can do.

Speaker 3 (36:07):
Yeah, let's go with that, because I think I think
some people are justified in getting it wrong when, like
I think, they ask a lot of Spinoza people and
then we get a lot of like when do we
get the explanation party. It's kind of always feels like
I'm in the waiting room with waiting to see the doctor.
So let's just go with that.

Speaker 5 (36:22):
Okay, Well, let me move along. Spinoza said that God
is the one substance. Now, the idea of substance an
accident goes back to Aristotle. The substance is the thing
the accidents, and that's a bad word. It's better to
thought of his properties. So you've got the substance the apple.
The apple has properties red twenty gram sweet. So you've

(36:44):
got the thing, and you've got the properties the saint.
There's only one substance in the universe, and everything else
is a manifestation of God's infidite. Everything else is some
of God's infinite properties.

Speaker 3 (36:57):
Is that's hold on, I have to cut you off there,
I have to you up there because you introduce the
term that I'm trying that I'm trying to understand, right,
Like you said that God, but I'm still not clear
on how you use that term, right. So it's almost
like when I ask you what do you mean by no,
and it's like, oh, it's like when you know something, right,
It's like you can't use the term I'm trying to
understand in your explanation, right.

Speaker 5 (37:18):
Okay, But Spinosa says that there is one substance and
that is God, and everything else is a manifestation of
that one substance. A way that helps me understand that
is that when you dream.

Speaker 3 (37:31):
I know, hold on, I'm sorry you're doing I'm sorry,
but you're doing it again. Look, I'm probably a physical
I'm probably a physicalist, right, like like I'm a very
close like identity theory. I think there's one substance. Everything's physical,
and I think there's the immaterial stuff, right, there's mental stuff, like,
I just think there's physical stuff, right, that's my view,
So I think there's one substance too. But then you

(37:51):
go into this God thing, and I'm trying to understand
that because I'm also a monist, right, and a monist
is someone that believes there's a substance. So I'm also
a mon but I'm an atheist, all right, So I'm
trying to understand this view perfectly.

Speaker 5 (38:04):
I think I have I think I have the answer. Gotcha.
And you believe there's one substance, Okay, it's not.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
About what I believe. Don't worry about what I believe.
I'm trying to just.

Speaker 5 (38:14):
Yeah, okay, I think I'm with God. Is an emotional term.
It's like when you call a woman a beauty. If
you and I agree that there's one substance, then you
and I agree that that substance is that in which
we live and move and have our being. Now, if
I choose to regard that one substance religiously, which I
believe is what Einstein did, and I call it God,

(38:35):
that is like me seeing a woman and saying she's
a real beauty. Someone else could be a monist and say,
don't call it God, it's the reason for all.

Speaker 3 (38:43):
Say then that that explains everything to me. Then we
just don't have a substantive dispute to have, right, because
then you're just using some other like phonetic grunt. I
don't know. That's probably like that's probably like redundant to say,
but you have this like sound. There's grunt sound God,
and it refers to what I say when I say
physicalism or monism. Right, this is this everything being one substance.

(39:05):
But that well, that's right. Then there's nothing that like
we like we disagree on. You're just using language in
a way that I wouldn't prefer to use. Right, Well,
there's not really there's a mystery there.

Speaker 5 (39:14):
What's supposed No, what's suppose you and I see a
woman and I say she's a beauty and you say
she isn't we can agree about all her characteristics. So
if you and I are a bonus, we can agree
about that. If I say that that one substance is God,
it's just essentially like saying the woman is a beauty.
I am saying I regard this one substance in a

(39:35):
religious way. I regard it with reverence and with awe.
You might say, you don't you just say screw it.
So we'd be seeing the same woman, we'd be seeing
the same monis reality, and I'd be giving you my opinion,
my reaction to it that she's a beauty, and you'd.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
Guess I get that. But that's just saying like we
but that that's fine. I can talk to a Justin
could be a physicalist and he can be like, I
really like physicalism, and I'd be like, I kind of
like it. But that's there. There's no there's no interesting
dispute there, right, Okay, what's what's We just don't have
anything that's like worth calling about.

Speaker 5 (40:08):
Well, I guess you and I don't have any dispute.
But I've heard Matt, I've heard Forrest. I believe I've
heard Eric just say, I suppose this god. It's just
another word for the universe. We have a word for
the universe. Why call it god? I believe that.

Speaker 3 (40:21):
Literally, that's that's ostensibly the same thing that I'm fucking saying.
That's ostensibly the same thing that I am saying. Right,
they're they're all of those people you listened, all right,
they are right, They're a hundred percent right. You're using language.
You're using language. Look, I just just dude, all right,
I just fucking systematically went through this with you, right,
pointed out at every junction where you're using language, where

(40:43):
there's no substantive disagreement, you're just making a different phonetic
grunt sound than I am. That's the that's the contrastive
explanatory difference. You use some sound that I don't use. Great,
but when you use your example that's ostensibly the same
as me and justin being Monis and me going oh,
just and I really like to read about you know,
like the Australian materialists and like their their physicalism, and

(41:06):
he's just kind of like I kind of like it.
Well cool, Like there is a there's technically like a dispute,
like we can be like why don't you like this
as much as I do? But fundamentally there's nothing different.
There's no like real interesting dispute, right, It's just you're
using language in a way to describe something I already
think exists, right, and then just adding more value stuff
to it, like you like it more and stuff. But

(41:27):
that's just I'm not trying to be rude. It's not interesting,
really not, it's really.

Speaker 2 (41:30):
Boring because like what I'm hearing to interrupt.

Speaker 3 (41:34):
You, no, no, you go out. I've talked way too much.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
What I'm hearing is that the universe exists, and you're
just defining that as God, Like you're just defining God
into his existence. But if there's no discernible difference between
the God that you're describing and the universe existing without
that God, that I guess I would just picked the
simpler of the two things. I would just say, well,
the universe without that god seems more parsimonious.

Speaker 2 (41:58):
With the viewpoint, I can address both of you.

Speaker 5 (42:01):
And if we go back to the analogy of everything
that you dream is really your your your thollot, your
mind stuff. Then if you dream of a car in
a house and I say your car is just your mind, No,
your car is a is a image in your mind.
Your mind is primary and the car you dream is secondary. Similarly,

(42:22):
to say that, well, the stuff is just the universe
is like saying, well, my mind is just the car
that I dreamt, or my mind is just the building
that I was dreaming. No, your mind is something independent
and the building and the car are the manifestation. And
so I believe the error is are the correct way
is to say the universe, well, no, the monus is
primary and the universe is a manifestation, just like when

(42:45):
you dream the car is a manifestation. But to say
your mind, I.

Speaker 3 (42:48):
Don't really I just I don't get it.

Speaker 1 (42:51):
Yeah, sorry, Okay, So the universe is a manifestation of
the mind of God.

Speaker 3 (42:56):
That didn't have a mind when I say, when I
specifically asked about the mind thing that you and I
and now it has a mind. Okay, This is why
I'm only talking to people that believe in No, no,
you can't get their okay.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
So then the question I have is what would be
the evidence that would lead me the conclude that we're
a manifestation of a mind because this is really bordering
on simulation theory.

Speaker 5 (43:16):
Guys, I used the dream as an analogy. You could
think of the universe as a dream in the mind
of God.

Speaker 6 (43:23):
But I'm not.

Speaker 5 (43:23):
Saying it is literally. Now I'm sory.

Speaker 3 (43:26):
How confusing that I know? But do you understand? But
you understand how confusing that is when a term is
coloqually used to mean like this mind with entities, desires
and beliefs, motivations, right, and then you use in your
analogy a mind the thing that you're saying it's not
the case. You see how confusing that is for someone
like myself. It's just very confusing. So what we'd prefer

(43:46):
to do is get a clear, clear image of what
you do believe. But the problem that I run into
and I talk to people that like talking about spinosa
is like I don't know it. To me, it feels
like you guys, like I could be wrong. You guys
like the way it sounds when you say it, but
it doesn't sound like there's anything there's anything of like
real substance there. It sounds like it you know, I
don't know. I'm not trying to be rude. It just
feels like when I talk to people like this, you

(44:07):
guys aren't really giving me anything. You're just saying words,
you know what I mean, because those words sound cool
to you or something. That's the vibe I get. And
then when I'm like trying to press you guys get
confused why we don't understand it. But then I mean,
just listen back to this call, and if anybody can
pinpoint what it is you're expressing, I'd be happy to
take that email and exchange with them so they can
help me. But I'm not getting anything from this other

(44:30):
than we believe the same thing. But I like to
be poetic about right. It just sounds like continental philosophy
to me. It's just, oh, I hate continental philosophy.

Speaker 5 (44:37):
Well, okay, well I could kind of just wrap it
up like one of two cents is because I think
we've reached the point where, you know, I think we've
done it as much as we Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:48):
Yeah, I'm not trying. I'm not trying to be like rude.
I'm really not. I just can't. I can't. I can't
understand what this view is expressing to me. It's not
even clear that you can believe this if it's something
real quick, if you're there's like one of two things
saying something that we don't substantively disagree with. You're just
using language different way, or you're adding some new stuff. Right,
it's kind of like mystical, esoteric, kind of poetic stuff,

(45:08):
but it's like a real thing. But then I'm like, okay,
no one can characterize what that is. It's like talking
about a soul or like moral facts that are independent
about what I think it's to me, it's not. Then
it becomes clear to me, I don't even think you
or anybody could believe this because I'm not even convinced
it's a proposition. I'm not convinced what you're saying could
be true or false. It's like saying grab the sandwich, right,

(45:31):
or like sandwich the mountain. It just doesn't it's not
true or false. It's like either some command or it's
just some gibberish.

Speaker 5 (45:38):
Right.

Speaker 3 (45:38):
It doesn't seem like you're actually like saying something that
you could believe, because it doesn't sound like it's something
that's propositional. And I take beliefs to be like attitudes
you have towards propositions, right, Like I think it's raining outside,
that's a proposition. I think it's true. I don't think
the thing you're expressing is something like that. I don't
even think it's in the category of belief. I think
it's just kind of gibberish. But that's just my view.

Speaker 5 (46:00):
I must be expressing myself badly then, because that's.

Speaker 3 (46:03):
It's not you. It's every time I've talked about this
view with somebody and they try to talk about spinows
every time, every single time, it's like the same brick
wall of just esoteric nonsense. I'm not saying you're doing that,
and like as much as anyone else, I'm just saying
it's the same. I get the same common thread every time.
It's like it's like that's why I don't engage with
continental philosophers. I don't want to sift through their language.
What do you mean by this? And then they're like,

(46:24):
use more poetic language. I'm like, all right, but I'm
gonna go get a sandwich and just like play video games.
Yeah that sounds more fun. Yeah, apparently I really want
a sandwich right now.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
I don't know.

Speaker 5 (46:34):
Yeah, it's time for dinner here too. It's just I'm
on the East Coast.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
I believe in a sandwich, but it's not like kind
of like the same sandwich that you believe in. It's
like it's like the sum of all this stuff in
the sandwich.

Speaker 2 (46:47):
Sorry, listen, I appreciate you coming and talking to us.

Speaker 5 (46:52):
Okay, do you guys want to end it or can
I wrap it up? What's up to you?

Speaker 7 (46:55):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (46:55):
Feel free to Yeah, if you want to, We'll give
you a last word there.

Speaker 5 (46:58):
Okay, Okay, thank you. Okay. We have a god that
is not a superhero, that it's the basis of all creation.
It's the one thing that's the basis of all creation.
We can think of it as a metaphor, as a dream.
We can think of the universe metaphorically as a dream
in the mind of God. But I'm not saying God
is a superhero that has a mind, that is a

(47:20):
thinking agent. I think that is what human beings have personified,
the one monus substance, and they've done it, and you know,
they've made superheroes out of it. Maybe I'll just stop there.
I think we've both made our points, which can just
let the viewers make up their own mind, because I
think i've If you've allowed to expressed what I said,
if you didn't understand it, I didn't do it, well

(47:41):
that's my that's only may But.

Speaker 3 (47:43):
If it makes you feel any better art, there might
be more agreement than there is disagreement. But that's kind
of my frustration with these conversations is that there doesn't
seem to be a substantive dispute once we look under
the hood. It just seems like we use language different.
I don't see it being very much different than me
talking about the same things in Hindia, like one of
my friends that speaks Hindi or something like that. Right,
would just be using language referring to the same thing. Right,

(48:05):
it's still the same conference.

Speaker 5 (48:08):
I don't want to make this too long, but one
thing is. I think this view gives me power that
atheists maybe don't have in a way, because I can
say to someone the Bible, well, you can say it
to Maybe I shouldn't have said that, I'm sorry, but
I can say something like the Bible says God flooded
the world because he regretted making humanity. That's nonsense. A

(48:29):
God that floods the world that regrets something is not
the real God. And then I can say I can
tell you what I think the real God is. Or
I can say that the Exodus story is a complete garbage.
I mean, he tortues the Egyptian people. He he campers
with the free will of the Pharaohs so he can
torture it, and again he campers with it goes and
I can say that is complete nonsense. Now, if you're

(48:51):
talking to a religious person and you're an atheist, they
have to either give up their religion or they have
to deny what you're saying. If I'm talking to a
religious person and I say I had this more better
idea of God, your God is just a superhero created
in the Roman Empire. You see how that gives you
another angle. I mean that that's one now I'm getting

(49:12):
to the practical uses of this.

Speaker 2 (49:14):
I don't think it's practical at all.

Speaker 5 (49:17):
Mean to go there, I don't want to.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
And you're saying something like you're lessening the blow for
somebody to come to that side, But that's I don't
I don't want someone to leave their faith if they're
just going to try to find a safety net to
go to and not honestly just realize that. Okay, Now,
I don't know. I mean, it's not hard to go.
Is Lebron James standing up or sitting down and someone's
convinced their whole life that he's standing up and then
they realized, oh wow, I didn't really have good evidence

(49:39):
that he was standing up. Maybe you know, maybe I
think maybe I don't know if he's standing up or
sitting down. I just don't know that's the right move
to make, right, you just go I don't know, right,
But it sounds like what you want to do is
take them to this other side as like this lessening
the blow kind of thing, and I don't, I don't know.
It just doesn't seem that I wouldn't call that power.
I would just call that like trying to artificially get
someone off their position or something, or like give them

(50:00):
a safety to ha.

Speaker 5 (50:02):
Too, it'd be artificial for you said, you don't believe
what I'm saying. Since I really believe what I'm saying,
it's not artificial at all.

Speaker 3 (50:08):
I understand. I understand what. I understand what you're saying. Yeah,
I just don't think that it's going to be helpful
for people, Like they're not going to move from that,
They're going to go shit. I don't know what I
believe now, right, That's what you should do when someone
convinces you. Why have you thought Lebron James is standing
up always? And then you're like, oh wow, maybe I
just don't know. Right, that's the move you should make. Right.

Speaker 2 (50:26):
Yeah, we got to our next But thanks for calling in.

Speaker 5 (50:30):
Yeah, this has been This is going better than I hoped,
and I thank you. You've been very decent and thanks again.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
Thanks thank you. Yeah, yeah you too are Sorry. I mean,
I mean to be I feel like I'm saying this
but it's like a lot, but I just I don't
I hope I don't come off like rude to it's
the person in like attacking their personality or whatever. I mean.
Steve's views I was kind of I will attack that
specific personality and hopefully he's making progress there. But yeah,
I just it's like, I just I get really bored

(50:57):
of those conversations. They're just not very interesting to trust.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Me, I understand that completely. Well, let's grab a couple
of super chats. Then we're going to get our next
guest in the box. Godwin, thank you so much for
the superchat, Godwin says my s chat. Nothing to say,
so you're super chat, nothing to say you two say
it so well, well, Godwin.

Speaker 2 (51:15):
We really appreciate the super chat. We appreciate the kind
words we got.

Speaker 3 (51:19):
Miranda Rinsburger always popping up ten dollars, thank you so much.
Please or somebody please use this to get a sandwich game,
like yeah, well, you know it's awesome. I went and
saw my parents. I went to my parents' house yesterday
to celebrate my brother's birthday, and my mom he packed
me some sandwiches and stuff when I left, So I
do have sandwiches and I save some money on groceries.

(51:39):
So when mom, all right, when Mom, so we want
to have a sandwich. Yeah, I'll be eating that sandwich
on the which. Good time to promote the live show
after the show on Discord, I'll be eating a sandwich
and you can talk to me and just in there.

Speaker 2 (51:52):
So yeah, I'd definitely come join us for the Opture show.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
When we've got a super chat from Isaiah S, says
Jay Man a J Mac, I mean sorry, J Mike,
just J Mike just cont with and then O philosophy.

Speaker 3 (52:07):
I popped up on my screen. I had to like
hide my smile so that I wasn't laughing while the
guy was explaining. I felt bad for artists. I'm not
laughing at you. This guy's this person's just really funny.

Speaker 8 (52:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
I like that was a big W for the puns.
We appreciate that, Isaiam. We've got another one, so I'm
lord commander.

Speaker 3 (52:25):
Yeah, go ahead with that one. I'll read the next one.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
This is big W.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
J Mike love watching you dismantle pseudo philosopher arguments and
I could not agree more.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
I enjoy watching it.

Speaker 3 (52:35):
Jokes on you. I just wanted to hear you say it,
and I'm just kidding. I didn't actually know. I said
thank you so much. Yeah, thank you, that's awesome. I
am getting pretty Uh, I'll just say that I'm getting
kind of disgruntled with some of the talks I've had
philosophy lately. So I like just having normal conversation, normal
regular conversations with people actually believe is really nice, you know.

(52:56):
So anyway, Gorilla God King five dollars sent to us,
So thank you so much for the migraine slowly encroaching upon,
for the migrain, slowly encroaching upon just as he tries
to wrap his mind around arts extreme out there for you.
That's great. I love that.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
Yeah, some of that I.

Speaker 3 (53:14):
Was encroaching quickly.

Speaker 1 (53:16):
It's the conversations are a little bit headache inducing.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
Omar, thank you for the protests. I really enjoy when
callers site past philosophers arguments and add some of their own.

Speaker 1 (53:28):
Word salad. I prefer more protein. That call made me hungry.
I agree that the word salad made me a little
bit hungry, because that's what it sounds like to me.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
We've got low five twenty seven. I feel like that's
like a like RuneScape with this PERSONA four dollars and
ninety nine cents. Thank you. Lebron is always standing. That's great.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
Icept what he was flopping.

Speaker 3 (53:53):
One of my friends was, you know, because it's the
same kind of like Gumball analogy. But I was, you know,
in a live debate it's him on TikTok, and he's
just like he just used Lebron James, and I was like,
you know, I like that example a lot better. It's
like it's a lot easier. I feel like to convey
to somebody like do you think Lebron Jae's standing up?
Sitting down? Is like if I said I don't think
he's standing up, do you think I think he's sitting down,

(54:15):
a lot of people like, yeah, that's implicitly what you mean.
It's just like, okay, oh my god.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
We've got a super chat from David. Thank you so
much all the way from the Great White North, says
hashtag team justin Big w appreciate the support, and I
think we've got to two more super tess left.

Speaker 3 (54:33):
Yeah, act me hero for two dollars, don't feed the trolls,
feed hosts. Yeah, I agree.

Speaker 1 (54:40):
And last one from our friend Jay Cow. Good to
see you tonight. Ja Cow for two dollars, says praise
Doug and we agree, Hail Doug the Rock of Ages. Yeah,
we're going to get our next guest on the line,
we're going to be grabbing Tim all the way from
New York. He says, I think a creator is more
likely than no creator. We're on the atheists experience. Now, Tim,

(55:01):
are you doing.

Speaker 8 (55:02):
I'm doing well.

Speaker 6 (55:03):
We spoke last week.

Speaker 8 (55:05):
Or a couple of weeks ago.

Speaker 1 (55:06):
Sure, and do you have an argument for a specific
creator or a generic creator?

Speaker 8 (55:13):
Generic?

Speaker 2 (55:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (55:14):
Sure. I think there was some misunderstanding with my argument
last week. I said that because humans had created intelligence
that I thought it was, and we've never seen intelligence
come into existence without a creator, that by the preponderance
of evidence.

Speaker 4 (55:33):
It seems that there would be likely to.

Speaker 8 (55:35):
Be a creator. You guys mentioned, well, we think that
a biogenesis is likely true. I think that you guys
kind of pigeonholed me into thinking that it's not true.
I do believe in science, and I do think it
is likely real. However, just because it's real, I don't
think that means it's necessarily independent of a creator.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
Sure, okay, So what would be the argument that would
convince somebody or point somebody in the direction that it
was caused by a creator?

Speaker 8 (56:04):
Well, like I said, because we've only seen intelligence made
by people, I.

Speaker 3 (56:10):
Disagree Also, that's if you put that in like, if
you put that in an argument, like in a formal
sense of being valid, It doesn't follow from those propositions
that there must like necessarily there is some creator, right,
could just be true. That could just be true that
we are the only ones that create things, which is
like false, by the way, could just be true, and
it still doesn't follow from the fact, like there's not
an inference rule guaranteeing you that conclusion, right, you don't.

(56:32):
I mean you could make one. It could be like, well,
if it was the case that we're the only ones,
then it's likely that God exists. But I would just
deny that premise. I would say, yeah, I don't what's
the argument for that conditional? Right? Why should I believe
that to be true? So we're just going to be
pushed back a step, Right, what do you.

Speaker 8 (56:48):
Mean by what I'm saying, is in all likelihood based
on the evidence we've seen that you would you know,
most likely data.

Speaker 2 (56:59):
Okay, I want to make sure I understand the argument.

Speaker 1 (57:01):
The argument is that because we only ever witness being
produced through you know, other intelligence, and then the intelligence
we see here must be produced. But like your argument
rests on the idea that something needs to be witnessed
or because something wasn't witnessed. But if like witnessing something
is the crux of the argument, you got a huge
problem because no one witnesses your God. So like, by

(57:23):
the same token that you say, well, we don't we know,
we don't witness this thing happening.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
We don't witness a biogenesis happening on its own, we
would say, okay, well we don't witness your God doing
a damn thing. So it's not a really strong argument.

Speaker 8 (57:36):
Yeah, okay, I would disagree because you're saying a biogenesis.
I'm not denying that a biogenesis may be really correct. However,
we don't know that. However, many billions of years ago,
the designer didn't say, you know, six billion years in
I want this to happen.

Speaker 3 (57:56):
You're trying to point out like you gave this, like
you're giving like this inductive. So what you were saying
is you're looking into the world, right and you're like, Okay,
it's it's going to be really likely given that this,
you know, these set of facts, like I can make
this inference that it's probably likely that you know, some
God created us or something like that. Right, Justin's trying
to point out to you that we don't. There's no
observation of that thing that you're pointing out right, that's

(58:19):
not You're not there's no observation of God's creating things.

Speaker 8 (58:23):
But there's observation of humans creating intelligences.

Speaker 3 (58:27):
Okay, then, like I said, like I said earlier, it
doesn't follow from the fact that one thing creates things
that that thing has a creator. It's like it's weird.
It's like, you know, me and Justin have a mother,
so therefore like there's a mother of both of us
or something like that, like because everybody has a mother,
like the universe has a mother some like. It's just
it's like it's not directly like a composition. You're doing, yes,

(58:49):
but you're doing this weird thing where you're moving from
like one piece of data to just extrapolating like with
just this huge giant gap. Right, it doesn't follow from
the fact that we like, like I could just grant
you or let's WHI grant we're the only things that
create things like in have intelligence. Just grant you. I
don't think that's true, just grant you that. How does
it follow from that fact that it's more likely that
a god created us? Why is it not? Why am

(59:11):
I not my rights to say that you could have
an explanation just spanning from a biogenesis without this extra
need of an entity, Right, I think it's more likely
because it's simpler and explains the data equally. Right, that
sounds like something that might be more likely.

Speaker 8 (59:25):
Well, what's your wouldn't you need evidence for that? Like
you don't have a data set.

Speaker 3 (59:31):
If you already accept a biogenesis and you're just saying
God is responsible for it, then there's no dispute on
the data. We both agree a biogenesis happened, right, and
life got started boom great, So there's no dispute there.
But you add an extra entity in your hypothesis that
I don't have, which is God. Not only is it
an extra entity so it's more commitments, it's also a

(59:53):
very foreign entity. Right, it's like an immaterial thing. So
now you have a lot of baggage you're not just
like it's not to scientists disagreeing and like say me,
so let me help you here. Me and Justin have
some hypothesis about like why some trait is leading to
fixation in a population, So like, why we see this
this trait of an animal propping up And I give

(01:00:13):
him my explanation, and he gives me his explanation. But
I have like one more thing, one more postulate, one
more thing than he does, and I explain it equally.
What I'm saying to him is I have no reason
to have this extra postulate because you explain that data
equally without that thing. Now take that in the context
of how we're talking. We both agree that life the

(01:00:34):
abiogenesis is true, right at least you're saying in this case,
but you have something that I don't agree with. You're saying,
what explains that data is this god thing? That's an
extra commitment. I don't I I don't need to present
you anything else, because a biogenesis fully explains why we're
here without the need of this additional intelligent being, which,

(01:00:54):
by the way, is just going to get you into
like an infinite regression.

Speaker 4 (01:00:57):
Things.

Speaker 3 (01:00:57):
You're gonna be like, well, there's an intelligent thing we
need to designer to design those intelligent desires, right, and
you just go back and back and back and back
and back. What's easier to do. What I can point
out to somebody is there's no dispute on the evidence
because you agree a biogenesis occurs, but you add an
extra entity. I can explain all the data without it.
So what do I do. I shave it off, right,
I shave the god stuff off. I shave the genie

(01:01:18):
stuff off. I shave the gen stuff the spiritual realm,
and I can explain the data equally.

Speaker 9 (01:01:23):
And you don't disagree with I disagree that we have
to go back and back and back because we know
humans have a start point, but we don't know that
whatever would have created us would have a start point.

Speaker 8 (01:01:33):
We know humans have a start point.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
Well, the material that we're made out of, we don't
believe has a start point.

Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
But I think what J.

Speaker 1 (01:01:39):
Mike was saying, and you know, correct me if I'm wrong,
is you're suggesting that you know, information only comes or
data or intelligence only comes from already intelligent things. Therefore,
what we see here came from a god. But the
infinite regress is that, well, if God is even more
complicated and has this intelligence, then something had to cause

(01:02:03):
that to come into being as well. Though, you end
up with an infinite regress of gods that are intelligent,
creating the intelligent thing.

Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
Right, So you didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:02:12):
Solve the mystery by placing the mystery back.

Speaker 9 (01:02:14):
In the front.

Speaker 8 (01:02:15):
If the intelligence, if if the intelligence came into existence,
then it in that case would need an intelligence to
create it. I'm saying. However, if it didn't, then it
wouldn't need that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:26):
Okay, So so it may.

Speaker 8 (01:02:27):
Be a regress, however not necessarily.

Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
But so what you're what you're suggesting is that the
intelligence we see here came into existence, but the intelligence
of God didn't. So you've just created an intelligent source
that doesn't come into existence, but it doesn't doesn't really
solve the problem.

Speaker 8 (01:02:44):
Well, we know, but the difference between us and God
is we know we had a start point based on
our evidence, but we don't we know whatever came before.
We wouldn't know if it did or not.

Speaker 2 (01:02:55):
But we have no data on the God. Right, You're
you're now forming hypotheses about how God came into existence,
and we have no evidence of the God to begin with,
so hypothesizing about it you would make up the Yeah,
I was like what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
In the case where we both agree about day biogenesis,
I don't have to convince you of anything, right, that
data shared between us. Right, It's like the same thing
when I this is the exact same argument that I
that I talk about with people like on TikTok or whatever,
when they're like, well, there had to be the beginning
of the universe and God created it stuff, And I'm like,
let me take that view on. Let's just do it.
I also agree there's a beginning of the universe. But

(01:03:32):
let's compare our theories. Right in your theory, you know,
you have this extra entity that has to explain why
that thing comes about. And if we already agree that
there's like an initial state, I don't have to convince
you that there's this initial state of the universe. We
both agree upon that. Right now, all I have to
do is parody the move that Christians make God is necessary. Okay,
let me take that modal status of being necessary and

(01:03:55):
just place it on the initial state. I can do
that too. I can just make things up too and
do that. And when I do that, when I compare
those those two hypotheses, I haven't decided which view I'm
going to take. Well, the one that does without God,
without the extra commitments and explains the data is the
one I'm going to prefer until some new hypothesis comes
out that does the same thing. It's simpler, And what

(01:04:16):
I mean by simpler is it has less commitments. Right,
I don't want to be committed to things unnecessarily. You
can just think of this like very similar to DOKHMS razor.
You don't want to be committed to those things unnecessarily.
And so I'm going to explain the data equally. You
called in about that I think it's more likely that
this god hypothesis is true. But I'm pointing out to
you that, look, it's just not the case if you
agree with this data, but you don't give me any reason.

(01:04:39):
What your task is to do is to show me
that I can't explain this thing without God. But it
seems like you've kind of shot yourself in the foot
by just agreeing abiogenesis explains all this. I get the
explanation by your own lights. So what are we doing
with the God thing? It's just this idle wheel in
your explanatory infrastructure that does nothing. It just sits there.

Speaker 8 (01:04:59):
Well, first of all, I don't feel like I have
to disprove it because I only say I believe. But however,
for instance, we can do like a Let's say we
do a computer simulation. We can do a computer simulation
where acts many years into the simulation, something pops up,
so we have a model that is plausible that maybe
God was sort of like the programmer. I know you

(01:05:21):
guys don't love simulation arguments, but he said, okay, this
many years into the creation, this is going to pop up.

Speaker 3 (01:05:28):
Fine, but notice what you're doing. You're adding but we
know it did. Why do I have to add that?
Why should I? Why should I add that to my
how I explain the data? Sorry, just I'm talking all
over you, just frustrating.

Speaker 1 (01:05:39):
Why I want to kind of touch what Ja Mike
is saying, because I think it's really important, which is,
we've got a model of existence that is pretty well
a good explanation for what we observe around us, and
it doesn't actually require a God. I'm trying to figure
out what the God is required for because once we
start adding in a God, we have to add in

(01:06:00):
all of the prior commitments, which is like, okay, well
why would God create? And if God did create, why
did he choose this particular method? Because the method that
he created, like the process of evolution, is one of
the most brutal processes to ever exist. Seems weird that
there'd be a god that was like, Hey, I'm going
to create stuff. I'm going to make sure that ninety

(01:06:21):
nine point nine percent of everything that I've ever created
dies in the most horrific fashion possible in order for
evolution to produce this eventual human state where we have
intelligence and information. That seems like an awful complicated thing
to have entailed in our worldview when it's not necessary
to explain anything.

Speaker 8 (01:06:42):
Well, I'm not moralizing any creator, So I don't know,
you're not necessarily feel like it.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
If you're going to hold on, I can already tell it.
You're not following this. We're asking you, why should we
add the God's stuff into our hypothesis that we think
fully explains the data. Why should we add that? What
are we missing? How are we how are because your
task would be to be to show us, hey, man,
with just the abiogenesis stuff, it's not enough. You need
the God thing. It's required for it, right, That's what

(01:07:10):
we need from you. Otherwise I'm not Otherwise, I'm just
going to go I'm just going to walk away. No, Okay, yes,
I understand that but it's not likely to me that
of the view that's preferable is a view that takes
its commitment right. It's what we call ontological economy. So
the things that you believe are true, these things that
you think that you're adding in your economy is just

(01:07:32):
so inflated. You're adding all this stuff. And I'm sitting
there going, why would I inflate? Why would I have
that type of inflation? In my view if I don't
need it? And I look at it and I go, okay,
I don't need it, And justin brings up a good point,
because it's not merely that like you just go, well,
God's needed. It's there's all these questions, why did God
create it that way rather than another way?

Speaker 4 (01:07:49):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:07:49):
Why did God have this desire rather than the infinite
set of desires? Why did God choose to create it
this moment rather than a moment earlier. All of that
stuff you have now added also into your explain explaanent
explanatory infrastructure. You're gonna also have to answer those questions.
And what it's easier to do is shave off the
God stuff until okay, well, then go ahead and explain

(01:08:10):
why all of that go ahead and explain perfectly why
why God created at the moment he did, explain why
he preferred that method rather than any other method, and
explain to me why I would need to addoun that
because that sounds massive for me to.

Speaker 8 (01:08:23):
I don't know. I say, I don't know when I
don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:08:25):
But however, it's not like create.

Speaker 8 (01:08:27):
A similar model like say on a can I can
I go back? We can create a similar model on
a computer where acts years into the simulation, the the
intelligence creation will pop up within it. Okay, so we
have a similar model, so I don't have We don't
have an alternative model where uh it just popped up

(01:08:48):
out of nothing, there was no human uh to start that. However,
we do have a human simulation.

Speaker 3 (01:08:55):
What are you talking about?

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
This is the thing I've one.

Speaker 3 (01:08:57):
He thinks that there's like an actual thing we've done
with AI where there's like intelligence and stuff like that.
Jeanie in the back is just like, oh my god,
this isn't a thing.

Speaker 1 (01:09:04):
But yeah, I mean I've worked with AI before, Like
I'm electrical engineering. You know, we've got devices that operate
using AI and whatnot. I don't think you understand quite
like how unintelligent AI really is. There's the reason why
it's called artificial intelligence. It's not as intelligent and as
you actually think it is.

Speaker 4 (01:09:23):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:09:23):
Maybe maybe with quantum computers, one day it'll be just
as intelligent as human beings. That could be, but we're
not there yet. But the fact of the matter is
this is a human creation, right, So if we're in
a simulation, what's to say that it was created by
a god as opposed to just another life force that
evolved from the universe and decided to make a simulation.

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
Why would we credit it to a god? Because here's kind.

Speaker 1 (01:09:47):
Of where like these like de deistic god concepts fall
apart because like I feel like half the time, people
are hanging on to these concepts of God because they
don't like the religion, Like they don't like Christianity, they
don't like Islam, but they want to hang on to
this idea that they're going to live forever in some
sort of an afterlife. And so you have to invent
some god that still fits the science, that will still

(01:10:08):
give you your after life. And maybe I'm wrong, maybe
I'm making too many assumptions about your worldview, but it
seems like this is just an awful lot of work
to hold on to something that's probably only there to
give you comfort from death.

Speaker 8 (01:10:20):
I would I would not agree. I would say I
don't know, like I'm not orified by the idea of nothingness. However,
I mean people would make the same arguments towards you
that you don't believe in Christianity because you just don't
want to go to Hell. So I mean that's a
similar kind of argument.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
I think that wouldn't fix the problem. Choosing to not
believe it is not an option. You either believe it
or you don't. You don't choose to believe it. But
that wouldn't alleviate the fear of hell. That would guarantee
going to Hell.

Speaker 1 (01:10:50):
So if I believed in the Christian message and then
I chose to disobey it, that would guarantee me a
spot in Hell, not the opposite.

Speaker 2 (01:10:57):
So I don't believe Christianity for the same reason you
don't believe Islam. Let me ask you a question, Do
you have a religion?

Speaker 4 (01:11:04):
No?

Speaker 8 (01:11:05):
I just I go with based on you know what
I what I see?

Speaker 5 (01:11:11):
Does logic?

Speaker 2 (01:11:12):
Does God? Yeah? Does a God provide a benefit for you?
Is there an afterlife? Anything in this for you.

Speaker 8 (01:11:17):
Maybe I don't know. I'm trying to I'd like to
find out. I might never find out.

Speaker 1 (01:11:21):
Is there a benefit to adding this extra complication into
the picture. I'm trying to figure out what you get
out of it, because, as far as I can sell,
you're adding a complication into the infrastructure that doesn't seem
to fit, doesn't seem to need.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
To be there. I'm trying to figure out why you're
doing that.

Speaker 8 (01:11:39):
I don't think I am. I think that I'm making
a parallel, a parallel between what I believe. Maybe if
you know it seems inevitable, humans will be able to
do these kinds of things, and we can do it
a super basic level, and even if it's not an intelligence,
we can create a simulated world. So I'm just saying

(01:12:00):
we can see humans do it. Why wouldn't it be
the same for a creator before.

Speaker 2 (01:12:06):
For extrapolating model, So why wouldn't you for.

Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
Making it an extrapolation then we would say that if
we're in a simulation, then it was created by another
evolved entity, not by a god. So it doesn't get
you to a god even with simulation.

Speaker 8 (01:12:18):
I don't care what you call it. I never said.

Speaker 3 (01:12:21):
God, really yeah, but you're talking well.

Speaker 8 (01:12:23):
If I did, then if I did, then you know,
I just mean, I just mean creator. That's why I
said d is.

Speaker 3 (01:12:28):
I don't think it gets you to it. It gets
you as it gets you. As far as saying that
beings that existed post third Generation stars or Pop three stars,
right can do these things. That's that's what it can
tell you. Something trivial that beings that existed because of
Pop three stars and you know all the elements that

(01:12:49):
allow us to even be things at all. You know,
we can get as far as saying like, okay, we
can create like simulations. There's still a question, by the way,
whether or not there's intelligence. Like even if I was
to grant you this, which I'm I have an associates
a computer science so it's not like I'm like, you know,
super knowledgeable. But I like to think that this is
rubbing against the stuff that I do. Right, and I
agree with Justin on this, right, just go ask chat

(01:13:11):
GPT to give you guitar tabs. It's hilarious. It's so funny.
It's so funny. It's so funny. I'm not gonna choose
tell people to do a song for obvious reasons. Anyway,
it's a good point. Yeah, guitar books when I was
a kid were pretty bad. But yeah, anyway, I just look,
I'm struggling with this because when I hear you speak,
I hear like you want it to be true kind

(01:13:33):
of a thing, and you you it's like under this
kind of guys of like, well it seems more likely.
But like if I asked you, how do you determine
that something is more likely than not? Do you have
some kind of like methodology or you just because like
I don't. I feel like we skip this part where
you determine what proposition is more likely to be true? Right,
so a lot of people will just give general answer

(01:13:54):
there's more evidence for this thing, but really, like really,
what do you do? Like like, when you look at
those two hypotheses, how do you decide between one? Are
you saying that mine can't explain it can only be
explained by this god? Like, I just don't know. It's
hard for me to see how you're getting there other
than there's just this desire at place for this to
be true.

Speaker 8 (01:14:12):
I'm not saying that it can't be without I'm gonna
say creator because I think you guys are putting a
lot of baggage when you say that.

Speaker 4 (01:14:19):
I said God, and.

Speaker 8 (01:14:20):
I just mean creator, like a deist kind of creator.
So I'm not saying it couldn't happen yet without that,
I'm saying we're seeing similar models where even a human can,
you know, write some code and change the simulation so much.

Speaker 3 (01:14:37):
I mean, do you agree that it's consistent with my view?
Do you agree that it's consistent with my view?

Speaker 5 (01:14:42):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:14:42):
My view is that gods don't exist. The reason why
I have this view is because I think that the
data is best explained by the initial state of the
universe being necessary or just the universe has just always
existed in the infinite sense, right infinite into the past,
so that kind of rules out God's for my view
is my view. You we both agree on a biogenesis, right,
but you just have this extra entity and some other

(01:15:04):
desires and stuff. Do you think it's compat I just
want to see if you agree is it compatible that
humans can create ai and other intelligent things? If we
just grant that, is it compatible with my view that
there are no gods, that we are in a world
where these things happen, that you purport, but there's no God.
Do you think that those things are compatible with each other?

Speaker 8 (01:15:24):
Is it possible that they could align?

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
There's no God, but the things you're saying are true,
like humans are creating intelligence.

Speaker 9 (01:15:30):
And that it's possible that great, it's sole that.

Speaker 8 (01:15:34):
Yeah, those two things go line. I didn't say I
would convince one.

Speaker 5 (01:15:39):
Know.

Speaker 2 (01:15:39):
I know, I just want human models.

Speaker 3 (01:15:42):
I just want the assent because if you agree with
me on that, it's not like you're saying, like the
reviews ruled out or something. It can only be this
view and that's fine. But that just goes back to
what I was saying initially, which is we have these
kind of views to compare. This is how I think,
like a lot of people do this without knowing about
It's not like it's not like really sophisticated. But I
want to figure out if my friends a line to me,
or if they told me the truth, well they'll look

(01:16:03):
into the world and they'll like, Okay, well this is
kind of consistent with that. I would actually okay, they
would have to do X, Y and Z, you know,
in order for that, So it's probably not true. That
seems like. Now the problem though, is if you add
all that. Can you hear me?

Speaker 4 (01:16:16):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:16:16):
Oh, I don't know if we dropped. Sorry, cool, no worries.
The problem is if you have some view where you
just you end up agreeing with all of the stuff
that we have. Right, we have the abiogenesis claim, all
this other stuff, But you just want to insist that
I think this is more likely than the other. You
have to put more meat on the bone and the
way that you do that.

Speaker 5 (01:16:35):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:16:35):
The reason why this is going back to what I
said earlier, is that you have to give me a
reason to think that my explanation is inadequate without God.
Otherwise I'm just going to sit there and go, Look,
it's more likely, and I can fulfill my burden of proof.
The reason why it's more likely is because I have
less commitments than you do to explain the data. I
explain the data either better or equally. In this case,

(01:16:58):
we're saying equally. So we're saying, like, the weakest form
of this argument, I explained it equally. I don't have
to add anything. If I added God, it would be
for no reason. There would be no reason to add
God because I explain everything with everything else already. You
see what I'm saying. That's why I'm saying when you
say it's more likely, it's just just false.

Speaker 8 (01:17:17):
Can I try real fast? Okay, So if we saw
someone got stabbed in the neck, we go, oh, that
guy was probably murdered. Okay, So if we see this
this world and intelligences within it, we can go, well,
we've seen the humans create simulations like Hello World and whatever,
so we've seen that model.

Speaker 3 (01:17:38):
It's not a simulation. It's just like the likely.

Speaker 8 (01:17:42):
Yeah, well you know, I'm you know, I'm just taking
a simple line and you know, obviously a lot more
complex than that. Based on what we've seen. Based on
that model, I mean, you would say, we know it
can go this way, but we don't know it can
happen any other way. We know it could happen with
the you know, programmer doing a Hello World and creating
the world. We don't know another way that it could.

(01:18:03):
So based on that, on the models we've seen, it
would seem that's the more likely model.

Speaker 3 (01:18:08):
Yeah, I don't I'm not fault justin. I don't know
if you want to go on this, I just don't
see how the more likely model is the model that
take like, just use your example, being like stabbed in
the neck. You're saying it's more likely that this like
immaterial being came down and then did this like and
stab them. And it's like not even the same, like
because we have background information.

Speaker 8 (01:18:25):
About das, I don't think he interferes in the world.

Speaker 3 (01:18:27):
Okay, that's but either way, you still have either way.
Either way, you still have this immaterial commitment. I don't
I look in the world, I don't see anything I material.
I don't know about you justin I see I don't
see things that are im material. And I guess that's
kind of said, I don't know how we would study that, right,
So you're adding a whole bunch of stuff to explain
this data. I don't see necessary. And I'm not gonna
repeat myself a bunch. It's not more likely. It's more
likely the view that does a that that does the

(01:18:49):
best trade off between the commitments that you make and
the explanatory power you get out of them. It's more
likely that that view is correct than the ones where
you just introduce a whole bunch of shit into it
for no reason.

Speaker 1 (01:18:59):
Right, And I'll you know, not the pile on I
think you're breaking like your own inference rules too, because
you're saying, like, well, we only see things being created
by creators, and theoretically we're a creation, we have a creator,
but like, we only see minds that are inside of
biological brains, so we would have no reason to believe
that there's a non biological mind out there that's creating anything. So, like,

(01:19:23):
I understand the argument that you're making, but it's just
not a good one because you're you're kind of like
you're breaking your own rules of logic to make it.

Speaker 8 (01:19:30):
Well, well, I can already I see as that the
AI would be like a mind and it's not within
a human.

Speaker 3 (01:19:37):
Or just in saying that, like for every mind that
he's going to come across, like you can make this
inductive case, it's going to be very likely that the
next one is going to be a mind or bodied mind. Right,
And you gave this whole like kind of inference about
like with the creator, and we could go here to that. Right,
But then now it just seems like you've turned on that. Right,
It just seems like you've kind of flipped the switch.
You just went against the thing that propped up your

(01:19:58):
argument to begin with.

Speaker 8 (01:20:00):
Right, Okay, we're people. You're saying war time, I can
touch the last part.

Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
So the argument is that you're suggesting because we only
see we'll say we only see intelligence coming from other intelligence,
therefore we must come from something intelligent. That same inference
can be said to nullify your argument. So we can say, well,
we only see minds that are from biological brains, and

(01:20:26):
therefore that means there's no God. Because if minds have
to be inhabited by by material, then there's no immaterial mind.
Even if you think AI is a mind, it's still
not immaterial. It's still on semiconductors. So the idea that
we can just deduce that there's an immaterial mind doesn't

(01:20:47):
seem to exist anywhere.

Speaker 3 (01:20:48):
Yep, we can do this.

Speaker 8 (01:20:49):
You can do this with guide of what our known universe.
It could be material which is outside of our noise.

Speaker 3 (01:20:54):
He's just trying to use your reasoning and show you
what you could like you could do a very similar thing.
Or I just go okay, Well, for every mind I see,
there's an external world that perceives that mind. So it's
not likely that like the next mind I come across
as some mind that doesn't have an external world to
perceive like God. Right, God starts out without this external world.
It's just like godmind stuff going on, right, So you
can make these arguments out infinitum against theism, and I'm

(01:21:18):
I don't, I don't think these arguments are bad arguments.
But since you're kind of coming in, it's very likely
that this that and that. It just seems like we
can just kind of nullify it, give a bunch of
inductive inferences or just a bunch of Look. I could
just go to like other religions and be like, okay,
well these ones you're gonna agree with me. These ones
are clearly written by man or whatever. It's more likely
that this text is also written by man, right when

(01:21:39):
we and you would have sent to all of that
since you're not a Christian or whatever, so we can
just use the same kind of reasoning. It seems like
you're going against it just because it's inconvenient for it.

Speaker 8 (01:21:47):
As far as uh, well, well, well God could have
had its art whatever, the creator could have existed in
its own world. That may be material, it's just not
our world. And yes, you can go, oh well, then
you can go infinite infinitely infinite regress. However, I mean,
I don't think I need to. I'm only accounting for

(01:22:08):
the creator of this world.

Speaker 1 (01:22:10):
So your god is material he maybe it maybe any whatever,
any maybe, and it lives in an alternative universe that we've.

Speaker 2 (01:22:18):
Never witnessed it could I mean a son you're so,
then you're still breaking your own world.

Speaker 1 (01:22:25):
So the rule that you laid out is we only
see X producing X, therefore we must conclude that there's
another X before the first X. You're breaking the same
rule that you started with. We've never seen an alternative
universe where there's a material god. Therefore there's no material
universe other than ours, where there's a god that's in existence.

Speaker 2 (01:22:48):
Using the rule that you introduced.

Speaker 3 (01:22:50):
So seeing gods make non gods.

Speaker 2 (01:22:52):
Right, well, I don't know.

Speaker 8 (01:22:54):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:22:55):
There may That's that's the real answer. The real answer here,
Tim is that you don't know. You're trying to find
a reason.

Speaker 3 (01:23:03):
I never I only.

Speaker 8 (01:23:04):
Said I believed. I only said I believe. I never
I never said I knew.

Speaker 1 (01:23:08):
But I know what we're talking about here is whether or
not there's even a good reason for you to believe.
And the reality of the matter is you're kind of
like throwing spaghetti at the wall, trying to hold on
to this belief system. But it doesn't do anything for you,
doesn't help you. It's just extra complication to the worldview,

(01:23:28):
doesn't do anything for you.

Speaker 3 (01:23:29):
Just it's literally what I said, it's an idol.

Speaker 8 (01:23:32):
I think you're telling me, I'm so doubtful, but I'm
I'm not. If I if you convinced me, then I
would be fine with that. But I'm being I'm not
trying to hold on to it. I'm just being honest.
This is what I believe. And I think that because
why don't.

Speaker 3 (01:23:47):
You add to God? Why don't you add to Why
don't you add why don't you add another god to it?
Why don't you add another god that worked alongside the deist? Okay,
why not three?

Speaker 4 (01:23:58):
Oh, it's totally possible.

Speaker 8 (01:24:00):
We have scientists that you know.

Speaker 3 (01:24:04):
But do you see do you see that we're at
a point it's like it could be this thing. Yeah,
but what we have to we have to like pull
our pants up and make a decision here. It could
be an infinite amount of God's working together.

Speaker 8 (01:24:16):
Yes, we don't have to make a decision because we
don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
Look, Tim, I don't know about you. I don't want
to kick rocks. I want to try to come to
some type of answer when I have these disputes. I
agree with you, it could be a lot of things.
It could be monkeys coming out of my butt. Hold on,
it could be monkeys coming out of my butt that
went back in time and created everything.

Speaker 10 (01:24:33):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:24:33):
Oh my god, Tim, just hold on or just please
just bear with me here. It's fine if you if
we have your view and you can't give us like
reasons to add the extra stuff to it, or it's
for us to adopt those the extra commitments, right, there's
no reason to add that. I agree with you that
these things. I'll open the window of possibility to whatever window.

(01:24:55):
As long as there's not a contradiction. I'm fine with that.
There's not a problem. We have to pull our pants up,
make a decision. Mean, you can look at the hypotheses
and go, shit, Tim, I don't know which one to take.
What about you? And you go I don't know either.
I'm kind of leaning on this Dais side. And we
listen to them, and we see the a biogenesis as
president both of them, and we can explain the data
just the same and equally the same equally with both hypotheses,

(01:25:18):
Then why would we prefer the hypothesis that adds one
god as opposed to you know that theis comparing it
now to a guy raised his hand and goes, oh,
I think there's two gods that did it. Oh, another guy,
I think there's three gods. Right, we have to make
some decision. You can do that add infinitum. What I
want to do is come to a decisions. Most likely
the case, that's how I do it.

Speaker 8 (01:25:39):
All of those possibilities I think would be on within
my realm of belief, because at least it's at least one.
Let's say I believe in at least one.

Speaker 3 (01:25:48):
I don't agree with you. I don't think you have
to add one add all, tim I don't think you
have to add one at all. I think you literally
if you add one or an infinite amount, they both
do the same thing. Their idle wheels in your explanatory framework.
They do nothing. They get you no explanation. They push
you nowhere. Your cart is sitting in the same spot
it was fucking sitting, and I'm I'm going to say

(01:26:10):
I'm not going to finish the race. Right, there's no
point at which me and you finish the race. But
I'm sure, damn I have know for sure that I
am winning the race, that I am at least making
effort and trying. And I might not see that finish line.
I might die before I ever get there, right, but
at least i have moved my cart, and at least

(01:26:30):
I'm not sitting at the starting line. That's where I
think you're at. You're just you're not actually comparing the views.
You're not actually like, well, what view could be an
alternative view to this? If you're going with this whole one?
But I think is more likely? Why don't you think
of other views to compare it to? But we're being
a dead horse.

Speaker 8 (01:26:44):
Well let me can I Can I flip it?

Speaker 10 (01:26:47):
Can I?

Speaker 5 (01:26:47):
Can I flip it?

Speaker 8 (01:26:48):
Real fast? Last thing?

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
So to go?

Speaker 8 (01:26:51):
And I know I'm getting a little excited.

Speaker 3 (01:26:53):
I'm sorry it'sry not to.

Speaker 8 (01:26:54):
Get worked though, But okay, so can I slip it
back on you and say, well, you know, could have
been it could have gone this way, that there was
a designer similar to how humans create simply simulisic simulations,
and AI, why do you believe that that wasn't the case.

Speaker 2 (01:27:11):
Because there's no evidence for it.

Speaker 3 (01:27:13):
Yeah, because I have and I have a view that
explains the data. I have a view that explains the
data equally. It has no extra confection.

Speaker 1 (01:27:19):
So, for example, if I told you, Tim that, as
it turns out, the Earth was created by a magic
farting pony.

Speaker 2 (01:27:28):
It wasn't the accretion dis theory.

Speaker 1 (01:27:30):
It was a magic farting pony and it just farts
planets all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:27:33):
That's how the planet Earth was created.

Speaker 1 (01:27:36):
Would you be likely to accept that view or would
you reject that view unless I provided evidence of it.

Speaker 8 (01:27:42):
I would think that that's specific. I mean, I think
that's so specific. That's the problem. It's just so specific
that I'm like, well, that's why I don't believe in Christianity,
or like the odds of it being exactly like this
or like right.

Speaker 1 (01:27:57):
But my point is, Tim, is that what claims are
made about things we have no evidence of. There's a
burden of proof on the person suggesting that the thing exists,
and until we see that proof, there's no reason to
believe that the thing exists. Therefore, we reserve judgment on
whether or not that thing exists.

Speaker 2 (01:28:16):
So listen, if there's a god.

Speaker 1 (01:28:18):
It might be true, but I have no reason to
believe that the god exists until I see the evidence
for the god.

Speaker 2 (01:28:25):
So there's no.

Speaker 1 (01:28:26):
Point in complicating the worldview by adding it in.

Speaker 8 (01:28:30):
We know creators of intelligence exist there us, so okay,
I would go one step further.

Speaker 2 (01:28:37):
We already talked about this, so it's a was it's
a waste of a conversation. We're not going to do
it a second time.

Speaker 3 (01:28:43):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 4 (01:28:43):
That is like, bro, you would say that is like
five That is literally something a five year old.

Speaker 3 (01:28:50):
I'm sorry, but that's like something a five year old
would come up with, like, oh, we're intelligent, so there
must be an intelligent thing Like that is bottom barrel
arguing something you believe it. It's just ridiculous. It's really bad.

Speaker 1 (01:29:03):
Here's the thing, Tim, we just spent the last.

Speaker 8 (01:29:07):
You have a mother, you know, so we just a mother.

Speaker 3 (01:29:11):
That's a composition fallacy. Way to commit a fallacy of composition, buddy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
Sorry, I had to meet you there.

Speaker 4 (01:29:15):
Tim.

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
We just spent the last forty minutes, almost forty minutes,
discussing why your argument for you know, creation demands a
creator isn't a good argument.

Speaker 2 (01:29:25):
I don't want to rehash it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:26):
I don't want to spend another forty minutes doing it
a second time or wasting everyone's time. So at this
point we really appreciate you coming on, but we got
to move on to our next caller. You're welcome to
call back any time, but just you know, for the future,
just know that this is not a good line of argumentation.
Like creation demands, a creator has never converted a single atheist.
I don't think you're helping your case by using this argument.

(01:29:48):
Maybe I don't know reason philosophy, and try another argument
next time, but this is not a good one. This
is not the look you want.

Speaker 3 (01:29:53):
It's not good. Just seems like seems like something I'll
come up with as a kid. I just don't I
don't get it.

Speaker 2 (01:29:58):
Yeah, all right, we got David on the phone, David
from California, and he's asking, how do you think planets
were created? David, you're a theist, right.

Speaker 11 (01:30:09):
I'd like to know just a you guy's opinion, as
much as I mean, I hope you guys understand when
I say you guys are pulling yourselves.

Speaker 12 (01:30:17):
But i'd like to know how you guys explain how
the planets were created or how they are here, whether
they were created or not, how they are here.

Speaker 1 (01:30:28):
Well, I think the model that seems to have the
most credibility is the accretion of disks theory. So you've
got like gases and plasma and dust and other particles
that are being we'll say, ejected from a large hot mass,
and gravity allows it to collapse in on itself and

(01:30:48):
form a hot dense mass, and then as the hot
dense mass cools, it'll form like mechanical bonds. Although I mean,
sometimes you got planets that are just gashous, they're gas giants,
and sometimes you have some that are made of like
hard material like metals. So I mean that that's basically
how most planets seem to be formed. It's just a

(01:31:10):
gravity pulling things together.

Speaker 3 (01:31:12):
You should look into protoplanetary discs and I think it's
like circum something I can't Rere's say circumstellar or something
I can't remember anyway, but yeah, it's interesting. I don't
I can't speak any past what Justin just said. So
that's you. If you want to know, you probably should
call like someone who's an expert in that.

Speaker 8 (01:31:30):
And you you don't believe somebody creates them.

Speaker 1 (01:31:34):
They're a reason why we would believe that they are
created by a being.

Speaker 3 (01:31:38):
We literally, at the same time both said, give us
a reason, so we're ready.

Speaker 1 (01:31:45):
Yeah, we're just saying, what would be the reason why
we would add a creator into the equation? Why would
we think that they were created by an entity?

Speaker 4 (01:31:52):
They have a purpose, So.

Speaker 2 (01:31:56):
I mean by purpose they have a purpose? Like what
does that mean with what?

Speaker 8 (01:32:01):
Okay?

Speaker 4 (01:32:02):
For what the son?

Speaker 7 (01:32:03):
Without the sun, food wouldn't grow either the ground.

Speaker 2 (01:32:08):
I mean, yeah, it wouldn't exist. That would be true,
that would be true. But that the sun has a purpose.
It just happens to be that does what the sun does.

Speaker 1 (01:32:18):
In about a billion years, the sun is going to
scorch the earth and destroy it all all together.

Speaker 3 (01:32:23):
My laptop wasn't plugged in, it would be off right now,
and I'm not charging. Yep, that would be true, That's
what it would be.

Speaker 2 (01:32:29):
Yeah, I mean that's just a state of affairs exactly.

Speaker 3 (01:32:34):
I was looking for something that's not trivial.

Speaker 4 (01:32:35):
I can't hear you.

Speaker 3 (01:32:37):
We're looking for a reason that's not trivial. You gave
us a trick. You gave us a trivial reason, right, like,
it's like ostends away the same thing as me being
like if my computer isn't on, then I wouldn't be
on my computer. Yeah, that would be true.

Speaker 2 (01:32:51):
David, Which creator do you believe in?

Speaker 12 (01:32:53):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:32:53):
Oh, yes it was. You said the sun didn't exist,
it wouldn't have food, So yeah, that's what's what happened. No,
what I was shortly what happened?

Speaker 12 (01:33:02):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:33:03):
Go ahead?

Speaker 2 (01:33:05):
Which creator do you believe in?

Speaker 12 (01:33:07):
I just told you guys call him guy?

Speaker 2 (01:33:10):
Does he have a where? Does he have a name?

Speaker 3 (01:33:13):
Yeah? God?

Speaker 2 (01:33:14):
Do you have a religion or a holy book? Uh?

Speaker 6 (01:33:16):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:33:17):
You believe in the Christian goden?

Speaker 3 (01:33:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:33:19):
Okay? And why do you believe in the Why do
you believe in the Christian garden?

Speaker 8 (01:33:22):
Well?

Speaker 12 (01:33:23):
Uh, you you call him the Christian God. You call
him the Christian God. I believe in the one and
only true Guy. But the thing is is this and
why we're going with this is when I asked my question.

Speaker 4 (01:33:38):
I wanted to.

Speaker 11 (01:33:39):
Know, why is it that when the planets form and
gravity does.

Speaker 4 (01:33:44):
All the stuff you say gravity does to it?

Speaker 11 (01:33:47):
Why is it that none of the planets form in
any other shape other than a circle.

Speaker 1 (01:33:53):
Because gravity is uniform, So like when you have when
you have a mass at the center of something, the
gravity is pretty dang uniform in all directions around it,
and typically it's forming and there's like it's not like
a solid like two large solid chunks like coming together.

(01:34:14):
It's many billions and trillions of tiny particles that sandwich
into into each other. For the same reason, when when
you drop a rocker to a pond, the ripples are circular.

Speaker 4 (01:34:25):
Where did you get that from? And where did you
go from that from?

Speaker 3 (01:34:28):
Who?

Speaker 7 (01:34:29):
Who wrote?

Speaker 4 (01:34:30):
Who told us that?

Speaker 2 (01:34:31):
You mean, why does gravity work?

Speaker 3 (01:34:33):
No?

Speaker 8 (01:34:34):
Why who is it?

Speaker 11 (01:34:35):
They told us that gravity makes a sandwich and does
all this stuff?

Speaker 2 (01:34:41):
You just gravity doesn't make sandwiches.

Speaker 3 (01:34:43):
Where where has gravity been the last hour and a
half or with my sandwich?

Speaker 4 (01:34:49):
That's like you just tell me.

Speaker 11 (01:34:51):
That's what you just told me. Gravity sandwiches this and
and does that. And that's why I asked you where
do we.

Speaker 8 (01:34:59):
How do we know that?

Speaker 2 (01:35:00):
This is?

Speaker 12 (01:35:01):
How this farm? Where do you get this information from?

Speaker 1 (01:35:05):
I mean, you could start with a junior high science textbook.
I learned about gravity before I was a teenager.

Speaker 12 (01:35:13):
You tell me, I asked you a question.

Speaker 3 (01:35:16):
I don't say yea expert, expert, expert consensus, expert. Okay, David,
I'm trying to do that. Expert consensus is very yeah,
expert consensus is valuable, right, it's very valuable. Do you
take your cat to a mechanic and your car to
the veterinarian? Do you do that? Or do you take
your car to No? Yeah, do you depend on expert
consensus because I think you do.

Speaker 4 (01:35:37):
No, No, it's not no, it's not David.

Speaker 3 (01:35:41):
You stop just saying no, it's not Stop acting like
a child and just say the thing that you want
to say. No, it's not no, it's not no. It's
not no, it's not it's how you sound. That's you.
That's how you sound.

Speaker 4 (01:35:53):
That's your thing.

Speaker 3 (01:35:54):
Well, in order for this to.

Speaker 2 (01:35:56):
Be a do you think do you think physicists know
how gravity?

Speaker 11 (01:35:59):
When I tried to say, you talk over me, and
that's kind of discussion.

Speaker 1 (01:36:04):
David, do you think that like physicists and cosmologists know
how gravity works?

Speaker 4 (01:36:09):
According to you.

Speaker 2 (01:36:10):
They do asking you? Do you think that physicists and
cosmologists know how gravity?

Speaker 8 (01:36:16):
You work?

Speaker 11 (01:36:17):
Let you ask me questions? Can I speak now?

Speaker 3 (01:36:20):
Please? Don't you're not interested in how Look, I'm just
going to meet your ass.

Speaker 2 (01:36:24):
That's what's already gotten.

Speaker 1 (01:36:26):
Okay, So, David, is a very easy question like and
you don't have to run from it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:31):
We're trying to.

Speaker 1 (01:36:32):
We want you to talk, but we want you to
talk and give us information about your worldview. So in
your worldview, do you believe that like scientists who do
cosmology and physics and things like that, do you think
that they have a pretty good handle on how gravity operates?

Speaker 2 (01:36:49):
Is that something you believe?

Speaker 11 (01:36:51):
No, I tell you like this, since you asked me
what I believe this is, you don't I believe you.

Speaker 12 (01:36:58):
See what I'm saying.

Speaker 11 (01:36:59):
You won't let me answer your kid.

Speaker 2 (01:37:00):
You act well, we're trying to.

Speaker 1 (01:37:02):
We're trying to make sure we understand your answer because
what we what we needed. So what we needed was
like either a yes or no, But what it sounded
like was was no and then a bunch of nonsense
because you actually weren't answering the question. It didn't sound
like an answer to the question. So I just want
to clarify your answer to the question. Do you believe

(01:37:25):
that cosmologists and physicists understand how gravity work?

Speaker 2 (01:37:29):
Is that a yes they understand it? Or no, they
don't understand it.

Speaker 10 (01:37:32):
Please.

Speaker 12 (01:37:33):
What I believe and what I think is this they.

Speaker 3 (01:37:36):
Did yes or no? Yes or no. You're not getting
another word until you say yes or no. You're getting
your dad every time. Yeah, yeah, bye. You know how
easy it is for me to mute you. You can't do
it to me. It's very fun. It's very fun to
be on this side. So say yes or no. We'll
move on because guess what, My life without you is
tremendous and I'll just go back to that life. So
either answer or don't.

Speaker 2 (01:37:57):
Your choice right to answer because you try.

Speaker 3 (01:38:00):
Yeah, my life is already improving, So.

Speaker 2 (01:38:04):
Jesus, oh boy.

Speaker 1 (01:38:06):
His listening skills were not on point, but his yapping
skills were pretty good.

Speaker 2 (01:38:13):
He's got it on lockdown. Let's grab our last two
guests and then we'll get our super chats. We've got
Noah coming in from Texas, and Noah says he's got
a question. I'm African American. I have a question. Why
do so many African Americans hold their beliefs so close?
So welcome in? Know? Can you elaborate a little bit

(01:38:34):
on that?

Speaker 3 (01:38:34):
I don't really know, I only know I love the
show by the way or why people believe strongly.

Speaker 2 (01:38:42):
Yeah, yeah, we're with you.

Speaker 3 (01:38:43):
I'm trying to figure out why people someone I'm with you.

Speaker 7 (01:38:51):
I grew up Baptist, and you know, I kind of
stopped believing in all of it, but I kind of
did my research on the history of Christianity and how
it came to be, and I'm just wondering why so
many people in my community still believe in it. And
I don't know if it's because they don't know the
history of it, or if it's like an inherited thing,

(01:39:12):
or is it they don't want to be without a
lack of faith.

Speaker 4 (01:39:16):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:39:17):
Well, I've got a theory. I've got a couple of theories.

Speaker 1 (01:39:20):
But in history, there's a lot of talk about, you know,
we're in the ancient Eariast, about how some cultures were
able to preserve their culture so well. For example, despite
the horrific persecution that the Jews underwent, they were able
to hold on to their cultural identity for a long
period of time. It seems to defy what you would

(01:39:42):
expect logically, but a lot of historians would suggest that actually,
these tight knit communities that do receive high levels of persecution.
The thing that allows them to survive is digging into
that shared cultural identity and using it to give them
strength to get through those persecutions. And I would say

(01:40:03):
this is very true of other cultures that were persecuted.
So when we talk about what happened to the African Americans,
both in.

Speaker 2 (01:40:12):
The slave trade by the.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
Early traders from the Near East, from the Orient and
then eventually the Atlantic slave trade as well, and then
leading into civil rights, you know, they've got the early
slave trade started in the seventh century CE and went
on all the way until you know, the civil rights
era essentially, and it's still going on some places. But

(01:40:38):
so in order to survive that level of persecution for
so long, you have to dig down deep and hold
on to the pieces of your culture. Now, the problem
that we have is things sneak into the culture eventually,
and some of the things that tend to sneak in
our religious concepts because they get forced on the people groups.

(01:41:00):
So what we'll find is that people still have the
instinct throughout their lives to preserve the culture, but they
don't realize that their culture along the way has been
picking up things that were never part of the original
culture to begin with, but they still have that instinct
to hold on to it. So I think people just
naturally have the instinct to do self preservation, especially in

(01:41:22):
their religious beliefs, and that you know, they're not likely
to let go of that until their face was some
sort of overwhelming situation that would cause them to look
back and say, hey, all that stuff that happened over there,
I don't think I actually.

Speaker 2 (01:41:37):
Need to hold on to it.

Speaker 1 (01:41:38):
I don't even think half of it is true, But
people are pretty reluctant to do that.

Speaker 2 (01:41:42):
Sorry if that convoluted answer.

Speaker 3 (01:41:44):
So I'm I'm glad you're on our team. What I want?

Speaker 7 (01:41:51):
So, how do I have this conversation with people in
my community without trying to like, you know, make them
feel attacked or I could make to realize that what
they're believing in was never really their religion to be
practiced in the beginning. It was something that would kind
of forced on him or put through you know, violent

(01:42:12):
test of submission.

Speaker 2 (01:42:13):
That's hard. You know.

Speaker 1 (01:42:14):
My method for dialoguing with people that I would classify
as like wanting to move them away from a toxic
belief system is rather than trying to say, hey, here's
what I think, or here's what I think you should think.
Just ask them questions about their worldview. So there's been
some really interesting studies in psychology and suggests that when

(01:42:37):
people arrive at the conclusion because they're providing the answer,
not somebody providing it for them, they're more likely to
accept it. So when you ask good questions that you
can elicit answers from them like they've done the thinking
on like here's the question, I came up with the answer, Well,
whatever that answer is, they're more likely to accept the answer,

(01:42:58):
whereas if I just said, well I I think the
answer is this and you should believe it too, they're
not really going to buy into it. So learn to
ask really good questions to cause your friends and your
family to think critically about things they probably never thought about,
because then when they arrive at that answer, they're more
likely to be like, oh shit, I never thought about
that before, rather than getting all defensive.

Speaker 4 (01:43:18):
Okay, that sounds pretty good.

Speaker 3 (01:43:21):
Yeah that's good here. I'm like, man, great advice.

Speaker 1 (01:43:28):
I would say this though, when it comes to your
friends and family. You know, I don't turn to the
Bible for advice very often, but there's a really good line.

Speaker 2 (01:43:36):
In the Bible.

Speaker 1 (01:43:36):
Jesus says, you know, even a prophet's not honored in
his hometown. And it kind of bites onto a really
interesting piece of psychology, which is that when it's people
you know, your friends and your family, people that are
close to you, you're less likely to take their advice
seriously quite often, Like, hey, that asshole was eating worms
when we were five years old, I'm not going to

(01:43:57):
listen to him. So there's certainly it can be difficult
to convince your family members of things because like they
know all your flaws already.

Speaker 4 (01:44:06):
Yeah. I never thought about it that way, man.

Speaker 7 (01:44:11):
So I have a lot of things to think about
honestly from this and see what I can do with it.
But that's pretty much all I have for you.

Speaker 3 (01:44:18):
Guys. Well, thanks for calling. I'm glad you did.

Speaker 1 (01:44:22):
Cheers, big w know, good talking to you. We'll get
our last caller. We've got Zach coming in from Idaho.
And Zach says answered the chap poll because it was
a personal revelation that brought him to atheists. I'm so
I'm excited to hear the revelation. How you doing, Zach good?

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
How are you doing thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:44:43):
So the personal, Yeah, the personal. So it's going through
uh part time years ago and went to AA and
they're telling me to try and find God or whatever.
So that's when I started my journey into it. So
I was kind of raised into Mormonism, I figured and
through all them, they all say to pray and you
know you get the or sorry, are either of you

(01:45:04):
guys were either view the fists before being atheist or
I was, But so like the whole you know feeling,
you feel the Holy ghost or spirit or whatever they
call it. So I had all that and then and
so that's you know, a revelation to you know, God's real.

(01:45:26):
And then throughout or just doing my research and find
out that it's all. That's all it is is a feeling.
And I through the feeling the revelation pretty much or
just asked God. I was like, You're just a lie.
And I had the overwhelming feeling that I had when
it was even more so when I was baptized. I
you know, I thought I was feeling the Holy ghost,

(01:45:47):
spirit whatever, and like it made me cry, and it's
just being surrounded with other like minded people. I feel
like that's like kind of a hive mentality because everyone
else is in the same like frequency, vibe type feel,
so I think that's that feeling. Yeah, And so then
when I was alone, asked God is pretty much like
you're just a liar and like it was just a

(01:46:09):
fucking just an instant, and I just cried over that,
And like for the last caller, I would try and
compose a question in regards to that, just ask the
God if you're just lying to me?

Speaker 5 (01:46:21):
Or is this all a lie?

Speaker 6 (01:46:22):
And pretty much that's what I've tried with other people
I know and friends, is to because it all comes
down to a feeling for the beast and when they're
praying they get overwhelmed with it in their bosom or whatever.
Should they teach you. I've tried to help people to understand.

Speaker 1 (01:46:40):
That's a really good point too, because you know, on
shows like this, you get a lot of like what
we would call non religious see us calling in trying
to prove their God. But the buried in their assumptions
about God is always this weird view that like the
God is good and it cares about them.

Speaker 2 (01:46:56):
That's not something that's entailed in the view.

Speaker 1 (01:46:59):
It could be that God it is like some kind
of a jerk and just created us to be like
an ant farm, just like a little kid would buy
an ant farm for entertainment. We have no reason to
believe that this thing cares about us, or that if
we're going to have an afterlife or anything like. These
are all assumptions people are carrying into the view because,
as you said, it makes them feel good in their bosom, right,

(01:47:19):
and that's what.

Speaker 6 (01:47:20):
So I'm not watching. I'm just on my phons. I
don't know which one or who's said, yeah, that's the
one is So it's been thirteen just since it's been
thirteen years or a little more so now just being
you know, knowing the real truth, being an atheist, and
it's just I still get the feelings every now and then.
I mean it's very sparingly throughout the years. It's not

(01:47:43):
been a few times, but it's always when it comes up,
like say relative died and then I have to go
back to the a church or doing other stuff or
like reading something or watching a TV show and God
gets brought up and then I get the feeling of it.
But I say, I'm feeling but I know, oh it's
not real, but it's so hard to diffuse, like the

(01:48:04):
self hypnotism that I've done over the years, I know
it's not real, and I just don't know if you
have a if you had a similar experience of like
how do you try and attach?

Speaker 2 (01:48:14):
Yeah, that's a great question.

Speaker 1 (01:48:15):
So you've probably read a lot of the experiments like
from like Psychology one oh one where they you know,
talk about the conditioning of Pavlovs dogs and things like that,
and other experiments where animals are conditioned to respond a
particular way to stimuli. Well, human beings are the same way,
like over the course of time of being religious, Like
we get conditioned to have a certain mental and emotional

(01:48:39):
response to various stimuli, right, and that doesn't just go
away the minute that you leave the religion, or even
years after you leave the religion, sometimes you still that
stimuli still triggers the same emotions that it triggered thirteen
years ago. Much like if you went to war and
you had a horrific experience and now you suffer with

(01:48:59):
the PTSD and then like you know, every time the
Fourth of July roll is around and you hear the
fire works and you panic, wells up inside of you
because it sounds like you're at war again. It doesn't
matter if you've been out of war for twenty thirty
or forty years. You've been your brain has been conditioned
to respond to stimuli. You can't just undo it. It's

(01:49:19):
now you've got hardwired connections in your brain responding to
the stimuli. It's it takes work, and sometimes you never
stop responding to that stimuli, and sometimes you do slowly
deprogram yourself and stop responding to that stimuli. But I
think it's it's going to be different for everybody, if
that makes sense. So that's like people will pooh pooh

(01:49:42):
on people that leave the church, like, oh, they only
left because they were hurt by the church.

Speaker 2 (01:49:47):
Was like, yeah, but that's real.

Speaker 1 (01:49:48):
Their biology has been changed because they have been harmed
by the church. You can't expect them to get around
to church and not feel a certain way when they're
they're now hardwired too fee a way around a church.
So unfortunately, you know, guys like you and me that
were in the faith for a while, we've been programmed
to respond to stimuli.

Speaker 6 (01:50:08):
Unfortunately, right, Okay, yeah, it's just difficult to say that. Again.

Speaker 3 (01:50:14):
I was just wondering, like, because this is Where it
fascinates me is like the kind of what you do
to manage that because it's like something that doesn't go away,
so you know, or could possibly never go away. So
I wonder, like how you what you might do to
like manage that kind of response. And is it just
kind of like talking to yourself in your head or
like maybe maybe this gets too personal or something I
don't want to but it's fascinating to me because I

(01:50:35):
don't have that experience.

Speaker 6 (01:50:38):
Also it's not too personal.

Speaker 2 (01:50:41):
But allow myself.

Speaker 1 (01:50:43):
To have those things, sorry, probably delay Like so like
when I I love Christmas carols, I still seen Christmas
carrolls around Christmas time. I allow myself to have those feelings,
but I remind myself that, like these aren't real. It's okay,
But like I don't know if you can get rid
of it, like you're always going to have some response

(01:51:03):
that's fat.

Speaker 6 (01:51:04):
Yeah, I mean I have responses and I know it's
you know, you're good. Yeah, I know, it's I know
it's the condition like in the West World. Don't if
you ever seen a TV show, But there's that little
the little part of the brain that that's what it's
there for. It's for God, it's for us to you know,
believe in it. It's been it's grown over the years

(01:51:24):
because through generations and generations that you know, it's pretty
much we've it's grown, so we have it. So I
know it's all conditioned, and I I yeah, pretty much,
it's I know, it's self hypnotism. That's all praying is.
It's self hypnotism. To feel that feeling in the bosom.
That's all they're doing. I know it's that. But then
I can still have that same feeling when I'm listening

(01:51:47):
to like a Slipknot song, Like when Corey Taylor's singing
a certain song and he's talking about something that just
fucking hits like it's just clicking with me, and it's
like holy shit, and then you just get overwhelmed. This
is the exact same feeling, and so I know, I
know that's not God talking to me.

Speaker 4 (01:52:03):
But you know, it's why.

Speaker 3 (01:52:04):
I've heard so many people say stuff like that too,
where they kind of like they realize that it like
a metal show, you know, they're just like screaming the
singer screaming at them, and they just have this like
just I've had a more intense feeling. I'm like, so
that's my way of relating to you guys in that sense,
because that that was my kind of like oh yeah,
but you know, it's it's one of those things where

(01:52:24):
it's like, I okay, so that's just what's been going on,
because people say they feel the Holy Spirit and all
this stuff, and I'm like, I mean, I love when
I see with Sugar play and I'm just like, this
is awesome. Yeah, you know, that's what's going on. It's
a badass feeling. I agree, it's cool. It's suck to
get that confused with an otherworldly thing, though. Man.

Speaker 6 (01:52:42):
Yeah, they programmed us to try and get in tune
with this feeling, and it's and then it's even more
so when you're with other groups or with your family
and so people that you love and trust and you're
grown up, you know you're under duress to do it
and just that feeling and it gets in tune. And
so when you ask your parents or family members like,

(01:53:02):
well I felt this, and then they tell you that
is what that feeling is. But then I still have
that same feeling when it comes to slipknot or having
a deep conversation with like a loved one, a girl,
a girlfriend or something after sex, or I mean it's
it's hard to so you know, it's not God because
you're having these other experiences. Listen to Slipknot when he's talking,

(01:53:25):
you know about how people are fucking worthless, or it's
allow the dichotomy, or you know, just something that's not
godly in a sense. It's a lie. But but I like,
that's why I like this the revelation or self revelation
or whatever. The I forgot The question was, but to
try and you to help other Christians to try and

(01:53:47):
help them to I try, and I try and help
them that way to well just try and I'm trying
to figure out a perfect way to word a question
for them to ask God. That's a lot and then
still a lot of it.

Speaker 3 (01:54:02):
Zech is the is you can do all of this.
You know, even like Craig and like William Lane, Craig
and these kind of philosophers will go and say, like,
even if I found it, all these arguments didn't work,
I would still believe in you know, because of my
experience and all this kind of stuff. Right, And they're
quoted on that you can find these like quotes of
them saying that because a lot of the components of

(01:54:22):
belief is really not the philosophy and you know all
this stuff, it's psychology, right, It's like belief psychology and
how we form beliefs, become convinced, and a lot of
the you can get rid of all the arguments or whatever,
but that there's still the psychological component that's left that
people you know, attached to. And I think what you're
what you do, but at least the way that I'm

(01:54:44):
understanding you is you're kind of going underneath in that route,
and that's gonna I think you're gonna find yourself getting
a lot more results on that when you take into
consideration kind of you know, how you got out of
it and what you know. Look, I'm not gonna give
you an argument why I got it and exist not,
but I'm gonna I'm gonna play on like what I
know that mindset's like, and what I would want from

(01:55:05):
God and cry out to God and this thing. So
I really appreciate this call a lot because it's a
good take on the poll and it's a great way
to get underneath what I think is two separate problems.
This kind of disguise of the philosophical beliefs, justifying it,
and then what's really underneath, which is just this psychological
component that we have to get at. So so I
really appreciate this call. Zach.

Speaker 1 (01:55:25):
Thanks so much for coming up and chatting with us.
I think we're kind of out of time. We're gonna
run through our super chats, but we'd love to hear
from me again sometime.

Speaker 6 (01:55:33):
Cool. Yeah, thank you, guys, appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (01:55:35):
Thank you, cheers.

Speaker 2 (01:55:36):
Have a great one.

Speaker 1 (01:55:37):
All right, guys, thank you so much for for being
here and tapping and liking and sharing and for the
supporting with the super chats. We've got quite a few
of them came through. We've got one from Reverend caw El.
Good to see you tonight, my friend. We've got a
super thanks in the form of the upside down smiley
face that was easy to read.

Speaker 3 (01:55:59):
Thank you, Dell Hope, I'm saying that right, reader writer
for five dollars, Happy Sunday, and may the courts be
with you, j Mike and Doug and I always feel
so bad when I can't pronounce people's names. I know,
how like all my teachers, fellow I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:56:13):
Yeah, and Joe Lonsdale, thank you for the ten dollar.
Your chat says it's not often I get to listen
live as I'm in the UK and it's past my bedtime,
but glad to catch my favorite two hosts. Well, Joe,
thank you so much for watching and support and live
and we appreciate the kind words.

Speaker 3 (01:56:29):
Thank you so much. We got Zurith Moonpaw. I pronounce
that I think five dollars. Thank you so much. Permission
to cast fireball, Nah, let's just be cassed. That's fun,
that's great.

Speaker 1 (01:56:42):
And a ten dollars super chat from rock Hard for Doug.
I was sitting here using Deconstruction Zones cheat sheet to
make my own cookbook with the new Oxford Annotated NRSV
and had to let you all know, keep up the
Lord's work and praise Doug. Well, thank you so much
for Hard for Doug, and the cheat sheet and the
new Oxford Annotated Bible are a great way to go

(01:57:05):
down the path of deconstructed deconstruction. I highly recommend it.

Speaker 3 (01:57:10):
Yeah, I just got a I got a cop got
a new Bible myself, new new NRSP myself, So all right.
Gates of Delirium for four ninety nine. I'm a software
engineer working in data for ail ll MS must sorry
trust me when I say that the comparison to intelligence
is non Yeah, I absolutely agree. I'm like someone is

(01:57:31):
like I did really good in school? Am I a
good coder? No? Not good at all? But I at
least feel like I brush enough to know, like when
I'm hearing something that's like all right, buddy, yea.

Speaker 1 (01:57:44):
And yeah, I'm in agreement with their working with artificial
intelligence has not increased my belief that artificial intelligence is
going to make it to the point where it rivals
human beings. But a wild Willie text, thank you so
much for the ten that our super chest says could
be Doug. And you know what Doug is at least tangibles.
We know that Doug exists. Okay, So if I'm going

(01:58:07):
to invent a god that created all things, I'm at
least going to utilize the god that we can see
with our own two eyes.

Speaker 2 (01:58:14):
Praise Doug.

Speaker 3 (01:58:15):
If are we polytheists though, like if we got like
Roland and Doug at this point, you know what I mean, like,
should we be like the polytheist experience experience?

Speaker 1 (01:58:23):
It's true because Doug has a consort named Sharon. So
the two of them are holy Doug, Doug and Sharon Stone.

Speaker 2 (01:58:30):
Yes, oh my god.

Speaker 3 (01:58:32):
I don't know why I didn't just see it and
then make the Yeah, okay, that's great what it is.
That is what it is. I like it all right,
I'm lost online. Where are we at, Maximilian or no, yes,
it could be Doug. Okay, cool, I want to skip anybody, Maximilian,
thank you so much for twenty dollars. Holy snikes, I'm
looking at the ax be hey, ex patience, hel J,

(01:58:56):
LJ and Jay. I love you boys. I have to
put my font up like I'm like squinting to read today.

Speaker 1 (01:59:02):
Thank you big w Yeah, thanks Maximilian and all firsthand
with superest says leprechauns can't be disproven, therefore the exist.

Speaker 2 (01:59:12):
Actually, that's that's a really great point.

Speaker 1 (01:59:15):
Like a lot of theists really rest on this idea
that well, until you prove that it does, it doesn't exist.
I'm justified in believing that it exists. But like we
would never grant that for leprechauns or the tooth Fairy
or the teapot that's you know, orbiting Jupiter, Like we
wouldn't grant.

Speaker 2 (01:59:32):
That that anything else? Why would you grant it to a
deity to thet make any sense?

Speaker 3 (01:59:36):
That was like my go to, Like that was like
the first video I think I did on TikTok that
kind of viral, and I just was like just like
just like, oh, there's a leper cone in my car.
Can't just prove it, you know, just trying to like
do the same kind of logic. And I was like,
I didn't expect that to take off, But yes, I
agree Leprachans can't be disproven before therefore they exist. I
have made some mileage with that. So doctor Joe Anne

(01:59:58):
Ketch sober coach for professionals. Wow, thank you so much
for the five dollars and uh listening to the show.
We really appreciate it. Guest is confusing purpose with function also,
this is simply weird.

Speaker 4 (02:00:09):
Look.

Speaker 3 (02:00:09):
Yeah, so I've had a lot of discussions with people
where I've been like, I don't want to speak for
like biologist or experts in the field, but I think
if you if you were to talk to them on
like the philosophical kind of side of term usage like
function and things like things like that, they're not using
it in this like normative way that philosophers like to
use it, where now all of a sudden, like if
you say this has like a purpose, if you say, like, uh,

(02:00:31):
you know, the purpose of the heart or something to
pump blood, they're not saying there's this like normative thing
that it ought to do this thing, like it should
do this thing. They're just describing descriptive facts, right, and
like causal tendencies and what we understand. And there's this
is like what I think is like a massive amount
of problem with like philosophy in general, is taking what
we do with language and making these like non existent

(02:00:53):
problems out of the language that we use. And I
think this is a great example. It's just like this
conflation between using like normative terms like purpose this or
you know, should be done, and just conflating that with
like what actual biologists or doctors are saying. They're not
they're not using it in that sense. So I'm glad
to get that kind of confirmation from the doctor there,
Thank you doctor, and sorry good She's awesome.

Speaker 1 (02:01:16):
By the way, I know doctor Joe personally, she's amazing.
She's a big member of our deconstruction community. On TikTok
and YouTube, and she does work with people not just
recovering from from substances and but also people recovering from religion. Like, so,
if you need to talk to a professional because like
you've deconstructed and you're like you're in an exigential crisis,

(02:01:38):
doctor Joe's a great resource and so we really love
her in the community. We've got a super chet from
Jake Napp.

Speaker 2 (02:01:46):
Good to see a friend.

Speaker 1 (02:01:47):
Thank you for the ten that our super chat says,
the sun, our primary source of life, also gives us
cancers some fine tuning, could you imagine? Yeah, yeah, I
don't buy that fine tuning argument.

Speaker 2 (02:02:03):
I'm surprised it didn't come up tonight.

Speaker 3 (02:02:04):
Actually yeah, I'm like tired of it. I'm just like,
it's really that argument's so annoying to me because it's like, yeah,
but you wouldn't be able to look at all the
space of possibility without you know, the sun in there,
you wouldn't have life. It's like, look at all the
giant mean you've talked about this, Look at the giant
space of desires that God could have had that correspond
with those constants, right, It's just crazy that his desires
were fine tuned to pick out that one, like, you

(02:02:26):
don't fucking absolve the problem. You just you just you
kick the can down the universe. That's all you're doing,
you know. So it's just insane like that. People like
don't understand this kind of parody of reason, objection or
an infinite kind of fine tuning argument that they put
themselves in. But anyway, we got doctor Joe in catch again. Yes,
I'm PTSD and other trauma. Your brain then creates the

(02:02:50):
same neurochemistry of the original trauma maybe twenty twenty five,
but your body is in nineteen ninety two. I like,
that's a good way to put it. Yeah, that's really
would put it. Yeah, justin I really I'm glad we
got those last two calls. There was really that's some
great insight that you gave for because you know, when
you get that with the you know, how do I
deal with you know, these cherished beliefs by other African

(02:03:11):
Americans in my community. It's like, well, I'm a white guy.
I don't really know how to like speak on that,
you know, I don't know, I didn't wasn't born into
that kind of thing where my family forced it down
into me. I had a very different kind of upbringing,
and so you gave me a lot of insight to
that as well and connected a lot of dots from me.
So I appreciate you, brother.

Speaker 1 (02:03:28):
Yeah, for sure them and I think that's all of
our super chets. Guys, thanks so much for supporting the show.
We're gonna be in the after show here in just
a couple of minutes. Let me do a couple quick announcements.
So we want to thank you for helping out tonight.
Let's see blind lie Me. We've got blind Limy that
has been waiting in the wing all night providing support and.

Speaker 2 (02:03:52):
The best facial expressions I've ever seen during a live stream.

Speaker 10 (02:03:55):
Sorry if I was distracting, but money.

Speaker 2 (02:03:57):
No, I was excited to see every one of them.

Speaker 10 (02:04:00):
So I have a few notes. Firstly, the infantilizing of women.
Tell that to Margaret Thatcher. Tell that to rear Ripley
and see how f you get second Yeah, I literally
have notes. Secondly, where are we got here? How do
you tell the difference between the theistic universe and the

(02:04:20):
one we're in now? Like, if the god is not detectable,
it's a useless proposition. To me, and that that bleeds
into the third call with Tim. You already covered that
we haven't created intelligence. We call it artificial intelligence. But
if I write the word hair on my head, it
does not give me a flowing long locks on my scalp.

(02:04:42):
But the one thing about that call that pissed me
off was the conflation of belief. Is that we say
I don't know as a matter of intellectual honesty, and
therefore we don't believe, whereas he's using I don't know
as an excuse just believer of just filling the games exactly.

Speaker 3 (02:04:59):
Yeah, it's like I can believe. Yeah, I'm glad you
said that because it was like this, I can believe
this thing. But when the safe, when you want to
hit the safety, that it's just why I don't know, you.

Speaker 10 (02:05:06):
Know, it's it's an excuse rather than an admission of
our own fallibility. And lastly, for Zach, I'm not. I
wasn't brought up particularly religious, which is weirdly weird considering
that I grew up in a country that has a
state religion. But every time a trauma comes along, like
the loss of a loved one, never have I ever
wanted to be wrong more. I wish I could see

(02:05:30):
my grandma and my aunt and my friend who I
lost to cancer in twenty fifteen. I know I can't,
but I wish I was wrong, and just for you
because you kept on saying it. Because in the interest
of all involved, we've got the problem solved and the
Verdica is jilty here because he's a big slipknot fan.

Speaker 3 (02:05:50):
I always appreciate you, Jamie.

Speaker 1 (02:05:52):
Yeah, thank you so much. I appreciate that. And Mike
thinks so much for being here.

Speaker 5 (02:05:56):
Now.

Speaker 1 (02:05:56):
Mike, you have a channel on TikTok for anyone who doesn't,
you know, so make sure you're you know.

Speaker 3 (02:06:02):
Yeah, I mean I do it every now and then.
I just I haven't been as much, but I'll get
back and back on that realm eventually. Yeah, okay, okay,
And you just see me on Alive with Justin or
Cyber some other people and we'll just be having a blast.

Speaker 5 (02:06:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:06:16):
I mean, there's a lot going on during the week
when we're not on this show. You can find me
typically on TikTok and YouTube under the Deconstruction Zone. So
if you're looking for extra content throughout the week, we'll
be here again next week at four thirty Central time
five thirty Eastern Standard time. So please join us and
support the other shows that the ACA puts on during

(02:06:39):
the week. So we've got Talk Heathen and then what
are the other shows are we doing throughout the week?

Speaker 10 (02:06:46):
Don't forget the flagship show of the nonprofits?

Speaker 2 (02:06:49):
Of the nonprofits?

Speaker 10 (02:06:51):
Yeah, What's truth Wanted? Friday, seven o'clock.

Speaker 1 (02:06:54):
Absolutely so, yeah, thanks so much for being here and
supporting the show.

Speaker 2 (02:06:58):
Guys.

Speaker 1 (02:06:58):
We'll see you again next week. And that's rapa.

Speaker 2 (02:07:07):
Start.

Speaker 3 (02:07:10):
Stop watch Talking Than 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

(02:07:31):
nine one nine two four two, or connect to the
show online at tiny dot c c slash call th
H

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 29.13 with Justin and Jmike 2025-03-30

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 29.13 with Justin and Jmike 2025-03-30

Stuff You Should Know