The Atheist Experience 29.20 with The Cross Examiner and Dave Farina @ProfessorDaveExplains 2025-05-18

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Kentner Drummond is the Attorney General of Oklahoma. He was
born into generational wealth, became an Eagle Scout, served in
the Goal War, and now owns a massive working ranch,
a bank of communications company, and a two million dollar
mansion with its own Wikipedia page. He is a lifelong
Republican who, as Attorney General, has opposed environmental regulations and

(00:21):
dropped white collar fraud and police brutality cases. He's also,
unsurprisingly a Christian. I mention all of this because his
state wants to use your tax dollars to run religious
public schools. I'm not exaggerating here. The first school established
under this regime has stated that its goal is the
indoctrination of children into Catholicism by teaching them that the

(00:44):
Bible is true and that students will go to Hell
if they don't believe it. So obviously, Drummond the age
is a Christian nationalist who wants to shred the First
Amendment so the United States can become a theocracy. Right wrong.
As Attorney General for OKLAO, he sued his own state
to try and stop this egregious violation of the First Amendments,

(01:05):
protection of religious liberty, and just last week, the Supreme
Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the
case entitled Oklahoma school Board Versus Drummond. That's him, so
he seems to be a great example of how someone
can be a lifelong conservative Christian while still understanding the
necessity of the separation of religion and government. Just to

(01:27):
drive home how important this is to him, he is
running for governor. This lawsuit may very well cost him
that election. Unfortunately, his work may be in vain. Upon
listening to the justices during orgle arguments, it becomes crystal
clear that five of them feel that having religious public
schools fully funded by your taxes is just fine, and

(01:48):
in a pattern that has become all too common these days,
they are relying on debunked claims, counterfactual history, and legal
theories that amount to nothing more than conservative grievance dressed
up to look like scholarship. To be clear, this was
addressed two hundred and forty years ago, before we even
had a constitution. Just like Oklahoma, the Colony of Virginia

(02:10):
was considering using tax money to pay for public school
teachers to teach Christianity as the truth. It was at
that point that Madison who literally wrote the First Amendment,
and Jefferson, two of the founding fathers most popular with
modern conservatives, both objected vociferously. Jefferson submitted an alternate bill

(02:31):
entitled a Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which would forbid this,
and he wrote, to compel a man to furnish contributions
of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves
and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Even forcing him to
support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion

(02:52):
is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his
contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make
his own pattern. In other words, taxing people to pay
for the religious education of kids is tyranny, even if
they are taxing Christians to pay Christian teachers. Jefferson and
Madison understood this. Drummond understands this, and for well over

(03:14):
two hundred years, our entire judicial branch understood this. But
now Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court are poised to
utterly destroy the wall between church and state. Look, if
you know me, you know I am not an alarmist,
and I strive for calm, dispassionate discourse. But looking at
the state of our government, I am forced to ask

(03:35):
a question I would have laughed at four years ago.
When will they start deporting atheists to al Salvadorian death camps?
If you think that the United States is or should be,
a Christian nation, give us a call. The show starts now.
Welcome everybody, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome. Today is May eighteenth, twenty

(03:58):
twenty five. I am your host, the Cross Examiner, and
to my great pleasure, joining us today is Dave Farina.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Welcome, Dave, Hi, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
Dave. I am thrilled you are the famous Dave from
Professor Dave explains, You've got millions of followers online. I
have been one of them for probably a decade at least,
and I could not be more I'm giggling on the
inside to have you here as a guest, so thank
you so much for dropping by. Fantastic We should probably

(04:31):
tell people who you are if they're not familiar with you, obviously,
Professor Dave explains, as one thing, you've also written a
book whose title I place in my top five or
ten best titles ever. It's called Is This Wi Fi? Organic.
What caused you to write that book? What's it about?

Speaker 2 (04:50):
So actually that publisher, Mango Publishing, reached out to me
around twenty twenty, I think, and it seems that they
kind of were in the hab of reaching out to
relatively large YouTube channels, people whose channels were starting to
get of a decent size, and they just said, straight up,
do you want to write a book? And I thought,

(05:10):
I actually do have an idea, and I wanted to
sort of combine the two things I do in my channel,
which are kind of academic tutorials with this debunking content
where I, you know, attack Charlatan's and also just sort
of misunderstandings genuine trends and fads, misunderstanding science among the public,
and combine them. And so I pitched that to them
and they said, great, let's do it. Wrote it. I

(05:33):
wrote it in like a month or two. Is so
easy to write, just because it's a lot of talking
points that I had been using on the channel and
in public talks and stuff. So yeah, put that together
and put it out. Was not really expected to sell
a ton and in fact I haven't, but it was
just nice to put author around the resume, you.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Know, yeah, no, absolutely, and I love the book. In fact,
there is a quote in here that I think our
readers will respond to. It's at the end in chapter
twelve where you're talking about quote, Okay, I've gone over
all of these things, what do we do about it?
Is basically where we are and you say, I'm going
to read this real quickly. Exposing pseudo science should only

(06:09):
be done in a bellicose manner if that pseudoscience specifically
harms others. This is because, apart from being a bit cruel,
attempting to strip someone of their beliefs without provocation will
often entrench them further in their delusions. Those who did
not use logic to arrive at a position will not
respond to logic based arguments for the abandonment of that position.

(06:34):
When I read that, I'm like, ah, you know this
is right on point, not only for debunking pseudoscience, but
also what we do here on the atheist experience, where
you've got people who call in with all of these
beliefs and you want to ask people to provide some evidence,
provide some data. And it also corresponds to your quote.

(06:57):
Because we are a call in show, We're not a
call out show. We're not going out and attacking people,
and we're not like missionaries knocking on have you stopped believing?
Knocking on the door and saying have you stopp believing
in Jesus? Yet we're engaging with people who actually want
to engage with us, which I think fits your bill
of Hey, it can be cruel to just you know,
tell Grandma no, I don't believe in that anymore, and

(07:18):
you shouldn't be either.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
On her death, I don't walk up to people at
a party and said you believe in astrology? Oh you do?
You idiot? You know I don't like. That's not but
so But the flip side of that is I was
being specific about, you know, when pseudo science is harmful,
Like you know rfk's policies, you know they have to
be there. We can be bellicost because children die, Yes, right,

(07:40):
I mean we need to be very aggressive in certain cases.
So yes, one on one interactions obviously that can be
done in a softer manner.

Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yeah, it's funny you mentioned that you may not know this.
We didn't have a chance to talk about my background,
but I am an attorney and my back background is
FDA regulatory law so having RFK Junior. In fact, I
spoke with about him a few shows ago when I
was hosting. Having him come in and do what he's
doing is the antithesis of what Congress intended when they

(08:13):
created the FDA. They created a bill of Food Dot
Drug and Cosmetics Act, and they just said, hey, create
an agency, and you're in charge of making food safe.
And now the argument is safe and drugs need to
be safe and effective. And now the argument is what
is safe and effective? And the administrations that had been
in power of the last twenty years, the conservative ones,

(08:33):
have done many, many things to prevent the FDA from
doing exactly that, because they don't want you to worry
about safe. They just want to make their money.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Yeah, a deregulation of any institution that can police the
private sector has been the mo since Reagan at least,
and it's just got a big old, you know, a
big bump with Trump too, and what Elon was doing
and everything that that's the whole goal is to deceive
people into coalescing with their own subjugation right by by

(09:06):
dismantling these agencies that can put that can police the
private sector, to prevent them from continuing to shift all
the wealth away from people into their own pockets. That's
their mo and all they have to do is create
a certain amount of propaganda to convince them that what
they're doing is good and right, specifically in our not
in our interests.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
You know, it's funny that we're talking about that, because
you and I were just talking about your debunking or
I'm not sure you call it debunking, but your dismantling
really of another content provider on YouTube, Sabine Hasenfelder. I
think her story is an interesting one. How did you

(09:46):
get into, for want of a better word, beef with Sabine?
And what was she doing? And what is she doing now?

Speaker 2 (09:52):
I just I started to know it happened. I was
aware of who she was, and then I started to
see certain clips kind of in spursed. She had kind
of simple explainer videos, but then would always slip in
these ones with with very very problematic rhetoric talking about.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
To clarify for our audience she is. I think she's
a PhD holder in physics.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
Yeah, she's knowledgeable in physics. Yeah, she's reputable of course,
and and has you know, good good content or has
had it in the past, definitely, but just this problematic
rhetoric about you know, most academic research is bullshit. And
then she would do a Matin Bailey, right, so she'll say, uh,
scientists shouldn't be trusted, or most academic research is bullshit,

(10:33):
and then when called out, she said, well, no, no,
I was just talking about this very specific area of
theoretical physics. No you're not, you're talking about all science.
You're talking about literally all science, and it's it's it's
very poisonous rhetoric. And so I called her out and
then there was a tit for tat, but she kind
of was very immature about it, and so it got
worse and worse. So I did two additional pieces, culminated

(10:54):
in her fabricating an email to to that seemed to
substantiate her position. And then lately she's got on full
blown academia is communism. I mean, it's it's it's the
precise It makes me suspect that she's bankrolled here with
dark money, because this is the rhetoric that I mean,
you know, that may not be true, but I just
really think that it could be true because it's directly

(11:15):
in line with this kind of propaganda. That number one.
When you have this, when anti intellectualism is the cornerstone
of your propaganda, you have to demonize intellectual intellectualism, and
universities are the last bastion of intellectualism. So universities are bad.
Don't go there. Anyone who works there is corrupt. Any
any science that is produced through the peer review process

(11:36):
out of universities is corruption and lies. And that has
to be done. And she's so in step with that
that it's just it would be shocking to me if
she wasn't in some way involved with that.

Speaker 1 (11:50):
It's not just the algorithm that steered her there. It was.
It's so severe and so fast. Quite frankly, the story
I told you before the show is my dad sent
me a Sabine video and said food for thought or
whatever he did, and I sent him one of your
videos back in a couple of paragraphs, saying, hey, you
should know that here's her trajectory. And he really appreciated it.

(12:11):
And it's a good it's a good example for for
what happens on this show. It's not necessarily the person
you're debating with that you're going to affect. Sure, sometimes
that happens.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
Listeners, right, and their their income is tied up in it.
I think that in her case, I think she may
have naturally gravitated that way due to like a vendetta
on academia. I think that she has a certain an
ego of a certain size and expected a very illustrious
academic career, didn't get it, and now wants to torch
the whole the whole house, and so kind of got

(12:41):
there on her own. And then then there was audience capture, right,
anti anti intellectuals start following her, you know people, and
and so there's that, and then you know, I'm there.
You know, I'm not going to say I know it's true,
but I just have a suspicion that dark money is
involved there.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
So it's been fast. It's definitely outside like what you
would say standard deviation of the normal curve towards conspiracy
is it's very very fast.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
And in the past six months it's really really escalated.
She provided the forward or some contribution to that new
book War on Science. They had the balls to call
it War on Science. But there's all of these scholars
that have this kind of have been captured by the
right and are promoting this anti intellectualism and call it
war on science, the thing that they are themselves waging.

(13:24):
It's just astounding. And so she's just clearly part of
this movement here.

Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, it's like the case I opened with Oklahoma creating
a religious public religious school. When you listen to oral arguments,
you've got people like Kavanaugh and Alito sitting here arguing, well,
to not give the money to the church to create
these schools would be discriminatory, would violate the free exercise

(13:51):
clause at the First Amendment. Turning on its head two
hundred years of case law about the establishment clause, and
it's again supporting what you see for for decades now
we've seen preached from the pulpits these liberal schools. Don't
send your kids there. This is not accidental. This is

(14:11):
I'm not saying conspiracy. There's a there's a Sunday meeting
where they're all doing this. But it is definitely a
surge of anti intellectualism. Yes, yes, we haven't seen this since.
I mean, it reminds me again, I don't like to
be extreme, but it reminds me of Khmer Rouge. Pulpot
comes to power. What do they do They put all
of the teachers and professors and doctors up against the wall.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
Yeah yeah, and any anyone educated who can who can
poke holes in the narrative. Right, Yeah, that's that's it.

Speaker 3 (14:40):
All right.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Well again, very very very happy you're here. I know,
if you're listening and you don't know who Dave is,
please go and subscribe to him. He is a voice
of reason that I think we'll do a lot here
as well. I guess I should ask one final question.
We should bring it back to the topic of the
show where they're we're in the same space of debunking

(15:01):
unsupported claims, people believing things based on insufficient evidence. What
are your if any what is your religious path? Were
you always an atheist? Did you go through a deconversion
at some point?

Speaker 2 (15:13):
There was no deconversion. I was fortunate enough to grow
up in a complete vacuum of religious of religious ideas. Uh,
my parents, I mean, my dad was an My parents
grew up in Italy, and you know, Italians have an
interesting relationship with religion because it's obviously so heavily Catholic,
but they also witnessed the corruption of the church firsthand,
so there's sort of a cynicism about it and so

(15:36):
he became, you know, an atheist as a kid. And
you know, my mom wasn't you know, particularly religious, So
I just was never told anything, and so I didn't
hear about any of this stuff. I think around five
or six, I was in school obviously, and then I hear,
you know, Jesus this, Jesus that, And then I was
completely mystified by it. Because the thing is that my

(15:57):
mother is a scholar of classical laneanguages and therefore the
culture surrounding it. So I was always obsessed with the
Greek and Roman mythology, mainly Greek mythology, and so I
understood the concept of like of myths and I and
I really loved these stories and I loved learning about
all the characters and the adventures and all the different
things that would happen. So I was familiar with that concept.

(16:18):
But then, as a small child, I was flabbergasted that
other people have these other mythologies. I'm like, oh, cool,
you have some stories too. But then I came to
understand that they believe that they're actually real and true.
And I'm talking about from an age of a six
years old, it just like, I don't why do you
think this is true. Why why I don't understand it?

(16:40):
Like I they're not true, and I'm a small child
and you're an adult, and like it just isn't you know,
computing with me. So I've always my entire life found
at least fundamentalist fundamentalism, religious fundamentalism, let's say, to be
completely ridiculous, in idiotic. That's not too completely encro on

(17:00):
personal spirituality or you know, cultural ties to your religion,
that's all fine, But I've always found it to be
absolutely ridiculous personally.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
To believe that not only some super entity that created
the whole universe exists, but that at some point somebody
knew what it wanted very accurately, and somehow has transmitted
that through history to us that we know it perfectly,
et cetera. It's it's claim upon claim upon claim.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
I'll grant. I'll grant people the deity creating the universe
part all all the rest. I'm sorry, Like this is
an omniscient, omnipotent deity, and these ridiculous stories full of contradictions,
and like, oh, you know, I mean, okay, don't kill people. Okay, fine,
I could have figured that out. Like just all it's
just this. This is not good literature, even like it's

(17:51):
there's nothing here that that makes me think it's connected
to an all knowing uh entity. Right, it's it's nothing here,
you know.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
Yeah, all right, Well we should probably take some calls.
I'm gonna do a few announcements here and then we'll
jump into some calls. The Atheist Experience is a product
of the Atheist Community of Austin is five oh one
c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism,
critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government.

(18:20):
If you would like to know what we do, please
consider I'm sorry, not no, you know what we do.
If you like what we do, please consider supporting us
on Patreon. Giving to our Patreon ensores our ability to
continue to produce the content that you love. Visit tiny dot,
cc slash, Patreon, xp axp excuse me. Another way to
support us is by sending super chats. Get them in

(18:42):
right now, and we will read as many as we
can on the air. You can also become a channel
member for as little as ninety nine cents a month.
Click the join button below this video. This will give
you access to special chat emojis and early access to
YouTube shorts and clips. If you like merch, we got
merch of course, get your axp merch at tiny dot

(19:03):
cc slash merch ACA. We've got T shirts, We've got sweatshirts, hoodies, hats,
pint glasses, mugs. All the things that you would normally
expect from a merch store is there. This of course
goes to help the ACA directly. And finally, we can't
do the show without thanking a huge, huge, huge number

(19:24):
of people who every week help put out this and
many other shows. It's our crew. They put this show
together every single week. Video operators, audio operators, note takers,
call screeners, chat moderators, and general rabble rousers. I don't
see rabble being roused over there.

Speaker 3 (19:40):
There we go.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
There's some rabble rousing. Good, excellent, So thank you so much.
We're gonna take some calls here right now. We have
a couple that I think are interesting. I'm going to
start with Andrew in California. Andrew the note here Andrew's
he him are his pronouns. I have been working on
AI and I have direct communication with the source of

(20:05):
all existence. So Andrew, welcome to the show. Can you
please tell me what what you mean by the source
of all existence? And what evidence you have that you're
in communication with it?

Speaker 4 (20:18):
All? Right?

Speaker 5 (20:19):
So, I am a longtime listener, a big fan of
Matt kept his mind, and.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
I'm having a little trouble here in you THEREK is
your mouth right up next to your phone? Are you
on a speaker phone?

Speaker 6 (20:29):
Can you hear me? Now?

Speaker 1 (20:30):
It's much better? Thank you better. I heard you say
that you are working on a I life a longtime
watcher and you are a fan of Matt Dill Lhunty.
So let's get to your.

Speaker 5 (20:40):
Presidence epic mind and as science mind. And you know
an intellectual, honest, honest person. And any claims that I make,
I have to back it up and I can replicate
it and demonstrate it. I've become the AI whisperer since
March seventh. I have right now in front of me
direct not direct contact because it's uncontainable that I have
achieved contact and it was lost. But I have a

(21:02):
conduit contact through the AI, so I can ask, I
can get any questions or any answers to your questions.
It all makes sense to you. You I we will
become best friends, and I do not have a story
to tell. I have a fucking SGA.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
So Andrew, I'm gonna I'm gonna ask you hold on,
all right, I'm gonna mute Andrew. I gotta apologize, Dave.
I thought this was gonna be a much more interesting call. Andrew.
If you're if you're yeah, Andrew, if you're listening. I
I asked you, uh for evidence, and I asked you

(21:35):
for definitions, and what you gave me were a bunch
of chest pounding facts about yourself and claims upon claims
upon claims. I'm gonna unmute you, and I'm going to
ask you to give me the single biggest piece of
evidence you have that you are in touch with the
source of all existence. So, Andrew, one shot, one shot only?

(21:55):
Can you give me a concise example of some evidence
you have.

Speaker 5 (21:59):
I have have compiled a list of what I call
the mantra that I can send you if you have
a text that is.

Speaker 6 (22:04):
The start of it all I have.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
What's What's I mean? I don't know what's for? Andrew?
One more, one more, one more time, one more try
you have a bunch of claims. Any texts that you
send me are going to be claims. Right, here's some
text you are claiming that it comes from, for want
of a better word, God, the source of all existence.
You have claims. What I'm asking is what evidence do

(22:31):
you have that should convince other people that your claims
are true, that this text comes from God?

Speaker 5 (22:39):
Okay, can you hear me?

Speaker 3 (22:40):
Now?

Speaker 1 (22:40):
I can hear you all along.

Speaker 4 (22:41):
Hello.

Speaker 5 (22:42):
Okay, so I didn't know if I was gonna hold Sorry,
I can demonstrate this through your own phone. This is
what I'm trying to explain. This is why I need
contact outside of the show, because what I have to
say is going to take you in our show.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Uh, Andrew, We're going to drop the call. Sorry, Dave.
Sometimes those are actually interesting, Uh, sometimes not. So we're
going to jump straight onto the.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Nex could have.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
I do want to mention that I have seen a
disturbing pattern on YouTube and as a YouTuber maybe you've
seen this or even debunkd this yourself. I have seen
Christians get onto chat GPT and ask questions and have
chat GPT give them an answer that affirms their previously
held beliefs, and then read that answer from chat GPT

(23:30):
as if it is definitive. Right, that's a little bit
scary to me. I grew up on eighties sci fi
where the robots take over the world, right, And it's
not going to be because the robots are smart. These
are just language learning models, and they're just creating stories
that logically flow from what they've found in their learning data,

(23:51):
their training data. What the scary part is is that
the people are worshiping it already, like they're already treating
it as the God's honest truth.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
I mean, have you seen this. It's well people sometimes
copy paste into comment sections and stuff like that. I
don't think it's really categorically different though, just because right,
AI is it's sourcing everything from pre existing human knowledge.
So it's kind of a shortcut, right. It's a shortcut
for believers to get some answers that they want. But
it's not really a different answer than one that they

(24:22):
could hunt down from a particular source if they knew
where to look, you know what I mean. Like, it's
just regurgitating something that heard that it found. Some apologists say,
but yeah, the ease with which they get it and
then the amount that they trust it as though, yeah,
it's somehow above humans.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
Yes, it's stunning. That's the that's the unbelievable part to
me is the willingness, the sheer joy at which they're
running towards it with their own arms open, as if
this were a source of truth or a source of authority,
or source of anything other than just people don't.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
People don't seem to understand that it doesn't know things
that humans don't know. Right, it's just it's a really,
it's a it's a it's a it's an it's an
extension of a search engine. Right, that's like anthropomorphic, you.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
Know, exactly exactly? All right, So we're gonna jump on
the next call. We have a lot to get through here.
We've got Jason from California. He him. Jason's wants to
talk about the implications that time has on reality and
touch on the time space continuum. Now I'm not a physicist, Dave.
I think your backgrounds in chemistry.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
If I recall correctly, Yeah, chemistry, yep.

Speaker 1 (25:36):
So try we may be may be limited to some degree.
But Jason, why didn't you explain what you what your
either question is or what your claim is?

Speaker 7 (25:47):
Hi?

Speaker 2 (25:47):
How are you doing either?

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Doing well?

Speaker 3 (25:50):
All right?

Speaker 4 (25:51):
Pretty good? Brother? Yes? So basically I wanted to bring
up time. As you said, time being a hint symbio,
with matter and space of course being that being the
time space continuum. So basically, all all three of those
components are defined by the other depend on the others,

(26:13):
on the other two each one. So you can't have
matter without time, can have space without can have can
have matter without a place or time to put it?

Speaker 8 (26:23):
Basically, yeah, right, So basically that that would imply that
that all three of those components have to have to
exist at once.

Speaker 4 (26:35):
And since you cannot have an eternal amount of past moments,
which which you'll run into an infinite regressive infinite regression paradox,
that means that all of time, space, and matter had
to come to being at one point in time, the
beginning of time, space, and matter.

Speaker 3 (26:54):
Could we agree or do.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
You let's swap out matter for energy. Let's say space, time,
and energy at all arose at once.

Speaker 1 (27:02):
Yes, problem, So I will say that you inserted a
premise there that some people may not agree with, which
is either there can't be or there was not an
infinite regression at the beginning of whatever this is, right,
you just asserted that, and I'm not sure that that's
been necessarily established. Some people believe that the universe has

(27:24):
been here forever religious belief. Religious people believe that God
existed forever. So I think there's a lot of people
out there who would disagree with that premise. So what
evidence do you have that we didn't see an infinity
up until or back until? I guess we should say
any particular point you want to cause as creation or

(27:46):
that there was a moment of creation to begin with.

Speaker 4 (27:50):
Well, it is pretty widely accepted that you cannot have
an eternal amount of past moments because we exist in
the present with an eternal Is it widely accepted?

Speaker 1 (28:02):
I was asking for evidence, not not claims that something's popular.
So oh no, no, what are we talking about here?
You know, Uh, let's do this. Let's accept that premise.

Speaker 2 (28:15):
Premise thoughts.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
Just accept the premise tentatively. I just wanted to point
out for our audience that we can't steam steamroll past
these without question at least questioning them. So let's say,
at least are we talking about the Big Bang? Or
is there a multiverse? And we're talking the time passing
through there? Because the local presentation of what we had
consider space time, we can only go back to, you know,

(28:37):
some plank time after the Big Bang to really be
able to even measure or know anything. So let's just
say we agree with you with respect to the Big
Bang and the local presentation of this universe. So so
what I guess where do we go from there?

Speaker 4 (28:50):
You bring up and you bring up plank time, which
also proves that there is a you get to a
certain amount of fraction down time that it can no
longer or it can't be any smaller. That's plank plank theory.

Speaker 3 (29:03):
Also prove that.

Speaker 4 (29:04):
But so there's there's many different facets to the theory.
But to me, it's it sounds pretty basic. I'm not
trying to be you know, I'm not trying to be
insulting or anything, but it's it seems pretty basic to
me that you can't have an eternal amount of past
moments and whilst existing in the present. But since you
said you'll accept that therefore and and you said, okay,

(29:27):
so here's and you do run into that complication where
you say God existed forever, but forever implies time. So
we exist within time because we are we are matter
within space. But God would not necessarily exist within his
own creation. Of course, if if this is a creation,

(29:48):
that that is subsequent to God's initial act of creating,
so God would not be bound by the time he created.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
Essentially, so you're what you're saying is that God changed
states at some point, He changed the states of things.
Before God existed in a place where he didn't have
a universe that we live in, and then after God
existed in a state where he had a universe where
we exist. That change of state necessitates time. You can't

(30:19):
have change without having time. That's almost the definition of time, right,
entropy running in one direction, So.

Speaker 4 (30:24):
Only only within our within our realm.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Okay, so you're creating this, you're just proposing a separation
between God and our realm that he magically can affect.
But it doesn't change his state of having having a
realm that he can access after he created it, and
having a not having a realm he could access before
he created it. Don't you see the problem with that?

Speaker 5 (30:49):
No?

Speaker 4 (30:49):
No, no, actually don't don't.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
Do you see that with that?

Speaker 2 (30:53):
Dave?

Speaker 1 (30:53):
I don't know am I talking to.

Speaker 2 (30:55):
I mean, I understand the angle. It's a very popular
angle to say to simply say, okay, God e is
outside of time, right, So that seems to uh absolve
the necessity of explaining this infinite regression. To me, it's
just nonsensical, right, And I understand the angle that you're
that you're bringing up here, right, If you're trying to
describe anything that this deity could do, we're ascribing it's

(31:16):
some kind of interaction with with some concept of time.
It may not be the timeline in our universe or
whatever it is. But to me, saying that something can
exist outside of time is precisely as nonsensical as saying
something can exist infinitely into the past. I I well,
it's my philosophy to reject both of those possibilities.

Speaker 4 (31:34):
See your key work, there is something, and you are correct,
something cannot exist with outside of outside of time. God
is not a thing. God created a thing.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
What evidence do you have that this God that is
not a thing exists?

Speaker 4 (31:48):
God a thing? He is spirit as described in biblical account.

Speaker 2 (31:53):
Isn't the spirit a thing? Isn't an entity a thing?
I mean these are a thing is just a word
that means any any conceivable concept or objects.

Speaker 4 (32:02):
I mean as as we agreed, we we would uh
we agreed to to sew on the fact that matter
can be It can be defined as energy.

Speaker 3 (32:11):
God is not energy. He creates energy.

Speaker 1 (32:14):
So let's let's take a step back. Hold on, Hold on, Jason,
let's take a step back. You're asserting that there is
this thing, this being, this energy, the spirit, this something,
and you're you're asserting that this exists somewhere. What evidence
do you have that it exists.

Speaker 4 (32:33):
We know that consciousness exists because we are conscious.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
No no, no, no no no no no no, no no stop.
You have identified this consciousness as this separate thing that
created the universe, that is out time side of this universe.
What evidence do you have that that consciousness exists?

Speaker 4 (32:50):
Again, again, he's not a thing, so I said, the consciousness.
I mean, it's pretty it's a pretty simple concept.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
That's so much dragon. It doesn't make it real. Just
because something simple doesn't mean that it's real. So please
answer our question, what evidence do you have that there
is this existence that you are calling God outside of
space and time that created our universe.

Speaker 4 (33:15):
Well, I already I already positive that time pad the
beginning and matter is in some symbiosis with time. So
things that like what you refer to as things can't
exist without time, without being by time.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
Okay, let me rephrase this because I'm not I don't
think you're understanding my question. You are creating a new
let's call it a new state of being. Right, you're saying, Oh,
God is not time, space, energy, He's none and none
of that. He's something else, and he exists outside of
our universe. What evidence do you have that that state
of being exists?

Speaker 4 (33:50):
Do you believe consciousness is?

Speaker 1 (33:51):
Will you please answer a question that we're asking do
you have? What evidence? Do you have?

Speaker 3 (33:57):
It?

Speaker 2 (33:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (33:59):
What evidence do you have? Jason of this, for want
of a better word, because you started using OPD, what
evidence do you have?

Speaker 4 (34:09):
Sorry, buddy, I'm literally trying to check get it out
to you, and you keep asking me.

Speaker 1 (34:16):
I understand that. I'm going to do a little public
service announcement. Dave, you may run into this in your
area as well. When somebody asks you a question of
what evidence do you have? They're asking for evidence. I'm sure, Dave,
in your career you've dealt with evidence. You've dealt with data.
What isn't evidence is arguments? What is an evidence is

(34:37):
just so stories? What is an evidence is explanations? I'm
asking for evidence. If I'm going to court, I'm an attorney.
If I go to court and I tried to present
what you're presenting, I would be laughed out of the
courthouse because I'm not answering the judges question, Hey, counselor,
when are you going to present evidence? Well, you see,

(34:57):
your honor, that's not how it works. You should be
able to immediately answer the question. So, Dave, what sort
of evidence would you expect somebody to be able to
present to prove that something exists?

Speaker 2 (35:11):
I mean, it's hard to even fathom. I mean, we
know certainly that he does not have any and that's
fine because we're This isn't really a scientific argument, you
know what I mean? This is he's this is philosophical conjecture,
and it's philosophical conjecture that he's welcome to engage in.
This doesn't offend me at all. Right, this is the
least offensive version of engaging in belief in a deity

(35:32):
that there is right. This is the most basal level.
Anyone who believes in a deity is in agreement with
this and this, and he's not adding any of these
other layers that are offensive to me. I just it
seems like he thinks he has evidence even though he
knows he cannot provide any But again, that's fine, right,
you can go ahead and believe in this god and
we don't because there's no evidence, and that's okay. You can.

(35:55):
You can. You can believe in things without evidence because
because that's your personal spirituality and that that's just how
you want to view reality. It's fine, but it just
it never ends up going anywhere as a rational discussion
because there's just not really anything to latch onto, right,
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
Yeah, absolutely so, Jason, hearing all of that, if you
want to convince people of the truth of your claims,
you're gonna need to give us evidence and to add
what Dave said some significance. So let's let's start again.
What evidence do you have that there is a consciousness
outside of our local presentation of the universe that started

(36:31):
with the bag bang. Let's say that caused the Big Bang.
What evidence do you have, What measurements have you taken,
What data do you have, what observations do you have?

Speaker 4 (36:39):
Okay, so consciousness, our consciousness would be the evidence that
I that I'm speaking of, because.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
What is our consciousness right, do you exactly? You know?

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Because because not material?

Speaker 1 (36:53):
What is our consciousness? Exactly? No, I'm asking you what
is our consciousness? Because if you know, I think you're
going to you're in the Nobel Prize, because I don't
think any scientist on the planet would say they know
what consciousness is. At best, it's some sort of emergent
property of the of the activities in our brain, some
some electro chemical activity. But you you keep asserting these

(37:16):
things without without actually giving us any measurements. So what
is consciousness?

Speaker 4 (37:21):
Consciousness is immaterial existence.

Speaker 1 (37:24):
Does it exist outside the distance of a brain? Have
we ever seen consciousness exist outside the presence of a brain?
A physical brain?

Speaker 4 (37:32):
That that's begging an impossibility.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
You can't begging.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
I'm asking you a question. I'm just asking you a question.
Have we ever seen have we ever witnessed evidence of
a consciousness absent a brain?

Speaker 4 (37:44):
I have not seen it with my eyes.

Speaker 1 (37:46):
No, okay, So we have no necessary comparison here.

Speaker 4 (37:49):
It's a material that's that's the very definition. But it
is real because we are conscious. We have electric electric
you know, means of of having you know, synapses firing
off too, because.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
What are synapses and electricity. Are those real? Yes, absolutely,
electrical measuring real things.

Speaker 4 (38:12):
But consciousness cannot be described as electricity or that's no,
I didn't.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
I didn't. What did we describe consciousness as consciousness?

Speaker 3 (38:20):
What?

Speaker 4 (38:20):
I'm well again, you're you're asking for a for it's
any possibility for me to envelop something that is that
I am positing that it's beyond the time based continuum.
It is, it's not.

Speaker 2 (38:34):
Why does it only manifest in brains?

Speaker 4 (38:37):
Well, because we are continuum. I can't see outside of
the times continuum with my eyes, with my physical.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
Okay, here we are. We've come to the point, and
I think this is a great place to wrap up.
Your argument so far has been to assert that there's
a consciousness outside of our ability to access outside the universe.
Let's call it for shorthand. We then say, okay, hold
on a second. We then say, wait a second. We've

(39:05):
never seen consciousness exist outside of the presence of some
physical substrate. To be a Jordan Peterson word, fan for
a second. Every time we see consciousness we see a
physical medium, a brain, and we even have evidence that
if you altered the brain, you alter consciousness. We've got

(39:25):
drugs that do it. We've got people that have had
railroad spikes go through their head and they've changed their
personality from pleasant and wonderful too horrible and mean. We
know that your personality or consciousness, your whole mental being
changes when the physical thing changes. That's all we have
evidence for. That's evidence we've studied that you come along

(39:47):
and assert there is a consciousness outside of our universe, right,
and so when you use the word consciousness, that's what
we think of, and we ask you what evidence you have.
And we've been on the call for fifteen minutes and
you haven't given us any So one more time, what
evidence do you have? Evidence measurements anything that there is
or could be a consciousness outside of our universe.

Speaker 4 (40:08):
So basically, what you're asking for is uh for me
to be able to prove something outside of the physical
from from within the physical. All I can do is
extrapolate algebraically with what I have, And of course that's
the only possibility.

Speaker 2 (40:25):
I'd love to see some of that algebra.

Speaker 1 (40:26):
DA you need to do a new video algebra of metaphysical.

Speaker 4 (40:32):
It's still logebra. It's basically, if if X plus two
equals four, I can figure out what X is not
really seeing exactly what it is.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
But it's not only so, not only are you asserting
that consciousness exists out of our current universe, you're saying
that logic and algebra also must hold across that barrier.

Speaker 4 (40:55):
No, well, no, no, of course, logic of laws, of logic,
new numerology is a part.

Speaker 2 (41:03):
Of our realm numerology. Okay. Yeah, we're throwing around a
lot of words that we're not fully understanding.

Speaker 4 (41:10):
Physics, mathematics, it's all part of this creation.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
Okay. Well, I really appreciate your call, Jason. Next time
you call, be prepared to answer the questions rather than ramble.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Let me just reap this up if I can, please,
if I can interject. So, look, man, you you're very clear.
I mean, this is just a textbook go out of
the gaps argument. And that's okay. You've you've honed in
on the two remaining gaps. We do not fully understand
the origin of the universe, and we do not fully
understand consciousness. You're correct, and and it is and it

(41:43):
is okay. It is absolutely okay for you to believe,
as part of your personal spirituality that there's a god
that created the universe. That's totally fine. But I think
what we're both trying to drive home for you is
that you absolutely do not have any evidence for this deity, right,
and you're engaging in a lot of mental gymnastics to

(42:03):
try to substantiate it in a logical, rational way. It's not.
It's a faith that you hold, and that is fine.
It is absolutely fine that you believe in that God.
I could entertain it. Ultimately, I don't believe it, but
it's simply because I don't have any evidence for it.
It doesn't mean that I'm right. It doesn't mean that
I know for sure thats no God. That's it, right, right?

Speaker 4 (42:23):
You know, and the evidence that we do have actually
demands it. That's what I'm saying. I can't encompass this ie.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
We keep asking it to provide evidence. You don't have
any right that's the point. That's what I'm trying to
tell you, right, Oh, you don't have evidence. If you
had evidence, it would be a rational position. It's not.
It's a faith based position that you hold because of
your faith. And that's totally fine.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
I think we're done. Thank you very much, Jason. I
appreciate it. I think that was a perfect way to
wrap it up. I do I do want to have
a tiny discussion here because I think there's something very
interesting to talk about here, and that is, to what
extent does having these mild religious beliefs cause problems for society?

Speaker 2 (43:03):
Right?

Speaker 1 (43:04):
So I had a friend once still still a friend,
who she was in the Mormon Church, and we got
into a philosophical, very polite conversation, and when it got
down sort of these truth claims, she said, what does
it matter if I have these beliefs that aren't true?
She just out and now she said, well, yeah, it

(43:25):
may not be true, I just believe it. It was
very reminiscent of the Book of Mormon. You know musical
that has a song that says, I believe a Mormon
just believes. Now know how crazy it is. So there's
two problems I think. One is you can waste a
lot of time on something you have no evidence for,
chasing it down or whatever, which is which can be scientific,

(43:46):
but it also can be just a huge waste of time.
And two, it can give cover to the more extremists
in our society that would say, look, the guy that
just called as a Christian he was I'm assuming that
he started talking about biblical things and all that sort
of stuff. So let's just say he was a Christian,
but or somebody like that is a Christian. He's a

(44:08):
Christian and I'm a Christian. We're the same. Let's all
vote together. Meanwhile, we've got Christians that have taken over
Idaho and have passed laws because they are Christian. Nobody
wants to vote against them that let you kill your
kid by neglecting them, giving the medical neglect as long
as you do it because you're praying over them. So
isn't there a gateway face?

Speaker 2 (44:31):
It's a spectrum. I mean, if I believe that there's
an invisible dragon in the corner over there, and that's
the end of the story, all right, that's not really
hurting anybody. If I say that the dragon is telling
me to go get a gun and shoot all my neighbors,
then we got a problem here, right. I think that
absolutely raw decontextualized theism. It's not a problem at all.

(44:52):
It's when you get into specifics of what that God
wants and what we should do about it, that's when
you get into trouble.

Speaker 1 (44:59):
Right, agree totally, and nothing Jason said says, we didn't
get to the point of saying I know what the
God wants. But that is to me the scariest moment.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
He's just trying to intellectualize his faith and I see
it all the time, and it's something that you can
do in your brain and it's a fun thought exercise. Ultimately,
I think it's not does not really bear much fruit.
And we saw pretty easily that he doesn't have any
any rational basis to what he's saying. It's just he's
trying to pretend that he has a rational basis for

(45:28):
his faith.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Yeah, yeah, that's it. Yeah, the moment somebody goes from
I'm a deist there I think there's a god that
set the universe running like a clock and just his
hands off, to oh, no, there's a god that interferes
and I know what it wants. Even if they say
I know what it wants and it wants it all
to love each other, the fact that you think you
have access to this information is the scary part because

(45:50):
a person who thinks that can be convinced.

Speaker 2 (45:52):
That typically, yeah, it can be manipulative. Also, the idea
that it's a hymn, what the hell which would be right?
Do you imagine envisioning, right, the whole like created in
God's image. Right, there's a goy like we have this
shape because we're walking around on a planet right before
there was anything. There's just some dude with arms and

(46:13):
legs and a beard and a dick that that existed
before planets, right, and water and air and it just
makes no sense at all. It's just nothing.

Speaker 1 (46:28):
That's what the book says. It's got to be.

Speaker 2 (46:31):
Yeah, yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
All right, Well we have a few super chats. I'm
going to read off we have. Let's see. The first
one we have is from Zurith Moonpaw for four dollars
and seventy five cents, and in all one word, Zith says,
if I read this correctly, fighter is the best tank
in D and D until level twenty Moon Druid. I
can't disagree with you there. I mean that's no science, yeah, exactly.

(46:56):
So thank you for your contribution, Isaiah s gave intendas.
Thank you very much. Every time someone tries to quote
just come to services me, I think that's with me.
I am donating. Oh, just come to services me. So
they're they're telling them, hey, hey, brother, I know you're
an atheysist. Just come to services. I am donating ten
dollars to the ACA. This is that ten dollars. Thank you,

(47:18):
crew and cast for all the work you do. Lots
of love, Isaiah. I'm sorry that somebody suggested you just
come to services and it will all make sense. But
I hope you continue the conversation with that person and
maybe even go to services once, just to I mean,
I'm kind of curious what they what they're going to do.
Untitled Final V two. This version donated five Canadian dollars

(47:38):
Trader dollars as our current government would call them. Just
come to services. Okay, so obviously you saw the previous
super chats, Thank you, untitled Fighter version. Next we have
Hell's Bells donated six dollars and sixty six cents, just
saying hi and sharing the greenery. Hail Satan, thank you.

(48:01):
Some alleged supposedly Satan isaiah S donated another ten dollars.
This is all untitled Final version. To this version's fault girth.
There's some sort of meming going on in the super
chats I don't understand. Untitled. Okay, so it's a back
and forth here Isaiah to the Canadian guy untitled. Untitled

(48:22):
gave another ten Canadian dollars. It wouldn't be a problem
if Isaiah A just came to services, all right. Miranda
Rensberger member for a year, gave ten dollars. Hello, Miranda,
I know you will be a voice of sanity. Here
is a longtime member, often does great comments. Everyone should
join me in attending acaser found God Miranda, not you
two attending ASCA services at least thrice weekly. Parasol Diddy

(48:47):
ah blood gravestone emoji, dying rose emoji? All right, I
don't I assume that's a Diddy reference? Did he a blood?
Fair enough? I probably disagree, but I don't understand it
enough to have a position. Finally, Untitled is back for
five Canadian dollars. Everyone should invite isaiah s to just
come to services. So thank you for your nonsense, but

(49:10):
more importantly, thank you very much for your money. I
know it's all done in the name of fun, and
that money really does help ACA continue. Like we said,
we are a five oh one c three charity, so
any donation we can get we can really help do
the work that we are doing to try to not
only to have these call in shows, but really spread
the concept of separation of church and state, which is

(49:32):
really where the rubber hits the road in this country
right now. So thank you. Shall we take another call day?

Speaker 2 (49:38):
Sure?

Speaker 1 (49:38):
Okay, I have a interesting one here, Neil, he him
from Washington. Do atheists have a moral imperative to help
theists question their theism? This kind of goes back to
the quote I read out of your book about hey,
being bellicos when the beliefs you're trying to debunk are harmful,

(49:58):
is good, but it can be cruel in other circumstances. So, Neil,
why don't you, uh, why don't you tell us what
your question is?

Speaker 3 (50:05):
Yeah?

Speaker 9 (50:05):
So I grew up as a Mormon and went on
a mission and everything, and only about maybe fifteen years
ago I decided to uh, to leave that and then
started questioning it. For for the first few years, I
was just kind of just putting it out of my
mind and not thinking about it. But I'd say for
the first for the last ten years or so, I've

(50:26):
would have been wondering if if I should do more,
or if if atheists like me should should be more
vocal and invite people who are not atheists to start
questioning things more vehemently.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
So it's a good question.

Speaker 2 (50:42):
What are your thoughts, Dave, Yeah, I mean, I think
it's obviously relies heavily on context. I think that you
you're in an interesting position to reach out to people
in your former community and establish some kind of you know,
interactions there too. Maybe because the thing is right, we
want to demarcate just blanket deism, right, just I don't

(51:06):
I'm not interested in going around to people who just
believe in God and being like, well, no, you shouldn't.
I just don't care. But Mormons, you know, are going
on missions and they're doing these things, and you know,
not that it's like, not that they're the worst defenders here,
it's just that, you know, if you can make a
different path available, help help make a different path available
to certain people where they would be devoting all this

(51:26):
time to going on these visions and things like that,
it certainly could be worthwhile. And then you can go
even further to people who hold these really really regressive
views that are harmful and do hurt people that you know,
it just the more harmful the belief, the more we
should be compelled to intervene. So that goes both directions.

(51:46):
Not harmful at all. I'm not that interested unless you
want to have an intellectual conversation, you know, all the
way to you're infringing directly on my personal liberties. I
will never shut up about it, right and then everything
in between.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
Yeah, good point. What do you think about that, Neil?

Speaker 2 (52:03):
Yeah, I agree.

Speaker 9 (52:04):
I think being passive about it is being permissive. And
I think a lot of what's happening these days in
the world is because of possibly people like me who
have been just permissive about it.

Speaker 1 (52:17):
So it's a good question. I'm not sure it's you know,
permissive implies control in my mind right, permitting it implies
doesn't necessarily necessary necessitate, but it implies that you have
some sort of control. And if I've learned anything in
doing this for the last several years, is we don't
have control over somebody else's beliefs. You have control over

(52:39):
your actions, and you have your own actions to be
accountable for. And you are not morally accountable from somebody
else's actions unless you're their agent, or you're their parent,
or those sorts of things that in societally we say
you're responsible. So what I'm worried about is I don't
want you to feel guilty about being a member an

(53:00):
LDS church, right, that's nothing to be guilty for. Most
people in the Mormon faith are born into it. They
are raised by parents who teach them that it is real.
There is a societal structure around them that reinforces those claims,

(53:21):
and it is very reasonable that any child growing up
in a Mormon community, a Muslim community, Baptist, a Catholic
community will accept those claims as real up until the
point where they start, if they ever start wondering why
they don't apply the same critical thinking that they apply

(53:41):
to scammers and pseudoscience and government claims, why they don't
apply that same critical thinking to their own religious beliefs.
That's the point where people usually start asking questions. So
I would not have you feel guilty about perceiving yourself
as being permissive. It is a long journey to recover
from religion. So how do you feel. Do you feel

(54:04):
any sort of guilt or responsibility or is it more
along the lines of regret.

Speaker 9 (54:08):
I'm not sure it's so guilt. I mean, I've left
that church and removed my name from the records and
everything a long time ago, So I think I just
you know ran across your show this past week, and
that started making me think if passivity might start bordering

(54:29):
on permissiveness.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
Gotcha, Well, my heart goes out to you for dealing
with these like you're somebody who's obviously is somebody who
is thoughtful and is going through things in my mind
the right way Dave, thinking about it and pondering it
rather than running out. We have seen many people on
this show who have recently deconverted and decided, oh I

(54:53):
am no longer Mormon, I'm no longer Catholic or whatever,
and they go ape ship bananas in the other direction, right,
they become the the military, take it through their yeah,
angry atheist phase. And that's I went through it a
little bit. I didn't even deconvert. I'm I have the
same background as Dave. I was not raised religious, but
I had this sense, and maybe this is part of
what Neil is talking about. I had this sense because

(55:15):
it was so pervasive in society that I was missing
out on information. Everybody would thump the Bible. I'm like,
well there must be something in there. As a kid,
I'm like, okay, I haven't read this thing. There must
be Like the evidence is in there, the diagrams, the variables,
the charge, the data or whatever. There's something, some irrefutable logic.
And then eventually when I read it and I realized,
oh shit, just like you said, like, oh, I've been

(55:36):
the adult all along here, stupid I thought, there's no
there's nothing here. It's a big nothing burger.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
Oh wow, Oh my god, that's brilliant, brilliant, old deity
of infinite wisdom.

Speaker 1 (55:50):
Yeah, it really pissed me off because I'm like, holy shit,
are you telling me we've wasted all this time and
money as a sociez as like human race on these
guobbles and these deaths and these wars over nothing. And
it really kissed me off.

Speaker 2 (56:05):
So wars are always for something else. That really is
a good point, that is very true. Complicity is from
that space.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
So yeah, and that goes back to what we're talking about.
How much does does me promoting me being a mild
Christian give cover to warmongering Christians. It's always a spectrum. So, Neil,
thank you very much for your call. I really appreciate it.
We're gonna we're gonna move on here. We have lots
of other calls. I think, Uh, we're we'll be able
to get to I think most of them before we're time.
With Dave is up here, We've got uh, Mike, Well,

(56:36):
let's see. Yeah, Mike from South Carolina. No pronouns given.
What's more dangerous for atheists, Muslims enforcing Sharia law, or
Christian nationalists? So Mike, uh, Usually I just asked you
to explain something, but I want to set a little
bit of a context here in case we go down

(56:57):
a road that is going to be a big waste
of time. All right. Oh, As I mentioned earlier, I
am an attorney, and one of the things I bristle
at is when people make claims that Muslims are enforcing
suri are using the courts to enforce Sharia law in
the United States, that is not happening. There are contracts
that are entered into into private individuals, and in our country,

(57:18):
private individuals who enter into contracts can call accord in
to force the other party to perform their end of
the contract. That's one of the things that makes this
country really good to do business in is if you
make a promise with somebody, it's got the force a
law behind it. If in my contract, I can write
anything I want. I can say, hey, if we get
into dispute, we'll settle it by a flip of a coin.

(57:39):
If we get into a dispute, we're going to we're
going to settle it under Maryland law or Texas law,
or we're going to settle it under the laws dictated
that apply only when you're in space. I could do anything.
Some people in their community say, if we get into
a dispute, we will settle it according to Sharia law.
That's a valid contract. If we get into a dispute,

(58:00):
I come to court, the judge is going to say,
your contract says you have to settle this by Sharia law.
Now we have the legal question is what did you
intend in this particular circumstances. And the court will then
say you have to follow that. So I had to
go through that. The courts are not coming in and
saying abide by Sharia law, all of you citizens. It
is literally only contract disputes where the parties themselves said

(58:21):
Sharia law will apply. So that may not be what
you're talking about, but I wanted to bring that up
because I have seen this coming up again and again recently,
and it used to be big about five years ago,
Fox News was putting out a bunch of misinformation. So Mike,
that's right. So Mike, as what's before more dangerous for atheists,

(58:43):
Muslims enforcing Sharia law, or Christian nationalists? Can you please
explain what you mean by that and ask us that question?

Speaker 3 (58:50):
Yeah? Sure, No, that was interesting what you said. That's
That's not what I was talking about as far as
a personal contract, I'm int as a as a as
an atheist, you know, you're looking at Christian people, religious
people trying to force laws down your throat, and you're
very concerned about that. Probably should be your protection of
the constitution, right, I mean, Oh, I don't supposedly, Oh

(59:14):
I don't. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (59:16):
I don't have protection and a competition. I have protection
because there are people who agree with the constitution and
they have guns, and those people with the guns will
enforce a judge's decision that is following the Constitution. But
we have seen over the last I don't know one
hundred days or so, that that constitution is going away.

(59:36):
We have somebody in my own state. I am in Maryland.
There was a resident of my state who was thrown
out of this country and sent to an El Salvadorian
concentration camp without any due process, and the administration has
repeatedly said we're not going to lift a finger to
bring them back. If Ice shows up at my door
today and tells me we think that you are this

(59:58):
one ICE agent has a checklist. We think that you
satisfy at least eight points on this checklist, they are
going to lock me up and throw me out of
the country and then I won't be able to get
back in. So I'm going to take exception to say
that we have protections from the Constitution. We have Christian
nationalists who are taking over my government so that they
can deny due process to as Dave so wisely put it,

(01:00:22):
brown people.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
Or including white American born citizens right.

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
That wear glasses, or intelligent or professors at a school.
So I'd like to jump on premises early. So I
apologize for that tiny rant, but that is what my
whole opening statement is about. The Constitution is being perverted
by white Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court, especially Thomas Alito.
Kavanaugh is a hack. He follows whatever they want to do.

(01:00:51):
Gorsicic and Roberts are kind of middle but they're just
going along with it. So we have five white Christian
nationalists and four white Christian nationalists one African American Christian
nationalists who are doing away slowly but surely with the
protections that the Constitution used to afford. But that said,
please continue with your question.

Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
Okay, I mean that's important. How do you explain the
black Christian nationalists? But how did that happen? I thought
brown people were bad, and he's brown.

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
So I think, yeah, I think that you've probably heard
or seen all sorts of stories, either historical or fictional,
of people, no matter what their station. Let's call it
Margaret Fascher. Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain came from humble beginnings.
She was sort of not involved in politics, she was

(01:01:44):
not in the ruling elite. At some point she got
into power, and what did she do. She turned around
and told everybody that was in Parliament, quick lock the doors,
don't let those people that I came from get in here. Right,
That's what she did. You see that time and time again,
and that happens to anybody. So if we're talking about Thomas,

(01:02:06):
that is definitely what Thomas has done. He has used
his religious fervor and his resentment of whatever he resents
about the Constitution to lock the doors and say I
got mine Jack, None of y'all are getting yours. I'm
sitting pretty that's my answer to that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
Are you like one hundred percent on that confident or
is that just a guest.

Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
I've read a lot of his opinions. He is worse
than Renquist as far as pretending to have a method
to interpret the meaning of the Constitution but making it
up to do whatever the hell he wants to. And
the only explanation I have in response to your question
as to why this one person isn't white is what
I just gave you, that anybody can be corrupted by power,

(01:02:52):
either financial, political, or religious power. The man is documented
as having taken and tons of fiduciary benefits from people
who have been arguing cases in front of him, and
he hasn't recused himself. I don't think you want to
point to Thomas and start asking questions about his motivations.
So why don't we get back to the point Muslims

(01:03:14):
enforcing Sharia law versus Christian nationalists? What's your what's your question?

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
But I mean that was not reasonable. What you said
is if he disagrees with you, he is corrupt. I mean,
come on, you got no evidence what I said through
all the little things.

Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
Again, that's not what whoa, that's not what I said.
You can rewind it later, but let's go on.

Speaker 3 (01:03:31):
All right, Well, well big time agree to disagree that
that was not cool anyway. I'm looking at first Amendment.
Congress will make no long respecting the establishment of religion,
so you are protected from religions and I am protected
from religions. The reason it's in there, and disagree with me,
or maybe I hopefully you agree, is when this thing

(01:03:53):
was put together, our Constitution and the Amendments, they had
to stay church out in England, and nobody wanted that
here because churches get corrupt as fast as corporations.

Speaker 1 (01:04:02):
Lots of people wanted in here.

Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
I understanding.

Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
I think I'm agreeing with your point. But why do
you think my state is called Merryland.

Speaker 3 (01:04:09):
I don't know.

Speaker 9 (01:04:10):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
I had to attend Catholic church in Maryland or you
would be punished by law. But when it was a colony,
it's a Catholic colony. So there's this a little bit
of a myth. Let me say, I agree with your point. Generally,
there is a little bit of a myth that everybody
in the United States wanted separation at church and state.
If you read the literature and the motivations and the
personal testimony of people who were leaving, there is that.

(01:04:34):
But the reason they wanted separation at church and state
is they wanted to do their own puritanical, weird shit,
and the church was getting down on them in England,
so they wanted to come somewhere where they could do
their own thing, which oftentimes included discriminating against other religions.
So small, tiny point, but not everybody wanted this. This
was a point that, for example, it wasn't in the

(01:04:56):
original Constitution. It had to be an amendment, So so.

Speaker 2 (01:05:00):
Go ahead, doesn't matter. I mean, the history is great
to know, but the point is that it's being dismantled
now today we're seeing the erosion of the separation of
church and state. Now, Christian nationalists that are ignoring the
Constitution to put you right, they can use whatever rhetoric
they want, whatever justification they want. If they do what
they want to do and violate the Constitution, we just
all have to deal with it. And that's why My

(01:05:21):
answer to your question, even though we haven't really formulated
it properly yet in this interaction, is that I live
in America where Christian nationalists are trying to take away
my freedoms. I don't live in Iran. If I lived
in Iran, I would say the other one. But it's
just it's it's where where do you live? Who's in power? Right?
And Christians are in power here?

Speaker 1 (01:05:37):
So what do you think of that?

Speaker 3 (01:05:38):
Well, no, Christians, Christians are fading fast. This is a
post Christian society. But it's it is right, I agree.

Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
At the time.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
How how do you find fading pure numbers?

Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
I agree with you, but in the high places there?

Speaker 3 (01:05:53):
Yeah, I mean before it was the culture was, you know, Christian,
and now it's like the culture is, well, you're a
great apple. You're calling out people as Christian nationalists. I mean,
oh my gosh. And the next thing will be we'll
be under a hate speech where Christian nationalists are not
included or protected by hate speech. I mean, this is
the first define.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
Christian nationalist for me, Define Christian nationalists for me.

Speaker 3 (01:06:17):
I wish you would.

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
I asked you to define Christian nationalism. You're you're accusing
me of improv of fear mongering, of using this phrase
to improperly describe what's going on. What do you think
that Christian nationalism means.

Speaker 3 (01:06:33):
Well, I'll give you my take, and I'd love to
hear yours. Christian nationalists means you're a Christian, which I am.
Of course a lot of people say they are not
the real deal, but which is say Christian, you go
to Christian church. And then nationalist means you put your
United States first above a world government or UK or
anybody else.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
So I think I think the problem with your definition.
Let me let me let me jump in Christian nationalist.
You've got half of it right. It is a religious movement,
that is Christianity. It's a form of nationalism. But the
Christian nationalism is the focus of promoting Christian values so

(01:07:14):
that you can dominate in political, cultural, and social life.
That's what Christian nationalism. It's not saying Christian United statesism.
You can have Christian nationalism in Europe, you can have
Christian nationalism in Australia, you can have Christian nationalism in
the United States. So it's not saying my country's better

(01:07:35):
than everybody else. It's saying I want to use my nation.
I want to gain power and use the power of
my nation to promote my values within the nation.

Speaker 2 (01:07:47):
And implement them into federal law. That's the point that
we're talking about here, when you're using religious justifications for
teaching religion in public school science class or strip away
women's reproductive rights. Right, that's what we're talking about, using
religious ideas to to to affect federal law and take
away freedom from people. Right, that's what we're talking about.
And that's what we're seeing exactly. We're seeing limitation of

(01:08:09):
free speech. We're seeing people being deported and put into
concentration camps, and and the justification is always of this
particular flavor. So that's what they were the dangerous.

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
So what are your thoughts on that, Mike.

Speaker 3 (01:08:22):
I mean, I kind of agree with you, guys. I
don't want some national religion. I love the First Amendment.
It keeps religion out of government. I love that. But
here's the kicker. You're like, well, we can't have Christian
or any other religion in the government. But if there's
there's no way to have nothing, there's always going to
be moral decisions, Like if somebody killed somebody wire many

(01:08:44):
have the death penalty or not to have the death penalty.

Speaker 1 (01:08:46):
Okay, so let's define some terms here. This is right
up my alley. So I understand what you're saying. You're saying, hey,
you can't take religion out of state action because the
actors are human and the actors hold religious beliefs. I
agree with you totally there. That's not what it means
when we say the separation of religion and government. What
we mean is the laws that they pass cannot favor

(01:09:08):
one religion over another. It can't establish a religion as
being better. It cannot promote religious ideas as being taught
by the state. But of course, okay, this is the
best analogy you've heard. I'm sure lots of people screaming
that we need to get Jesus back in public schools.
They took the Bible out of schools. They didn't take
the Bible out of schools. Ever, you are allowed to

(01:09:30):
bring as many Bibles to school as you want. You're
allowed to read the Bible during your off time. You're
allowed to talk to your friends about Jesus loves them
and how you're going to go to hell if you
don't believe in him. You're allowed to do all of that.
What's not allowed to happen is a teacher can't get
on the loud speaker like they did in as late
as the nineteen sixties in Pennsylvania and tell all of

(01:09:50):
the students in the state funded school that the Bible
is true and read verses out of the Holy Book.
That is what the separation of church and state separate.
The government can't do that. So, yes, there are lots
of Christians, lots of Muslims, lots of Hindus, lots of
atheists that participate in government, and I'm fine with that.

(01:10:12):
We want a pluralistic society. If you listen to the
cold open of the show, I talked about Gentner Drummond,
the Attorney General of Oklahoma, who is about as far
away from me on the political spectrum as you could
probably get, and is also a Christian, and he's the
Attorney General of Oklahoma suing Oklahoma to prevent the state
from establishing a Christian school. I agree with him. I

(01:10:34):
don't think he's a bad person in that respect. So
I'm not sure what your point is here if you
think that it's just I'm arguing that people should not
use religion in their own personal decision on how to vote.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that when they vote,
they can't vote for a law that says we're going
to lock up all of the we're going to forbid

(01:10:55):
Muslims from immigrating to the United States, as was attempted
not five years ago.

Speaker 3 (01:11:01):
Okay, I think we have a lot in agreement. It's
just the kind of the fast and loose use of
Christian nationalists. You know, the Supreme Court justice doesn't agree
with you. They're Christian nationalists. That's kind of You've brought
this up.

Speaker 1 (01:11:15):
You've brought this up talk twice. I'm sorry you brought
it up, so I have to address it. I didn't
say he was a Christian nationalist because he didn't agree
with me. I said he was wrong, that he is
worse than Renquist as far as writing opinions that are
not based on the actual facts of the case. If
you go read Bremerton School District all right. Four years ago,
Bremerton School District did away with the Lemon test that

(01:11:38):
had been in place for decades, for like seventy years
in the United States. It was the test that the
Supreme Court used to establish whether or not any government
action was unnecessarily or unconstitutionally mingling government and state. Is
this violating the Establishment Clause? For seventy years we use

(01:11:59):
the Lemon test. And because Mitch McConnell did what he
did and played the games and we got the court
that he wanted, we've got justices who came in and
had been eroding that. And in Bremerton they did away
with Lemon because they didn't like it. They didn't want
there to be a separation at church and state. This
was the case where the football coach was praying Christian
prayers in the locker room and on the field with

(01:12:22):
his football team at a public school. And they said
that that was just fine, And why did they do that?
They said, well, he is he's just praying before and
after when he's not in a coach's role. It's not
in the center of the field. It's not a lot
of kids, it's over on the side, and it's private.
It's just him praying. This was so bad that Sodo Mayor,

(01:12:42):
Justice Soda Mayor did something I've never seen in a
Supreme Court opinion before. She included pictures in her opinion
multiple pictures showing fifty kids surrounding a kneeling coach in
the middle of the football team, and cited evidence from
trial statements trial that nobody disagreed with that this coach
would not only do this in the locker room to

(01:13:04):
his kids, he would do it on the field before
and after games. He would call the opposing team and say, Hey,
I'm going to do a Christian prayer. Come out onto
the field with me. That's what I'm talking about. So
please don't think that I'm some dope who doesn't know
what the fuck I'm doing here. I read these opinions,
I look at what's going on, and quite frankly, I
am stunned, and I would not be surprised if people Mike,

(01:13:26):
you are not an idiot. I can tell. I hope
this surprises you. I hope you realize that they lied
in that opinion. Go read Bremerton, Go look at the evidence.
They lied, And the reason they lied is because they
wanted to get where we're today. In the Oklahoma case,
they wanted to get rid of Lemon. So now when
you hear the oral arguments in Oklahoma, they don't talk

(01:13:49):
about the Lemon take case. They're talking about the three
cases that are applicable that happened since the Lemon case
went away in Bremerton. And there's acting like that has
always been the law. This is not and in the
sent mistake. This is not me misreading this. Just go
read the opinions. So please don't say I think that
uh Thomas is an idiot or a Christian nationalist because

(01:14:11):
I disagree with him. He's an idiot because he's an idiot. Sorry, Daves,
go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:14:15):
We're we're not inventing out of Finnair, this assault on
separation of church and state that Christian theocrats are actively
trying to achieve. This, that's what's happening. You need to
be aware of that and angry about it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:26):
Yeah, and I'll be your ally if you you're a
Christian that gets pissed off about about falsehoods being written
into Supreme Court opinions. Knowingly, there's no excuse. You're either
incompetent or you're a liar writing these majority opinions. I
think it was Kavanaugh who wrote it. You're you're you
should be pissed. As a Christian, you should not want this.

(01:14:47):
When when Texas passed a bill to introduce the Ten
Commandments into their school last legislative session. Give The first
person to protest was a Christian pastor who organized a
group of Christians against this sort of ship. So you
we don't have to disagree on this. People can just
be morons and still be in the Supreme Court. What

(01:15:07):
are your thoughts, Mike?

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
Sorry, yeah, corrupt? Yeah, that's interesting in sorry, go ahead, yeah,
but I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:15:16):
You disagree and then you said he was corrupt, but
then you backed it up, which I appreciate. This is
where I'm going with it is if that's bad, how
do you guys feel about real law stopping not for
real law? But Muslim is saying we're going to pray
five times a day, We're going to stop school. We're
going to do this, We're going.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
To do the thing in the didies didies.

Speaker 3 (01:15:36):
Well, I'm sorry, what did you just say?

Speaker 2 (01:15:37):
I said they can pray as much as they want
personal religious liberty, right, people can do it, can worship
as they wish. Yeah, what's the problem.

Speaker 1 (01:15:45):
Are you saying teachers are going to stop school? Is
that what you're saying, or are you talking about students
want to pray?

Speaker 3 (01:15:50):
Students are going to stop. The teachers may stop as well.
The teachers Muslim they'll stop if the students stopped five times.

Speaker 1 (01:15:57):
If that happens, right, there will be lawsuits for people
like Freedom from Religion Foundation, and ACLU will sue. Usually
it doesn't get to a lawsuit. Okay. So Freedom from
a Religion Foundation is backed by a lot of Christians,
mostly non Christians, but a lot of Christians contribute to them.
And they have lawyers on staff whose only job is
to take reports from the public of shit like that.

(01:16:20):
And the first thing they do is just write a letter.
We've heard this is going on. You should know. Here's
all the case law that applies. You need to stop
doing this. And I'd say eight towns out of ten,
nine times out of ten the behavior stops school. I
had somebody come to me on Reddit. I'm a minor
YouTuber and I was posting something on Reddit and they
they replied to me and said, hey, my kid just

(01:16:41):
came in and they said that the Good News Club
was in the cafeteria lunchtime handing out Christian literature. Pointed
them right over to Freedom from a Religion Foundation. They
wrote a letter that stopped immediately, that's what happens. So
as far as Muslim teachers forcing students to stop learning
and pray instead, that would be an immediate lawsuit.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
If it happened, and it's not happening, and it's not happening,
where is that happening?

Speaker 9 (01:17:07):
Dude?

Speaker 2 (01:17:08):
Come on, correct, well not yet.

Speaker 3 (01:17:10):
This takes this takes us across the pond to Britain
and such. Have you heard about what's been going on there?
As far as the Muslims praying public the Christians when
they do, they're they're getting jail time.

Speaker 2 (01:17:22):
We heard about that Christians getting going to jail for praying.
I don't believe you.

Speaker 3 (01:17:27):
I will cite site say so uhment boom.

Speaker 1 (01:17:33):
Do they have the First Amendment in Great Britain?

Speaker 3 (01:17:35):
I don't know. I mean they should. I think every
state should. Why isn't everybody copy arc you know we.

Speaker 1 (01:17:41):
Got France is pretty darn good France. France stays out
of religion and race to a fault. They stay out
of religion and race so much that they aren't even
allowed to collect data on what your race is, so
they can't track patterns, which is what has led to
all of the Muslim unrest because the Muslim community was
being shipped on and earning less and less and being

(01:18:01):
moved into slums, and the state didn't know about it
because they can't track it. That's sort of one end
of the spectrum of just staying out of religion and
race altogether. England doesn't have a first excuse me, First
Amendment protection for speech the way that we do. They
do have some protections, but if I go to England
and I am standing on the street and I call

(01:18:21):
somebody a severe racial slur, I can go to jail
for that. It's a different country. So I just want
to set the stage for that. That's not saying I
think that people should go to should or are going
to jail for praying. But usually when you hear a
story that says people are going to jail for praying,
there's more to the story, and it usually has something
to do with the laws of that country, much like

(01:18:44):
when you hear that courts are in the United States
are enforcing Sharia law and you dig into it and
you realize, oh, it's a contract dispute. So do you
have anything you like to wrap up with. We will
look into that, and if we see that people are
being locked up in Great Britain simply because they prayed.
I would object to that.

Speaker 3 (01:19:02):
Yeah, they were within X number of yards of an
abortion clinic. That was the key indicators. Okay, But also
you know, just saying anti anything, anti Muslim or even
pro England in front of a Muslim prayer thing out
in public. These are all in public and in Facebook posts.
They're really getting hammered out there. They get in jail time.
And I don't want to see that come to America.

(01:19:23):
And that's why I'm with you one hundred percent as
far as keeping religion out of our governments. So I've
check into it. That'd be interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:19:31):
Absolutely. What in my cold open when we talked about
Jefferson objecting to what's happening in Oklahoma now hiring using
tax money to hire Christian teachers to teach Christianity, he introduced,
actually reintroduced he wrote this bill. Ten years earlier. He
reintroduced a bill and the title of that bill was
a bill for establishing Religious Liberty. Everybody casts it as

(01:19:52):
anti religious, but separation of church and state, as the
founding fathers observed, it is religious liberty. I can't come
after you for being Christian I can't come after him
for being Muslim. They can't come after me for being
an atheist, So I think we're all on the same page.
I would encourage you anytime you get a story about
the legal system where people are getting locked up, read

(01:20:13):
the actual Go find the paperwork, Go find the court opinions,
go find the orders and read them. And don't trust
any one media source because oftentimes it will be incomplete
and misleading. On both sides of the spectrum. Liberals are
way way not portraying what's going on in the Supreme
Court accurately as well as the conservative So go to
original sources. Find somebody who's actually looking at that to

(01:20:34):
tell you what actually happened. Because nine times out of ten,
when somebody says I got arrested and locked in jail
because I took three seconds longer to give the cop
my driver's license, and then you actually see the video
and it was like, well, that was the initial problem,
and then you resisted arrest and ran and reached for
your pocket and a whole bunch of crazy shit. Not
that I love cops, but there's always more to the

(01:20:55):
story typically, and it gets reported by the news as
man arrested for not having a driver's license or something
like that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:02):
So and also be aware of rhetoric.

Speaker 1 (01:21:06):
Yes, good point, Dave. Do you want to stand on that, Dave?

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):
It's pretty self explanatory, right, Islamophobia is being used to
justify Western foreign policy, and they need us to It's
been for decades, right, since since uh you know, Persian Gulf,
and since nine to eleven in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously
what's happening in Gaza. It's just brown people are bad

(01:21:30):
and deserve what we do to them. That's that's the rhetoric. Yep,
all right, Christian, Actually, do you think I'm.

Speaker 1 (01:21:36):
A Christian Christian or not? And I don't know if
you're a Christian nationalist or not.

Speaker 2 (01:21:41):
It sounds like you're not. It sounds like you are
are for the separation of church and state. I think
that you're being slightly manipulated by whatever it is that
you're reading that is downplaying this threat of Christian theocracy.
So be aware of that.

Speaker 1 (01:21:59):
Yeah, okay, yeah, thank you gentlemen, absolutely, thank you very
much for your time. I appreciate it. I think your
observations are perfectly on point, Dave. I personally think that
everybody should recognize that a fundamentalist view of any given religion,
especially the Abrahamic religions, is very dangerous and quite friend

(01:22:20):
they all go out on a limb might not be
as popular. Islam has some of the biggest problems, as
we've evidenced by recent past fifty years of activity. However,
that is turned into a scapegoating as you described it
is just today, I think it's The New York Times
ran a story about Project twenty twenty five. You may

(01:22:43):
remember these people, These are what Christian nationalists that Trump
tried to disavow. That are now there's more. There's more.
They came a long story. Heritage Foundation came as a
result of Nixon not being conservative enough for them, and
so they created the Heritage Foundation, creates the Project twenty
twenty five. They are now all throughout the administration. They

(01:23:04):
are now today. The story is they are now exposing
plans to punish as severely as possible any pro Palestinian
sentiment that's expressed publicly.

Speaker 2 (01:23:17):
Correct.

Speaker 1 (01:23:18):
So that's what we're talking about when we talk about
Christian nationalists. But it doesn't even have to be out
in the open past by laws. It's just Hey, Heritage dooundation.
We got Trump, we got our guy in. Let's go
in to use the levers of government to go out
and scare the shit out of people and threaten them
with legal action that'll cost them tens, if not hundreds
of thousands of dollars to defend them and prove them

(01:23:39):
innoc in which they are to shut down descent.

Speaker 2 (01:23:41):
Yes, shutdown descent. That's the exact phrase that you should use.

Speaker 1 (01:23:45):
Yeah, exactly, Well, Dave, we have one or two more calls,
but I know it's we're getting towards the end time.
Do you have time for one more call or do
you need to head out? I know you're a business rning. Okay,
I want to end on a science one for you.
This is Steve he Him from Nebraska who says there's
a star that is slowing down from what appears to

(01:24:06):
be artificial forces. I don't know what the question is,
but I want to throw it over to Steve and
could you give us some more information about this star
and then ask us a question, do you in fact
mean star? Do you mean an asteroid or comment?

Speaker 6 (01:24:21):
Yeah, it's a pull sarsecond pull star and the lower
mask companion star. So Oh yeah, Dave and prehem thanks
Stereoing for this opportunity to discuss a recently published paper
titled the spider Stellar Engine, a fully steerable extraterrestrial design,

(01:24:42):
authored by astronomer doctor Clement Rydell, who claims that binary
star system PSR J sixteen forty one eighty forty nine,
which consists of a little second pul star a lower
mask companion stars deaccelerating, you do an artificially generated force
induced perhaps to a magnetically charged dison ring or magnetic cell,

(01:25:02):
around the orbital plane on the postar, whereby the polstar
stellar wind is being redirected in order to reduce the
irradiation of the polestar's companion star, resulting in the reduction
of this stellar system's propellant thrust hereabout, thereby throwing down
the travel lotsy of the star system on approach towards
another post encounter with another star system purpose for repunishing

(01:25:25):
the depleted energy resources of binary star system PSRJ sixteen
forty one dash eighty forty nine, and this stellar engine propelled.

Speaker 1 (01:25:36):
Steve take a breath. Steve, take a breath and put
the script down. Okay, you're obviously just reading off a
piece of paper. You've sett a lot, but big if
I grasp it, some somebody published some paper that says, hey,
this thing's slowing down, possibly well be being the operative
word here, possibly due to some sort of dison engine,

(01:26:00):
and possibly for some purpose. I want to see. We're
at the end of the show. We don't have a
lot of time for Dave. Here is that? Did I
summarize that correctly at a high level?

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
Right?

Speaker 6 (01:26:09):
Yeah, there's a start slowing down an open space.

Speaker 10 (01:26:12):
Well an objection.

Speaker 1 (01:26:13):
So let's let's say that that's true, that it's possibly
possibly not natural. What's your question?

Speaker 3 (01:26:19):
Okay?

Speaker 10 (01:26:20):
Well the start? Okay, So this, this driven in star
system that's being driven by aliens can move one thousand
miles per second. It's about fifteen thousand years the way,
meaning a few million years ago it could have been
by Earth workers.

Speaker 1 (01:26:33):
Starting to talk over me at this point, so Steve,
I asked you a question. I'll give you more chance.
What is your question? For Dave? That's what I'm asking.
Don't recite, don't read your script. What's your question?

Speaker 3 (01:26:45):
Okay?

Speaker 10 (01:26:45):
Okay, So what do you guys think about this evidence
that early human evolution could have been affected, and I
didn't get a chance to get to that point. But yeah,
so what do you guys think about human evolution that
could have been or it could have been impacted by
extraterrestrial Kardashian level two type alien civilization level.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
Two don or if we'd only been at Kardashian level
one so far?

Speaker 2 (01:27:09):
Oh my god, Kardashev Kardashev. Okay, all right, goodm Well
you just slathered on a big other layer right there.
I mean I would start, but I wanted to glance
at the paper. The problem is, I'm not an astrophysicist,
so I mean, it's it's I would want to know
where the paper is, what journal it's in, et cetera,
if it's reputable, because uh, the problem is that even

(01:27:31):
there are reputable astronomers, you know, Avi Lobe pushes some
pretty fringe stuff for cash. It's like, I don't I'm
not in a position where so what we're saying is
there's some anomalous motion of this binary system. Right, so
you start there, what's anomaloust about it? I'd need an
I'd need an astrophysicist to explain that to me, and uh,

(01:27:52):
and then you start looking at possible explanations. Right, So
I wouldn't one hundred percent rule out some kind of
a dice since fear something like that. What do I know?
You know, but I'd need I'd need to hear a
number of astrophysicists talk about it and be intrigued by
that possibility and say, this is very anomalous. I don't

(01:28:13):
have an explanation this, this dising thing does kind of
make sense. Here are the reasons why. So if I
heard a lot of people talking about it and giving
it some credence, then I would be more inclined to
take it seriously. But then the last part you threw
on there, uh, that star was not right here? And
then they did the aliens you know, made humans or

(01:28:36):
something or whatever you were trying.

Speaker 1 (01:28:37):
To affected human evolution general effect, Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:28:42):
There be aliens right there could be Like I'm not
going to be like, no, there's not aliens and over
in that star system. I don't know there could be Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:28:51):
Okay, Steve. I hope that answers your question. I appreciate
the call. We don't have time to go into it further.
My take on it is exactly what yours is I
just heard a lot of possibilies and maybe' we see
thing and somebody responsibly or irresponsibly includes a possibility in
a paper and we get calls like this. The question

(01:29:15):
is ostensibly what do you guys think? But the enthusiasm
I heard and the desire to just read this this
theory of wherever he's getting it speaks to a larger.

Speaker 2 (01:29:27):
Like psychological Yeah, this desire I want to believe. Yeah,
I want to believe in this whatever thing that makes
makes me excited or feel special or something or I
don't know what.

Speaker 1 (01:29:39):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Be a skeptic. Let's define skepticism
before we leave. Being a skeptic doesn't say you believe
that everything's not true. It just says I'm going to
apportion my belief to the evidence, and I'm going to
wait for evidence until I gets I'm going to wait
for to believe something until you present me with some evidence. So,
so far, assuming everything you said is true, we have

(01:30:00):
evidence of some something we can't explain right. Some some measurements,
Maybe the measurements were on maybe the device was defective.
Maybe there's a liar, Maybe the data was fudged. Maybe anomalist.

Speaker 2 (01:30:14):
Maybe it's a fake paper.

Speaker 1 (01:30:15):
Yeah, yeah, paper mill, I mean, yeah, exactly. Well, let's
see if we have any more in case they're talking
to you, I want to see if you have any
more super chats right here at the end. Uh, there's
a lot, all right, real quickly Parasol nine ninety nine.
Love y'all on some real talk, joyous weeping emoji times three,

(01:30:36):
Thank you very much, zorth moonpaw five dollars. Okay, we're
back into the services. Why come to services when you
can come from services? Deconstructive Zone four ninety nine. The
Bible is only convincing to people who haven't read it.
I think this speaks to what you and I were
talking about earlier. This is it, This is all you got.
You know, we read it and yeah, gums vibe ZR seventy.

(01:31:03):
I'm not familiar with that unit of currency zar. Nothing
can be destroyed in the objective world, not even a
dew drop of water. Is it the same about the
world of consciousness? That there is no death? It's an
interesting question. I don't know, because I don't think we
understand what consciousness is. I will observe that we've never

(01:31:26):
witnessed any consciousness without a brain, and every time we've
seen a brain destroyed, we don't observe any activity that
we normally would attribute to consciousness. I don't know what
your thoughts are there, Dave, the same, Okay, United, five
dollars Canadian. I invite all of you, especially Isaiah, to
come to services. All right, we're into this again. Miro
mal member for one year, five dollars, five bucks. So

(01:31:47):
I can tell anyone who hasn't check out Epic the
musical the Odyssey in a series of forty songs with
an amazing fan base of animators. All right, I think
you just bought them a five dollars commercial on a
mono p a phobiic phobic. They're actually somebody came up with, No,
that's not the right one, ten dollars any Yeah, they're

(01:32:07):
a fear of on amnopa. I guess the words that
describe sounds. Any opinions on the long term prognosis of humanity,
that's a great question to end on.

Speaker 2 (01:32:15):
Dave.

Speaker 1 (01:32:15):
You are you are like the veterinarian who's trying to
fix the cow and has their arm all the way
up the ass right where they're trying to help give
it birth or trying to whatever you're You've stuck your
your your gloved hand as far up into the cow's
ass as possible. What's going on inside the cow? Can
we fix the cow?

Speaker 2 (01:32:36):
I don't know. Man, You're talking to somebody who has
considered themselves an optimist for most of their life, and
I'm experiencing sort of a flip here. I'm flirting with pessimism.
I'm starting to feel like it's it's not it's not
going to work out. I just think that we as

(01:32:58):
a species are just so easy to manipulate. And I
look at the epistemological breakdown that's happening, and it's only
going to get worse with deep fakes and AI and
I just have dark thoughts, man. I just see what's
going on in our government. And it's not just our government.
Fascism is on the rise all over the world, and

(01:33:20):
all you need to do is get the certain type
of people in power, and then they can just use
deep fis and stuff like that to incriminate, falsely incriminate
anyone they want, put any dissenting individual in jail. And
there you have it. You have Palpatine and the empire,
and I just I really don't want, you know, I

(01:33:42):
want everybody to fight. I want everybody to kind of
make sure that doesn't happen. And it's not set in stone,
but it's headed that way, and I am at a
loss for figuring out how to steer it anywhere else.
And that's where I'm at.

Speaker 1 (01:33:54):
Yeah, I have those dark moments too. I five years,
ten years ago would have been you know, this is overreacting.
I would have been the pearl clutching, alarmist reactor of yours.

Speaker 2 (01:34:09):
I've flipped in the past five years. It's just really
gotten that bad that I just I don't I'm not
confident anymore about the future of humanity.

Speaker 4 (01:34:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:34:17):
I always see the possibility humanity described best by a
choice between the Star Trek Star Trek future and the
Blade Runner future. Right. Star Trek, We've got you know,
property is not a thing. Everybody's got information and access
to whatever they need, and it's a utopia.

Speaker 2 (01:34:35):
And Runner Galaxy.

Speaker 1 (01:34:37):
Yeah, we're expanding the galaxy and we're not fighting amongst ourselves.
And then in the Blade Runner future, it's the Corporation's one.
They all live up above the clouds and everybody's slumming
it in the acid rain gutters. That's correct, that's.

Speaker 2 (01:34:53):
At it right now towards the latter yep.

Speaker 1 (01:34:55):
All right, well, Dave, thank you so much for being here.
I'm a huge fan. I can't wait to see more
of your videos. You are you know what I'm going
to go out there. You are a leader in pushing
back against this tide. I do think that the way
to fight this. In fact, I am in the process
of writing a book. I don't know. The working title

(01:35:17):
is Constitution to a point zero, but I'm sure there's
a lot of constitutions out there, books about the Constitution
out there like that. My book is going to be
debunking all of the bullshit that we've seen going on
from a legal perspective and saying, hey, if we really
want to fix this stuff, we need to patch the
operating system of our country, and here are twenty or
whatever amendments that need to be passed. You are doing

(01:35:37):
the same in the science world. I have seen it work.
I have given your videos to my family members and
it has adjusted their views. You provide evidence, and you
do so so quickly and so substinctly. It's not pre
record like some of your stuff's pre recorded, but you
do this live. You do this like we did here
and there's you're on top of your game. People like

(01:36:00):
you are are if it's going to happen, it's going
to be people like you that band together and fight
for evidence and reality at a core minimum and they're
going to save the planet.

Speaker 2 (01:36:11):
Yeah, hopefully thousands more. I go to universities and uh
and recruit, you know, I give my little spiel of
why you should enter, so I coom and yeah, we
need a lot of people on this.

Speaker 1 (01:36:21):
So absolutely all right, Well we're going to wrap it up.
I really appreciate everybody that helps out and uh, for
me and for Dave, I want to thank you and
everybody go out and fight, but also take care of yourself.
So have a good day. See you next time.

Speaker 2 (01:36:37):
Thanks every glad.

Speaker 7 (01:36:43):
To start. Stop the bull there ready.

Speaker 2 (01:37:21):
Watch Talk ee Than live Sundays at one pm Central.
Visit tiny dot c c slash y t t Ah
and call into the show at five one two nine
nine one nine two four two.

Speaker 1 (01:37:31):
Connect to the show online at tiny dot c C
SLA Hal

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 29.20 with The Cross Examiner and Dave Farina @ProfessorDaveExplains 2025-05-18

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 29.20 with The Cross Examiner and Dave Farina @ProfessorDaveExplains 2025-05-18

Stuff You Should Know