The Atheist Experience 29.21 with Secular Rarity and Scott Dickie 2025-05-25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I literally randomly opened this Bible right here, right before
I hopped on behind the scenes to start this show,
and this is the page that I landed on. It's Ezekiel,
chapter eighteen, starting at verse five. If a man is
righteous and does what is lawful and right. If he
does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his

(00:22):
eyes to the idols of the House of Israel, does
not defile his neighbour's wife, or approach a woman during
her menstrual period, does not oppress anyone, but restores to
the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread
to the hungry, and covers the naked with a garment,
does not take advance or accrude interest, withholds his hand

(00:46):
from iniquity, executes true justice between contending parties, follows my statutes,
and is careful to observe my ordinances acting faithfully, such
a one is righteous. Now there's a lot there that
we could talk about, right, I mean, the not approaching

(01:08):
a woman during her minstrel period, right, the no accruede
interest or for some reason not eating on mountains. But
what I want to focus on right now is this
the biggest aspect of that list of how a righteous
man acts is according in large part to how he

(01:30):
treats others around him, not oppressing people, paying his debts,
not robbing those in his community, feeding the hungry, and
clothing the naked, a general sense of lifting up one's community,
not for fame or riches, but goodness for goodness sake.

(01:53):
So let me ask the Christians out there real quick,
do you think your behaviors and actions line.

Speaker 2 (01:59):
Up with us?

Speaker 1 (02:01):
What about those with big platforms who claim the name
of Jesus do their behaviors line up with this?

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Now?

Speaker 1 (02:11):
I think there's quite a lot of people out there
who don't, and I don't see a lot of Christians
doing anything about it. Normally, I'm on here and I'm
telling you that the Bible is wrong or that it's
silly or whatever. But today I'm going to take the
biblical stance and I'm calling out you Christians. Are you

(02:31):
actually following your Bible? Because I don't think so. Maybe
I'm completely off base, and you can embarrass me about
my misunderstanding of biblical knowledge. All you got to do
is call because the show's starting right now. Hey, everybody,

(02:54):
today is May twenty fifth, twenty twenty five. I'm your
whole secularity and joining me today is the one and
only the man himself, Scott Dickey.

Speaker 3 (03:02):
What's up. Hey, I'm doing great. I'm doing great on
It's my pleasure to be on with the ineffable secularity. Ineffable,
I think so.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm pretty sure that's right. That's that's that's the That
is the third nicest thing somebody has said to me
this week.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
My goal was to be in the top five. So
it's overshot a little bit.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Well, that's okay.

Speaker 3 (03:26):
Mostly he's mostly not effable, little effable.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
A little bit of affability out there, that's good. That's good.
How are we spelling affability right?

Speaker 4 (03:36):
There?

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Is that? Just like a apostrophe doesn't doesn't.

Speaker 3 (03:42):
Mean something very different, very different. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
So I I got in trouble the last time I
was on an AA show, just very recently, not not
this most recent episode of Truth Wanted, but the week
before that, I got in trouble. So I am going
to try my best to be very good and not
cross too many lines. But we we will see. And

(04:05):
by the way, I mean, I'm just throwing this out there.
You know, if you send in super chats, I we
might have to push those limits a little. I don't know.
I'm just saying I'm throwing it out there. And if
you want all the dirt on what I did to
get yelled at by the crew, you just got to
go watch those episodes there out.

Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yeah, pretty pretty amazing story. Pretty amazing story.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
It's a lot of fun. I cried a lot afterwards.
But the scars, the scars won't stay forever anyway. So
as not to get in complete trouble, I'm going to
tell you that the Atheist Experience is a product of
the Atheist Community of Austin, a five to one c
three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking,
secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government. All

(04:49):
very cool things, in my opinion, things that everybody should
be proud to support if you are a lover of
people and democracy and other good things. I was I
was going to list some more things, but then I
was like, no, I probably can't say all of that.
I don't want to get in trouble anyway. We do
have calls, and we've got some we got some wonderful

(05:11):
people already on the lines, but we need some more.
We want you to call in, so for just a moment,
I want to I want to talk with you, Scott.
I want to see what you think on on this,
on this thought here that I've laid out that you know,
there there's a lot of places in the Bible that
says a lot of really stupid stuff, in my opinion,
a lot of bad and gross stuff. But there's there's

(05:34):
there's some stuff like that too. And it seems to
me that there are many believers out there that claim
that they know the Bible, that they follow the Bible,
and that every part of it is God's inerrant word.
So I guess what I'm wondering is how do we

(05:54):
square that when we see all these actions that are
counter to that.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Yeah, I don't know if it's squareable. I mean, I
think they're clearly I mean, if we're setting this up
as like a reductio ad absurdum, there's definitely some conflict
going there. So it means one of those assumptions that
you were just talking about has to be wrong. Either
they don't believe what they're talking about, either they don't
know what they're talking about, or whatever. The third one

(06:19):
was the yeah, yeah, right, yeah, or that, Yeah, So
I mean something's got to give there or logic. I
suppose logic goes out the window, and I guess that
could be the fourth option. Yeah, it just doesn't you know,
as far as squaring it, it's that's just an exercise
in futility, I think, and frustration on the part of

(06:42):
many people who actually try to do that. There. I've
seen religious people try to reconcile that, and I've seen
non religious people pointed out that you know that it's
that it's not being reconciled. And so what I would
love to see is I would love to say, and this,
this would would lend a lot to the thought that

(07:05):
that that the religious belief or the religious perspective is correct.
Is if they would start calling each other out, That's
what I would love to see. I would love to see,
you know, the biblical literalists calling out the people who
are who are not following through with what they're saying
they believe in m It's one thing for us to

(07:26):
point that out, but it's something different for somebody who
also is a believer to point that out as well.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
See, I I think so too, And I think this
is a valuable, a valuable space for us in the atheist,
non religious, secular humanists, you know, all of those different
kinds of kinds of stripes. We we're all kind of
going in the same direction. And I think we need
to align ourselves more with those believers that are willing

(07:57):
to behave and engage in society a lot more the
way Ezekiel is describing here right now. Again, obviously there's
some weird stuff in there that we got it right
that I think if the belief if the believing Christian
right is going to be engaging with like ninety percent

(08:18):
of those things in that list, they're probably innately going
to be one of those people that's like, hey, I'm
not I'm not down with this whole like just like
baked in misogyny stuff, you know, like I'm not the
whole like women on their period treat you know, putting
them in a tense stuff that's that's nonsensical, you know,
that's I see that shaking out like that. So I

(08:41):
think those people are on our team. I think those
people are on our side right now. And we need
more Christians standing up and saying what happened to the
Verse about rendering onto Caesar. What is Caesar's I mean,
that's separation of religion and government, baby, I mean, hell yeah,

(09:01):
read your damn Bible and follow it right, you know.
I think that is something that we we haven't done
a fantastic job of in the past. But here's the
good news, right, Because this is a call in show.
I'm sure there are some atheists out there that are like, wow,
s are You're a dip shit? And I think we're

(09:23):
far enough into the show that I can cuss now.
So if you think I'm a.

Speaker 3 (09:27):
Dipshit trying to behave today, I mean we're You're already
going off.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
The rails here, so you're trying to But I have
no idea whether or not I'm gonna make it happen
before we grab this call because we've got Hannah, we
are gonna come to you. We're gonna we're gonna hear
about materialism and physicalism. But I'm just gonna say, hey, guys, look,
take five seconds and like the video real quick, because

(09:53):
I want to be able after this video when the
crew is upset with me and they're yelling at me
and they're like saying, seriously, man, we might not invite
you back like this isn't a joke. Please stop laughing
at us like you have. You have made so much
more work for us. It's always a hassle. Like I
want to at least be able to point to this
video and be like, yeah, well look at all the
likes we got, you know, like, come on, all these

(10:14):
people sended so like, do that for me, you know,
you do it for That's right. We saved Ferris and
now we need to save SR exactly. So like the video,
subscribe to the channel, get those notification on, and comment
below and say things like uh, save SR, or don't

(10:35):
don't yell at him too much? Or oh my god,
why why do you keep bringing him back? Any any
of those are acceptable, honestly. But we we have a
bunch of really good calls and a bunch of other
cool things to mention too. But we're gonna go to
the calls first, and we are going to go out
to Mississippi. We are talking with Hannah. She her pronouns
is a theist and you want to talk about materialism

(10:57):
and physicalism. Well I'm all for it, Hannah. You are
on the atheist experience and what you got for.

Speaker 5 (11:03):
Us, So basically I would like to argue against materialism
and physicalism. Correct me if I'm mistaken, But my understanding
is that you're you two hold to the position of
materialism and physicalism metaphysically, so partly if that's the.

Speaker 1 (11:20):
Second, I would say materialism probably, yeah, methodological materialism for sure.
I'm not in the boat of saying that, like just
we we know for sure that there's nothing out that
there's nothing out there that's non material, but it does
seem to be the best way to operate so far.

(11:42):
Physicalism and materialism are a little bit different, and I
I would not necessarily call myself a physicalist. Uh, but
there we don't need to go through all those nuances
because I think we can probably have a good discussion
with that. But does that Does that help, Hannah?

Speaker 6 (12:00):
That makes sense.

Speaker 5 (12:01):
I was just curious if if you would if you
did subscribe, But of course I asked when you when
you're subscribe to it, I'm not asking if you believe
it's one hundred percent like yeah, just like if you're.

Speaker 3 (12:10):
Saying right, But that's a that's an important distinction to
make though, before we continue the conversation. And I'm kind
of in the same boat as uh, s R. You
know I I I prefer to call myself a practical materialist,
right I. I we practice as a matter of practice,
we can we can identify material things and have not,
to my knowledge been able to identify or or justify

(12:34):
belief in not in the non material in the in
the way that you I that I think you're suggesting.
And so so I think it's pretty much the same,
the same as what SR was saying.

Speaker 5 (12:47):
Okay, So the first line of criticism that I believe
makes materialism, even that's theological materialism, untenable, is what David
Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness. So are you
familiar with the distinction he makes between the hard problem
and soft problem of consciousness?

Speaker 1 (13:07):
I think so. But if you'd like to give us
a quick rap, I mean, that'd be great for all
our viewers.

Speaker 7 (13:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (13:12):
So basically the quick rap, as I understand his position
and I think it makes sense, is that there's a
difference between you can say, the soft problem of consciousness,
which is basically certain like functional interactions between the brave
the brain, and what he calls the heart phonem of consciousness,
which is the essential difference between what's what's considered you know,

(13:36):
qualitya which is essentially the experience or subjectivity of experience
versus a physical object. Right, There's something about the experience
of redness that is not reducible to say, looking at
like a piece of like a physical molecule, or like

(13:58):
a quark or a lepton. Right, So there's basically that's
what quality, intentionality and aboutness and consciousness. And so I
would argue that means that materialism, which as ionisen, denies
the existence of consciousness as an immaterial thing, untenacled.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
As a material Yeah, okay, So my question would be why.

Speaker 5 (14:21):
Well, because materialist, Because if consciousness doesn't exist, then I
don't believe you can account for the aboutness of consciousness
and quolia.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
Cool. I'm glad that you don't believe that. My question is, though,
how how is that something that undermines materialism? What it
sounds to me like you're saying, and please just correct
me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like
what you're saying is that this system materialism seemingly has

(14:53):
this little hole in it and therefore all of it
is bs. And that may be the case very much, right,
But you just have to make that connection. Just because
materialism currently does not explain to the full degree what
consciousness is does not mean that the entire system is flawed.

(15:13):
It may, but you just got to demonstrate that for us.
So how does that undermine all of materialism because we
don't have an answer for what consciousness is right now.
I think we do have good answers, by the way,
but I'm willing to grant the hard problem of consciousness.
I've heard some cool people talking, some people even talking

(15:34):
with mister Chalmers himself, that the hard problem of consciousness
isn't actually real. But we don't have to even go
that route today. So what about the hard problem of
consciousness not being solved undermines all of materialism?

Speaker 5 (15:50):
Well, because if materialism posits there's no such thing as consciousness, oh.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
I wouldn't say that it does that. So hang on,
hang on, hang on, hanging on. I think there's an
assumption that you not bringing to the forefront. And it's okay,
because we all do this right. But I think you're
assuming to begin with that consciousness is immaterial, and that's
the problem. If you're already starting with the presupposition that
consciousness is immaterial, then then clearly there would be a

(16:18):
problem with that. That would be the way that it
undermines that's the connection, right. So what you would say
is you'd say, hey, sr, we know that consciousness is immaterial,
and because materialism does not have the ability to count
to account for immaterial things, and we know consciousness is
a thing and it's immaterial, boom, materialism falsified. But the

(16:40):
problem is that you then have to take the stance
that consciousness is immaterial.

Speaker 3 (16:45):
Let me add something into that too, Hannah. Before you
respond to that, would you say, if we set aside
the question of consciousness for a second, if instead I
asked you something along the lines of do you think
that the existence of running do you think that would
disprove materialism? Because running, i think we can agree, is

(17:07):
not a material thing, although it is an activity or
a characteristic or however you want to describe it, all
of material the idea of you know, you move your
legs in a certain in a certain way for a
certain amount of time, for a certain speed. That's running, okay,
And so would you say that the existence of running

(17:29):
discredits materialism in that same way as you're talking about consciousness.

Speaker 5 (17:35):
Well, so that that's what. I believe that question would
depend on what type of materialism are talking about. I
would believe if materialism as defined as a non physicalist materialism,
it would running would disprove not like reductive reductive materialism,
I should say, because running involves energy, which is not

(17:55):
the same as matter. To my understanding, many physicists would
say energy matter are distinct properties. And so yes, running
with this qualified materialism, but not just qualify physicalism.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
But I don't think there's any materialists here that will
disagree with the existence of energy.

Speaker 1 (18:13):
Yeah, and I and I would I would push back
a little bit and just say that the relation of
energy becoming matter and matter becoming energy, like we're we're
we have a decent understanding of that shit happening, you know,
like explosions occur, right, so like some of that matter

(18:33):
turns into sound, some of it turns into the light.
So I mean, but but again, let's let's let's reframe
a little bit, and let's let's go back to consciousness.
Do you take the stance that consciousness is immaterial, because
I think that's a really interesting thing for us to

(18:54):
kind of pick out a little bit more.

Speaker 5 (18:58):
Well, yes, And the reason is the reasoning of the
heart trumb of consciousness. That an essential difference between how
the subjective experience of phenomena and something that can be
quantified objectively in like a physical space. It's a poor sense,
like say, like an atom, for example. You can see

(19:22):
an atom directly, but you can't see consciousness.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
I don't know if you I don't know if you
cut out there for a second, still with us, Hannah. No, No,
it's okay, it's okay, it's good. I think, No, you're good.
I think I'm I think I'm following along with you.
But I want to know if you remember saying this.
You said, if Hannah, do you remember that when you
when you started describing all of this, you said, if

(19:50):
consciousness is immaterial, And I'm with you, Hannah, if consciousness
is shown to be immaterial, then a lot of these
things you're talking about may actually prove to be true.
But what if it isn't? And the big question is
is it currently proven to be such? And I think
there is a growing, growing consensus in many of the

(20:14):
fields of expertise that would be able to understand and
parse this data. For us, I think there is a
growing consensus that no it is not immaterial, that it
is a sliding scale, that life seems to have varying
degrees of consciousness based on almost exclusively based on the

(20:37):
physical makeup of a neural system. Now, I think that
makes a lot of sense. I think that makes great, great,
great fucking sense. But I could be an idiot. I
sure could be. But what do you think about that?

Speaker 5 (20:53):
Well, so I would just say that I don't remember
putting the qualifier if although I did, I'm sure sure
I did. If I just I.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Just rewatch, I could be wrong. I'll rewatch too, Yeah,
I just rewatch. But yeah, but.

Speaker 5 (21:06):
Yeah, if I said if, yeah, I think I may
have misphrased my point. I think I think it's clear
consciousness has to be immaterial. But the reason is is
because I don't believe you can look at quality through
a test tube, like I don't logically, I don't see
how you could falsify what it means to see brightness
through it.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
And that's fair like and I and I I understand that,
but real quick, I'll just I just want to say, like,
it's not to say that you're wrong, Hannah, it's just
to say that's not actually an argument against the thing
I'm saying, like if somebody comes up to me and
says I have a bunny rabbit, and I go, yeah,
I just can't see how anybody could own a bunny.

(21:47):
They take so much effort, they poop everywhere, the they
have big fluffy ears. I just can't understand how you
could do that. That isn't a response to them saying
I own a bunny rabbit, just like me saying, hey,
like what if that isn't the case? You going, I
just can't really see how you could do that. That
that doesn't actually give us reason to accept your claim?

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Or did you misstate your your response? Did you mean
to say I just don't see.

Speaker 7 (22:20):
Sorry, what was that?

Speaker 3 (22:21):
I apologize if I'm interrupting. Did you mean to say,
because you started out that last little bit by saying
I don't see how it was that a misstatement? Or
did you mean that part?

Speaker 5 (22:34):
I meant that part. But the reason is is because
I think you'd need to be provided like an example
of a falsifiable experiment, and I think falsifiability is an
important criterion in science. A falsifiable experiment for how quality
emerges from physical processes such that it can be fully
reduced to physical problems?

Speaker 1 (22:55):
Do you catch any problem, Scott?

Speaker 3 (22:57):
Yeah, I caught apron think you think?

Speaker 1 (22:59):
Okay, I'm an I'm gonna let Scott go for a second, Hannah,
because I caught something there too that I want I
grab it. Go ahead, go ahead, Scot.

Speaker 3 (23:05):
It was very subtle. It was very subtle. If you're
not paying attention, you might miss it. Did you detect
a shifting of the burden of proof there that you need?

Speaker 6 (23:13):
You?

Speaker 3 (23:13):
Basically, what you're saying is we need to provide a
counter example otherwise you're going to accept that. You know
what you're saying is true? Is that what you meant
to say?

Speaker 1 (23:24):
Or are we That was what I caught? That was
exactly what I caught.

Speaker 3 (23:27):
All right? Yeah, that worries me that we're on the
same vibe here, the same wavelength, But you know, we'll
press on.

Speaker 1 (23:35):
What do you think? What do you think about that? Hannah?

Speaker 5 (23:38):
So so you Kurtner alone, did you just say that
me asking for how consciousness would emerge in a falsifiable
experiment is shifting the burden of proof?

Speaker 3 (23:52):
No, what I was saying is that we were asking
you why, why does that show that consciousness can't be
or why why would it show that it has to
be immaterial and your and your response was well you
have Tom dot dot dot okay, And that to me
that doesn't seem like a very above board way of

(24:15):
form of showing your point. Your your point shouldn't depend
on what s R. And Scott can or can't do
or say.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
Right right if if if what he's real quick, real quick,
and I'll shut up, I swear, If what you're saying
is demonstrably true, then the answer is to demonstrate it,
not to say, hey, guys, why don't you try and
knock down my tower? If your tower can withstand the

(24:44):
strongest of forces, all you have to do is grab
a sledge and start hitting it. You don't need us
to do anything, and in fact, asking us to do
something games the system. Right. This is the whole point
with James Randy bringing in the magicians to fool the scientists.

(25:07):
The scientists were under strict, strict instructions never to let
the magicians touch the machines, and every single one of
them did not follow that, and the moment the magician
touched the machine, they were able to manipulate it in
a way that when The scientists turned back around to
them and said, hey, why don't you show us that

(25:30):
you can levitate things. The magician said, well, why don't
you prove that I can't. That is not the way
to truth, right, I'll shut up now, Hannah. I know
I shouted a lot, but I'm gonna give you. I'm
gonna give you some time, So go ahead.

Speaker 5 (25:46):
I believe that's a mistaken analogy in this case towards
the consciousness being and material And the reason is is
because so as I understand materialism in a philosophical sense.
So there's two distinctions here. You can make metaphysical materialism,
which says everything is matter, and that's the logical materialism,
which has everything like something was thinking. But I Lenison,

(26:07):
mythological matriism says everything which you observed has to be
appear in a in a material way to sense.

Speaker 1 (26:14):
Correct, So in correct, I would I would I would
say that that is not the proper way to understand
methodological materialism. Okay, so what I would say is a
better and I could be I could absolutely be completely
wrong on this, Hannah. Okay, please check me, double check me,
triple check me. Ask a thousand other people, right, But

(26:37):
the way that I think about it is more so
in the sense of currently all of the different camps
out there that are attempting to move towards truth, we
can agree on this one thing, and that is material
stuff is here. We may not be sure how it
got here. It may not be the only thing, but

(27:00):
we don't get to bring in anything else until it
can adhere to the same provability and falsifiability that we
have with the one thing we are all standing on
agreeing upon, which is material stuff? Is that Is that fair?
Is that a fair understanding?

Speaker 2 (27:23):
It might be.

Speaker 5 (27:24):
I don't I haven't speaken to many. Most most people
who I hear call themselves materials identify who I've heard
identif as what you can consider ontological materialists. Do they commits?
They'll say, be it that only matter is real?

Speaker 4 (27:35):
So I don't know.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
I've heard a lot. I've heard a lot of ontological
materialists too, not saying they're not real, not saying they're
not valid, none of that stuff. But let's just not
worry about anybody else. Just you and me, Hannah. You says,
are are you a materialist? And I go, kind of,
I'm this methodological materialism and this is what I mean

(27:58):
by that? How do you feel about that? And do
you think that's a fair way for us to navigate
the world.

Speaker 3 (28:05):
And I would also throw in that if you want
to show that materialism is not the case, then you
would need to be able to address multiple you know,
all the different forms of materialism, including what SR was
just describing.

Speaker 5 (28:22):
Okay, are you finished?

Speaker 4 (28:25):
Yep?

Speaker 6 (28:25):
Yes, Okay.

Speaker 5 (28:27):
So what I would respond to that is, first I
would disagree with the premise that everyone agrees that matter
like exists, Like there are people, this is a pretestmall
minority of population, but they do exist who are like
completely dealists, right like in a metaphysical sense. For example,
the philosopher and cognizance Donald Hoffman says that physical like

(28:49):
matter is an illusion, that everything is like observer dependent
on consciousness.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
I am not positive. I believe I have Donald Hoffman's
book just in the other room, and I've only gotten
through a decent portion of it. I don't think if
you asked Donald Hoffman if he thinks matter is not real,
I highly highly doubt he would say, no, matter does
not exist. I think he would couch that in a

(29:16):
lot of deep explanation about what's going on with our
rods and cones in our eyes and the wiring in
our brains. But I think if you ask the man
point blank our coffee cup's real, he's gonna say, yeah.
I don't think he disagrees that matter is real. I
could be mistaken. I sure could be, But like I said,

(29:38):
I've only gotten through half of that book, but I'm
pretty sure he disagree that. I do not think there
is an idealist that says all matter is actually nonexistent
and it is just thoughts. I don't think that. But
I could be wrong.

Speaker 5 (29:57):
So well, okay, I thought, I mean, I thought he'd
believed that matters observer dependent.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
So I could be wrong.

Speaker 5 (30:04):
It has to look more.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
I haven't completed it.

Speaker 1 (30:07):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I love the huge I love
the humility from from all sides, Hannah. I think that's
always one thing. You know, if any of us are
wrong and anybody can tell us, please call in, tell us,
post comments, all that good stuff. But any who, I'm sorry.
We've gotten a little, we've gotten a little derailed, and
that's partly my fault. But yeah, I let's let's go

(30:28):
forward with the understanding of methodological materialism that I presented,
and let's let's talk about consciousness through that lens.

Speaker 3 (30:36):
Is that is that fair?

Speaker 2 (30:37):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (30:38):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (30:39):
But anyway, so response here, but we described as well
you considered do methological materialism. I would say the flaw
in that beyond the question of was not there are
some people who denied this matter, is that even if
everyone accepted the existence of matter, I think you can
also make a case for the inclusion of like non
material ways of you could say no wing or understanding

(31:04):
what using very arguments? So what give?

Speaker 1 (31:09):
So?

Speaker 5 (31:10):
So I well, then let me because there's multiple, multiple
things that I can say, give one.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
Just just start just start, Hang on, Hannah, just start
with one, and let's investigate that together for a second
and then we'll we'll we'll grab another one if we
have time. But let's just start with with one. What
what is one non material way that you think materials
have to accept? Uh, in terms of coming to knowledge
or something?

Speaker 5 (31:37):
Numbers the existence of abstract numbers.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
Okay, numbers are a description of the universe around us.
So they do have a physical material component that is
necessary for them to exist if nothing exists in the world,
if all material doesn't exist, we don't have numbers.

Speaker 8 (31:54):
Is that fair?

Speaker 1 (31:58):
Well, that might be the numbers just describe.

Speaker 5 (32:02):
That's not necessarily true. So so could I just provide
the arguments for numbers being immaterial?

Speaker 1 (32:07):
And okay, so I don't.

Speaker 5 (32:10):
So I haven't completed the paper myself, but I have
read parts of it. But I was reading about what's
considered the Quine Putnam It's called the indispensibility argument for mathematics.
But basically, in this the logicians Willivreen oman Quin and
Hillary Putnam argue that when analyzing the laws of physics,

(32:30):
non material or non physical abstract object of numbers have
to be assumed methodologically because our best steers in physics
rely on the existence of consistent mathematical formulas which are
not themselves reducible to independent physical observation.

Speaker 1 (32:48):
I'm gonna I'm gonna let Scott take over. He's actually
more trained in mathematics than myself, but I do. I
will just say numbers are based on the laws of logic,
and the laws of logic or a description of the
physical universe around us. Numbers don't exist unless we have identity.
Go ahead, Scott tell us about numbers and that well, I.

Speaker 3 (33:08):
Would say that you know what you were talking about there?
Can you repeat that last little bit?

Speaker 5 (33:18):
Was that so you worked up for a second.

Speaker 3 (33:20):
I'm sorry I asked you because I don't want to
misquote you. Could you just say what you said about
why numbers need to exist as separately?

Speaker 2 (33:29):
Right?

Speaker 1 (33:29):
What was the reasoning for for the go through the
Hillary Cline Hillary Quine paper again, I'm sorry?

Speaker 5 (33:36):
So as iis in the Putnam Klin paper is that
it's said that when you're looking at our best models
in physics, including like im saying, quant mechanics and like
otherly classically, I think Newtonian physics is in this too
as well, that they rely on consistent mathematical formulas, which

(33:57):
has to be assumed when analyzing.

Speaker 4 (34:00):
The laws of physics.

Speaker 5 (34:02):
So you can't look at a law of physics without
assuming like certain mathematical formulae about like, especially like in geometry.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
So if we notice a consistent relationship between two quantities,
for example, the mass of an object on Earth and
its weight on Earth. If we notice a consistent relationship
between those two quantities, does that then imply that this
relationship must exist as a thing like I mean, I mean,

(34:36):
i'd question what you mean by exist there, I mean
if we as SR has already said, and I would
agree with them, that our concept of number is based
off of description, it's based off and therefore is in
fact grounded on material. You know, we can talk, we
can speak abstractly, but when when it comes to when

(34:58):
we put the rubber to the road, it's a description
of things in the universe. And when we talk about
mathematical relationships, we talk about mathematical formulas, et cetera, theorems
and so on. We're talking about relationships between those quantities.
And I don't think that or are you saying that
the idea that physical material can have relationships? Do you

(35:22):
think that the existence of those relationships is that's what
you're is that what you're calling is immaterial, because to me,
that's just a description of the material.

Speaker 6 (35:31):
Right.

Speaker 5 (35:34):
Well, I think my positions a little bit nuanced from this,
I would say, even so, I'm agnostic as to whether
or not how certain the existence of abstract entities like
numbers are. But I do believe that abstract entities numbers
should be assumed as immaterial because of the seeming uniformity

(35:54):
of them throughout the physical universe. Because even if you
can say they're ultimately derived from observation, that doesn't mean
they're reducible to physical observation.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
So there's this, man, I mean, I'm sorry, I'm sorry,
I kind of cut it in there. No, no, no,
I cut you off if if you still remember finished
finish or thought so.

Speaker 5 (36:13):
Yeah, So basically, yeah, I would just argue that that
you can. You can say numbers are ultimately reducible to
observation of the laws of physics, but because they proved
so consistently droughout the laws of physics, you can't reduce
them to an individual law like they have to be
assumed as abstract universal I don't want to say a priori,
but you can even argue a priori. But then we

(36:34):
have to get the content some of the things.

Speaker 1 (36:35):
And that's like a whole sure. Yeah, yeah, and I
and I I'm gonna I'm gonna maybe take us down
a route that that uh is a bit of a tangent,
but you know that I I can fucking do that.

Speaker 6 (36:46):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (36:46):
So That's what I'm gonna do. Hannah, let me let
me ask something because this this might help us, I mean,
it might not, But do you think like material and
not material is like a true dichotomy.

Speaker 6 (37:01):
Are you with me on that?

Speaker 1 (37:02):
I feel like that's probably right, Like it either is
material or it is not material. Do you feel good?

Speaker 4 (37:10):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (37:10):
Well, okay, me too, cool, So let's go ahead.

Speaker 5 (37:13):
But I'd say it's little bit more known than that
because I don't so I would agree that material and
non material is a true economy. But one of the problems,
another problem with materialism is that what is the fine
of material? It changes, So, for example, the classic definition
of material that the ancient atomist and like ancient Greece,
the original materialist was like, is different from modern day

(37:36):
like quantum.

Speaker 1 (37:37):
Yeah, yeah, totally fine, I'm gonna go I'm gonna go there.
And just second, Hannah, I love where your mind's going though,
because we're we're all three of us might be on
the same wavelength right now, which may spell chaos and
anarchy for the rest of the world. So be watching
out and send super chatz because it might be your
only time to But no, Hannah, here's what I'm thinking.
If we accept that material and not material is a

(38:00):
true dichotomy, I think the next step there is for
us to recognize that there is non overlapping criteria for
those two categories. There may be some shit that overlaps,
but there must be something about the material category that
is starkly in contrast to the not material category. I

(38:22):
think if we sit down and we put some criteria
in the material category, one of the things we're going
to come up with is the laws of logic, right, identity,
non excluded middle, non contradiction, all that good shit, right,
fun stuff. What do you think fits in that box
for not material? Can you give me any characteristics whatsoever?

Speaker 5 (38:44):
So I would say non material things are things which
explain phenomena which are not reducible to empirical observation.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
And so they have identity, non contradiction and non excluded middle.
Is what it sounds like to me. All of those
things would have identity. Correct.

Speaker 5 (39:07):
Are you asking me if I believe those are material
or non material?

Speaker 2 (39:10):
No?

Speaker 1 (39:10):
No, it's no, it's no, no, no, no, no different question.
Say the thing you just said again, what's the criteria
for non material? And then just stop? What is that criteria?

Speaker 2 (39:20):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (39:20):
The criterion for non material is something which is which
exists in phenomena but does not is not reducible strictly
to empirical observation.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
Awesome, awesome, So it must be itself and not not itself. Correct,
It cannot be anything else but itself. It has to
have identity, right, Yeah, everything has to Okay, So then
we've got this dichotomy here that currently does not have

(39:56):
any non overlapping criteria, so we have to go to
something else. So the next thing we would go to
is the non excluded middle, right, or or the non contradiction,
and then the non excluded middle. And I think, just
for brevity's sake, we're gonna find that all of the
same criteria sits on both sides of this dichotomy. And

(40:17):
I think what you're gonna find is that that can't
be the case. Non material stuff cannot adhere to the
same criteria as material stuff. And if at the end
of the day, all of the non material criteria is
exactly the same as the material criteria, it kind of

(40:37):
seems like maybe there's not really this dichotomy that we're
talking about, and maybe everything is answerable, answerable by the
thing we all agree on, which is material. That's what
I think we'll find. And I think if you continue
to list out the criteria for non material stuff. You're
gonna find out very quickly that that is not It

(41:00):
is not a way that leads you to a place
of saying non material stuff is real. But we've been
going for like thirty minutes already, Hannah, And I know
that's kind of shitty that I'm just going to like
end real abruptly after saying that. But I am going
to be kind of shitty. I'm terribly sorry.

Speaker 3 (41:13):
But can I just give Hannah some food for thought
before we absolutely, Hannah, I was listening to you, to
your description there, and I would I just want to
give you this question to chew on in case you
want to call us again some other time. Do you
think that the laws of mathematics are prescriptive or descriptive?

(41:34):
And you don't need to answer that right now, but
I think the way that I would address what you
were saying about materialism and the idea that numbers have
to be exist as as ideal objects could be related
to that question. So I don't want to you know,
that's kind of a whole other can of worms that
we don't necessarily need to get into now, But just
give you something to think about, and then you can

(41:56):
call back another time. Yeah, thank you.

Speaker 1 (41:58):
I think you've called in a few times, Hannah, and
I think I've been enjoying them more and more, so
thank you so much. We're gonna let you go very
abruptly again. I know maybe I could be accused of
being shitty, but I'll just take it and whatever, because
we have super chests to read. I'm gonna read this
one first from Jonathan France for a dollar ninety nine.

(42:19):
Cubes upon you, cubes upon your spirit, cubes upon your cow,
all of it. Thank you so much, Jonathan. I appreciate
that we have ten dollars from Miranda Rinzberger, who's been
a member for one year, saying how many superchats needed
to get SR to regrow the mustache. And if you
don't know what Miranda is talking about, you need to

(42:42):
go and watch the last two episodes of Truth Wanted
because I got in trouble and then.

Speaker 3 (42:48):
We should probably test that. We should test that. We
should see how many super chats we get today and
then see if that's enough.

Speaker 1 (42:54):
If fifty dollars comes in, I'll be really thinking about it,
for sure, I will really be thinking about it. But
we do have two dollars for Kelly Laughlin been a
member for two years, saying I'm still waiting to do
a twenty four hour stream with SR. Look this okay, okay,
So here's what we do. Look, you send in the
superchats and we'll tally them. Okay, doesn't matter what the
you know. It could be a dollar, can be can

(43:15):
be one hundred dollars. Your choice doesn't matter, Okay, anyone
will count. You send in the super chats during this episode.
If if they say mustache, okay, we'll count that for
one side. If it says twenty four hour stream, we'll
do the twenty four hour stream on the other side.
Whoever has the most at the end, That's that's what
we'll do. We'll go with that. I have no idea
if this is okay or not. On the cruise side,

(43:37):
they are not saying anything to me. I did not
clear this with anybody, and we have calls to take.
So let's roll round, quickly.

Speaker 3 (43:45):
Change the subject and move on.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
We're gonna go up to Pennsylvania. We're gonna talk to Watcher.
He him pronouns is a theist. Wants to talk about
reasons to believe in God. Well, hey, Watcher, you are
chatting with SR and Scott Dicky.

Speaker 6 (43:58):
What is up? Hey?

Speaker 4 (44:02):
What's happening in USR? What's going on mister Scott? Hi?

Speaker 1 (44:06):
Watch what you got for us today? Tell you very good?

Speaker 4 (44:12):
I hope you can hear me good. Yeah, Just jumping
off of another interaction with another atheist show. I was
offering love, joy, peace, patient, kindness and goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,

(44:33):
and self control as evidence something that I experienced because
of the reality of the Holy Spirit in my life,
and I offer that as evidence for God. What do
you want to think of that?

Speaker 1 (44:47):
I'm gonna I don't know where you came from, but
I know that there's a lot of wonderful shows and
people out there. I will say, I'm guessing they weren't
super thrilled by that argument. And I am going to
also take the stance of, yeah, I don't really find

(45:08):
that to be super convincing, because I don't think you
would even find it convincing if I told you, like,
for instance, that I don't know, I converted to Islam
last night and I found all those things too, right,
Or you know, my buddy down the road converted to
scientology two weeks ago, and he found all those things true.

(45:28):
So now clearly you and I are getting our theton
levels tested and getting on our knees and praying to
Lord Xenu. No, of course not, because that at the
end of the day, while it makes us feel good,
it really isn't a good justification for accepting a claim.

Speaker 4 (45:47):
What do you think, Scott, Well, I think all nine
of those things has found them to be very important
in my life, and they enriched my life in such
a way that even if there was a person coming
from Islam or some other weird thing that you mentioned,
and they've said if you do this, that or the other,
you would experience all of these things. I would have to.

(46:11):
I would have to and honestly investigate it because I
found a lot of these things to be like I said.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
But yeah, no, I'm sorry. I I don't want to
cut you off, Watcher, But I mean, have you not
heard have you not heard of the great message of
the one true Prophet Mohammed? I mean, my God, He's
changed millions of people's lives. I mean, have you not
heard about the Great, the Great One himself, the next

(46:41):
to Jesus Christ himself, the prophet Moroni who faithfully came
down on God's command one day and spoke to the
humble Joseph Smith. I mean, have you not heard of
the great tales of the beauty and majesty and joy
that Mormonism brings to the Come on, man, I mean,

(47:03):
don't you can't tell me that you've never heard that.

Speaker 4 (47:08):
Yeah, I've heard of both Islam as well as Uh.
I've been approached by people evangelical uh Mormons.

Speaker 1 (47:20):
Of course they and they tell me their lives are
so much better, Scott tells me. On the other hand,
Scott tells me his life got noticeably, radically, demonstrably better
in every aspect of his life when he stopped believing
in all those things. So who should I believe?

Speaker 4 (47:40):
I think we should believe. We should believe each other,
all of us. We're all experiencing things, So.

Speaker 1 (47:47):
Yeah, we can't all be right on that. We can't
all be right.

Speaker 3 (47:51):
That kind of undermines what it means to believe something, right.
I mean, you're you're what you're talking about is we
should kind of just go along with each other and
kind of live and let live. Is that kind of
the attitude that you're you're promoting here? Or are you?
I mean, because what we're talking about, is we want
to when when when we get a call that says
we have reasons for believing in a God. What we're

(48:14):
saying is, we're talking about reasons that we should believe
that the statement there is a God is true? Right,
So there's a there's a difference between a belief and
being able to justify something. Of course, there's we can
believe things for good reasons, and we can believe things
for for no reason, you know, just because we just

(48:35):
happen to believe it. But what what what I think
s rs uh he did it in a much more
flowery way than I would have said it. But what
he's saying is that basically, you're underdetermined here. You're you're
not the the evidence that you're presenting. Not only do
we not know if that does in fact point to
a God, but we do know that even if it

(48:57):
did suggest to God, it also suggests other kinds of gods,
and it also points to other non god explanations as well.
And so what we if you want to have reasons
to believe in God, and if you want to take
that a step further and have reasons to believe in
a particular God, you need to have enough evidence to

(49:18):
narrow down the field. You know, we need to eliminate
those other possibilities. Is that something that you have if
you take a love for example, you said love, the
fact that you felt love led you to believe that
it was the spirit, the Holy Spirit working in your
life or being present in your life, or you know. However,
you said that. I don't want to put put words

(49:40):
in your mouth, but you were kind of suggesting a
connection there. What's that? What's that connection? How do you
how do you get from I feel love to oh,
there must be a God.

Speaker 4 (49:51):
Yeah, it's like the connection might it's it's called the
fruit of the Holy Spirit. Right, So the connection of
it's like a tree. You know, you meet the fruit
of a tree. So when you experience the fruit of it,
then that is the demonstration. So I would ask both

(50:15):
of you, had either of you experience.

Speaker 3 (50:20):
You're equating love with the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
What I'm what my question was is how do you
make that connection? Not how do you take the next
step after that? How do you know that love?

Speaker 8 (50:33):
I'll tell you, Okay, I tell you exactly how I
come to that conclusion, which is believing the word and
the message.

Speaker 4 (50:46):
Of the Bible.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
Okay, that's the conclusion.

Speaker 4 (50:50):
That believing that, that's how I make that connection. That's
how I get that.

Speaker 1 (50:54):
You so can, I can, I can. I I'm gonna
I'm gonna shout it back to you, Okay, And it
might sound a little funky, but I'm doing my best
to be as honest as possible. Truly, it sounds to
me what you said is the reason I believe is
because I experienced love, and the reason that love makes

(51:15):
me believe in God is because I believe. That sounds
like a circle to me. Man, it sounds like you're
saying I already believe. Okay, okay, okay, Okay, I could
be wrong.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
Help help me out.

Speaker 1 (51:30):
It sounded like you said, I believe in God's existence
because of this particular experience, love being the main thing
we're focusing on it. And Scott asked, Okay, yeah, yeah, fine,
the other things too, but let's just focus on the
love just for brevity's sake, so I don't have to
use all my oxygen. But God exists because you've experienced love.

(51:54):
Love is the answer to God existing because you already
believed that love proves God's existence.

Speaker 4 (52:03):
I understood the message. I understood the message that was
communicated to me, and then I experienced it.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
So you accepted the conclusion.

Speaker 4 (52:14):
I'm accepted what.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
You accepted the conclusion before going out to investigate it,
and then, upon investigation found information that proved the conclusion.
That's what it sounds like to me.

Speaker 3 (52:31):
Man, Let me let me try. Let me try presenting
your argument in a slightly different way. Watcher, here I
happen to know. Let's say, let's say I'm making this example.
Let's say I know that God doesn't exist because I've
experienced love. And since I know that love is the
absence of any gods, therefore, since I experienced love, then

(52:54):
obviously that's proof then that there are no gods. Now,
how is my argument other than in substance? How is
it different in form from what you were saying?

Speaker 4 (53:06):
Okay, that's the same thing I experienced in my other conversation,
And what you just said to me sounds like gobbledee groups.
And I guess what you're telling me is what I'm
saying to you sounds like gobbledee group, is correct.

Speaker 3 (53:18):
I don't think it sounds like gobbledygook, but I think
it sounds like it's the unreasonable reason.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
Yeah, there's something about what Scott just said that's hitting
you the same way that what you said to us
initially is hitting us. It's exactly the same. And the
reason that it's giving us all that weird feeling is
exactly the same. It's because there is something about that
construction that doesn't work. There's something about that that when

(53:44):
we hear somebody justifying a conclusion based on that reasoning,
we all instinctively go, hey, I don't huh, yeah, I
don't know about that one, right, but it feels kind
of right, especially when it's towards our conclusion.

Speaker 3 (54:04):
If a methodology can lead you to two opposing conclusions,
there's a problem with that methodology. Do you agree with that?

Speaker 4 (54:12):
But do you think you think, yeah, you think they're equal,
We're both you think that we're both positive equal uh
equal things. What I what I heard, what I heard
from your end sounds to me like gobbledegoop. But the
nine things that I enumerated that I experience don't feel

(54:34):
like gobbledygook at all. They feel like experience. Is that
I have in reality, in reality, and this is what
I live on, This is what I daily live on
and so for me it's real. It's reality. I'm experiencing
this every day. But that thing that you said, I
don't even understand it. It doesn't even make any sense

(54:54):
to you.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
He's all he's doing. All he's done. Well, let's take
all nine of the those things right, the hope and
the joy and love and all that stuff.

Speaker 6 (55:06):
Right.

Speaker 1 (55:06):
All Scott has done is he has changed one aspect
about your argument. And all he did was say, I
know God doesn't exist because love is the negation of
God's existence, whereas you said, I know God does exist
because love is the proof of God's existence. Scott, all

(55:28):
he did was flip that one thing and then everything
else comes along with it. And the reason that you're
hearing that from him and going God, Man, something about
that sounds funky is because it is, in fact a
logical fallacy. It is something that we know in an
argument construction, it does not reliably lead us to truth.

(55:54):
It can, as Scott said just a second ago, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (56:00):
And you're explain to me how love is a negation
of God's existence. I don't understand that.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
I will after you explain how love affirms got existence.

Speaker 1 (56:11):
Right, Right, right, it's the same construction. That's the point
is that if you get to have six watermelons, I
also get to have six water melons. If you get
a big sledge hammer, I get a big sledgehammer. If
your name is Gallagher, my name is Gallagher. That's how
it works in this argument. We have to be on

(56:32):
equal playing field. Otherwise we're doing this other fallacy, which
is called special pleading. Right now, I think we're doing
the consequent one, but I could be wrong. Anyway, question the.

Speaker 4 (56:46):
Question I'm living. I'm living like living my life right?
And what's what you just said to me? Again? That
sounds like God will be it?

Speaker 5 (56:55):
Does?

Speaker 4 (56:55):
It sounds like I'm sorry, I don't respect listening respectfully.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
I'm not.

Speaker 4 (57:01):
I'm not not trying to be disrespectful, but it really
sounds like foolishness to me. What you're saying, No.

Speaker 3 (57:09):
No worries.

Speaker 4 (57:10):
It doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
No worries. And honestly, I mean, at least for me,
I don't what I presented.

Speaker 4 (57:17):
What I presented was what I live every day, and
I'm saying this is something that I experience and because
of that, it gives me confidence to believe that is
it's a reality.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
It's like it's totally underway. I live like life and
and I'm I'm gonna great, I'm gonna I want to
wrap us up on this watcher because we've got some
other good calls. And I think one of the I
think one of the best things after this is is
for all three of us, we'll go back, will rewatch this,
and we'll get back together here in the future and
we'll talk some more. Because again, I think you've been

(57:51):
really kind. I don't think you've been an asshole. I
don't think you've been dishonest or anything in this conversation.
And all I want to say is when you when
you say to me, hey, sr I live this shit
every day.

Speaker 4 (58:05):
Man.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
The love of Jesus Christ is in my heart. The
tangible differences in my life I see around me constantly.
I can list them for you. All I'm saying is
I get that exact same thing from the Muslims, from
the scientologists, from the non believers. How then, can we

(58:28):
use that single methodology to help us figure out which
one of us is right? I don't think we can.
I think we need more stuff. And I think that
methodology in and of itself will always be flawed and unreliable.
But I am gonna rudely cut you off like I
did the last one. Watcher, thank you so much. You

(58:49):
were really, really kind and I really do appreciate you.
But I am just gonna unabashedly drop you like an asshole.
But no, seriously, that was a really good call. Do
you think, Scott, what do you what do you wrap
up on that? I liked it.

Speaker 3 (59:03):
I liked it. If he if he thought that what
we were talking about, what we were saying was gobbledegook,
I would encourage Watcher go back and listen to that.
I think the key to understanding what we were saying
is to figure out what we were saying. Yeah, okay,
and so go back and listen to what we were
saying and try to And I'm not saying you need
to just accept it, but at least at least see

(59:24):
if you can come up is at least can you
understand what we were saying? And I think that will uh,
that will shine light on the fallacy that SR was
trying to point out.

Speaker 1 (59:35):
Yeah, and I think, you know, I honestly I kind
of really liked that when he was like, hey man,
everything you're just shouting to me, sounds like nonsense, you know,
because I kind of think that's a super cool moment
for all of us to have in these conversations. Is
that that that moment where you are really confidently explaining

(59:56):
something that you have thought about a billion times over.
You know, there's this map in your head. You know
every twist and turn along the road, right, but like
we don't, you know. And so when you put that
out there for the first time and you're just super
confident going through fifteen pages, and you get to the
end and you look up and everybody's going.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
What do you say?

Speaker 1 (01:00:21):
It's like, uh shit, Yeah, maybe maybe I didn't maybe
I didn't get that just right, or maybe.

Speaker 9 (01:00:26):
I didn't know.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
It's good to have that moment exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Guys. The other person in this conversation may be listening
to everything you're saying and just going, that is a bunch.
That is a tasty ass word, salad man.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
I think that if there are other religious people that
are watching this that maybe understood what we were saying
and then heard watchers say that sounds like gobbledegook to me,
then that might enlighten those viewers as well, to think
if in some future time when they because they if
they understand what we meant and what we said, they

(01:01:00):
realized that it was in fact not gobbledygook, even though
it sounded like gobbledygook to watch her. And so then
if they've come across that experience themselves, they can use
that as a moment of self reflection if they hear
somebody else say something and they think that sounds like gobbledygook.
Oh wait a minute, Watcher thought s R. And Scott
were spouting gobbledygook, but I didn't think it was that.

(01:01:20):
Maybe I'm wrong about this being gobbledygook as well. And
I think that if you take that sum total of
what I just said, it might in fact be gobbledygook.
I don't know, we'll have to see it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:31):
I just I just want to say gobbledygook as many
times as possible, exactly. That's a great word and another
really good word, and that doesn't have anything to do
with what we're saying, but it's just a good word.
Higgelty pigglety, just throwing that out there. If you didn't
know that was an English word, it is. It's been
in the dictionary for a while higglety pigglety thing.

Speaker 3 (01:01:51):
Maybe we can make that a thing.

Speaker 4 (01:01:52):
We just need it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
We need a counter, we need a gobbledygook counter. I'm
sure we'll get that, but we have a bunch of
other really really calls. Paul, we are going to be
coming to you in just a second. Right before you
do that, I am gonna tell you that if you
are in the Austin, Texas area, you can follow the
Atheist Community Austin on meetup and you can keep up

(01:02:14):
with all the incredible cool things that are happening at
the Freethought Library and around the town tiny dot cc
slash ACA meetup. You can come to the Philosophy under
the Stars the game night. I hear there is even
more stuff. Almost every night of the week there is
something going on, so if you are not already involved,
get involved. Also, you can join the weekly watch parties

(01:02:34):
at the Freethought Library on Sundays for live viewings of
Talk Heathen and the Atheist Experience every single Sunday. The
doors are open at noon and it is a great
freaking time. I can tell you that because I have
been down there with none other than mister Scott Dickey
himself at one point, and yeah, you should get down
there if you have the opportunity.

Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
And we probably were spouting gobbledygook there too.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
You know, honestly, that's right for more gobbledy cook. Somebody involved.
We don't know who yet. It could be us, it
could be Paul, but somebody is going to be bringing
the gobbledy.

Speaker 3 (01:03:09):
And the cook and uh, we'll transported in separate containers.

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
Right, you can't mix them on a plane. Yeah. Yeah,
we're gonna go out to Arizona. Paul he him wants
to talk about the grounding for knowledge. Hey, Paul, you
are on atheist experience.

Speaker 6 (01:03:25):
What's up?

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
I'm only going to bring the gobbledy.

Speaker 6 (01:03:27):
I'm not going to bring the gook someone else, all right?

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
So yeah, bro, I was calling a regarding see the
grounding for knowledge, And one of my questions is normally,
and this will be honestly, it'll be the second time
I've ever called one of these, uh you know, atheist type,
you know chats and stuff. So let's if you'all can
help me out here. So one of my biggest questions
I usually ask is on on the atheist side, if
you guys can, uh, what is the ontology behind your

(01:03:59):
epistemology man the physic and ethic for the grounding of
knowledge to be able to make you know things meaningful
and intelligible on your worldview.

Speaker 3 (01:04:06):
That is not God.

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
Yeah, I could go a couple of different routes with this, Like,
for instance, I could just go with like the route
of like, hey, maybe I don't have one. You know,
I'm kind of comfortable with that that I'm not. I'm
not you know, solid on that. But how do you
feel about foundherentism by Susan Hawk?

Speaker 2 (01:04:26):
No, explain it to me. I'm not familiar with it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:28):
It's kind of a blending of coherentism and foundationalism, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
And how would that How would that make knowledge meaningful
and intelligible?

Speaker 1 (01:04:40):
Right? So, are you familiar with coherentism and foundationalism and
then infinitism? Are you familiar with the Munchausen Strilemma.

Speaker 2 (01:04:48):
I mean I may be a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:04:50):
Yeah, if you can do that's okay, It's okay. If not,
I'll I'll happily, I'll happily walk through it. Okay. But
the concept is basically that it all falls down to
one of these three things, seemingly, and that being that
you just have an infinite chain in infinite regress of
things justifying the other things right. And then you have
the foundationalism, which is like presuppositionalism, and that's just you

(01:05:14):
have just the certain claims that just we stop right there, right,
the brute facts type of stuff. And then coherentism is
basically like a story book. It's that the start and
the finish all makes sense with each other and that's
what gives us. So that's that's called the Munchhausen's trilemma,
is that it seems to be those three things that
sit as kind of the basis there. But then, Susan Hawk,

(01:05:34):
I want to say, like in two thousand she started
talking about found heerentism. Now, I don't think it's super
caught on or anything, but it is at least an
interesting attempt. So I'll shut up for a second so
you can kind of give your thoughts.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
Yeah, yeah, so I'm kind of familiar with it, but yeah,
I kind of know the a group of trilemma. That's
kind of what you were going.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
Ah yeh, that's fair, that's fair Munchausen's yeah.

Speaker 10 (01:05:57):
Uma, So with that, you see, so it seems to
be a little bit of issues on, at least on
my side, because of course, in my view, and infinite
regresses to mean and the way I see this utterly
absurd and impossible.

Speaker 2 (01:06:11):
And as far as circular reasoning, well, well, because why
infinite regress is impossible? Yeah, right, Well, because if if,
if the regress would be possible, and infinite regress, then
we really wouldn't be able to get to what we're
at now because we'd have an infinite amount of time
that we'd have to.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
Get We go forward incentive? Can we go forward infinitive?

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
You can?

Speaker 4 (01:06:34):
Yes, you can go forward infinite.

Speaker 2 (01:06:35):
You cannot go to the past. That would require like
time stem and it's stop somewhere.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
To be able to So hang on, Paul, real quick,
what are you using to arbitrarily cut off the ability
to go both forward and backwards infinitely? You need the
criteria to determine that, Otherwise it would be more parsimonious.
It would bring in less assumptions to say that it
can just work both ways, that infinitely can infinite can

(01:07:00):
go both forward and backwards infinite? Does that make sense
what I just said?

Speaker 4 (01:07:05):
Or good?

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
Yeah, yeah, I kind of say, But to me, it
doesn't make sense because if you'd have to content with
an infinite pass that you can ever go into an
infinite future that would be possible.

Speaker 6 (01:07:15):
And another thing is I'm sorry, yeah, I.

Speaker 1 (01:07:19):
Just I have a problem with that assertion, right, because
that's all it is. Okay, all all you've done there
is just said the reason Hang on real quick, all
you've done there. Paul has just said the reason you
can't have an infinite past is because you just fucking can't.

Speaker 2 (01:07:32):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:07:33):
And it's like, well, that's cool that you're positing that,
but it sounds to me like it's then on the
same equal footing as just positing that. Yeah, actually you can,
especially if you already agree that it goes infinitely in
one direction. Seems more parsimonious, fewer assumptions.

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
Right, Okay, what as I mentioned before, I mean, if
if there was an infinite regress, then there would be
then that means all things that are you know, contingent
between time space would be of a secondary order.

Speaker 1 (01:08:06):
There would be no primary to get the to get
get the time, and it couldn't go infinitely in the
future either. We would be stuck in this moment forever.
Oh you got to see that, right, would be no, no, no,
couldn't go infinitely in the future because you would never
be able to traverse the infinite you would never be
able to traverse the infinite points. That's the sect.

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
You'd never be able to reach the omega, and.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
That's you'd never be able to reach into the past.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
No, no, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang on, Paul, Paul,
hang on. I said something very clear there, and you're
gonna have to shift your position just a little bit.
Either you're going to have to accept that there is
no infinite potential for the future, or there is an
infinite potential in both categories. You cannot have just one.

(01:08:51):
You cannot say there is an infinite past possibility and
no infinite future possibility, or there is an infinite future
possibility and no infinite past. Because of what I just said,
If you are accepting that an infinite past means that
you could never traverse the individual points to get to now,
an infinite future would also fail for that reasoning. I

(01:09:15):
muted you. I'm so sorry. I'm going to bring you
back in. You're going to hear a beep. The beep's gone,
probably go ahead and respond.

Speaker 2 (01:09:22):
And I understand, and and see that's kind of I
see it as as a false dichotomy because the way
I see things things is something needs to start. You
need to get the train moving tip for it to
start moving forward. And if there is an infinite regress
and it's it's it's everything's of a secondary order. There
is no primary order. Without a primary order to get
the train moving, you can't have a secondary.

Speaker 3 (01:09:43):
Why do you get because the train has always been moving?

Speaker 4 (01:09:49):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:09:50):
What if the train has always been moving?

Speaker 2 (01:09:51):
So how can you get to the past of the
train's always been moving infinitely into the past, when would
you ever reach Oh?

Speaker 3 (01:09:58):
What if the train has all never been moving?

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
Yeah, well then that would be incoherent because then nothing
would be meaningful to start anything at all.

Speaker 3 (01:10:10):
Wow, it has to start. I'm I'm I'm suggesting to you,
what if the train has always been moving. If that's
the case, then there is no start. It was just
always moving.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
So just to kind of so, then how would we
even get forward into the future with the train that
just has always been moving without ever starting anything a
secondary order to begin with?

Speaker 3 (01:10:35):
I'm sorry you're asking how would we get to a
situation where the train has always been moving from where.

Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
Infinitely infinitely from the past. So if a train has
been infinitely moving in the past, I think, for example,
let's just let's get a thought experience. Let's say let's
say we are immortal, right, and we produced a machine
that allows us to go into the past linearly, you know,
date to date, year by your all to the past.

(01:11:03):
And if there was an infinite past, how long would
it take for us to reach at that point in time?

Speaker 3 (01:11:08):
Reach what to reach?

Speaker 6 (01:11:10):
The right?

Speaker 4 (01:11:11):
Definite?

Speaker 2 (01:11:12):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:11:12):
Oh man, what does infinite pass to mean?

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
Given that?

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
So, given that example, how if there was an infinite
pass to contend to contend with, how could you ever
reach the point?

Speaker 1 (01:11:23):
So the problem right now, and I and I know this,
I know this is is a little difficult, especially with
this because infinity is weird. Okay, it is a weird thing, right,
But here's the problem. Everything you just said is not

(01:11:43):
a reason to accept that infinity can't go into the past.

Speaker 4 (01:11:49):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
All you've said is, yeah, but if there is that
infinite past, how would we get here? I don't actually
need to answer that for it to be the case
that there is an infinite pass, right, us not having
an answer to that question does not negate the truth
as to whether or not the past is infinite? Right,

(01:12:09):
And I'll tell you the more important thing. Hang on,
just hang on just a second, hang on, just a second, Paul. Okay,
the more important thing is that actually what it is
is a logical fallacy, and so that construction of an
argument cannot reliably lead us to truth. If I say
the past could be infinite, we don't know, and you

(01:12:31):
go nah ah, and I go, yeah, it could, right,
just based on logically going infinitely into the future. And
then you go, yeah, but how would we ever get
here if it's infinite in the past. That is not
actually pushback on the statement that, based on the logic
of time going infinitely in the future, it should have

(01:12:54):
the same criteria in the back unless there is a
distinguishing criteria that separates those two. Does that make sense?

Speaker 2 (01:13:01):
Well, I mean, you know, not really. I guess maybe
I probably have a hard time, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:06):
Kind of Okay, let me let me talk again. Let
me that's yeah, it is, it's all weird. But let
me let me try this again. If you this is
this is the example that Jamike.

Speaker 3 (01:13:13):
Hang on, hang on just.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
Second, Paul, hang on, just a second. This is the
example that Jay Mike always gives. Okay, and I love
this one, so it's a good one, and I'll steal
it from him. If you and I both have a
television and we're standing in front of each other, right
and you go, my television works, it's got great picture,
and I go mine too, and then you go, yours
has a hole in it. Have we done anything to

(01:13:35):
determine whether your television works. No, that's the response that
you just gave me. The response that you just gave
me is your television doesn't work, as opposed to telling
me why your television does work.

Speaker 2 (01:13:52):
Now, well, no, I told you that because there wasn't
if we had an infinite regres that means all states
would be of a secondary order without a primary. We
can't have a secondary with a primary right.

Speaker 1 (01:14:01):
And what was Scott's and let's get into me it's
really important because you're missing out on the foundationalism aspect
of it. You are assuming that we need to have
that start. What Scott said was that is not an
issue if we take the assumption that it has always

(01:14:22):
been going, there is no there is no necessity for
that primary secondary distinction in that understanding, and that understanding
of infinitism sits exactly squarely on the same level of
plausibility as foundationalism and coherentism. Thus Agrippa's or Munchausen's trilemma.

Speaker 2 (01:14:45):
And that's and that's probably a part I can't grasp,
but I'll give this example case it'll be it'll be
distinguishing difference with me. Let's say, let's say, for example, uh,
time is finite, right, there wasn't an infinite path, and
we just began it, just something began to just we have,
you know, square zero. When we can come for square zero,
we can move, we can move into the future from

(01:15:06):
that point and on right. Okay, there's nothing that says
that we couldn't move from that point in future on
forward infinitely.

Speaker 1 (01:15:14):
Except for the reason that we could know, except for
the reason that you've given us. The reason we could
never make it to infinity is because it would be
impossible for us to physically traverse the infinite individual points.
That was your reasoning for not allowing infinity into the past.
And all I'm saying is I'm gonna agree with you, Paul,

(01:15:36):
and it works both ways.

Speaker 2 (01:15:40):
And see now and with me, I don't see that
as being coherent. It doesn't make sense at all.

Speaker 1 (01:15:43):
Why how are you able to traverse an infinite future
but not an infinite past? What is the difference about infinity?

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
Well, the thing is going infinitely into the past. That
means you have to contend with an infinite amount of
time to reach the current present, and that would make.

Speaker 1 (01:16:00):
Same thing going into the future.

Speaker 3 (01:16:01):
Why is that a problem? If the past is infinite?
Why is you have to go through an infinite number
of time moments to get to the present. Why is
that an issue?

Speaker 2 (01:16:12):
Correct, we wouldn't be here because we wouldn't be here.

Speaker 3 (01:16:16):
Your your that's your conclusion. What I'm asking you is
why why do you think that?

Speaker 2 (01:16:21):
Why? Because we couldn't because if if there was an
infinite past to content with, we logically and physically could
not be here now.

Speaker 3 (01:16:31):
So howion? Why is what my question was? Why that
thing you just said, because you would put why in
front of that?

Speaker 2 (01:16:43):
Okay? So why? Man? That's pretty tough, right, because I mean,
of course why, yeah, I mean because being the only
thing is you'd have to content with an infinite amount
of of.

Speaker 1 (01:16:58):
Of time to be able to get we're at now?

Speaker 3 (01:17:00):
I mean, okay, And so that's not a problem. If
there is an infinite past, then we would have an
infinite a past available to get us to the current moment.

Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
But there wouldn't be.

Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
How can there be? How can an infinite amount of
past get us to the current moment when we have
a whole infinite amount.

Speaker 3 (01:17:17):
If the past is infinite, then it's possible that we
could have been going an infinite amount of time to
get to the present.

Speaker 1 (01:17:25):
Right, like hypothetical, Let's let's for a second, Paul, let's
let's take up I mean, let's take the hypothetical. If
the universe actually is infinite, right, then we did traverse
an infinite pass to get here, which means it kind
of makes sense that we could traverse an infinite pass
to get to the where we could traverse an infinite

(01:17:45):
amount of time to get to the future. Now, there
are different sizes of infinity, which is kind of silly,
but it's true. The infinite set of whole numbers is
a really big number. It's a really big infinite number,
but it is still technically a smaller infinity than the
set of all the potential numbers one point one, one

(01:18:07):
point two one point two to one one point two
one one one point. All of those are an infinitely
larger than that other infinite set. So I know all
of this is super weird shit man, but it does
sound like to me it is. It is, but it's
lots of fun too. But it does sound like to
me that if hang hang on just a second, almost,

(01:18:29):
I'm almost on. I swear I'm almost done.

Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
Hang on, hang on, Paul.

Speaker 1 (01:18:31):
I hate to mut you, but I'm almost done. It
does sound like to me you have to bite the
bullet one way or the other, and you have to
either say there's a finite past and a finite future,
or there's an infinite past and an infinite future. It
doesn't seem to me that you can have one and
not the other, because the very criteria that you're using

(01:18:53):
to just to to discount an infinite past would still
apply to you attempting to traverse an infinite future. You
would still physically never be able to actually go through
all of those points if what you're saying is true.
But again, I think there might be infinite stuff. But
I'm going to bring you back on. I'm sorry for mute,

(01:19:14):
and Paul, no, go ahead and give us your thought.

Speaker 6 (01:19:16):
I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:19:18):
So let's go. I like the example you gave earlier,
right when you said there's a smaller infinence as a
posting a bigger infinites And I've kind of and this
is this is why I kind of and I kind
of see that what you're going with. Let me know,
if I'm right, you're kind of seeing time as a
like a circular, infinite circular motion of of past, president
and future just essentially just moving over and over and

(01:19:41):
over NonStop, right, if I get that right, If I know,
if I'm understanding that.

Speaker 1 (01:19:44):
Right, not necessarily A and B theory of time are
lots of fun to play around with.

Speaker 3 (01:19:49):
But yeah, I'm that would be one way to satisfy
what what SR was trying to describe. Yes, that that
would another way would be just an infinite number line.

Speaker 1 (01:20:00):
Yeah, it's just an infinite number line.

Speaker 2 (01:20:03):
So see, and I guess a lot of it, a
lot of it, like the way I'm looking at to see,
I'm looking at time more of a linear fashion than
I am, I guess in the way you guys are
looking at it right, Well, and I get that that's
probably where.

Speaker 1 (01:20:15):
Sorry, sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:20:17):
So what I'm trying to get to is is This
is where the part where kind of it becomes a
little bit more incoherent in my mind, I guess because
from what you use that the larger infinites versus smaller
infinite where you said you can be one point one
one point one one one one to the infinite right.
See to me, Let's say, for example, there was a clock. Right,
there's a clock one through twelve, right, and to get
from one to two, if we're going to use an

(01:20:37):
infinite amount of numbers to get from one to two, right,
that would be incohere because then the time, the time,
how many which.

Speaker 1 (01:20:46):
The time would be moving right, Well, how many numbers? Right,
so how many numbers are between the number one and
the number two? How many numbers are between those two
numbers would be infinite? Right, It is infinite, right, it
is infinite, right, but it's a smaller it's a smaller
infinite than the infinite that is all the even numbers,
which is a smaller infant. It's it's fucking weird. It

(01:21:07):
is fucking weird, Paul, I'm mad.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
And this is the part, and this is the part
where it's just like, Okay, so if if there's an
infinite number between one and two. And this is the
part where sometimes mask doesn't cohere or stand causal relations
with reality. Right, because if one if it took an
infinite amount of numbers between one and two to reach
the number two, right, we.

Speaker 1 (01:21:27):
Never get there, right, We never get we know, but
we do, but we do. Every single time we count,
Every single time we count, we somehow get there. So
there's something.

Speaker 3 (01:21:40):
Yes, you're talking, you're talking Zeno's paradox here, right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
that's exactly yeah yeah yeah yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
Well hang on, Paul, let me let me, let me
give you just just a couple more seconds to wrap
it up, because we've been going for about twenty and
we've got a couple of other really good calls on.
But I I love the fact, no, that's okay, that's okay,
because you'll call back in because you are an awesome,
awesome interlockator.

Speaker 8 (01:22:05):
Dude.

Speaker 1 (01:22:05):
I have loved having this conversation with you, and I
genuinely think that if more people, atheists, Christians, scientologists, whatever,
if more of us were engaging in these types of discussions,
I really really do think we'd have a better world.

Speaker 5 (01:22:22):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:22:23):
So I really appreciate you you call in and being
being very kind and generous. Please call back man, seriously, Paul,
I want to keep good callers like you. Okay, so
don't don't let me down, don't make me sad. No,
but seriously, thank you so much, Paul. I am going
to just just drop you like a hot rock, though.
I'm so sorry because I'm rude and I'm on this

(01:22:44):
show and we got to time.

Speaker 3 (01:22:45):
I think I think he made a strong argument that
everybody should take calculus.

Speaker 1 (01:22:50):
Everybody should take calculus. That's what I was talking about
before the fucking show start, and I am I will
gladly say it again, take calculus. Math is cool. Yeah,
math really is cool, and I do I genuinely think
you know that Paul was super engaged. Yeah, I felt
like Paul was listening, he was responding. Yeah, I felt

(01:23:12):
like he this is this is something that he's going
to think about, you know, for the next few days,
and he's going to look further into and he's going
to have more conversations.

Speaker 3 (01:23:20):
I think infinity is really a difficult thing for people
to wrap their minds around, and you know, I see
it every day.

Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
Yeah, it's so weird, but but again it technically there
is an infinite amount of numbers between one and two.
There's an infinite amount of space between all of that.
I mean, it's so weird, but like somehow we somehow
we make it possible, somehow we make stuff happen. So sure,

(01:23:49):
I am going to read this super chat from Nero
Maul been a member for one year, sending two dollars
and saying be time supper. Hell yeah, hell yeah, I'd
like that anytime. Or no, wait, no, who is that?
Who's that other one? There's another one that's up there. Uh,
that's the one I just read Nero mal b Time Supremacy.

(01:24:11):
That's great, that's great. And then there's this other one
I see here. I don't know there. It is from
Sean saying e ten to the one hundred and twenty
eighth possible games of chess, and yet we can still yeah,
and yet we can still play chess. Right, there's an
absurd amount of fucking right yeah right right, right right, yeah, absolutely,

(01:24:31):
Like there's numbers are really really interesting and weird and
cool and again yeah all those fun things about right.

Speaker 3 (01:24:42):
Well, that was good, that was good.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
Yeah, thank you, thank you. I'm back to I'm back
to focus.

Speaker 3 (01:24:46):
I know what we're doing here, and you know what
we're doing gobbledygook.

Speaker 1 (01:24:50):
That's gobbledy gook. And I'll tell you something. You know,
we love the gobbledy and the book. We love it
all here. But one thing I can tell you is
not gobbledygoo is the amazing, incredible, absolutely stupendous and not
at all upset with me crew who put this show
together every week. They are an amazing.

Speaker 3 (01:25:12):
Group of people.

Speaker 1 (01:25:13):
Look at that, not disappointed in the slightest.

Speaker 3 (01:25:16):
I love.

Speaker 1 (01:25:19):
There, And oh man, it's great, wonderful, wonderful people who
think to themselves every time I'm on, Oh my God.

Speaker 6 (01:25:28):
Can with you?

Speaker 3 (01:25:30):
But showing over yet?

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
That's right. We've still got calls. Yep, yep, oh God.
Remember to send those super chats and comment below the
video that you love SR and that you don't want
him kicked off.

Speaker 4 (01:25:43):
Of the show.

Speaker 1 (01:25:44):
But save SR.

Speaker 3 (01:25:47):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:25:47):
I just need a shirt. But we are gonna go
up to the Great White North. We're gonna go up
to Canada. We're gonna talk with James.

Speaker 6 (01:25:55):
He him is a.

Speaker 1 (01:25:56):
Theist and wants to talk about the existence of life. Well,
I like that, James. Your chatting with secularity and Scott Dicky,
what is up.

Speaker 6 (01:26:06):
Right on? Hey, how you guys youre doing?

Speaker 3 (01:26:09):
James well.

Speaker 6 (01:26:12):
Good. I'd like to start with a with a premise
if I could try, and that is that all we
know is that we're here and we don't know how
we got here.

Speaker 3 (01:26:23):
Can we agree with I wouldn't say that's all we know.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
Yeah, I wouldn't say that's all we know, but i'd
say we we you know, that's not a it's not
a terrible sentiment that you're you're expressing.

Speaker 3 (01:26:35):
We can agree that we're here.

Speaker 1 (01:26:37):
Yeah, for sure, we're here, and we're not one hundred
positive about how we got here?

Speaker 6 (01:26:43):
Right, And so how we got here is the part
that is either faith or serie and research sciences is
endeavoring to uh to find out what what I wanted?

Speaker 1 (01:26:55):
What was that I was just kind of agreeing, just
saying like, yeah, sure, there's some different ans serves that
are posited by many of different people, some with books,
you know, some with revelations, some with test tubes and math,
but yeah, what you got so so that.

Speaker 6 (01:27:12):
Yeah, So what I'm saying with that is that there's
no proof. And the way it works is that there's
theory and then you give a list of reasons that
would support the theory.

Speaker 1 (01:27:21):
You know, I think there's some I think there can
be some proof, right, Like for instance, like I know
I have some proof as to how I'm like here
on this show. Right for instance, like I got a
message you know, that said like, hey, come do it
at this time, and then I have this camera. You know,
so there's some stuff that we you know, and we

(01:27:43):
could prove that, right Like I have this house, I
pay a lease on this thing, you know, like I
have that on paperwork.

Speaker 6 (01:27:49):
So yeah, yeah, well I'm talking about humanity mankind, you know,
is how we got here? We don't know, and we
have theories and research I got here, but yeah, and
so there's no proof. I can't prove it. You know,
there's no proof that we made I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:28:09):
I think there is.

Speaker 1 (01:28:10):
Again, I know I'm just being a little bit nitpicky, James,
But like, for instance, I think we have really really
solid proof that your parents had sex.

Speaker 3 (01:28:21):
To get you.

Speaker 1 (01:28:22):
You know, I think we have really really solid proof
that like that.

Speaker 3 (01:28:26):
Is kind of how human go on here.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
I also think we have really really solid proof for instance,
about like you know, evolution and like changing of illegal
frequencies and like different physical makeups and you know, genetic
code and like we we did, we did, you know,
lay out the whole human genomem a while ago. So
like we have some proof, right.

Speaker 6 (01:28:51):
Right, Well, evolution is a theory and so in theory,
So what do.

Speaker 1 (01:28:57):
You mean by theory when you say that, because then
I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what the other
people mean by theory when they say evolution is a theory.
What do you mean when you say the word theory?

Speaker 6 (01:29:08):
A theory is an idea that may be true but isn't.

Speaker 1 (01:29:12):
Proved awesome awesome, So in the in the scientific communities, uh,
and believe me, I'm not I am not smart enough
to be a part of these they they regularly kick
me out, James. They laugh me out the door and
tell me to go play in the sandbox. But in
those spaces they use the term hypothesis more so to

(01:29:33):
kind of talk about what you're talking about. So there's
this other term though, that I would say, is something
that's more common parlance for you and I. Right, smarty
smarty pants. You know, they can say whatever the fuck
they want, but we would, we would, we would say
this other term, like a fact, you know, like this
is a water bottle in Elliott's hand. That's a fact,

(01:29:55):
Like that is just so fucking solid to believe that. Man,
if there wasn't actually a water bottle in my hand
right now, that would be so radically radically altering to
the way that I understand the entire world. That's the
way that the science smarty people mean theory. So when

(01:30:15):
they say the germ theory of disease, what they mean
is germs make diseases. Germs are real, and they're all
the fuck around us all the fucking time, and if
we somehow disproved this, it would be so radical to
everything we understand about reality. That Does that make sense?

(01:30:38):
Does that kind of clear up how they're using that term?

Speaker 6 (01:30:43):
Yeah, but maybe we don't have a premise the inn
because I'm saying that all we know is our record
going back to three five hundred years BC.

Speaker 1 (01:30:54):
That's all right, sure, but that's not what evolution is
talking about. Rights not talking about. See, how we know
evolution is a thing has nothing to do with human
written records, right.

Speaker 6 (01:31:08):
Right, right? So so we do have proof, Okay, it's
a theory, it's consider everyone's pretty sure it's true. But
it's a theory. It's pretty sure it's true. Relativity is
pretty sure it's true. No one knows for sure if
it's true, it remains a theory.

Speaker 1 (01:31:28):
But everyone that's how science works, right, Yeah, we never
get to a place of one hundred percent certainty. The
big smarty smarty pants are never going to get to
the one hundred percent. It definitely is this and nothing else.
So like the best we can get is this. Like
we're pretty damn confident, you know, like ninety seven ninety

(01:31:50):
eight percent, but like we're pretty fucking confident.

Speaker 3 (01:31:54):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:31:54):
Again, this is where you and I would we would
just say, oh, it's a fact, you know, build down
the right. Oh, Bill's a mechanic. He's been a mechanic
for forty years. That's just a fact. There's no theory
about that, there's no hypothesis about that. He just is
that damn thing, you know. And the same thing I
would say again is how the science smarty people use theory.
If you think we don't have evidence for evolution, do

(01:32:17):
you think we should believe it?

Speaker 6 (01:32:22):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:32:23):
Okay, so you believe that a god created us, what's
your evidence.

Speaker 6 (01:32:30):
There? Isn't evidence, it's faith that we have.

Speaker 3 (01:32:33):
Okay, So if I shouldn't believe something because I have
no evidence, does it the same thing apply to you?
You don't have evidence, so should you believe it?

Speaker 6 (01:32:44):
I have a list of reasons why I believe it.

Speaker 3 (01:32:47):
You just said you have no evidence.

Speaker 6 (01:32:51):
Great that you can't have evidence. You can't have that.

Speaker 3 (01:32:55):
So if you can't have evidence, then you don't have evidence.

Speaker 8 (01:32:59):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (01:33:01):
Can't have evidence is not a reason to not have
to get evidence. It's just an explanation on why you
don't have any evidence. So I so you said that
if I don't have evidence for evolution, I shouldn't believe that.
But you don't think that same principle applies to you.
If you don't have evidence of a god, then you
shouldn't believe it. According to your logic.

Speaker 6 (01:33:23):
You should regard evolution as a theory and that you
don't know for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:33:28):
And should I believe that it's true?

Speaker 6 (01:33:30):
The same same here with same here as that with me?

Speaker 3 (01:33:33):
Which should I believe it's true? Should I believe evolutionist
if there were no evidence for it? Although there's tons
and tons of evidence. But let's assume for a second,
that you're right and that there's no evidence for evolution.
Should I believe that it's true.

Speaker 6 (01:33:51):
If there's no evidence, and uh, if it's a good theory,
and if you want to.

Speaker 3 (01:33:55):
Believe it's true, that we have to decide good theory
after the fact.

Speaker 6 (01:34:00):
It's a subjective thing. If it's a good theory, you.

Speaker 3 (01:34:03):
Know, and then you I think you're trying very hard
to avoid saying no. I think you're trying really really
hard to not say no because now you know where
this is going to lead. So if you have no
evidence for God, then why should we believe in God?

Speaker 6 (01:34:22):
Well, there's a list of reasons why they believe in God.

Speaker 3 (01:34:25):
Okay, let's start with number one.

Speaker 6 (01:34:27):
This theory and list of reasons. Okay, Reason one is
matter is the existence of life. Matter does not create life,
matter creating life.

Speaker 3 (01:34:38):
Hold on, hold on observed the existence of You said
life only comes from other life, So what's your evidence
for that?

Speaker 6 (01:34:47):
That's what is observed a scientist.

Speaker 3 (01:34:51):
We can't observe that truth by observation, So we can't
observe we can't observe that life never came from non life.

Speaker 6 (01:35:01):
Well, since could always be happening? Since when does one
thing happen?

Speaker 3 (01:35:06):
You're asking me questions. What I'm asking you for is evidence.
If you don't have any evidence, then you can just
say I don't have any evidence. That's fine.

Speaker 6 (01:35:16):
Well, how can you say that that life matter created
life same way I didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:35:21):
You said you said life only comes from life. I
didn't say life might come from non life. I don't know. Okay, Well,
I'm only going to say things that I feel confident
in and that I can back up. Right, Okay, So
do you think that I'm being overly cautious with myself

(01:35:44):
or do you think I'm kind of you're doing things
the right way.

Speaker 6 (01:35:50):
I seems like the right way.

Speaker 3 (01:35:53):
Okay, So then are you going to do it that
way too?

Speaker 6 (01:35:58):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (01:35:59):
Okay, So if you don't have evidence for your god,
then you should just I'm not saying that you should
believe there is no god. I'm just saying you should
withhold your belief that there is a god and just
say I don't know, right, And you start with I
don't know. We have we all, okay, the agnostic we
don't know. So if we start with I don't know,

(01:36:20):
then you need evidence to get off of I don't know.
You're kind of stuck on that island. You need evidence
to get off of the I don't know, So that's
what I'm what I'm asking you about then, And do
you have any of that evidence? But you said we
can't have already.

Speaker 1 (01:36:35):
Before you Before you respond, James, and I will let
I will let Scott relay out that that question again,
so so you don't have to worry about memorizing it
right now or anything. But just before we go any further,
I want to take two seconds to just hardcore frickin'
say I am thrilled by this back and forth right now.

(01:36:55):
I mean, you both have been so honest and so
fucking humble. I just I think this is amazing. And
I've just been sitting over here just just clapping repeatedly
like fuck yeah, Scott, fuck yeah, James, like you're nailing it.
So I just I'm sorry. I was getting real excited
and I was squirming in my chair and I just
had to say that. So uh, Scotty say that, Uh

(01:37:17):
say that questioned again for James and then and then
I'll I'll just shut up. Just let y'all court.

Speaker 4 (01:37:22):
Well.

Speaker 3 (01:37:22):
I was just about to hang up on James, but
I guess I can now, so I better. I'm kidding,
of course, James, I'm kidding. I agree. I think this
conversation has been excellent. But so you're saying that if
we if we don't have evidence, we shouldn't believe in something.
And so then we start with I don't know, which
is kind of where I am, and I'm happy to
have you join me on this. I don't know, island,

(01:37:43):
How are we going to get off?

Speaker 9 (01:37:44):
We need evidence, right, and so we what it is
we don't know, and so we have to figure out
how it is that we've got here. And so you
don't know, I don't know, we all don't know how
it is got here and uh, and so that's our
that's our starting premise, and so I.

Speaker 3 (01:38:04):
Would suggest that in order to find that out, I
would say that in order for us to find that
way of getting off, we need to gather evidence. And
if there's no evidence to be gathered, then we're stuck.
And I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:38:20):
Okay, Well start with it looks like it, it looks
like it like it's a the world was created, man
was created human?

Speaker 8 (01:38:29):
How do you know that?

Speaker 1 (01:38:30):
Okay, there's no evidence, how do you know that it
looks like it's created.

Speaker 6 (01:38:35):
So let's start. That's one, right, and life creating life
is another one?

Speaker 3 (01:38:41):
Is it is before? No, no, no, I want you
to back up number one before you go to number two.
We're not just going to be have a list of
gobbledegook here. See what I did that? So we want
we need to We need to how does that?

Speaker 5 (01:38:54):
Uh?

Speaker 3 (01:38:55):
Yeah? We need to figure out how we got here?
How do we do that?

Speaker 6 (01:39:00):
We need to figure out how we don't know. All
we could do is work with theories how we got here?

Speaker 1 (01:39:05):
See see I don't agree with that, James. I think
there are methods for us to be able to determine
at the very least some information as to how we
got here now. Maybe not one hundred percent right, maybe
not all the way to that infinite pass that Paul
and you know, myself and Scott we're talking about him,

(01:39:28):
and maybe we can't go that far back, but there
are clear methodologies that we use. Right like before you
called this show, wherever you are right now, I bet
you you could probably retrace most of your steps today.
Maybe not for the whole month, maybe not for the
whole five years, But I mean, come on, if somebody

(01:39:49):
walks into your kitchen with a birthday cake and a
receipt from dairy queen. You have some methodologies as to
figuring out how this guy got here with that cake,
right right. Yeah, So there are some things that already
exist for us, Like, for instance, if I wasn't sure

(01:40:12):
and I wanted to find out if I had more
brothers and sisters or more relatives out there in my
city or in another city, I could go get a
DNA test and we could compare that to other people
that have gotten those DNA tests, and we could look
at those and go, wow, this one is so freaking similar.

(01:40:33):
And we can do that, funny enough with non humans
as well. We can take your dog right now, if
you have one. I don't know, but let's say you
a friend of mine has this cute little shephoo, durable
little fucker. We know exactly who her mama and daddy are,
and we can find her damn cousins all over the state.

(01:40:56):
All we got to do is get a little bit
of that dog DNA. And we can do this with
a bunch of things. In fact, we can do it
with every living thing. And there does seem to be
this really interesting thread that when we go back in time,
we kind of go back in the DNA code as well,

(01:41:19):
something about like what like twenty percent of us twenty
percent of our DNA and a bananas DNA are exactly
the same or something. I'm like, you go, like, you know,
I'm sure there are geneticist out there that are gonna
yell at me, James, all the smarty people are gonna
hate me right now. But you go, literally, you just
like if you printed it out on fucking paper, you
would go like ten fucking pages before you go, wait

(01:41:40):
a second, this isn't a banana, Like that's wild man.
So we have that methodology at the very least. Maybe
we don't know the first time some fish crawled out
on land, but we do actually have fish that walk
right now and their DNA bears these really interesting arkers

(01:42:00):
that are connected to other walking living things today. That's
pretty cool, right.

Speaker 6 (01:42:09):
So what you're saying is that if there's sufficient criteria,
then then we can make a good assessment.

Speaker 2 (01:42:18):
We could believe.

Speaker 1 (01:42:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:42:20):
So, and so I'm wondering what I'm challenging is is
their sufficient criteria? Do you know that?

Speaker 3 (01:42:27):
My question?

Speaker 1 (01:42:29):
How far we go absolutely absolutely phenomenal question. And I
do think the answer to that is yes, and I
do think myself and Scott could present that information. But
here is what I am going to ask, James, and
I know I'm giving you homework, would you mind maybe
coming back and hanging out when somebody like doctor Ben
or Forrest Valci is on, because like those guys really

(01:42:52):
have I mean, Forrest Valcui is like into biology stuff
bends you know, a medical doctor. But both of those
guys would have a lot more knowledge and be able
to go like, oh yeah, super cool man. Yeah, here
is what that criteria is and here's how we know
all that is that. Does that sound fair? Man like?
They would be a better resource.

Speaker 6 (01:43:11):
On that for you, right? But also, sr you just
demonstrated something interesting is that you believe this DNA stuff
that you that you said and all that, but you
don't know anything about it.

Speaker 2 (01:43:26):
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:43:27):
Oh no, no, no, no no, no, I'm gonna mute you.
I'm gonna mute you completely, unabashedly. I have absolutely no
qualms and will not be apologizing for that one. James.
That is definitely not what I said. In no way,
shape or form did I ever say I don't know
anything about DNA. I'm just accepting it.

Speaker 4 (01:43:44):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:43:45):
In fact, I think I made it fairly clear that
I do actually have some level of knowledge. Not an expert,
just gonna say that a thousand times over. Not an expert,
but I do understand stand just a little bit enough
to be able to say, hey, actually, yes, this is

(01:44:05):
a good justification for coming to this conclusion. What I
offered was somebody that could do it better. What I
offered was somebody that could give you the exact data
points and the year and the name on the paper. Okay,
not that I didn't know, and I just accept it.
But anyway, once again, I am just going to be

(01:44:28):
a dick, James, and I am just going to drop
you with no shame in my heart because I am
a sinning heathen. Terrible whatever, I don't know, fuck it anyway,
but thank you, James, Seriously, I really really thought that
was a phenomenal conversation. I thought the way that you
engaged in that should be something that other callers to

(01:44:49):
this show look at and try to emulate. You were honest,
You were genuine. We disagree, you know, but that's okay,
that's the point, man, But seriously, please, if you can
call back in when Forrest or doctor Ben is on
those those guys would definitely be able to provide even
better data. So, but thank you so much, James. I'm

(01:45:11):
gonna let you go because we got a couple final
things and we're gonna hang out in the discord for
a little bit. Maybe. I know we're already running late,
so I'm not going to take any more time. I'm
just gonna jump right the fuck into it. We're going
out to Mexico. We're talking with Ulrichy him wants to
talk about the existence of church proving God. Well, Ulric,
we are ready, we are here for it. What do

(01:45:33):
you got for us today?

Speaker 7 (01:45:37):
So Jesus said he left the Church to the world,
and here is the church as a universal proof of
God's existence.

Speaker 1 (01:45:44):
Yeah, okay. So Mohammed said that he got a revelation
from God and wrote it down in a book called
the Quran, and the Koran exists today. Therefore, Allah is real.
Your God is fake?

Speaker 6 (01:45:55):
Right?

Speaker 7 (01:45:57):
The Bible is much more real.

Speaker 2 (01:45:59):
Distability know, just answer?

Speaker 1 (01:46:00):
So I'm sorry, did you answer?

Speaker 4 (01:46:02):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:46:03):
Did you answer?

Speaker 3 (01:46:03):
What I said?

Speaker 1 (01:46:04):
I said, your God can't be real because of the
same criteria that you laid out about Christianity, but this
time I used it for Islam. So we're doing that
thing again where the same methodology gives us counter conclusions. Right,
so one of us, Oh, it doesn't. Oh, it's not

(01:46:25):
written in the Qoran that Muhammad received a revelation directly
from Allah through the archangel Gabriel, and that it was
written down in its entirety. It's not said that. And
the Koran doesn't exist today. Yes it does.

Speaker 7 (01:46:39):
But how many Muslim callers do?

Speaker 1 (01:46:40):
You have?

Speaker 3 (01:46:41):
Almost none?

Speaker 2 (01:46:42):
Because christian Does that matter?

Speaker 1 (01:46:44):
What does that matter?

Speaker 4 (01:46:45):
So?

Speaker 1 (01:46:45):
But there's more Christians? So now your thing is more correct.
That's that's crazy. You know that's not true. How many
Muslims actually are in the world. By the way, I don't.

Speaker 6 (01:46:55):
Think you'd like the number.

Speaker 1 (01:46:56):
It's a lot bigger than your man.

Speaker 3 (01:47:00):
Why does that matter?

Speaker 1 (01:47:01):
It's a bit closer to two. But that doesn't matter
either way. The point is, here's the issue.

Speaker 11 (01:47:07):
If your thing, if your thing, ulric ulrick, come on,
if your thing, if your reason for saying Christianity is
true is because in the book that already accepts Christianity
is true, it's said a thing and that is the
case today.

Speaker 1 (01:47:26):
Can you see how that isn't going to be a
good path to leading us to truth? Because Scott and
I have books, the scientologists have books, the Mormons have books,
and all of their books all agree that they're right,
and they say things and those things are true.

Speaker 7 (01:47:43):
But they didn't come to pass.

Speaker 1 (01:47:45):
Yeah they did, Yeah they did. Don't you know about
the one in the Koran about building skyscrapers in the
Middle East? What's been happening in Dubai?

Speaker 2 (01:47:53):
Ooh boom.

Speaker 1 (01:47:54):
All the Dowell boys right now are fucking loving it.
They're saying, yes, pray, please praise s R. Our Brother
in Mohammad. Yes, ah, Come on, man, Every single religion
has this, Every single one of them has this stuff.

Speaker 7 (01:48:13):
Fulfilled prophecies is unique to Christianity, and they're oh.

Speaker 1 (01:48:17):
My gosh, let's talk about any one of them. Name
a single fulfilled prophecy and we will. Are you familiar though,
before we go through this, do you know the man
sometimes referred to as Paul Logia, but his name is
paula Jia. Are you familiar with his Are you familiar
with his criteria for what makes a prophecy a prophecy? No? Okay,

(01:48:43):
So he has it well laid out in a video,
and you should just go watch it on your own
time whenever you have time. I love his stuff, But
in general, this is a very basic list of criteria
that must be adhered to, and I'm probably not going
to get them all right off of memory.

Speaker 6 (01:48:59):
Just so, but.

Speaker 1 (01:49:02):
It's that the prophecy has to be made very clearly
before the event described, right. It cannot be vague and
be answered by multiple occurrences. It must be specific, right.
People can't be actively attempting to bring it to pass.

Speaker 6 (01:49:22):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:49:22):
So and again, I think there's a couple more. I
think there's actually six in total. But with that kind
of in mind, let's talk about a single fulfilled prophecy
from the Bible anyone whatsoever. Please don't say tire, though
I will talk about it, but please don't say tire.

Speaker 3 (01:49:42):
Nobody wants to go there.

Speaker 1 (01:49:43):
Nobody wants to go to tire. Okay, give me a prophecy,
all Rick, the.

Speaker 7 (01:49:50):
Twoth distributed to the whole world and then coming back
in the last days into Palestina.

Speaker 1 (01:49:57):
Do you think it's the last days right now? Is
what you're saying. Are you saying that the prophecy is
in the Bible, and I'm going to need chapter and
verse here in a second. But are you saying the
prophecy in the Bible is Jews will be kicked out
of their ancient homeland Jerusalem, and then eventually, when the

(01:50:18):
apocalypse is occurring and the world is falling around all
of us in hell, fire and brimstone, they will be
back in that ancestral homeland.

Speaker 3 (01:50:28):
Is that what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:50:32):
Yes, But I don't think it's chapter and verse And
do you think that it's the end times? Chapter and verse?
And do you think it's the end times now? Because
that has to be the case. It has to be
the apocalypse right now. If what you're saying is like
that is a fulfilled prophecy. Otherwise it is potentially a
prophecy that could be fulfilled when the apocalypse and the

(01:50:53):
end times actually occur. So are we in the end times?
Are we in the end times?

Speaker 4 (01:51:00):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:51:00):
No, the prophecy that you said, stop, ulric im mute
at you. I'm going to take a breath to myself.
I want you to do the same. Okay, when you
come back, I need to be clear on this is
the prophecy that the Jews will be kicked out of
their ancestral homeland and then brought back at the end

(01:51:25):
of days. Because if so, just to put all my
cards on the table, you have to accept that it
is currently the end of days. Otherwise that prophecy can't
be fulfilled, right, okay? So the other thing I would
like is just chapter and verse of where the fuck
to find that? So those two things I'm going to

(01:51:46):
unmute your right now. It's going to be a loud beat.
Probably you're back on Ulrick. What do you got for me?
Chapter and verse? And are we in the end times?

Speaker 2 (01:51:55):
Right now?

Speaker 7 (01:51:56):
Tonomy Deuteronomy twenty eight sixty four.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
Love it, I'll look that up. Are we in the
end times? Maybe?

Speaker 4 (01:52:07):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (01:52:08):
But but we we have to be if that prophecy
is the film.

Speaker 7 (01:52:13):
No, because it's just back before the end times. Before
might mean a long time.

Speaker 1 (01:52:21):
So let me make sure I got this right. Must
say the wrong version Economy twenty eight sixty four. Yes, okay,
Mine says, tell me if I'm wrong, Scott, Mine says.
And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people from
the one end of the earth, even unto the other,

(01:52:43):
and there and there thou shalt serve other gods, which
neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.

Speaker 3 (01:52:52):
That's what I see us have, King James version of.

Speaker 10 (01:52:55):
Yeah, has that happened?

Speaker 7 (01:52:58):
Or has it not happened? Though it has happened, right,
Can I let me?

Speaker 1 (01:53:02):
Let me, let me? Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on,
hang on, hang on, hang on. I'm gonna read it again, okay,
because nowhere in this fucking sentence that you just gave
us all Rick, Nowhere in this sentence does it say
the thing that you said. You said, the Jews got
kicked out ancestral lands and then came back before the

(01:53:25):
end times. This says, and the Lord shall scatter thee
among all people, probably talking about the Israelites, the Jews,
the Hebrews. I'm comfortable with that, okay. The Lord shall
scatter thee among all people from the one end of
the earth even onto the other. And there thou shalt
serve other gods not returning yet Apparently, there thou shalt

(01:53:50):
serve other gods which neither thou nor thy fathers have known,
even wood and stone. At no point in that time
in that sentence does it say that they will be
brought back to their ancestral homelands.

Speaker 7 (01:54:06):
Euteronomy thirty three to five.

Speaker 2 (01:54:08):
There it says it.

Speaker 1 (01:54:10):
So it's a different verse, though. I just that's all
I want real quick. I'll go look that up. Oll Rick,
ol Rick, ol Rick. You are an adult, and I
know you're a good person, and I know that the
next words out of your mouth are just going to be, Hey,
my bad. I just made a simple mistake. It's actually
this other chapter and verse, and we'll go look at that.
But tell me, tell me, all Rick, Yeah, me too.

(01:54:33):
I make mistakes all the time. Man, no problem, no
worries whatsoever. I just you didn't live all right?

Speaker 7 (01:54:40):
Sorry, I was totally right. The verse says the choose
to be scattered, and the other word says they will
come back.

Speaker 3 (01:54:46):
So hang on, so hang on? What was the second
one again? Hang on?

Speaker 1 (01:54:50):
Hang on thirty I don't know. We'll figure that out
here in just a second. I got to mute it,
all Rick, all Rick, you can combine these two verses
and I'll accept this, okay, But that is not what
you said, bro, And there is no reason to try
so hard to be right on this. Just say, hey, man,

(01:55:15):
I actually made a mistake. It is these two verses
combined together, and then we'll go through them together in
the last little bit of time. But if you can't,
if you can't, come back on and just be honest
and just be like, oops, my bad man. Seriously, it
is just and oops my bad moment. I want I
want that man, please help me out here. I'm gonna

(01:55:38):
unmute you all, Rick, Okay, Oops, my bad.

Speaker 6 (01:55:42):
Right.

Speaker 7 (01:55:44):
Then you ask for verses and I give you one,
which which is actually amazing, and that was just the scathering.
The scathering is clearly there. There are tons of verses,
not only one, tons of verses where it says they
will come back to their homeland and you need.

Speaker 1 (01:56:00):
Both of those. And what you gave us first was
one thing. So oops, my bad, Scott, and as are
let me hear it, Olrick, bring it home.

Speaker 6 (01:56:10):
Okay.

Speaker 7 (01:56:11):
Deuteronomy, chapter thirsdy, verse three.

Speaker 1 (01:56:16):
We can fuck off, and we did. Hey, Olrick, when
you call back next time, when you make a mistake,
just be a man, be an adult, say you made
a mistake. It's really that simple, okay. And I did
that on purpose for everybody out there who's like, wow,
what a fucking asshole. Yeah, I was being an asshole
because if you cannot engage in a conversation and be

(01:56:41):
comfortable enough when you make a simple, tiny mistake like
we all fucking do. I bet you I made four
or five today, for fuck's sake. And if somebody would
just go, hey, man, you said humble when you meant
to say you know this, it's like fine, fuck me,
my bad, no worries. We're gonna be fine. We're gonna
move on. But oh, Rick, don't come all up in

(01:57:04):
here and be like, no, actually, I was right, I
got it right right right. No, you didn't. Man, You
made a simple mistake. And now you don't get the
opportunity to say your message of Jesus Christ, love and
hope and compassion all because you couldn't do the thing
that Jesus tells you to do anyway, which is be
fucking humble. Christians not meeting their ship that comes full

(01:57:27):
circle all the way around. It's almost like it's almost
like I had planned that.

Speaker 3 (01:57:34):
I'm just gonna pretend that I engineered their brilliant I
am in awe, I am in awe of your skills
right now.

Speaker 1 (01:57:45):
Oh my god, that's uh. That was a great coincidence,
and I will fucking take it. But thank you so
much for everybody for being here. Do we do we
want to bring up? Do we want to bring up
our backup? Is that?

Speaker 6 (01:57:57):
Is that cool?

Speaker 3 (01:57:58):
We should bring up our back up and her backup
and her backup.

Speaker 1 (01:58:02):
Right, we've got backups today.

Speaker 3 (01:58:04):
Very wet.

Speaker 1 (01:58:06):
That's so cute.

Speaker 3 (01:58:10):
Oh you're muted, you're on. We can't hear.

Speaker 1 (01:58:15):
We that's okays going on.

Speaker 3 (01:58:26):
She's saying, s ar, you're just putting on too much
gobbledygook and I hope someday, and then she stops to
give a kiss, and then yeah, okay, all right, we
get it.

Speaker 6 (01:58:35):
We get the gist.

Speaker 3 (01:58:35):
We get the gist.

Speaker 1 (01:58:36):
At least it's an adorable and adorable little child exactly. Honestly,
it's like, you know, what are we doing? We said
this before the show, like, you know, we just need
to do this whole show. That's just puppies, you know,
none of our faces and just like little kittens running
around and playing while somebody says that the Bible's dumb
or something in the background.

Speaker 6 (01:58:57):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:58:57):
Anyway, Thank you all so free, thank and much for
being here. Everybody that was like in commenting below, everybody
that sent super chats, You guys are amazing. You help
make this possible every single day. Without you guys, all
the cool stuff that's happened in Austin would not be
able to happen. So thank you so much. And this
show doesn't happen without that incredible, amazing crew who I'm

(01:59:20):
sure have gotten off all that steam and anger that
they have towards me. It's right, that's right, it'll be
in there. It'll be a real calm after show where
they don't say anything upsetting. Yeah, no, it'll be great.

Speaker 3 (01:59:36):
It'll be great.

Speaker 1 (01:59:36):
No cuss words will will be flown right towards me.

Speaker 3 (01:59:39):
But anyway, come ahead, we got that settled.

Speaker 1 (01:59:42):
I I had a great fricking time, Scott. Did you
have a good time today?

Speaker 3 (01:59:46):
I did. I had a good time. Of course I
was expecting it. And yeah, you you've fulfilled my my
dreams of being on a show with the ineffable I'll
say it correctly this time, seculararity.

Speaker 1 (01:59:58):
Wow, I appreciate it. I had a great freaking time.
And yeah, there's a couple of there's a good couple
of times I think today. Man, you were that last
one with with James. Literally there was a point I
sent it, h I sent it in the in the
private chat where I was just like, yeah, shit, put

(02:00:18):
Scott on the one up. He's cooking right now, Like
let the motherfucker go. Uh So I try to know
you do, you do great stuff.

Speaker 4 (02:00:26):
You do great.

Speaker 1 (02:00:26):
And even though Sophia wasn't wasn't at we didn't have
her on today. I don't know if you guys have
seen her, but man, she has some damn good responses
to stuff. So you're gonna have to go watch that.
But for sure, in the meantime, we are gonna fuck
off and we're gonna be in the discord for a
little bit for the after show. I don't know, don't
know how long, but it'll be a little bit, So

(02:00:48):
come hang out with us if you got the time.
Until then, we will be back here next week four
thirty pm Central time, and I'll shut the fuck up
so we can all go home. So thank you so much, everybody.
We'll see you next time right days. Dot already Dot

(02:01:08):
crew has already started sending very nasty messages around you. God,
I've never seen the.

Speaker 4 (02:01:16):
Word with a you like that.

Speaker 1 (02:01:20):
Were using it a lot. Watch Talking Than Live Sundays

(02:01:42):
at one pm Central. Visit tiny dot c c slash
y t t H and call into the show at
five one two nine nine one nine two four two,
or connect to the show online at tiny dot c
c slash call th H

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Atheist Experience 29.21 with Secular Rarity and Scott Dickie 2025-05-25

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 29.21 with Secular Rarity and Scott Dickie 2025-05-25

Stuff You Should Know