The Atheist Experience 29.27 with Forrest Valkai and Jim Barrow

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, There, Forrest valkei biologist and science communicator with some
special questions for you. Do you believe that the human
body is so complex that it must have a designer?
Do you believe that humans are not animals? Do you
believe that micro evolution may be true but macro evolution

(00:20):
is not. Or do you perhaps believe that we've never
observed evolution at all? If any of these questions apply
to you, if you answered yes to any of them,
or if you have more questions, comments, concerns, or objections
about evolution than call in because the show.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Starts right now.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
I gotta tell you about a third of the way
through that I realized that I could not remember if
I had unmuted my mic, and I was panicking the
whole time, just like somebody might just be watching me,
just just sticulates and just makes sounds, and they, oh, man,
glad it all works out.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Hey.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
I'm Forrest Palcai, and I'm joined today by the charming
and handsome Jim Barrows.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
How are you, my friend, ah? Doing better than I
probably deserve and enjoying life?

Speaker 1 (01:09):
Yeah, let's new with you, flip dude. I've got a
ton of updates and a ton of things, but we're
not going to talk about them right now because I
have something to tell the audience, and that thing is
that the Atheist Community is a product of the Atheist
Community of Austin, which is a five A one C
three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking,
secular humanism, and the separation of church and state. And

(01:31):
as a part of that, we want to throw out
that we are devastated, absolutely devastated by the catastrophic floods
that have been happening here in Central Texas. I say
here as if I'm there, I'm in Oklahoma, But like there,
in central Texas where the ACA is, Kerr County, I
believe it is was recently hit particularly hard. Fifty Nine

(01:54):
people at least have been found to be killed so far,
twenty one of whom were children. In addition, eleven children
from Camp Mystic are still unaccounted for. Consistent with our
commitment to human rights and dignity and community welfare here
at the ACA, we are taking this time to encourage
you to please not donate to us this week. Please

(02:17):
instead donate somewhere else. Specifically, we're looking at the Kerr
County Flood Relief Fund, which is run by the Community
Foundation of the Texas Hill County. It is a five
oh one c three nonprofit organization. So our fundraiser, all
of our everything this week, send it there. We have
turned off super chats, we're not taking donations. Please donate

(02:37):
there and help the people who need it most. Right now,
you can donate to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund
at bit dot lee slash Austin Flood Fund, or you
can use the link down the description for convenience there
as well. That is what's most important at this moment,
So we want to make sure to say that right
at the top of the show, and we'll remind you
again and again as we go on. Those people need

(02:59):
our help and we're here to be helpful, So please
donate whatever you can. And with that, we have a
couple of announcements, but the show is starting right now,
you're ready. We're gonna talk to Will No brought out
a given calling him from the UK who says, if
God isn't real, nothing is Will You're on the experience
of fortune him.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
How you doing today?

Speaker 3 (03:16):
Wow?

Speaker 4 (03:20):
I'm good. You guys never had a bad day. Oh,
I know I didn't give you the more you repun me.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I never had a bad day. Ready
to talk to you. What's going on?

Speaker 4 (03:29):
Never had a bad day? That's great. Well I rung
up with a claim that either God is real and
nothing else is and as wonder if you want to
discuss that.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
Sure, and I'm curious to know it says you're calling
in and as an agnostic. So if you believe God
is certainly real, then that would make you a theist.

Speaker 5 (03:45):
I would suppose, no, no, no, no, a gnostic, not agnostic.

Speaker 4 (03:49):
A gnostic, I said, the best way to buy me
is a gnostic.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
You know.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
Oh okay, there must have been a misunderstanding. Okay, so
you are a gnostic theist or you know that God
is for sure real?

Speaker 2 (03:59):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (03:59):
I like the way espo to be honest. But if
you want to tell me that, I.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
Just want to make sure I'm understanding. That's totally fine.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
I sweet will tell us how you came to this inclusion,
like why does this make sense to you?

Speaker 2 (04:11):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (04:11):
Also, I'm so sorry before you start. Also, please tell
me which God we're talking about, Which God do you
believe in? And then how do you.

Speaker 5 (04:18):
Think to be honest, both those questions I can answer
at the same time, which was I listened to everybody chat.

Speaker 4 (04:25):
About God and you know, debate it. But then I
came to a conclusion that.

Speaker 5 (04:29):
I saw something that everybody was defining the word God,
but like it didn't nobody was actually given an objective.

Speaker 4 (04:36):
Definition of it.

Speaker 5 (04:36):
So I just started working on is then an objective
definition of God?

Speaker 4 (04:40):
And I think I found it.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
So if you want to hear, okay, yeah, let's talk,
Well that would be what?

Speaker 4 (04:45):
Well, to me, I define God? Oh?

Speaker 5 (04:46):
Sorry, to me, I have to find God is that
which has authority of all things, just as a definition
for the word.

Speaker 4 (04:52):
And then I went along to find out if there was.

Speaker 5 (04:54):
Something in reality that existed that meant that definition, and
if it did, I was going to award it the
title of God and serve.

Speaker 4 (05:00):
Than worship it of all other things, because.

Speaker 5 (05:02):
Something has a parity of all other things and it
should be worshiped.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
Upon Kay, why why should anything be worshiped?

Speaker 5 (05:07):
Well, it depends what we mean by worship, doesn't it.
If I'd say say, worship is something you place above
yourself and everything else, as in like an ultimate authority
or standard of truth. You work towards or whatever you
want to see it as the really wishing it, aren't you, because.

Speaker 4 (05:20):
You're taking it with over yours whatever it says.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
Is that how you define it?

Speaker 4 (05:24):
Well, not really, I'm just used. That's the way I'm
using the word worship.

Speaker 5 (05:27):
I suppose, because that's what it means to me, because
if I worship something, then what it says goes.

Speaker 4 (05:32):
That's what I mean by worship. I don't really mean
like you know, pow, and I don't really understand it
like that. I suppose how I'm saying it.

Speaker 5 (05:37):
So really, if I go back to it, all I'm
saying is before I can go and prove this thing exists,
I first need to know is it logical for me
to claim that God is that which has a paritable things?

Speaker 4 (05:47):
That that definition.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
Is okay with you? Guys?

Speaker 4 (05:50):
Do you think that's a super definition for us to
discussed as God?

Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, I mean, it's all it's really close to the
dictionary definition, which is the feeling excuse me, that's worshiped
when we go back to God, the creator and ruler
of the universe, source of all moral authority, the supreme being.
So you don't have a new or unique definition of God.
And as definitions go, fine, how do you know that
God created the universe? How do you know he rules

(06:12):
the universe? And what do you mean by a source
of all moral authority?

Speaker 4 (06:16):
I didn't claim any of that. All I claimed was
God was part of all things. You claimed all that me.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
That's fine, that's fine. How do you how do you
know that? How do you know that? No?

Speaker 5 (06:27):
No, no, I don't know anything. And just give you
a definition of the word God so we can discuss it.
Are you accept what.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
I give you? I give you all kinds of definitions
for words that don't that that don't exist in reality.
So what Yeah, but I didn't give you with me.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
I'm willing to operate. I'm willing to operate this conversation
with the definition something which has authority over all things.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
That's fine.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
It's it's difficult for us to find something that we
don't think is real, So like, I'm.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
Willing to work with that. With that definition.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
The definition of warship I just wrote down like something
you put above all else and like refer to in
terms of like authority, which is kind of reflective of
the definition of God that you gave. So I've got
those things written down. Considering those, now, what is this
thing which has such authority over all things? And then

(07:15):
I have further questions about like what that implies?

Speaker 4 (07:18):
Oh okay, well, what I've discovered has that in reality?

Speaker 5 (07:21):
So I can say that that is something that has
authority of all things, therefore deserving of what I claim.

Speaker 4 (07:26):
To be God I can point to.

Speaker 5 (07:28):
But again, I'm very sorry, he says, maybe that it's
the accent.

Speaker 4 (07:33):
I just I need to be clear.

Speaker 5 (07:35):
Are you guys accepting that my definition of God a
parity of all things is suitable for me to continue
and prove it exists?

Speaker 2 (07:42):
You accept if I get the conversation? Yes, okay, Cole.

Speaker 5 (07:47):
Well, all I have to do is say, in reality,
it does something exist that has authority of all things?

Speaker 4 (07:52):
And so I decided, yet, I'll check this out.

Speaker 5 (07:54):
And then I realized what to me first personally, what
I would I say?

Speaker 4 (07:59):
That was to me? What won't to me have a
quality over everything? Whereas it is subjectively?

Speaker 5 (08:03):
Before I went objectively, and and I finally into the
collusion that well, truth to us, truth are authority of
all things. Nothing superseded to me? Without there couldn't, nothing
would you know, and I mean the two essence of
what truth is that which relates to what is real?

Speaker 4 (08:16):
And then I.

Speaker 5 (08:19):
Don't but I asked that I haven't finished, so you're
only going to be I need to complete this for
you to understand it.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
Yeah, but we need to go back to something you
said that doesn't make that makes absolutely no sense, and
so it kind of makes everything you say after it
no sense. What do you mean by the true essence
of truth? I mean truth is either true or it's not.
How does it have a true essence? That doesn't make
any sense to me?

Speaker 4 (08:44):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 5 (08:44):
If I finished my foot, then then you can ask
questions about it, not halfway through, because if you allow
me to finish in man answer that question to you,
is that possible?

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Well, I don't understand why you go continue going on
making no sense when we were stopping you at a
point where you make no sense to us, and everything
you say after that is not going to make any
sense if you continue. If you if you have to
continue your thought before we come back to this, this
thing of true essence of truth which makes absolutely no sense,

(09:13):
and any you know, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (09:16):
What do you mean by it makes no sense?

Speaker 2 (09:17):
Sorry?

Speaker 4 (09:17):
I don't give you mean does make sense?

Speaker 2 (09:20):
The phrase the true essence of truth makes no sense.
A thing is either true or it's not.

Speaker 4 (09:27):
Truth, and then it's truth, which is that? Oh? Sorry?
But yeah, yeah, that's what I mean. That's why there's
two essence of truth is.

Speaker 5 (09:31):
But some people don't see truth like that, do there?
They see truth, their truth or something like that. I'm
not talking about them truth.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
So why not just say truth? Why why get into
the gobblety gise?

Speaker 1 (09:41):
It sounds like you're saying like objective reality is is
the phrase you're using, You're using more poetic language, is
a objective reality?

Speaker 2 (09:47):
Is that fair? All right?

Speaker 5 (09:48):
What I'm saying is that which you would call objectively
true the truth. Why I say it is because some
people when I say that before, other people haven't understood.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
What I meant.

Speaker 4 (09:57):
So I apologize if.

Speaker 5 (09:58):
You there was no need, so maybe I was just
it's great when we get it.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
So what's the rest?

Speaker 4 (10:05):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (10:05):
So what I say is to you is is there
something you guys can think of a proof that exists
that is has more faulty than truth?

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Hold on saying I'm just taking truth because I have
an authority. I mean true. It's something that is either
true I eat comports with reality or not. I don't
know why you would say it has authority though? Right?

Speaker 4 (10:26):
What what?

Speaker 2 (10:27):
What?

Speaker 5 (10:27):
What I mean by athorty is like the right to govern.
So there's truth of the right to govern over all things.
It's all things governed by truth.

Speaker 2 (10:35):
That makes even you're still not making any sense why
that would even be the case when one plus one
equals to is true? Why would that have authority over
anything other than why would have authority over anything?

Speaker 4 (10:45):
You change?

Speaker 5 (10:46):
And I just changed the way the faulty because you're
a difficult bit to govern? So can we Why would
truth govern over all things?

Speaker 2 (10:52):
One question? Just change government for authority? Why would one
plus one equal to govern anything?

Speaker 5 (10:57):
Okay, if some montics I'm autistic, I'm trying to link.
I changed my answers so to ligne with you, so
you understand what I'm saying is truth governs overall things?

Speaker 4 (11:05):
Is that correct or not?

Speaker 2 (11:07):
I don't understand that true or not. I'm fine. I'm
fine with this.

Speaker 1 (11:11):
So I'm trying to like meet your rhetorical goal here,
Like I'm trying not to get too hung up on
the semantics.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
I don't you.

Speaker 4 (11:19):
Just answer the question as it is? Does truth will
all things? Don't change? Just that question, don't? Okay one
plus one, I'm asking one, but I'm saying, does truth
govern over all things? Yes? Oh no, I don't know.
If there's another will.

Speaker 2 (11:31):
My answer is it's no, yeah will.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
I was trying to I was trying to like reformulate
the question to try to understand where you're coming from.
If you're saying, don't change anything, just answer the question
as it is, then the answer is I don't think
so now because the way you phrase it doesn't make
any sense to me. I was trying to meet you
where you are, and you didn't want me to do that.
So I know, I suppose I understand.

Speaker 4 (11:52):
What I understand you.

Speaker 5 (11:54):
There is it the league guys that do apologize, and
sometimes it will confusion my apologies. So to you, there
is no one truth stand that the governance of all things?

Speaker 4 (12:02):
Therefore what so that.

Speaker 2 (12:04):
The hang up?

Speaker 1 (12:05):
The hang up for me and I'm trying to like
meet your rhetorical goal here, I'm trying to get to
where you are. Is like I have an issue with
the word govern in this case, and it sounds like
Jim also does, because the way that you're framing this,
the way that you're setting up this question, sounds like
there is this thing called truth, and that thing like

(12:26):
actually like makes edicts and dictates and has this top
down control over reality, rather than the way that we're
seeing it, which is just that reality is what reality is.
There is an objective reality out there, and that does exist,
and we can appeal to that when we're trying to
learn things, but it's not making any demands of anything.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
It just exists and that's that's.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
If you say it governs things or has authority or
anything like that, you're giving it an action verb and
I don't understand that concept.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
That does makes sense to me. If the idea that.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
You're trying to present here is that there is an
objective reality, period, then yes, I agree with that. And
if you're trying to say that, like our pursuit should
be to understand that objective reality and to find truth
as best we can, of course I agree with that.
But to say that truth is doing something or exerting

(13:22):
some authority over something, it's like saying, what does the
color blue want?

Speaker 2 (13:27):
I don't know what that means. It doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 4 (13:29):
No, okay, that is your claim. Prove it, because I
don't know what. Disagree with you. That's not true.

Speaker 5 (13:35):
I've just written into Google and it says, no, that's
not what govern means. They're asserting something that you are
not a certain. I am not a certain.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
Governments, any government governs governed definition. Hold up? Hold up.
Govern's definition is conduct conduct the policy, actions, and affairs
of a state, organization or people. So I don't know
what you just typed into Google. Uh, but that is
not the definition of government, which is why we're having
a problem with you saying that truth governs anything.

Speaker 5 (14:03):
Okay, So what I'm saying is, can I define how
I'm using the word govern and not you define it
if you like, I'm the one inject To govern means
to exercise control, influencer, determine over something's existence, operational behavior.

Speaker 1 (14:17):
Right, exercise control would be an action, it would be
to exercise control would be an action. It would be
a deliberate action, is taken with intention.

Speaker 4 (14:28):
I'm sorry, So could you say that I want to
listen to what you said. I'm trying to break it
down with you said. Could you repeat.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
What you the definition you just gave of govern meaning
to exercise control over something, which I am paraphrasing right that,
to exercise control over something that is an action which
is taken with intention. That that's our hang up is
that you're saying that objective reality, objective truth, objective truth,

(14:56):
objective reality has an intention and is perf forming actions,
and I don't agree with that.

Speaker 2 (15:03):
That's the It's we're just.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
Hanging up on this one word. If you can move
on to the point, maybe we can find some middle ground.
But if you're if it's just this word, we're not
going to go anywhere.

Speaker 5 (15:10):
I hear sure, I heard you now, and I get
what you're saying, So you could help me because maybe
I'm just getting the word incorrect.

Speaker 4 (15:17):
Is I'm just.

Speaker 5 (15:18):
Gonna ask you then, because I can relate it to
something and you get can help me. What word am
I mistaken for?

Speaker 4 (15:23):
What does gravity exercise control over us through?

Speaker 2 (15:28):
It's false? No? No, then it's okay.

Speaker 4 (15:33):
Then the govern words?

Speaker 5 (15:34):
Yeah, then govern is not what I mean. Now that
to stop, I'm asking you to help me. That's now
you have no I know, and I'm saying, then govern
is not what I mean. Then I'll say maybe.

Speaker 4 (15:43):
I'll say a different sentence.

Speaker 5 (15:44):
See if you've seen by Folowy, I mean the power
of principle that ultimately governed, that is, determines or constraints
what is, what can be, and what is true, that
which we measure all things weakly to be true towards
to tell if it's true or not. The one true
standard principle that we make are all truth towards. Otherwise,
how can truth be a thing? So either God is
real or nothing is because you will measure everything truth

(16:07):
That what I'm calling good.

Speaker 4 (16:08):
Everything you measure, how.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
Do you know? So the way we measure truth is
the way we measure truth is how well does it
describe reality as adjudicated? Well? For me, it's how well
we described how well something describes reality as adjudicated by
predictive power? Why is that so? It's so truth is
a description of what of reality it has. It is

(16:31):
not that it is not reality. It is the map
of reality, And I think you're confusing the map for
the territory.

Speaker 5 (16:38):
I think truth is the abstract version of reality because
the truth to be true. Reality and truth can't be
two different things, right. Truth is just the abstract thing
that humans say what reality is but we're still measure
into a one standard principle that governs all things, which
aligns with the.

Speaker 4 (16:54):
Definition I claim to be God. So what I'm saying is,
what is that?

Speaker 2 (16:57):
What is that standard principle?

Speaker 4 (16:59):
Because everything? If something isn't true, does it matter to you?

Speaker 2 (17:03):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (17:03):
Yes, so it's something is not true, it matters. Why
does something not something that isn't true matter to you?

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Of a developments because bad information leads to bad decisions.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
Yeah, it's literally right now, we are living in the
United States, which is governed by I can't which can't
be political in the show, we have a lot of
people who believe not true things like the Bible, who
run our country and and make horrible decisions that hurt
a lot of people because of their belief and not
true things. So whether or not something is true doesn't

(17:34):
matter as far as whether or not it can have
an impact on the world because of people's beliefs and
their decisions about it. If I have an untrue belief
that drinking rat poison is going to make me healthier,
that's not true, but it does matter, and I do
care about it. I need to know what's going to happen,
you know, so yes, of course, not two things matter.

(17:54):
I feel like we're getting so far away from the
point you're trying to make, which is that God is truth.
God is this thing that has authority over everything, because
God is in your mind, is synonymous with objective reality.
And therefore, if God isn't real, nothing's real, which means
if objective reality isn't real, then definitionally nothing is real

(18:15):
because when we talk about things existing, we're talking about
the objective reality. That doesn't make any sense because again
you are prescribing authority and characteristics and personality to reality
and then saying it's doing a thing and then saying, well,
of course it exists, so it exists, and that makes
no sense to me. And Will doesn't give a shit.

(18:35):
Aus He just hung up, So like what was that
fifteen minutes and we just we try to learn what
the word truth means and I don't get it.

Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, I think he was really confusing the map for
the territory and he kind of got off there a
little bit when he said, yeah, it's an abstraction. Well,
the abstractions, by definition are not reality. And so if
you're going to say that God is true or the
thing we're measuring against. By definition, it can't exist in
reality if it's just a concept, right, which is all

(19:09):
that we really have is are maps of the territory.
Like you like to say. You know, we have models,
and all models are wrong. Summer useful as you said,
And I steal that whenever I can, because it's such
a great line, especially against so many theists, because they
don't have Creationism has no models. There's no model for
God that we can test. Right, the models that we

(19:31):
do test, we're able to test, Prayer, et cetera fail
every time they're testing. So yeah, it's just it's frustrating.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
Hey, really quickly before we take the next call.

Speaker 2 (19:41):
Two things.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
Number one, I'm just going to say this again because
we usually have you know, lower viewership in the show
very first starts and then it increases that the show
goes on. So here one more time, as would remind
everybody that in lieu of asking you to donate to
us and our fundraiser this week, we are asking you
to please send your donates. Donate your donations to the
Kerr County Flow Relief Fund, which is a run by
the Community Foundation of Texas Hill County. A say five

(20:06):
p one c three nonprofit organization. The link to donate
is bit dot lee slash Austin Flood Fund. You can
also find that link down in the description. Please help
donate to the families and the community that have been
devastated by these floods over the past couple of days.
Help them out. We're fine, we can live for a
little bit. Just please send where we've turned off super chats.
We're not taking any donations this week. We want you

(20:28):
to please send your money there and help the people
who are needing them out the most. With that, I'm
ready to jump right into the next one.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
What about you? Absolutely cool? Do you have one in
mind that you like? I'm looking at number three and
number five myself. Yeah, either one of those would be fine.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
Okay, let's talk first to Patrick pronounce he him calling
in from Flying Lemurs, who says Jesus commanded us to
love one another. How could an atheist go wrong with that? Patrick,
you're on the line with Forrest and Jim.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
How you doing today?

Speaker 6 (20:56):
All right?

Speaker 2 (20:57):
Right on, right on?

Speaker 1 (20:58):
So it's it's says you're calling in as an agnostic,
so it sounds you're on the fence.

Speaker 2 (21:03):
Yeah, I would.

Speaker 7 (21:03):
Say I lean more towards this and agnostic this.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
You know, that's a personal Yeah, it's fine.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
And when you say that Jesus commanded us to love
one another, do you have a particular part of the
Bible that you're interested in when talking about that, or
just a general vibe.

Speaker 7 (21:20):
I don't know about like the command at a hart
that you're talking about, but like I would, I wouldn't
say that. I feel like he was a man, but
he was a prophet of love. My main thing was
like regardless of what we may or may not believe in,
you know, in my case, I'm just not sure in

(21:42):
a lot of ways. But uh, you know, I would
say you can't go wrong with a profit of loves.
You know, if you just said here to that principle
that been his main teaching, it would appear and then
a lot of that stuff. I think it could have
been misconstrued written to a couple like two hundred years.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
As Patrick, let me enough real quick, Ques, what do
you mean by love?

Speaker 3 (22:05):
What?

Speaker 2 (22:06):
What what do you mean by love?

Speaker 3 (22:07):
Well?

Speaker 7 (22:08):
I mean love could just be considered like a chemical
reaction within the brain, as I'm sure forced as well
aware of, and that kind of thing you know, you
could just say it's I read an article years ago
at psychology to the day that it was just like
a chemical release or whatever. You know, So I don't

(22:29):
know it could be looked at like that as something deeper,
with deeper meaning. It's more like you're talking about a
more philosophical question there if me personally.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
I'm asking you, I'm asking for a definition of how
you define love, right, because I happen to think that
empathy is better than love, because empathy requires us to
understand the other person, but not necessarily approve of them
or to approve or to approve of their actions to
understand them. Right, I don't know that they had any
definition of love I've heard so far actually does anything

(23:01):
more than love. It doesn't have anything to do with understanding.
When we can point out where people think they love
someone and they do incredibly stupid things, are incredibly harmful
things in the name of love, and I'm not sure
that that's also good. So, you know, when I ask
you for definition of love and you wander often to
you know, the biochemical aspects of it, that doesn't help
us come to a definition of love. And whether or

(23:23):
not love one another is actually a real thing that
is good for society. So how are you defining love?

Speaker 7 (23:31):
I would say, actually, that one part in the Bible.
I don't necessarily go by the Bible, don't get it
with that, but you know that one part in the Bible,
whether it's talking about love, ifs and thirteenth of it
or what. I can't remember these things. But I'm not
like a biblical scholar either though, But like so certainly

(23:54):
not so that time the waves that I need to
read about Bobby Teaches test book, plenty of other better
books out there. But as far as what it says
on love, there's a quote like, you know, love does
not envy, It does not both, it does not take

(24:16):
record of wrong. So you know this kind of thing
like it's the.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
Unconditional patient kind ones thirteen four through eight. Okay, that's
what it is. Yeah, so yeah, I love his patient.
Love is kind, does not envy, It does not FoST
is not proud, does not dishonor others. It is not
self seekings, not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs,
does not the light and evil, but reorse chases with

(24:43):
the truth. It always protects, always trust, always hopes, always preserves.
Where does it say we have to understand ourselves human
where they're coming from.

Speaker 7 (24:50):
You know, as far as that goes, I think that
would be a subjective rather than an objective perspective. So
it just depends on the individual.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
How patient do we have to be with somebody before
we decide that they're not worth our time? How patient?
How patient do we have to be with somebody who
is constantly committed crimes?

Speaker 4 (25:10):
I mean I would.

Speaker 7 (25:11):
Say, you know, you got to protect the fining. You know,
how patient is patient?

Speaker 2 (25:19):
I mean it says love is patient? So I want
to know, is it ever time to not be patient?
You know?

Speaker 7 (25:27):
I would say you're getting into the nuance of it.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
You're the one who's saying that that. Uh, you know,
Jesus commands loved one. How can an atheist go wrong
with that? And then when you agree with the definition
that I give, and I start to drill down on
what it means, uh, you don't give me a halfway
decent answer. So which which should I prefer? Kindness or patience?
What if it's what if it's kinder to be impatient?

(25:53):
What should I do in that case?

Speaker 8 (25:54):
The patient?

Speaker 2 (25:57):
You know? What if the kindest thing I can do
to somebody is being patient with them, And.

Speaker 7 (26:01):
I think being impatient is not necessarily the way I
take Patience definitely would be a virtue. I think that
goes back to some of his AAA stuff. I think
talking about the Darley Lima had a whole I had
a book read by him.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
You're wondering completely off topic again. I want to know
which of the things that the Bible says love is
takes precedence? Right? Is it better to be patient or
is it better to be kind? What if the greatest
kindness you can do for somebody is to be impatient
with them, is to not wait until they finally get it,
but to actually instruct them and how to get it.

(26:40):
I mean that would be that would be an example.
It says it's that love isn't proud, but parents are
often proud of their children. Are parents being Are parents
expressing non loved of their kids when they're proud of
their kids? Dishonoring others? What does that mean? Self seeking?
Easily angered? Okay, it keeps no record of wrongs. Oh

(27:03):
that's dangerous. Right If somebody is continually trying to hurt
you and I keep no record of that wrong, and
I don't remember that. How am I being kind to myself?

Speaker 7 (27:14):
I mean, you're getting you're breaking it down.

Speaker 3 (27:17):
I like it.

Speaker 7 (27:19):
However, things like you're splitting hairs here a little bit
from my perspective.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
A different question. Can I have something different? Patrick, You're
saying Jesus commanded us to love one another. Sure he
has some stuff in there about loving your neighbor, loving
your enemy, helping the poor, helping the weak, helping the immigrants,
helping like He's The part that I was going to
look at is from Matthew where with the whole story

(27:46):
of the sheeps and the goats, where Jesus, you know,
sets his followers apart and says the people on his
right side, he says, you can enter the king inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food. When
I was thirsty and you gave me a drink. I
was a stranger, you took me in. I was naked
and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me.
I was in prison and you visited me. And they say,

(28:08):
when did we know these things? And he said, verily,
I say unto you, whatever you have done to the
least of my brethren, you have done to me. And
so the whole point of that passage, and the whole
point of much of Jesus's teachings, is whatever you're doing
to the weakest, the poorest, the meekest, the most sick,
the most rejected, the most outcasts, the prostitute, and the

(28:28):
criminal and the felon and all these, whatever you're doing
to the lowest in your society, that's what you're doing
to him. However you treat the lowest people in society,
that's who you really are. And you need to treat everybody,
especially those people, as kindly and as patiently and as
generously as possible. That is Jesus's message more often than not,

(28:49):
and I can vibe with that. The question I have
for you is why do you need Christianity to teach
you that message? I think those are fine messages that anybody,
any good moral person, can derive for themselves.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
And I think if you take a.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
Book which is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro misogyny, front
to back evil, and it has that good passage in it,
and you say this part commands me to be good.
So I'm going to be good while ignoring the rest
or justifying the rest. I think it taints that message.
I think it just turns that whole shit into something
that's seriously just not worth keeping. Wouldn't it be better

(29:26):
to just be loving rather than being commanded to love?

Speaker 2 (29:30):
You know?

Speaker 7 (29:31):
Yeah, certainly I was like seeing that, like he said,
I get he did a new commandment. I give you
love one another. I love to so you must love
one another.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
They call it the New Law of Love and all this.

Speaker 7 (29:48):
As far as what the Bible, yeah, it would certainly
a lot of the you know, people putting themselves and
God definitely didn't write the book and the just say
it through man, not women, but like you know, as
they I've like read it to it a little bit
about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which like the first

(30:12):
page has been destroyed for some odd reason. And that
was like the pics like Jesus painting like more of
a now is type thing where he.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Was there's there's there's lots of versions of the guy.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
And my my, my next question to you, Patrick is
that I think is more important because you're calling and
saying you're leaning more THEUS still is the the description
of love in First Corinthians. Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, It does not boast. It is
not proud, It does not dishonor others. It is not
self seeking, It is not easily angered. It keeps no

(30:48):
record of wrongs those specific passages. Does that sound like
a description of God?

Speaker 7 (30:55):
No, I don't know about that. I would say God
would be all thing what we would consider quote good
or quote evil, but evil the human perspective the Bible.

Speaker 9 (31:07):
I don't know, Like I say, you know, okay, I
like that, and just in a poetic kind of metaphorical way.

Speaker 7 (31:15):
I don't know, you could like like, you know, what's
the other gentleman on the show with you there, Forest
Dan and that right at any rate, he was saying
like breaking breaking it down. You know, I get that
he had a lot of philosophical, logical, rational argument against

(31:36):
that type of love. I would say, for me personally,
love would.

Speaker 9 (31:41):
Be like those like I love from like my son,
and that kind of you know, I think it goes
beyond explanation sometimes because I've never felt a love like that,
not a romantic love or you know, from my like
my mother.

Speaker 7 (31:57):
You know that kind of thing. But that would be
like my main definition of love. But I don't know
what exactly that entails, because I think it's beyond description.
But you don't love things to be a.

Speaker 2 (32:12):
Universal how I mean, you're speaking in such a generalizations
that there's no there there, right, you're not speaking I
mean we said that love is not proud, yet you're
proud of your son, So do you not love your son? Then?
So this is the problem when we start trying to
nail down how any of this works is because it

(32:35):
doesn't work except in the most general sense of the word.
And that's a problem. When I say that epathy is
better than love, I can look at somebody and understand
why they're doing what they're doing, and I can adjust
my actions accordingly. If they're lashing out because of anger
and hurting people because they're angry, then we can deal
with that. If they're hurting people because they enjoy it,

(32:57):
that's a completely different thing. Loved doesn't care about those things.
Love doesn't care about people's motives for doing something and
looking at that rationally and coming up with a plan
of action. So it just the definitions you're using don't work.
They're going to lead to bigger problems then they're going

(33:18):
to solve because they're so general as to be practically useless,
which is part of the problem with the Bible. When
the Bible does say something halfway decent, like you would
see in one Printhians here, it's so general is to
be completely useless in practical, practical life. And when it
does give us commandments that are more practical, a lot
of them are horrifyingly bad, Like you can beat a

(33:40):
slave as long as they don't die within three days,
you can take slaves from those from the nations around us.
Those are horrible things, and yet they're very specific, I mean,
and it continues on with stuff like that, with misogyny.

Speaker 7 (33:52):
So it's actually kind of hilarious in some ways, the
tragically that have a strategically hilarious But yeah, I mean,
I just my point is I feel like you should
necessarily throw out an entire book of philosophy. Yeah, I
guess may.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
It's not a book of philosophy. I would say that
the Bible isn't a book of philosophy at best. At best,
the Bible is historical fiction. At best, it's historical estion
man can.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
You can find corn in just about any turd, Patrick,
But that's no reason to sit there and like really
dig into it and love it and appreciate it. It's
just just not necessary. The Bible does have some nice
things in it, they're not nice things that you can't
get anywhere else. There are some uniquely horrifying things in
the Bible, though, and I think that kind of disqualifies

(34:45):
it as ever being called a good book. I think
you can get love and empathy and compassion and kindness
and justice and morality and all these other things from
much better sources, and you can derive them all by
yourself as well. You don't need a Slavery and Sex
manual from the Iron Age to tell you how to
do these things. I just don't think it's worth it.

(35:06):
So with that, I'm going to move on to the
next call. But it's been fun, Patrick, I appreciate you
calling in.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
I guess he was done.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Okay, we've got a couple more calls left. We're still
open for a theists. We've got about an hour left
in the show, and we have enough calls in here
to go that long. It looks like potentially, but like
we only have one more theist on the line at
this moment. So if you're a theist, we do prioritize
theist calls. If you believe in this God, or if

(35:32):
you don't believe in whatever kind of science, if you
don't believe in in evolution or the Big Bang or
whatever else, or if you do believe that the Bible
is a good book, or you do believe that Jesus
is Lord, or if you do believe that that you
know some some other thing that you would imagine me
I disagree with.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Pick up that phone and give us a call.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
The number on the bomb of the screen there is
five one two nine nine four to two. Or you
can visit the weblink in the description and call us there.
But let's talk to our potentially our last theis caller
of the day. We've got Watcher two one five?

Speaker 2 (36:05):
Do I call you? Watcher? Do I call you? Two
one five? Do I call you? Jeffrey? Might just call
you Jeffrey who's.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Calling in from pro lapsed datus and says I want
to ask a question about biology.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
Uh, let's go for it. Watcher. You're on the line
with Forrest and Jim. How are you doing today?

Speaker 8 (36:21):
He's silly, He's silly. Far what ut my broken arrow friend? Hey,
mister Jim Barrows, did you see you?

Speaker 2 (36:28):
Good? So what's the biology topic you want to ask
for us? Because I'm waiting for Forrest has not gone
on a biology rant yet this show, and he deserves to.
Oh thanks, Jim Brow's got my back.

Speaker 8 (36:43):
Hey, Farrest man? Is there no information in biology? Have
you not discovered information in biology?

Speaker 2 (36:53):
What do you mean? Like, have we learned new things
about biology?

Speaker 1 (36:56):
No?

Speaker 2 (36:56):
No? Is there not?

Speaker 8 (36:57):
I mean tangible information when you look at cells and
all of biology, like all of the mechanicians of biology,
there's no information in that, like just like in computers,
there's information.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
So I'm trying to understand what you mean, because like,
there's two ways that I could take this. The way
that I would use it is to say, like if
you look at literally anything, there's there's information, right. I
can I can pick up this highlighter and I can
see the writing on it, or the simple information is
what it is and what it's made of, and I
can like get I'm gaining knowledge of reality with that.

(37:34):
But it sounds like you're taking it to mean more
of like the Stephen Meyer kind of way where it's
like DNA is a code and has information and language
and therefore something something designer.

Speaker 8 (37:46):
Yeah, I was so surprised when I saw that you
reacted so viscerally to Stephen Meyer and the things that
he says, And I was like, wow for it.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
Because he says the sound and he says the same
one thing over and over and over, and it's never
been once.

Speaker 8 (38:00):
There was nothing right about what he said in your opinion.

Speaker 2 (38:03):
His one line. You can look up.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
I did a video on my channel little while ago
about Prager you, and it's like Craiger you, Stephen Meyer
and something something else I forgot, But it's like.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
An hour long video.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
In the first like ten minutes of it are just
a super cut of all the different times that Stephen
Meyer makes the same goddamn argument, which is you sells
contain information in the form of DNA. DNA is kind
of like a computer code, the acgts sort of like
ones and zeros. Computer code can't write itself. Therefore DNA

(38:37):
can't write itself. There must be a coder. Therefore there
must be an author for DNA, a designer, and that's God.
And it happens to be the Christian God's That is
the dude's one argument that he just says on repeat
all day, every day on every podcast he ever goes
on that. And also he'll then say to a meeting,
the one thing he'll say also is that he went

(38:57):
to a meeting of the Royal Society and he met
one biologist one time who said the evolution isn't real
because Darwinism doesn't work. And I wrote to that biologist
and include a long detailed response from that guy talking
about how Stephen Meyer took his words out of context
and very obviously he didn't say anything that Stephen Meyer claims.
He said, that's his move. He worked for the Discovery Institute, dude.
He in fact, I believe he helped found the Discovery Institute, which,

(39:20):
if you don't know, is a pseudoscience organization dead with
a stated purpose of establishing theocracy.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
They are their whole goal.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
Is to undermine science, to teach bad science in order
to make Christian theology the central tenet of all of
American society.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
So you're asking about the fundamental flaw with anything he says,
it's his definition of information right and information and information
science is a sequence of things that can be acted on.
So if enough snow falls on a branch and the
branch bends, that fits the definition of information, and snowfall

(40:01):
is fairly random. I could also take a million sixcited
dice and roll them, and that is information and there
was no human involved. So the problem that I have
is that he doesn't define information correctly.

Speaker 8 (40:15):
Yeah, when you roll the dice, there's there's no involvement.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
I have no influence. It doesn't matter how the dice
get rolled. There's no influence on how the what the
dice actually end up with. I try, though, I mean
it's a really try to ansert your point of view
in there and completely miss the point. But you have
missed the point. Things that happen randomly can produce information,

(40:41):
which is the point, right, And so uh, that's how
quantum computing is working, right, is it's still quantum. There's
still a bit of randomness in there, but we understand
it well enough to control it. But quantum mechanics is
still random and so there, but there is still information there.
So the idea that information can only come from a
mind is patently false no matter how you look at it.

(41:03):
And I would suggest you go look at some information
science real information science, and stay as far away from
discovery institute as possible because that will simply lead you astray.
But information can be random, can come from random sources,
does not need a mind whatsoever, period and a conversation
full stop.

Speaker 8 (41:20):
And can I ask you a question?

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Sure?

Speaker 8 (41:23):
Can we question? Can we question randomness itself? In other words,
is it possible that what we what we term as
randomness is just the unknown of our own ignorance. We
don't understand it, so therefore we plan to categorize it
as random. But could there possible to be an influence
that with Yeah?

Speaker 2 (41:44):
Of course, okay, there are things out there that we
don't know. But the time to believe something is simply
when we have sufficient good information to believe it, and
not before, so to rely on Oh it could be this,
It could It's possible for X to happen. Well, it's
possible for pigs to come flying out of my lily

(42:04):
white ass. I'm not wearing a pigsty any because it's
not agreable. Oh, so do you wear a pigsty for underwear?
Because it's possible for pigs to come flying out of
your ass? Are you wearing pigsty to wear. Of course,
it's possible for pigs to fly. And I bet you
if I were to ask Forrest, what would it take
to make that happen, for that to happen evolutionarily, I

(42:27):
bet you he could even give you a description of
the genes that would have to be at least inserted,
if not coded for So, Yes, it's possible for pigs
to fly.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
Yeah, don't don't get hung up, Watcher, Like, what he's
saying is just like, yes, lots of things are possible,
but you shouldn't assume anything is unless you have evidence
for that thing. That's that's the key here, is that like, yeah,
maybe something or somebody wrote the information of DNA or
whatever like that, there's no reason to believe that, and

(42:59):
there see that from my standpoint, there's strong evidence against that.
But that's the key is that in science, you never
accept an idea, you fail to reject it. And so
far we have more than enough reason to reject the
idea that there is some guy up there that made
our DNA. However, we have no way with the evidence

(43:21):
at hand, we have no way to reject the idea
that this is a natural process. If we find new
evidence that allows us to reject that. That's great, but
right now, I fail to reject the claim that DNA
is natural and its formation is natural, It's coding is natural,
its behaviors are natural, everything about it is natural. I
fail to reject the hypothesis based on the evidence at hand.

(43:43):
I do, however, reject the idea. Then there is some
guy that made my DNA this way on purpose.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
Yeah, because the bottom line is DNA is horribly designed.
If it is designed as you claim, it is horrifyingly bad.
We've done a better job of creating code that actually works.
It doesn't require anywhere near the mechanisms that DNA does
to continue to work.

Speaker 8 (44:06):
The code was deliberately corrupted as a judgment.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
Oh, that's an excuse that theists make so that they
don't have to explain why how horribly things are designed,
especially the human body. And it's a bad excuse. It's
just a horrifyingly bad excuse because basically you're saying, is
God decided to the perfect. God decided to make his
creation imperfect because he got mad at it, and getting

(44:31):
angry isn't a condition of love. So anyway, Yeah, it's
an excuse that it's a bad one.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
Maybe it also avoids the necessary question. You're saying, hey,
there's this guy, and I'm saying, okay, prove it. Show
me evidence of the guy. And you say, well, the
guy coded your DNA, and I'm like, I don't have
any reason to believe that. I can see what DNA
is and why he doesn't do that. So where's your
evidence of the guy. And you're like, well, your DNA
is bad because the guy made it bad. The guy

(44:57):
made your DNA look like a guy didn't make it. Okay,
you still have to show me the guys real first.
I don't know what you're talking about. It just it
doesn't do anybody any good to just keep saying excuses,
post talk rationalizations for this guy before you've actually demonstrated
whether or not the guy's real.

Speaker 8 (45:15):
Well, the demonstration that the guy is real is Christ
manifest in the flesh. That's the demonstration, but demonstration story.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
So if even if I agreed with you that Jesus existed,
which you know, I hear some people say he does,
I'm that's not my area of exper geez, I don't know,
but I agree entirely Jesus existed, just for the sake
of argument. That doesn't tell me anything. Did he walk
on water, that's a different claim. Was he the son
of a god? That's a different claim. Is there a
god for him to even have been the son of
in the first place, that's a different claim. Did he

(45:46):
heal the sick, did he hear the heal the blind?
Did he hear leprosy? Did he raise from the dead.
All of these things are separate claims that need their
own evidence. Even if I agree there was some dude
named Jesus that lived two thousand years years ago, that
doesn't tell me much else about the nature of reality.

Speaker 8 (46:04):
So that's that's all you believe about Jesus is that
he may have existed.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
That's all.

Speaker 4 (46:09):
That's the stress work threshold, which might have existed.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
Yes, I've got he might have existed, and the character
written about him in the book kind of sucks.

Speaker 8 (46:18):
Yeah, okay, all right, fair enough, of course, fair enough, Okay,
So yeah, yeah, it's better evidence.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
If you have something better, I would love to hear it.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
That's what the show is all about.

Speaker 8 (46:30):
Yeah, yeah, I think it's all on record, Like we're
all on record, Like, got my testimony, your testimony as
far as brother Jim here his testimony. Everybody what we say,
we're all going on records for what we believe, and
much of the Bible that testimony I believe. What's my
evidence for what is on sort of record? I mean,

(46:51):
isn't that axiomatic everything we say is?

Speaker 2 (46:55):
No, it's not because I just read One Corinthians where
Love does not keep a record of things wrong, of
things that are wrong You and you're saying that's not true,
So God can't be love.

Speaker 8 (47:06):
Right, I don't say that's not true. If that'solutely true,
that list that you read is all synonymous.

Speaker 2 (47:12):
Now you're saying it goes on a record, so God
is So if it's God keeping the record, then he's
not in compliance with One Corinthians?

Speaker 8 (47:20):
Is he he keeps no record of wrongs? That's great,
that's God's.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
Great, but a record? But you're saying we all go
on a record, right, And so is it only the
good stuff that we do that goes on record or
is it the good and bad stuff that goes on record?

Speaker 1 (47:34):
Also, if he keeps no records of wrongs, how does
he determine who goes to hell?

Speaker 8 (47:38):
Well, when it says Love keeps no record, of wrongs.
That means when we love, when God, when Christ, when
God loves you, he's not counting your sins against you.
He's not right.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
But you say he's keeping a record of our sins.
But you're saying he's keeping a record of our sins
and he's using that record to send us to hell.
So these two things do not go together. They can't.
They're logically impossible for both things to be true.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
Maybe he keeps no record of your sins. He just
sends you to hell for fun.

Speaker 8 (48:08):
No, that's ridiculous, that's just true.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
Okay, so then how does he know? But it's not logical,
but it's notological contradiction, which is what you have. You
cannot have a God that's a compliance with keeping no
record of wrongs and a God who keeps everything on
record and uses that record to judge us. You just
it's not possible.

Speaker 8 (48:28):
There's grace, there's grace, mercy and love is indicative of
just not keeping a record of the wrongs that we commit.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
But you just said he keeps a record of our wrongs.
But you just said everything goes on record. He keeps
a record of the things we do that are right,
and the things that we do that are wrong. This
is the problem. You said both things. Both things cannot
be true, and we're just asking you, how do you clarify,
how do you reconcile this logical impossibility.

Speaker 8 (48:56):
It's not a logical impossibility, So.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
It's not it's not a logical impossibility to one keep
a record of all the things that we do, good
or bad, judge us on those, and also at the
same time keep no record of things that we do wrong.
That's what you're saying.

Speaker 8 (49:10):
Yes, because of His grace and mercy and love.

Speaker 2 (49:13):
Ah, No, something cannot be both time.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
Both does and does not keep a record because of
grace and mercy is just for funds, he is completely
is a little bit off topic, but just is is
love compatible with jealousy? Is if you're really a jealous person?
Is that compatible with the kind of love that's stated
in like Corinthians and the love that God depicts and
all these things?

Speaker 8 (49:38):
Yes, jealousy if you have understanding of what jealous when
we got says.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
His name is jealous. So you've just stated another logical
impossibility with one Corinthians, you recognize that, right, No, I don't.

Speaker 8 (49:53):
I don't know what you're talking about right.

Speaker 2 (49:54):
Now, Love is not jealous. You just said God is jealous.
God says his name is jealous.

Speaker 8 (49:59):
Yeah, okay, So the jealousy thing related to God refers
to when we give our love and devotion to something
that actually belongs to God and that respect, God is
jealous of that love and devotion.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
Right, that's what jealousy is, right, Yes, that's exactly what
jealous is.

Speaker 10 (50:20):
One.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Yeah, you get a wonderful definition of jealousy.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
That's specifically the thing that Corinthians says you shouldn't do if.

Speaker 2 (50:27):
You love somebody.

Speaker 1 (50:29):
I don't know how to make that more clear, Watcher.
It's been sixteen minutes and we still got one call
or two religious calls left, so I'm.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
Gonna move on to them.

Speaker 1 (50:37):
I just I want you to just sit for the
rest of the day with the concept that like making
a list and not making a list are two different things,
and if you're doing one of those things, you cannot
possibly be doing the other thing. It would be like
saying that I both do and do not practice guitar,
either I fucking do or I fucking don't. And so

(50:58):
if I'm sitting here and you're like, do you play guitar,
and I'm like, no, while I'm playing guitar, then I
don't know like that that would just be stupid.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
It would make me a liar.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
So like for you to say that God does not
keep a record of our wrongs, but he of course
keeps a record of all of our wrongs. That I
don't get how you're getting around that and just saying, well,
he has grace, that grace does not supersede logic. So
just sit on that for a little while. Maybe call
us back next time, because what you're saying makes no sense.
And also, don't fucking listen to Stephen Meyer, because he's

(51:29):
just he's a liar. He's doesn't make any fucking sense.
He says the same two arguments on repeat forever, and
he keeps getting on podcasts for it, and is also
his doctor and I believe in like the history of science,
and he keeps painting himself as a scientist because it
makes him look better. And also he runs a pseudoscience
cult with the stated purpose of overthrowing our democracy and

(51:50):
having theocracy. I can't just don't listen to the asshole.
He sucks, or do listen to him, and it'll take
you two seconds to realize why he makes no goddamn
sense that those are My advice is to you watch her.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
I'm gonna move on to the next call.

Speaker 8 (52:03):
Now, Hey, thanks for your time for as Jim, good
talking to you.

Speaker 2 (52:07):
See, Yeah bye bye.

Speaker 1 (52:12):
Fucking starting in with Steven Meyer and ending on. You
can both keep lists and not keep lists. It's all okay,
what jealousy is not jealousy?

Speaker 2 (52:21):
And yeah, that's fucking ship dude.

Speaker 1 (52:26):
I'm just gonna look up the here we go. Here's
the video Praguer, You and Steven Meyer, broken records, double
standards and actual indoctrination.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
What a title? What a title for a video?

Speaker 1 (52:37):
The guy who wrote must must be some kind of
guy who writes things. So I just put it in
the chat if you want to watch it. As I say,
it's an hour of long video, but it's it's largely
about Praguer, you and and a lot of other shit. Yeah,
so don't just skip to the at the very beginning,
I believe, I mean double check here. I'm actually scrolling. Yes,

(53:00):
at the very beginning. The first looks like four minutes,
almost four minutes is just a mashup of Stephen Meyer
making the same fucking argument. And then I address this
argument quite thoroughly, and then we talk about prager you
and why it sucks ass. So go check that out
if you want to learn why I don't take that
dude seriously.

Speaker 2 (53:20):
It's a ton of fun. And go look up the
definitions of information from information science, the Webster's Dictionary, the
general dictionaries will give you the common usage of the word,
and information science has a very different usage of that word.
It's similar, but not the same. And there's a reason
for that because, as we've said before, generalities don't work

(53:41):
when you get to specifics, and the common usage of
the word information doesn't quite work as well as when
you're studying what can be information. And also go figure
out what kids are. Let's talk to Mike.

Speaker 1 (53:54):
No pronouns given in calling in from U scuggling crabs,
that's what that is. Who says he disagrees with Jim's
definition of proud.

Speaker 2 (54:07):
Let's talk to Mike. You're on with Forrest and Jim.
How are you doing today?

Speaker 11 (54:10):
Hey, gentlemen, how are you doing?

Speaker 6 (54:12):
I always like to watch you struggle with South Carolina
come up with an sc for that use.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Weird, it's weird with an ass in there. I don't
know why. Well, you as could be struggling.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
Struggling crabs could be smuggling.

Speaker 6 (54:24):
Cool ago, Jim, all right, I wanted so I have
I have unbridge of Jim on his definition of proud.
I just wanted to focus on that.

Speaker 2 (54:34):
What's my definition? What was the definition of proud I
gave in the call? What was the definition of proud?
I gave him the call.

Speaker 6 (54:40):
You're talking about parents being proud of their kids, and
you're like, Aha, the Bible is garbage because it says no,
because that both it is not proud.

Speaker 2 (54:49):
All right, I know I never said anything about the Bible.
We were talking about a definition of love. Now, then
the previous call to yours, we use what we use
that one Corinthigs in that same line to prove that
the caller believed in things that are logically impossible. Right.
And my point about so when the Bible says love

(55:10):
is not proud, and I say, well, parents are proud
of their children, how are they in compliance with one Corinthians.
That's the question. And keep in mind I never gave
a definition of proud, and I did that deliberately because
there's no definition of proud given in the One Corinthians
for us to be able to distinguish between different types
of pride. And if you want to make the claim that, yes,

(55:31):
there's different types of pride and some of them are
dangerous and some of them are not, i'd completely agree
with you. The problem is you can't get that out
of that quot from One Corinthians.

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Yeah, it sounded like that was more of a rhetorical
question that you're in now that you were definitively saying
the Bible is trash because pride exists ever in parenting
or whatever like that.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (55:49):
Yeah, I guess my question was. My disagreement with Jim
was that you're saying, well, it says love is not proud,
and then you went into well, wait a minute, what
about parents.

Speaker 11 (55:59):
That proud of their kids?

Speaker 2 (56:00):
You know? What about that?

Speaker 6 (56:02):
Yes, and that's where he kind of left it.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
Yes, that's true. I don't need to I didn't need
to go any further trying to dig into what that
guy meant.

Speaker 4 (56:09):
Yeah, okay, So I.

Speaker 2 (56:11):
Mean also, you know, because because it's so vague, so
because it's so uselessly vague, you could ask that question legitimately, right,
and now you need to come up with an answer
for that, because it's uselessly vague. It's just a dumb
thing to say. Love is not proud. Well, there's different
kinds of pride, which is my point, right, But one

(56:31):
Corinthians doesn't say anything about that. One Corinthians makes no
distinction about anything about anything it says. And I could
have picked any one of this and done the same thing.
You'd ask the sacretorical question on every statement in there,
in all of those sanatorical question, what about this? What
about that? Because it's uselessly vague? Does that makes sense?

Speaker 6 (56:52):
Okay, yeah, I disagree with it being uselessly vague.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
I agree.

Speaker 6 (56:57):
There's two different definitions. There's being like pride, you're you're,
you're proud of your kids whatever. There's also the other
definition of pride, if you look it up, is being
arrogant and full of the self.

Speaker 2 (57:09):
And so word does one Corinthians make that distinction?

Speaker 6 (57:13):
Okay, I'll read it is this is charity meaning love
bonts not itself, is not puffed up. That's King James,
which a lot of people go with.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
I don't care. The King James is the worst translation
you can have, So as soon as you start quoting
from it, I want to start laughing hysterically that you
think it's worth anything. Give me a better give me
a better translation.

Speaker 6 (57:33):
I'd like to hear you prove that to Jim. Why
is it the worst one? Don't just say it?

Speaker 2 (57:36):
Oh my god? Getting off on the next thing.

Speaker 3 (57:40):
Where did that come from?

Speaker 2 (57:42):
Because I actually understood, I actually I've actually done study.
I actually study the Bible, and every Bible expert that
I that I have ever heard speak about the different translations.
King James is the worst translation, period hands down, so
to even come close. And one of the things that

(58:03):
you can look at. One of the things you can
look at in the King James version is that everywhere
it says the word servant, it should actually say slave,
because that's the actual word being used. Now. The problem
with using the word slave everywhere where the Bible says
servant or the King James says servant, is that you
get this idea that the Bible supports slavery. And at

(58:24):
that time, they didn't want they didn't like that, so
they changed the translation. And there's a number of translations
where the people paying for the translation have paid to
have the Bible interpreted in a particular way, so you
need to be careful of that. And that is true
of the King James Bible. And I would suggest you
actually go study the history of translations of the Bible
to go do that, to go understand that, because that's

(58:46):
not what any halfway decent translation of the Bible says.
They all use the word slave, because that is the
word that the Bible uses, not servant.

Speaker 6 (58:54):
All right, you're getting off topic. I really want to
stay just on what pride me.

Speaker 2 (58:57):
I'm going to look it up in the US right now.
But what do you mean you're getting off topic? You
asked him, Yeah, you asked, and I gave you an
answer you didn't like. Oops, no, no, no, no.

Speaker 6 (59:09):
She gave me an answer that she couldn't back up
and said, all these authorities say this, and you don't
list any And I'm gonna go check on it because
that's not what I've heard.

Speaker 2 (59:16):
He gave you specific examples. You back it up. Example
about slaves.

Speaker 1 (59:21):
You can even you can if you just if you
go to like the Bible Hub websites or whatever, like
like if I just type in like the love is
Patients verse here and the first thing comes up is
Bible gateway.

Speaker 2 (59:32):
That's what it is.

Speaker 1 (59:33):
If you had a Bible gateway, it comes up with
different versions. You can go right here, New International version.
It says love his patient, Love is kind, does not MV,
does not postop bla blah blah blah blah blah. And
if I go over to King James version, then yes
it says charity and shit and it makes significantly less sense.
Charity suffereth long that means love is patient. That's really

(59:54):
fucking different. My copy of the Bible is King James,
and I can tell you objectively it sucks Dix in
the worst of ways. It's an awful read and say.
And you can go through the different versions here and
see just how many different versions don't speak the way
that the King James version does because it's weird and
out of whack and difficult to comprehend. And it does,

(01:00:15):
as Jim said, it deliberately mistranslates several words and uses
them to make things sound nicer.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
So like I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:00:22):
It's even if you want to not look up the
look up the authorities by all means, but also just
look at what other Bible versions say, because clearly those
are retranslated by people who know a fucking thing or two.
And if you go to any of these, yere's the
Voice Ooh. The Voice version says love not charity, and
it says it much more clearly, And it also has
a little blurb in there about what Paul's talking about

(01:00:44):
at this time, like it doesn't do the things that
the King James version does. I think that's a compelling
enough argument to say that, hey, maybe this particular edition
isn't at least the only one you should be paying
attention to at the very least.

Speaker 6 (01:00:56):
I mean, you're right, you should look around, you should
compare it. Neither of you said anything. I'm going to
do my own research. Get back yet another time.

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
I don't see it, brokay. Yeah, So getting back to
the actual, uh, the New International Versus is probably one
of the better translations out there. It has the it
seems to have the least biases in it, and translations
always have bias, so the best you can get is
the least bias. But it says love is patient, love
is kind. It does not heavy, it does not boast,

(01:01:24):
It is not proud, period, and it doesn't doesn't define
pride at all. It just says it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others, it is not self seeking,
et cetera, et cetera. So if it's not proud, how
do you reconcile that with parents having pride in their children?
And I have no way saying that parents pride in
your children is a bad thing, right, But apparently according

(01:01:47):
to one Corinthians thirteen four through eight, it is a
bad thing because it just says it is not proud.
It's uselessly vague.

Speaker 6 (01:01:54):
I disagrease you. I'm going to look it up and
i'll get back to you. But there's two definitions of pride.
You're choosing to use the one that makes the Bible
look worse without justification.

Speaker 2 (01:02:01):
He didn specification.

Speaker 6 (01:02:02):
Direct, hebred translation.

Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
Oh, I asked a question that was unanswered.

Speaker 11 (01:02:07):
Well, I'm sorry, what is the question?

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
The question is, when one Corinthians thirteen four through eight
says love is not proud, how do you say that
parents love their children if they're proud of them? Because
it doesn't define pride, and that makes it useless because
it doesn't define pride. And you're offering definitions of pride,

(01:02:30):
none of which I disagree with. The problem is you're
not literally looking at the words and going, oh, this
is bad, which is my entire point. The definition of
love as provided by one Corinthians thirteen four through eight
is bad because it's so general. It's useless. I owe you,
and you're agreeing with me by pointing out that pride

(01:02:51):
has two different definitions, one of which is good, one
of which is bad, and we can't tell which one
One Corinthians is talking about. You're making assumptions about the
verse should.

Speaker 6 (01:03:02):
Be able to Yeah, I wouldn't want to go verify
whether you can or can't tell. It doesn't make any
sense to say, you know, love is not prideful and
it's talking about it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:10):
It doesn't say love is not prideful. It says it
is not proud. Good, yeah right, It says love is
patient comma, Love is kind, period. It does not envy comma,
It does not boast comma. It is not proud, period.
How what is there to interpret.

Speaker 6 (01:03:26):
Good proud or bad proud?

Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
I don't know. That's why it's useless. That's why it's useless.
That's why it's useless. That question right there is why
it is useless. You understand what's wrong.

Speaker 11 (01:03:39):
To take it into it.

Speaker 6 (01:03:40):
I'm going to take into it. You're not.

Speaker 11 (01:03:41):
I'll dig into it.

Speaker 4 (01:03:42):
I will get back.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
Into Jesus Christ. Dude.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
This is the most boring, pointless ship. All that happened
was that a guy called and said this definition is
concrete and definitive and it proves the word of God
and blah blah blah. And Jim said, hey, it's kind
of vague, Like you understand if I read it this way,
it makes the opposite sense of what you're saying, right,
And this is a valid interpretation. This is not the

(01:04:08):
way to read it, but it is a way to
read it. And the guy just didn't say shit about it,
and we moved on from there. He posed a rhetorical
question to demonstrate that this verse is open and to interpretation.
That's the whole fucking point. And now you've been on
this call for eleven minutes and thirty seven just miserable
seconds saying you don't understand it's open to interpretation, and

(01:04:30):
we're like, yeah, that's the whole point. And you're like, well,
you're interpreting it wrong. We're like, we're not interpreting at all.
We're just saying here's a way you could interpret it
that kind of sucks, and you're like, well, it doesn't
say that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:40):
We're like, it doesn't say not that either.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
There's no it's open to interpretation, and you're saying, no,
you don't understand the problem is that it's open to interpretation.
Fuck man, we agree it's open to interpretation. It needs
to be interpreted. It kind of blows. That's the entire
point of the entire half a sentence that Jim said,
and hour ago, what are we doing? What's the point

(01:05:03):
of this if you want to go research and researcher.
But at the end of the day, it says a
shitty definition of something that sounds very poetic. It's a
nice little poem that I think Paul wrote, and it's
lovely at face value. It doesn't need to be taken
as word for word, perfect gospel. That doesn't make any sense.
It's open to interpretation. It's a random verse and a

(01:05:23):
shitty ass book that nobody cares about except for the
people who call this fucking show.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
What are we doing?

Speaker 1 (01:05:28):
What is this call?

Speaker 2 (01:05:29):
Dude?

Speaker 1 (01:05:30):
Seriously, where are we going from here? What's the point
that you're trying to get to Jim interpreted a thing, Yeah,
he fucking did.

Speaker 6 (01:05:37):
What, of course, may answer this question while you take
a breath.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
Can you don't just just fucking answer, like, God damn, dude,
there's no reason to be underhanded. You've been on the
call for fucking thirteen minutes now, just saying Jim, you
interpreted this thing, and Jim's like, yes, I did. And
that's the call. That's what we've gotten so far is
this doesn't mean pride in that way? Can you prove it?

Speaker 8 (01:05:59):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:05:59):
Cool thirteen minutes.

Speaker 6 (01:06:02):
If I may answer, if I might answer you in
last two minutes, you're on you you were doing on
a monologue and you're entertaining. But it wasn't useful.

Speaker 1 (01:06:09):
But the reason that I it's I think it was
very useful. It's highlighting the fact that you haven't said
anything worth anybody's time in thirteen minutes. This is the
weirdest hang up. I'm asking you, what's the fucking point
that you're trying to get to.

Speaker 6 (01:06:21):
Sometimes words mean different things, like when, for example, I'll
make this real quick.

Speaker 1 (01:06:26):
Oh shit, A three words mean different things. That was
the entire the entire one was making my entire point.

Speaker 2 (01:06:32):
Words mean different things, and when you use them in
the most general sense to apply to something very specific
and try to build a rule out of it, it fails.
Every time you try and build a rule out of
something that's too generic, which is what you're trying to do.
You're trying to build this rule about pride that you
can't build out of one Corinthians. I mean, I answer you.

(01:06:52):
You're literally agreeing with me.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
Yes, you can answer the question. What's your fucking answer?

Speaker 2 (01:06:56):
God?

Speaker 11 (01:06:57):
My answer is.

Speaker 6 (01:06:58):
It's important to go back to the Greek or Hebrew
are aromatic.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
Because okay, great, did you do that at the beginning?

Speaker 6 (01:07:04):
And I said, I will, I owed Jim.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Okay great.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
So you called in to tell us that we should
do the thing that you haven't done, and that we're
wrong for a reason you aren't sure of yet your
criticism is noted and ignored.

Speaker 2 (01:07:15):
Thank you. Greek. The Greek, by the way, is physio physio,
and I'm mispronouncing those. I can spell them if you like,
But if you actually like, go to Bible Gateway and
you go to the Hebrew Greek tab on the one
printhe in thirteen four through eight, and you can tell
it to give you the Hebrew and the Greek. So
I have the Greek in front of me, Like, fuck, dude,

(01:07:38):
how do you not know that? How do you? I mean,
if you study the Bible, how do you? How have
you ever heard of Biblegateway dot com. It's a great resource,
it really is.

Speaker 11 (01:07:48):
No mostly I've heard it from you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
I have.

Speaker 6 (01:07:49):
It's mostly you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
Oh well, you haven't studied the Bible, have you.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
It's just like, that's what and we're here again. Jim,
the original caller, said, the verse means this. Jim said,
what if the verse means that? And that was the
entire point? And now here we are fifteen minutes and
forty five seconds of the verse doesn't necessarily mean that.
We're like, yeah, we know what's the where we're to next?

Speaker 11 (01:08:18):
Gilman, I thought you would accept.

Speaker 6 (01:08:19):
I thought you'd accept King James as a good authority.
And it does explain it in.

Speaker 2 (01:08:25):
King James.

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
Hold on, I've got King James right here.

Speaker 2 (01:08:30):
I've got that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
I said, this is my version of the Bible that
I keep next to me at all times is a
King James. So tell me exactly where in the King
James version it specifically explains what Pride means, because my
version it doesn't have the word pride. It says it
is not puffed up.

Speaker 6 (01:08:45):
Yeah, that's that's the definition of being arrogant.

Speaker 4 (01:08:47):
Puffed up?

Speaker 1 (01:08:48):
Yes, what does that mean? Because the again we have
an interpretation issue. That doesn't mean it in the sense
that I could give it the charity to say puffed
up means like you're full of yourself or does it
mean puffed up as in actually physically inflated? And again,
if you are proud of your child and you give
your child a great deal of praise, maybe your child's

(01:09:10):
gonna get a big head? Is that a problem in
the Bible? It's still open to interpretation. And even if
I agree with you one hundred percent that that's what
this verse foresure means, and I just gave it every
benefit of every doubt, I guarant fucking tea we can
find another verse that is equally as ambiguous. In the
King James version, the entire argument Jim made was, Hey,

(01:09:31):
you could interpret this a little bit differently and it
doesn't make a lot of sense. How are you sure
your interpretation is the right one? And the guy didn't
have an answer, and your entire call has been Jim's
interpretation isn't the right one, and that is completely missing
the point.

Speaker 6 (01:09:44):
So Jim's saying it's ambiguous, and I'm saying it's obvious
looking at the King j it puffed.

Speaker 1 (01:09:48):
Up, obvious looking at Okay, So in one version of
the Bible which uses the word charity not love, which
you at the beginning of your explanation you said, charity
means love in this thing, so you are interpreting this
because it could mean charity. It could mean giving actual
money to poor people. It could mean physical property, changing

(01:10:10):
hands from a rich person to a poor person, and
that's what it actually means, and that is not an
arrogant or puffed up process. It is humility to give
of yourself to another. And that's the interpretation. But you
are saying, no, this word charity means love and nothing else,
and therefore puffed up means proud in the bad way
and nothing else. So how do you know that when

(01:10:31):
the Bible in the King James version says charity in
this verse it means love and not working at a
soup kitchen.

Speaker 6 (01:10:38):
It's come on, guys, this requires some interpretation and this
isn't att hardy. You're just trying to be hard.

Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
Oh you mean it requires it. You mean it's not clear,
it's not obvious, as the word puffed up is obvious.
It requires interpretation. Funny how that works. Let's have a
fourteen fucking minute phone call telling you that you're interpreting
something that you just said you're interpreting. It'll be great.

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
First, could you remind me didn't Can I say something
to the effect of all interpretations have bias. Yes, you did, Jim.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
You were very clear to say that, because that's fucking
honest to.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
Say, yeah, yeah, and some because words can have many
meanings and you have to understand the meaning, and you
have to understand the time and the place, and you're
not doing And by saying what you just said, you
are still agreeing with me.

Speaker 6 (01:11:23):
I'm agreeing that you should look at everything, analyze it
and interpret it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:26):
Try to do minimal time, which, just to be clear,
which just to be clear, you have not done, because
you haven't done the Latin and the Greek and the
Hebrew that you said we need to do. Just throwing
that I just put in a little footnote in there.
You agree that you need to analyze everything. Unlike Mike, No.

Speaker 6 (01:11:41):
No, I'm going to analyze it for you. I'm gonna
do it for you. And I didn't mean to give
you any work.

Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
Why, oh, I've already done it, That's what I mean.
I literally did quite a bit of it here just
while we were on this conversation, because it's not hard
to do in twenty twenty five, right, we can disprove
of all kinds of stuff very quickly. And this is
the problem. When you point out that the word pride
has two meanings, you're agreeing with me because I agree

(01:12:10):
that pride has two meanings. And that's the problem with
the sentence is it's not clear which meaning it's using,
and you're saying it is clear, and you could offer
nothing about it because there's nothing in the phrase because
it is a simple sentence as part of a definition
of love. That's all that's there.

Speaker 1 (01:12:29):
And it's here where, which I just can't I can't
get over the fact that we're sitting here for twenty
minutes now arguing over whether or not you in fact
interpreted not even gospel, a poem written two thousand years
ago from some guy to some other guys. That's what
we're doing, that's what my life I'm thirty two years old.

(01:12:50):
I've got hours left to live. And this is where
we're at is Jim interpreted something to demonstrate that it
could be interpreted, and now for twenty mins, it's we're like, hey,
you interpreted this, Yes, I fucking did. Well, you could
interpret it differently. That's entirely the point that I was making. Well,
why didn't you interpret it this way? Why didn't you
interpret any other part of the verse this way? Because

(01:13:11):
it could be interpreted this way. Right, I agree with that,
but you don't have to. Yeah, but you interpreted a
different way. That's entirely the point. Yeah, it's in for
twenty for twenty minutes, for twenty minutes, that's what I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:13:23):
We can even go to thirty. So we're on chapter thirteen,
verse four. Let's take a look at verse one through three.
Let's see if there's some context here. If I speak
in the tongue of men or of angels, but do
not have love, I am only a resounding, gone or
clanging symbol. If I have the gift of prophecy and
can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I
have a faith that can move mountains, but do not

(01:13:45):
have love, I am nothing. If I give all I
possessed to the poor and give over my body to hardship,
that I may boast but do not have love, I
gain nothing. And then no look verse four called this patient.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
And I suppose out there in all of that shit,
it says charity in my version, which again Mike has
no reason to believe means love, aside from the fact
that that is his preferred interpretation of his preferred translation
of his preferred version of his preferred Holy Book.

Speaker 11 (01:14:15):
Not true, not true.

Speaker 1 (01:14:16):
Okay, what reason do you have to interpret the word
charity as love in the King James version.

Speaker 6 (01:14:22):
Mike, Because charity and love seem to be the most
similar as far as being the same way charity is
in souper kitchen.

Speaker 2 (01:14:29):
Do you know what the word is for loss? And
the Greek? Yeah, so you want to go back to
the Greek. Do you know what the Greek word for
love is? There's five words, ancient Greek word like a gope.
A gope has nothing to do with charity. Agape is love,
and a goapi is a god love.

Speaker 6 (01:14:44):
Eros is an erotic love, permes is a I don't
know about that.

Speaker 11 (01:14:48):
It's brotherly love.

Speaker 7 (01:14:48):
There's another one.

Speaker 11 (01:14:49):
There's all kinds of love.

Speaker 2 (01:14:51):
The literal interpretation here is agape. We're not talking about
the later Christian versions to differentiate between the different types
of love, but either way, agape is love. That's the
word that she used.

Speaker 11 (01:15:01):
Okay, I'm with Forrest.

Speaker 6 (01:15:03):
I didn't mean this is going so long. I apologize Forrest.
You did talk a lot, but it's just you know,
it's yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
Fuck me right, I host the show as a host
where I talk. Yeah, I I yeah. Thanks so much
for calling, Mike. When you when you call to actually
talk about interpretation, I agree that the problem is the interpretation.
You are in fact agreeing with me, and there are
many different ways to interpret a word. Is the problem
when you make generalities like the Bible does, because whenever

(01:15:29):
the Bible says something good, it is almost always a
generality that is useless to apply to real life. That's
just a fod.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
Thank you for agreeing with us in the stupidest way
possible for twenty four minutes. Mike, having awesome rest of
your day. Oh bye, but fuck me for talking. I'm
how Yeah, let's take the very We have five minutes left,
so let's take the last call. We may run a
little bit over, but are you cool with doing that?

Speaker 2 (01:15:51):
One? One? More? Absolutely? Which one are you thinking of?

Speaker 1 (01:15:54):
I'm thinking about, uh, Joshua, who wants to know? Do
we need God to be moral? Joshua, you're on the
atheist experience with Forrest and Jim.

Speaker 2 (01:16:03):
How are you today?

Speaker 11 (01:16:04):
I'm good?

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
How are you for it?

Speaker 11 (01:16:05):
I noticed a little heated.

Speaker 1 (01:16:08):
I just I get frustrated when it's just such a
fucking boring call with one note for twenty minutes, and
the audience is just having to sit there with it,
and this dude is just so passionate about being right
when he's agreeing with us the whole time. It's weird.
It's just weird, and it's boring. I don't like being bored.
I'm gonna die real soon, and I want to kind

(01:16:29):
of fill my time with something more fun.

Speaker 11 (01:16:31):
Yeah yeah, so yeah, I know I don't have a
much time, but yeah, the idea kind of like, you know,
Jesus comes and he's like, I have come. I know
Scripture is going to come in here, but like the
idea is like I come for those who have need
a physician, those who do not need a physician, do
not need help, so like kind of like the analogy
is like there are people who you know, believe in

(01:16:53):
science to some degree, and they will refuse to go
to a doctor just because they don't believe or trust
that the doctor can help or that it's just not
going to help.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
So people believe all kinds of things that aren't true,
and some people don't go to doctors because they don't
believe doctors will help because doctors haven't actually been able
to help them for whatever reason. So there's a lot
of things that we could say about that.

Speaker 11 (01:17:15):
Yes, yes, of course, it's not just one way I write, Jim.
So I was just going to say, like basically, you know,
I go to the doctor because I believe the doctor
can help me, and also because I have a problem. Right,
if I don't have a problem not going to go
to the doctor, unless even like a check up, there's
still an idea, Like I positive to.

Speaker 2 (01:17:31):
The point, get to the point you're rambling.

Speaker 11 (01:17:33):
Yeah, yeah, sorry, So the idea is with Christianity, there's
this idea of sin and I messed up and I'm
you know, I have problems.

Speaker 2 (01:17:41):
Okay, So can I shortcut you real quick? Here is
owning human beings moral. No, So why does the Bible
have very specific rules on where we can get slaves
from our surround from the surrounding countries, right, that we
can beat our slaves as long as they don't die
within three days, and that slaves are our money, are
our proper.

Speaker 11 (01:18:00):
I can't answer that. The problem of yah was very.

Speaker 2 (01:18:04):
I haven't even gotten to the problem of evil. That's
not even the problem of evil. That's three things the
Bible specifically says that you say aren't moral, but the
Bible says we can do so. Is because we say moral?
Or is it or is it moral? Because the Bible
says it's moral? Is it moral?

Speaker 11 (01:18:22):
Because because the Bible says it's the moral.

Speaker 2 (01:18:25):
I think it's a Bible doesn't say it say moral,
says it is moral. It is okay to own human beings.
You can use them as your money. You can get
them from the nations its surrounds, and you can beat
them as long as they don't die within three days.

Speaker 1 (01:18:39):
And just to nip it, just I'm sorry to cut
you off, Joshua, but just to nip it in the
bud because I can already see the comments section about like, oh,
it doesn't mean that kind of slavery. It is very
clearly talking about shattole slavery. There's different rules for Hebrew
slaves and the non Hebrew slaves. It specifically says of
non Hebrew slaves and of Hebrew slaves who want to
stay with their wife and children after exiting slavery, that

(01:19:01):
they are your property to be passed on to your children.

Speaker 2 (01:19:04):
They are your.

Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
Own owned property forever, very very clear about that.

Speaker 11 (01:19:09):
Yeah, I just I don't I don't know. I mean,
I think this is a strong objection to Christianity Judaism.

Speaker 1 (01:19:17):
So here's the thing, is that you're the thing you
have written in the call screen. Here the thing I
have written for you as the topic of the call
is do we need God to be moral? So let
me ask you. Do you need a God which tells
you which condones slavery, a god which is pro genocide,
a god which is pro rape, a god which is

(01:19:37):
pro sex slavery, a god which is pro misogyny. Do
you need that God to tell you how to be moral?
Or do you think as I think, that the sins
of this God far outweigh my own and I can
figure out morality for modamn self.

Speaker 11 (01:19:52):
I think if I was to believe what you just said,
I would also agree with you for it.

Speaker 6 (01:19:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 11 (01:19:58):
If I believe that about God, I would not worship it.

Speaker 2 (01:20:01):
Great not believe it.

Speaker 1 (01:20:03):
Why do you have you read what I just said?
Why do you not believe what I just said about God?

Speaker 11 (01:20:07):
Because I take more of an agnostic position, I think
you're making a lot of.

Speaker 1 (01:20:11):
Do you believe that? Do you believe that the Bible
is true?

Speaker 2 (01:20:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:20:14):
Do you believe that the God character in the Bible,
the way the Bible describes and deficts God is an
accurate representation of who and what God really is?

Speaker 4 (01:20:25):
Not?

Speaker 11 (01:20:25):
Necessarily? I think there's a lot of There's.

Speaker 2 (01:20:27):
A lot that goes into it, So then the Bible
is not true.

Speaker 11 (01:20:30):
I think when we're we're not our understanding of it
gets a little complicated.

Speaker 1 (01:20:34):
So when God says you can own slaves, do it
this way? Is that an accurate representation of who God
really is?

Speaker 11 (01:20:43):
God is speaking to a specific person in a specific time.

Speaker 1 (01:20:46):
Is he tells me That's not what I asked you.
That's not what I asked you.

Speaker 11 (01:20:49):
It's the reason I asked the question is to give
you an understanding of where I'm coming from. But does
that represent God? I would say to some degree, yes,
when he's dealing with those specific people.

Speaker 2 (01:21:00):
Okay, is time?

Speaker 1 (01:21:02):
I'm sorry, Jim, I just just one more please? Is
there ever a time, ever, under any circumstances, with any people, ever, ever, ever,
ever where owning human beings as property is a moral
good thing?

Speaker 2 (01:21:17):
Now?

Speaker 1 (01:21:17):
Okay, So then it doesn't matter who God was speaking to,
It doesn't matter what the time period was. You think
that the Bible is true and at least in this
passage God made an immoral commandment.

Speaker 2 (01:21:30):
God told people to do evil.

Speaker 11 (01:21:32):
Well, you said it's not a good I don't know
if I jump to conclude its evil necessarily.

Speaker 2 (01:21:37):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (01:21:37):
A straight question is would you conclude that slavery is
evil or not? The antithesis of good?

Speaker 11 (01:21:45):
Antithesis?

Speaker 4 (01:21:46):
What does that mean?

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
Like the opposite, the opposite of good? Something that is
definitively not good, Something that is harmful and hateful and
destructive for no good reason, something that only causes harm,
that has no redeeming qualities. That's Those are some ways
I would describe evil. Is slavery evil?

Speaker 11 (01:22:07):
Have you heard that it's a necessary possibly a necessary evil?

Speaker 2 (01:22:10):
I have heard that as dumb as all.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
Fuck, it's really gross and stupid and it's completely unjustifiable
to defense is an indefensible claim.

Speaker 2 (01:22:18):
And anybody who makes that claim as an idiot and
shouldn't be listened to just based on that claim, I'll
go far so.

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
Also, if you're gonna say that this God is God,
is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all kind, all loving,
all these great omnies, and it's necessary in any capacity
for him to make use of.

Speaker 2 (01:22:38):
Slavery, not a good God, not worth worshiping.

Speaker 11 (01:22:41):
Okay, Well, I mean I'm yes, I'm not worth anyone
that believes that is not worth it and I respect that,
and I know you guys how much time.

Speaker 7 (01:22:48):
So I hope you guys have a good.

Speaker 1 (01:22:50):
Follow up question. What did I just say that you
disagree with? If anything, it.

Speaker 11 (01:22:56):
Was I'm sorry, Can you repeat that, because I I
jim of throughout something and then I kind of just
shut down.

Speaker 1 (01:23:03):
I said that if there is the God and this
God thinks that slavery is necessary in any capacity for
any reason at any time, that God is not worth worshiping.
It's not a good God. Do you disagree with that?

Speaker 2 (01:23:16):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:23:17):
Okay, what specifically do you disagree with?

Speaker 11 (01:23:19):
In that statement that he's not worship he's not worth
worshiping because there was a because he believed it was necessary.

Speaker 2 (01:23:26):
Why would you worship a slaver?

Speaker 11 (01:23:28):
I don't know if God is doing the enslaving, but
he's allowing it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:32):
Yeah, Why would you worship somebody who tells people to
own slaves, who condones it, allows it, oversees it, blesses it,
ordains it.

Speaker 11 (01:23:43):
I would worship I worship if I.

Speaker 1 (01:23:46):
Hire a hit man to go blow up a school.
I don't get to say, hey, I thought it was necessary.
Blame the hit man, not me. I'm the motherfucker who
did it. So at the end of the day, this
God told his people to own slaves, Why would you
worship a slaver?

Speaker 11 (01:24:01):
If not permitting slavery ends up to speaking words, then
I would prefer that That's what I mean by necessary.

Speaker 2 (01:24:08):
What would be worse? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:24:11):
So what would be this terrible fate that the almighty,
all powerful, all knowing God cannot avoid except by allowing
people to own other humans as farming equipment?

Speaker 11 (01:24:25):
This massive murder you mean.

Speaker 1 (01:24:27):
The ones like the ones that he also condones when
he tells people to go slaughter an entire civilization, every man, woman, child,
and infant, and all of their donkeys and all of
their cows and all of their horses, and salt their
feels that nothing grows, kill every baby, kill every crop,
let nothing live in that city ever again because they

(01:24:48):
don't worship him. Or do you mean like the mass
murder when he drowned the entire planet, including not just
all the people, but all of their babies and all
of the animals and every other living thing with breathinist
nostrils around the entire world, because, as it says in
the Bible, he regretted making humans. Would it be mass
murder and mass death like those things that he is

(01:25:10):
trying to avoid by allowing people to own slaves.

Speaker 11 (01:25:14):
In a sense, I think there's consequence to there's naturally
gonna think there's gonna be things that follow from, you know,
preventing a certain thing like slavery. I think men are
going to rebel, and I'm not sure what kind of things.

Speaker 4 (01:25:28):
I would just think that who.

Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
Could stop such a rebellion? Would it be the AI?

Speaker 2 (01:25:36):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:25:36):
Yeah, here's the thing, dude, it's there. There is no
defense of this. If you believe that the Bible is
true then very clearly, this God is a monster. This
God has killed way more people than Satan never did.
In the Bible, God kills at random. Sometimes God kills
because of his pride and his ego and is just

(01:25:58):
desire to destroy. God condones slavery. God contones genocide. God
condones misogyny. God contones homophobia. God is an asshole throughout
the Bible. And even if you want to say, well,
humans did this and that, and people did these other things,
and like there's a consequence if you end up on
God is all powerful, then inevitably it is his fault.

(01:26:19):
If somebody is murdering or raping or hurting somebody and
I see it, and I have the power to stop it,
and I don't. I am at least partly responsible. And
God has all the power in the universe and sees
every bad thing that happens, and he doesn't just fail
to stop it, he condones it and commands it.

Speaker 11 (01:26:38):
I mean, do you, what do you think of all
the Christians who actually don't hold that of you?

Speaker 1 (01:26:44):
I think that they're missing the parts of the Bible
that clearly say it, or they are doing what Christianity
has always done, which is to re re re re
re re reinterpret already re re re re reinterpreted passages
to suit their modern secular morality and sensibility and make

(01:27:04):
God comport with what they already believe is right. That's
why there's a church on every other corner, because if
you don't like what this guy preaches, you go down
the road you listen to that other preacher instead. That's
why there's over forty thousand denominations of Christianity, many of
which say all the other ones are all lies and
going to Hell. That's why Christianity, just in my lifetime,

(01:27:25):
has become a lot more accepting of LGBT people because
when I was a kid, Christianity, popular Christianity all around
me was very clear that there were only two genders
and gay people weren't allowed and it was an abomination
for a man to lie with another man.

Speaker 2 (01:27:40):
And now that they.

Speaker 1 (01:27:40):
Need money and membership, now it's okay to be gay.

Speaker 2 (01:27:44):
God loves you all the way.

Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
God wouldn't make mistakes. God made you perfect. If God
made you trans that's how God wanted you. Because God's
all wise and all knowing, and the Gospel of love
is more important than judgment. It's all about money, it's
all about marketing, it's all about people being comfortable in
a social system that is serving them well and allowing
for societal cohesion. But at the end of the day,
all it's really doing is hurting them. It's passing on

(01:28:06):
generational trauma, which is corrosive to civilization, caustic to society,
carcinogenic to morality, and creates good people who do bad
things in the name of a God that they have
no good reason to believe in.

Speaker 11 (01:28:19):
I mean, I mean if yeah, I mean if I
if I held your position as well, I don't. I
don't think I would be a Christian. I mean I
don't think it would be I don't think it would
be ethical or moral even believe in a God.

Speaker 4 (01:28:31):
When you have the.

Speaker 2 (01:28:32):
Problem, the problem you have with that that you should
have with the Bible is that it is a human
curated collection of books that were written for human purposes
to prove some theological point. And we could look at
at a book like Daniel, which most Biblical scholars look
at as a pseudographia it's a lie from beginning to end,

(01:28:54):
and see that is exactly what it was. It was
a piece it was a propaganda piece, and we can
say that about very aspect of the Bible. We can
look at the flood. The flood did not happen as written,
So what is its point? His point is God gets
angry and wipes things out. Don't make God angry. Fear God.
If we look at any book on human leadership, leading
from a position of fear is considered to be a

(01:29:16):
bad idea. You don't want to create a culture of
fear in an organization, and it will because it will
not function for very long. It just doesn't work that way.
And yet God appears to be doing that in the flood.
We look at Exodus. Exodus is another thing that we
know did not happen archaeologically. There is no evidence of
a Semitic people in Egypt, and the numbers the Bible

(01:29:36):
clams period. End of conversation, there's no evidence for this.
There's no evidence for the Exodus. What's the point of
the Exodus? Oh that God sometimes screws with people the
way he screwed with the Pharaoh. Right, there's no way
you can take that story and turn it into something
that is positive. Same thing with the flood. Right, Genesis,
two different stories. Why are there two different genesis stories?

(01:29:57):
Why are there three different flood stories? As a flood
that has three, there's one that has three may have
to I mean, you can't get around this once you
start studying. Is that this is a bunch of books
written for human theological purposes that were curated by another
group of humans for theological purposes. Period. That's all you've got.

Speaker 11 (01:30:17):
I agree with you, Jim that I'm not going to
study the Bible if I don't have doubts. I don't
have doubts, just like I'm not going to I.

Speaker 2 (01:30:26):
Have lots of doubts and I still study the Bible.
So I don't know what that statement gets you.

Speaker 11 (01:30:30):
Well, I think if you're trying to help a Christian
see the error in the Bible, it's not just pointing
out the Bible. It's not just pointing it out. It's
building that interest, it's attacking that faith. That makes sense
in that sense. Just like I'm not going to listen
to some person rattle on about the flatter I understand
you know, people are going to have different different positions.

Speaker 2 (01:30:51):
No, so I listened to people rattle about the flat
Earth too, because I want to understand their position. And
I want to find out if I'm wrong. I don't
just listen to things that I like. That's the way
you build an echo chamber, and that's where you end
up going completely wrong. So you can't do that.

Speaker 11 (01:31:06):
I think we all do that to some degree.

Speaker 2 (01:31:08):
Be fair. I do everything in my power not to
and where I do, it's because I have a limited
time to do things, because we built it. Is not
a choice of mind. If I had infinite amount of time,
I would spend a lot more time studying a lot more.

Speaker 11 (01:31:21):
Things, probably because you have an interest or some value
in there right, No.

Speaker 2 (01:31:25):
I have a wide ranging group of interests. The algorithm
does not know what to do with me. At the
end of the day. I just realized my MIC's mute.
To pardon me. At the end of the day.

Speaker 1 (01:31:32):
You've said several times like if you were in my position,
you would agree with my interpretation of the Bible. And
what I encourage you to do is just try for
a second to actually read what the Bible actually says
without the everlasting thought stoppers of like well God, I
can do these well sin and well fallen world and
well blah blah blah. Just honestly is God all powerful

(01:31:53):
and all knowing and all good. Yes, Okay, then how
the fuck do we live in a world where twenty
four thousand people start to death every single day, ten
thousand of them which are children. God's all knowing, God's
all powerful, God's all good.

Speaker 2 (01:32:06):
That means that God knows.

Speaker 1 (01:32:08):
That these children are starving to death. He has the
power to stop it. And we're also saying that he's good.
So either he's not actually good or not actually all
powerful or not actually all knowing, or still children starving
is actually a good thing?

Speaker 2 (01:32:23):
Which one is it?

Speaker 1 (01:32:24):
And are you willing to actually grapple with that question
in a real way or are you willing to just say,
you know what, I believe it because I believe it.
Because I believe it because I believe it. And God's
good all the time and all the time, God's good,
and whatever fucking happens in the world doesn't matter, whatever
happens to the Bible doesn't happen. It doesn't matter because
God's good.

Speaker 11 (01:32:42):
Yeah, no, I do. I have a girlfriend and we
talk about it a lot. I think it's a very interesting,
a very interesting thing to think.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
About if you want to talk about faith.

Speaker 2 (01:32:52):
I'm happy to do so. I've got to go. That's
the end of my time.

Speaker 1 (01:32:57):
But if you want me to talk about faith with you,
I'd be happy.

Speaker 2 (01:33:00):
To do so.

Speaker 1 (01:33:01):
I host this show the first Sunday of every month.
I'm happy to talk about it with you. At the
end of the day. You you you have to admit
if you think the Bible is true, God is not
a good guy. And if you don't think the Bible
is true, and we just judge God by the world
that we live in, God's not a good guy. There's
the there's there's no way to slice it. If God
is all powerful, he is the he bears all the responsibility.

(01:33:23):
The buck stops with him, and he's dropping the ball
on every fucking opportunity he has. Uh, Jim, do you
want to continue on? Because I can fuck off and
you can talk to this guy with with you?

Speaker 2 (01:33:33):
I mean, yeah, yeah, we continue this conversation. If I
guess we'll let Jamie the blind Lamy show up. That
sounds great. We apologize for this everybody, but we're about
to show Jamie the blind Limy, so look away and
keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
Uh you want, sweet Jim is fantastic, It's fantastic.

Speaker 2 (01:33:54):
Working with you as always. I can't wait to do
it again sometime. Man. Same here Forrest, have a good one. Bye.

Speaker 10 (01:34:00):
So do we still have a Joshua on the line?

Speaker 2 (01:34:02):
Yeah? So Joshua, do you have anything to say about
I mean he didn't really directly answer Forrest rant about
the problem of evil, which we have finally gotten to,
by the way, and how that applies to this omni
good that you apparently Well, First, do you believe in
the omni God? Yeah? So how do you reconcile the
problem of evil? However? You wanted to find evil, because

(01:34:25):
as long as evil exists, the omni good can't. So
it doesn't matter how you define evil.

Speaker 11 (01:34:30):
Well, I recently heard that God is not obliged to
prevent all.

Speaker 2 (01:34:34):
Evil, so he's not omnib benevolent. How does his omni
benevolence not oblige him to prevent evil?

Speaker 4 (01:34:40):
Yeah?

Speaker 11 (01:34:40):
So this idea of goodness right?

Speaker 2 (01:34:42):
That is that the omni you brought up been avalance
all good? Yes?

Speaker 11 (01:34:46):
So could you think of a possible circumstance where a
doctor could prevent evil and he chose not to just because.

Speaker 2 (01:34:58):
That doctor would be sued out of a existence? They
are not allowed I mean that's that would go against
the hippocratic.

Speaker 10 (01:35:04):
Ass Yeah, first, do no harm. If you're talking about
a doctor doing something that causes some harm to prevent
a greater harm, like chemotherapy to a cancer patient, that's
not what we're talking about. And you're presupposing divine command
that these terrible things happen for a good reason that
you just don't know about. Now, don't accept No, I'm

(01:35:24):
not going to go into that.

Speaker 11 (01:35:25):
I'm going into the idea does he have an obligation?
Does God have an obligation?

Speaker 2 (01:35:29):
That's kind of like that's the omni, the omny, that's
part of being all good. No, he does have an obligation.

Speaker 11 (01:35:35):
Yes, well, it's kind of like a security guard. My
analogies are going to fall short. I'm sorry, I'm horrible analogy.

Speaker 10 (01:35:41):
Because all of the people that you mentioned, doctors, doctors
and security guards and police officers and soldiers and all
these people do not have infinite power and infinite goodness.
This is one of the reasons why the triomne falls
down logically, because it just can't be all three. So
how do you square it?

Speaker 11 (01:36:00):
If if if we're if we're putting in the edition
of the all three that he ought to prevent evil.
I would say yeah, I would say I agree, because
if God did he, if he did have an obligation
to prevent evil, and there is evil, then yeah, that
would disprove his existence because there's there's there's that. But
I don't know. If God has an obligation to prevent it, then.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
How is he not how? Yeah, we're just going to say,
as the exact same question, Jamie, how is he all good?
If he doesn't have an obligation to do good and
prevent evil? How is that all good?

Speaker 11 (01:36:34):
Well, let me ask you a question. I'm not going
to be able to answer the question directly. It's because
I don't quite understand it fully, but it's something that
I just recently thought about. It's kind of like, do
you do you believe? Okay, for one, you don't believe
God created us, but just hypothetically, let's just say God did.
Would you say God had an obligation to create the universe.

Speaker 2 (01:36:56):
I don't know if creating the universe is a good
thinger or a bad thing. It is a thing, but
I do not know if it is a good thing
or a bad thing. I don't put a good or
bad quality on it just because of the way I
define good and evil. So I don't know. Now in
terms of God and good and evil, Well, now we're
adding another characteristic onto that. I don't know if the

(01:37:18):
most benevolent thing, the kindest thing that you could do
is to not create the universe. However, if you are
going to create a universe and you're omnipotent, and you're omniscient,
and you're omnipout event, then yes, you have an obligation
to create a universe that does not have evil in it,
because that's part of being omnibenevolent. Well, you've got to separate,

(01:37:40):
you've got it. So when you say omni benevolent, that also?
Is it good to not to not want to prevent evil?

Speaker 11 (01:37:47):
It good to not want to prevent people? I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (01:37:51):
They're not sure? What? What? What? What are you unsure about?

Speaker 7 (01:37:55):
I guess the question is a little confusing.

Speaker 2 (01:37:57):
Why is it confusing?

Speaker 4 (01:37:59):
What was the question?

Speaker 11 (01:38:00):
Or is it not good?

Speaker 2 (01:38:01):
But why is it confuser? Yes? Why is it confusing
that if you are good you want to prevent evil,
and if you're all good you really want to prevent evil?
Why is that confusing?

Speaker 11 (01:38:12):
Because I don't because there's no explanation. It's just a statement.

Speaker 2 (01:38:17):
Question.

Speaker 10 (01:38:17):
Sure, it's a question, so let me sorry. I don't
want to deral it too much. But he keeps saying,
is God obliged? He's God obliged, He's got obliged, right.
I would argue that he is, because that's part of
the OMNI. But let's go aside that I'm not obliged
to do good, and yet I do good with whatever
power I have, because that's what demarcates a good person.
It's definitionally necessary to do what good you can to

(01:38:41):
be determined to be a good person. Would you agree
with that? So if God is a good person, a
good entity, even if he is not obliged by some
external force to do good, him not doing all the
good he could, which in the OMNI is literally all
the good that can be done, I would not demarcate

(01:39:03):
him as a good entity because he's not doing the
most good he could do with the power he has obligation.

Speaker 2 (01:39:09):
Be damned.

Speaker 11 (01:39:10):
Yeah, yeah, I mean I don't have much to be honest,
It's just something I barely learned.

Speaker 7 (01:39:14):
I just wanted to throw it out there, and.

Speaker 10 (01:39:16):
I'm going to say this Joshua, you've taken an absolute
broadside in this call, and you were very brave to
call in for it. I think you may not have
been quite as prepared for it as as you might be,
and that's not your fault. You were going up against
Jim Burrows, who has orders a magnitude more experience than me,
and Forrest Alci, who is professional internet man, and then

(01:39:39):
me this child you've I think you should you should
follow Forest's advice and Jim's advice. I think you should
go read the Bible trying to take out any bias,
like read it as if as if it is a story,
and think is the character of God as presented in
this book good? And if not, same as I'd read

(01:40:00):
I know, like the Lord of the Rings, and I go,
this character of sore On is he good? And if not,
then well I'm not going to use him as a
model for morality now, am I? So I suggest that
any last words.

Speaker 2 (01:40:14):
O Jim, it's good last words?

Speaker 10 (01:40:16):
Okay, So I think we're gonna let you go, josh Well,
we do have one more call, and we've got a
couple of more things to do while we're here. In
atheist experience over time, So thank you very much for
calling in, and do feel free to call back.

Speaker 11 (01:40:28):
Okay, thank you James, James, and thank you Jim.

Speaker 10 (01:40:32):
It is going to be very confusing that we both
are very similar names, Jim and Jim.

Speaker 2 (01:40:35):
Yeah, it'll be fine. Okay, Ah, we.

Speaker 10 (01:40:43):
Have just before we do the last call, and I
thank you for the patience. There's a couple of things
I want to do. Firstly, I would like to bring
up the crew. They haven't been shouted out yet.

Speaker 2 (01:40:52):
This is oh we have not. Yeah, shout out to
the crew. We are so involved in the cars.

Speaker 10 (01:40:58):
Yeah, where are they they? In terms of as close
to infinite good and patience as you can get on
this planet, our crew is pretty much as close to
guy as you're going to get, because boy, oh boy,
do they give us plenty of rope.

Speaker 2 (01:41:10):
We thank you very much, Worried.

Speaker 10 (01:41:12):
So that's behind your cameras, that's the call takers, the screeners,
the people who take the emails. There are so many
people behind the scenes that make this show run and
they're all doing it out of the goodness of their
hearts basically, so thank you very much to them. I'd
also like to one last time Schill for the relief efforts.
Please donate whatever you would have given us this week

(01:41:35):
in super chats or donations to fundraisers or anything of
that nature. Please direct to the flood fundraiser that's at
bit dot l y forward slash Austin Flood Fund. I
believe there's people here that need help, thankful, and I'm
in Central Austin. I'm right here, thankfully. I personally wasn't affected,

(01:41:55):
but many people were. People lost their lives unnecessarily, and
it behooves us as humanists, secular humanists. We say it
every day every time we do a show to help
those people.

Speaker 4 (01:42:07):
So Jim and.

Speaker 2 (01:42:08):
As just to continue with that just a little bit.
One of the hardest things I think for some of
us to do is to point out that leopards are
eating people's faces while also empathizing with people who are
experiencing horrible things right now. And it's not just Central
Texas right now. I mean, that's the biggest thing at
the moment. But we're coming in. We're in hurricane season,

(01:42:30):
tropical storms are kicking up, and all the Red States
voted to make their ability to survive and recover from
these storms horrifyingly worse, we don't. We need to be careful,
be careful because that's a fine line. And I don't
know that I'm going to make that fine line every
time because I could be a sarcastic sob on occasion.
But we just do need to be aware of it.

(01:42:52):
We want to err on the side of empathy.

Speaker 10 (01:42:54):
Yeah, we don't condone any you know, we've got to
be very very careful about how we phrase this, but
we can criticize pol' see and the policies that have
been putting It wouldn't matter who would put them in
have hurt people people who voted to have those policies
put in, and we yeah, we mustn't lose our compassion.
It behooves us just you know, put on moneywhere I'm
anthets be empathetic everyone.

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
Right while also gluting a little bit. I mean, be
careful with that. There's a fine line between the glow,
you know right now, because you know, hospitals are closing,
rural hospitals are closing. That's going to hurt real people.
And is this because of what the actions people have taken. Yes,
let's be careful while we're pointing out that leopards reading

(01:43:36):
their faces, that there are also real human beings on
the other side of that who are actually being hurt
and having bad things happen to them. And I don't
know where that line is. I'm not trying to draw
that line. I'm just asking us to be careful where
wherever there is a line. And let's let's be on
the correct side of that line. Anyway. Let's go on,
let's pick up calling in front in Canada. If I

(01:43:58):
hit there, we get the button hit right. Oh, and
purpose of life is fine tuning? How do you know
that life has a purpose and how do you know
it's well? What is fine tuning? And how do you
know it's fine tuning?

Speaker 3 (01:44:08):
Well, first of all, I thought i'd ask you guys,
how you're both doing today.

Speaker 10 (01:44:11):
I'm good, feeling pretty lucky considering I was in the middle.
It was pretty scary flood warnings flashing up and that
kind of thing. But I thank you for your concern.
But yeah, yeah, that's the jam's point.

Speaker 3 (01:44:23):
Yeah, So I just wanted to sort of ask you guys, like,
as an atheist, knowing that there's no like eternal life, right,
how do you go about every day?

Speaker 2 (01:44:34):
Like?

Speaker 3 (01:44:34):
How do you get out of bed. How do you
sort of strive?

Speaker 2 (01:44:37):
Well, that's easy, that's easy, easy to answer. I get
out of bed one foot at a time. I put
my pants on one foot at a time. You know,
I put my shirt on one arm. You know. Thought
of if it's just the way everybody else does the question.
I've ever and I take great enjoyment in it because
this is my only life and I had better enjoy
it because there's not anything coming after it. So that's

(01:44:58):
how I live it, one day at a time, just
like well every other human I'm aware of.

Speaker 10 (01:45:03):
Yeah, I mean, I would class myself as an optimistic nihilist.
I do not feel there's any intrinsic value in anything,
particularly we things only have value that are ascribed to
it by extern by either themselves internally or by external judgments.
So that rather than make me feel like nothing's worth doing,

(01:45:24):
it's completely the opposite. The world is a blank canvas
for me to paint upon. It is infinite possibilities because
nothing really matters. It means everything can have the meaning
I want to give it to. So that's what gets
me out of bed in the morning and makes me
feel like life is worth living. Is that it is
all on me, all on me to make the world

(01:45:44):
a better place. I can justify that because I'm a humanist.
I can go Okay, I know what suffering feels like.
It sucks. I want to have less of that. I
know what joy feels like. I'd like to have more
of that. Let's go do that, shall we so? And
to be freed from sha calls of a of a
wagging finger like no, no, no, no, no no, God says

(01:46:04):
a bad thing. No again, that brings us back to
the last call and all about morality.

Speaker 3 (01:46:09):
But yeah, that's fair. So it's sort of like I
think Brian Greeney said something like that. If I'm pronouncing
his name right on a podcast, I remember him saying, well,
sometimes he just used to make supper right. So it's
sort of about continuing your day and continuing living on
in an optimistic way.

Speaker 10 (01:46:28):
Would you say, wherever I can make? I mean right,
We're not perfect. I am a I'm a flawed meat
mech water called beef computer. I'm prone to things like
laziness and bad thinking and all kinds of you know,
uh deleterious thought patterns. If I can recognize them when
they happening, try and avoid them, but sometimes it happens.

(01:46:50):
I generally try and stay as optimistic as I can.

Speaker 4 (01:46:52):
Yeah, okay, because I.

Speaker 3 (01:46:53):
Don't want to sound ignorant with the way I phrased
it originally with getting out of bed. But I feel
like objective we can agree that if there is no God,
therefore there would be no purpose because in an objective sense, right,
no matter what you do on this earth, you could
be the highest achiever among all human beings. There would

(01:47:14):
be an eventual let's say the Sun expands and consumes
the earth, right, or the heat death of the universe.

Speaker 2 (01:47:21):
For everything, Yes, everything does.

Speaker 3 (01:47:24):
Yeah, yeah, So if there is a point to where
you would never know, you would you would have existed
in the first place, and future generations will be gone
as well. I'm just curious as to the movement of
atheists that are currently sort of distributing like distributing across
the world. They seem to have a sense of purpose

(01:47:45):
and drive that I don't think you could logically have this,
like knowing that.

Speaker 2 (01:47:52):
You don't think it's logical to have a desire to
know as many true things as possible and as few
false things as possible.

Speaker 3 (01:47:58):
I think that's logical, But I think that believe an
actor very closely related.

Speaker 2 (01:48:02):
Yes, beliefs believes in form actions, actions have consequences. Yeah,
but you still I mean, I still don't know what
your point is.

Speaker 3 (01:48:10):
Yeah. Well, if I said I believed it was raining outside, right.

Speaker 2 (01:48:14):
It's writing out. You said it's riding outside.

Speaker 3 (01:48:16):
So what Yeah, so if I if I walked out
without an umbrella, I might tell you that I don't
actually believe it's raining outside, right.

Speaker 2 (01:48:23):
So in I walk out, I will say it's riding outside,
walk out without an umbrella, regardless of whether it's actually
true it's training outside, because I don't care if I
get wet, right, I mean, I was wet in the
morning when I took my shower, So why would I
care if I get wet from a sky shower. So
that's my that's literally my attitude. So whether I whether
I say it I think it's running outside and then

(01:48:44):
walk out without an umbrella, it has absolutely nothing to
do on my belief, nor does that necessarily have anything
to do with anybody else's belief. They may say it's
writing outside and still decide to walk outside because they
want to go singing and dancing in the right, So
those two things aren't necessary true. But if they say
I think it's running outside and they're surprised when they
get wet. Okay, that again human nature. I don't again

(01:49:07):
understand what your point does.

Speaker 3 (01:49:09):
Yeah, my point was was trying to tie belief to action.
I understand certain things can objectively be true. Even if
you know, if everyone said that one plus one and three,
it doesn't make it true.

Speaker 2 (01:49:20):
Right. However, But again I've already stated that beliefs and
form actions and actions have consequences. So why are you
trying to tie these two things together when I've already
agreed with you that they are in fact tied together.

Speaker 3 (01:49:32):
Because I think it relates to the lifestyle of human beings,
as we do live as if there is a purpose,
and I think most people.

Speaker 2 (01:49:39):
Do live that way, yes, because we choose what our
purpose is. Right now, my purposes have a conversation with
you in about an how my conversation, my purpose is
going to be to have dinner. So yeah, I put
I assigned my purpose instead of many people.

Speaker 3 (01:49:53):
So what I believe that in human beings there's an
intrinsic orientation.

Speaker 2 (01:49:59):
That we have towards based on what the.

Speaker 3 (01:50:01):
Supernatural creator towards.

Speaker 2 (01:50:03):
A god based on what now?

Speaker 3 (01:50:05):
Yeah, does that follow a line of critical thinking?

Speaker 1 (01:50:08):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:50:09):
No, Now I'm asking you to prove your statement that. Yeah,
you've just made a claim and now I need you
to prove it.

Speaker 4 (01:50:15):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:50:15):
Well, I think that the foundational basis of my claim
would be that, and I don't want to keep resting,
restating it over and over. We could move on after
this if you'd like, But it would be that if
if God didn't exist, it's very interesting that we live
like there is one.

Speaker 2 (01:50:33):
So now you have you've made a claim, and now
you've made a second claim, and in an attempt to
prove your first claim, you've made a second client that
now needs more evidence. So you've done yourself absolutely no
favorite if do you want to return back to the
first claim an attempt to give us evidence for that,
or do you want to keep use making claims and
an attempt to prove clams?

Speaker 3 (01:50:52):
Yeah, I apologize for that, so okay. Proposition number one,
people live their lives as if there is purpose. Proposition too.

Speaker 2 (01:51:03):
No, I disagree with that. People choose their purpose that
love their life according to those choices. I completely disagree
with with promise one, And if you're going to claim
promise one is true, you're going to need to show
some sort of evidence for that because you have it backwards.
People choose their purpose, purpose is not assigned to them.

Speaker 3 (01:51:20):
Right, But when you say choose your purpose, could you
define what you mean by that? Because do you believe it?

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
Yes, I am choosing to have a conversation with you,
and that is my current purpose.

Speaker 3 (01:51:29):
Right, so you view it is sort of one thing
at a time, right.

Speaker 2 (01:51:32):
I think we may could also say that my purpose
is that a career developing software.

Speaker 10 (01:51:37):
I think you may be construing the idea of purpose
as an assigned thing with reasons, and it's not and
it's not. Yea. We do things for reasons like I
eat because I am hungry, that is the reason I ate.
I play video games because I like to have fun,
that is the reason. But no one is assigning those
things to me outside of just the natural processes of

(01:51:58):
my body and brain. I mean, also, a determinist, I
live as if I have free will, even though I
kind of believe I don't, because it's just more convenient
to do so if people want to say it's my purpose,
I'm living as if there's a God. That doesn't mean
there's a God. That just means that that's the best
way that people are conceptualizing it. God is just the

(01:52:18):
placeholder for knowledge. It's the excuse people give when they
don't understand what's going on and go, well, it must
be some higher power. And God, as you know, God
of the Gaps, is shrinking daily. We are but getting
better explanations, better models, closer to the actual truth. And
to say that everyone has a purpose construing everyone does

(01:52:41):
things for a reason with there's a dude telling you
what you're supposed to do. I don't accept that, right.

Speaker 3 (01:52:48):
So could I redefine my definition of purpose?

Speaker 2 (01:52:50):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:52:51):
Well, when I use purpose in this context, I am
implying a sort of meaning in something.

Speaker 2 (01:52:58):
The definition of purpose, right. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:53:00):
So for an example, if you're suffering, right, I think
everyone listening right now as well as you. Guys, you've
had times in your life where things aren't going too good, right,
and you sort of but in some sense you keep
carrying on, and I think that you know, I don't.
I don't see how as human beings we could do

(01:53:21):
things like that if it wasn't if there wasn't a
drive towards the divine?

Speaker 2 (01:53:27):
Oh are you are you familiar with the argument from
ignorance for ignorance? Are you familiar with logical fallacies? Let
me start there?

Speaker 3 (01:53:35):
Yes, and I'm probably making them right Kah.

Speaker 2 (01:53:38):
Yeah, do you know what the argument from ignorances?

Speaker 4 (01:53:39):
I would say, But no.

Speaker 2 (01:53:40):
It's literally saying I don't know, therefore X must be true,
which is what you just did. You don't know how
else we could persevere through bad times without therefore God?
That is your That is the claim you just meant.
The fallacy you just met. I mean, okay, yes, and
mean you're wrong. It means you a better, better argument. Sorry,

(01:54:01):
go ahead, Jamie.

Speaker 10 (01:54:02):
Yeah, I just to agree with you, Jim. And And
the thing is is that I don't live my life
as if there is a God. I mean quite, I
mean I am an agnostic atheist, so I don't completely
reject the possibility that there is some kind of God,
but until it's evidenced, I'm not going to believe it.
And yet I still go on. So you're basically saying

(01:54:24):
that the premise that the humanity skews towards the divine, Well,
I'm case study that doesn't. And there are other peoples
out there that do not have a concept of God.
So when you're talking to someone who unless you and
I don't think you are. Unless you're saying that I

(01:54:45):
am either lying or mistaken about myself, then where does
it come from? I am living proof that I can
hold these these thoughts of nothing really matters. I don't
have an intrinsic purpose. Everything that I do is is
something I'm going to come up with, or is in
a reaction to the to the to the physical world

(01:55:05):
around me. And you're essentially saying that, no, you're wrong,
that's not why you do things. And I'm like, pretty
sure I do. So what do you say to that?
I mean, am I mistaken or am I lying?

Speaker 2 (01:55:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:55:19):
I think I'm having a hard time trying to get
this point across. So would you say that there's no
like for for every individual? Would you say that in
some sense they believe or they act as if there
is meaning to life. We could just start there. Yeah,
And by meaning to life, I mean you could classify
that in many different ways. It could It could be
subjectively for everybody.

Speaker 10 (01:55:41):
In that most people want to continue living and doing
things with that time. I would put that down to
evolutionarily advantageous. It's just we want to survive. Like we
want to survive, we want to pass our genes on.

Speaker 2 (01:55:58):
And I would say, start playing antics with semantics. It's
beneath you because there's no difference between acting as if
there's a meaning of life and purpose of life. They're
the two same two concepts. So don't do that. It's
beneath you. It's it's just arguing in bad faith. We're
still talking about purpose of life. Meaning of life doesn't
really matter. So all you're trying to do is swap
words out and to somehow change the direction of this conversation.

(01:56:22):
I know, we make choices. Sometimes we say this is
our purpose in life to do X. Sometimes we just
make choices and figure it out after. But the purpose
of our lives, each person's individual life comes from them,
and it comes from others to say, this person may
have this person's life had some meaning to them. But again,

(01:56:45):
none of this prooves God.

Speaker 3 (01:56:47):
Right, So I would I would disagree on if I
if I could lay out my proposition.

Speaker 2 (01:56:54):
Yeah, try it again.

Speaker 3 (01:56:56):
Yeah that was that was non intentional, and I apologize
that offensive.

Speaker 10 (01:57:00):
So I'm going to have to say just go for it,
and this is going to be your last chance though,
because the crew have been very patient with us, and
we do have a I believe we're still doing a
discord after show, and if you've got to shoot off charge,
I'm still doing discord. Yeah, okay, so one more time
from the top.

Speaker 4 (01:57:14):
Oh okay.

Speaker 3 (01:57:15):
So I believe that people live their life as if
there is some meaning, even if it is their own
meaning that they create. And I believe that if we
are to think logically and have our actions aligned with
our way of thinking, if there is no God and
there is to be an end to our life, then
meaning doesn't exist. So I think that following that.

Speaker 2 (01:57:36):
What does meaning not exist? If we choose what that
meaning is?

Speaker 3 (01:57:39):
Well, why would you choose it if it doesn't exist?

Speaker 1 (01:57:42):
Like?

Speaker 2 (01:57:42):
Why would I choose to have meaning to my life?
Why would I choose to have purpose to my life?
Because I choose to? Yeah, a choice I could make, right,
nothing's stopping me for making that choice, that's right.

Speaker 3 (01:57:52):
But logically that purpose doesn't exist if there.

Speaker 10 (01:57:54):
Is no You're just you're trying to define it as existence.
You're presupposing God. We read yet your second premise.

Speaker 3 (01:58:01):
Sorry, well, thank you very much.

Speaker 10 (01:58:03):
Okay, you take care.

Speaker 2 (01:58:05):
It was a great conversation.

Speaker 10 (01:58:07):
I think it was a good game. Thank you, good Capstone,
Thank you very much for pulling him.

Speaker 2 (01:58:11):
Yeah, I saw that car. I saw that. I saw
him pop up just as we're trying to wind up
with that last car with Forrest. I was like, Oh,
this could be really really good. Yea, and yeah, I'm
glad I was right positive.

Speaker 10 (01:58:23):
I've got a couple of thoughts on a couple of
the other calls before we just think out right at will,
and we were slightly in that with Oman just now.
I really don't like it when people just take something
tangible and slap the name God on it just to
make God real. If I write the word hair on
my slap dome, it doesn't make me fabio. And with

(01:58:44):
Watcher and his God, that can and cannot be so
many things. Better watch out because Schrodinger will kill God
like a cat in the box.

Speaker 2 (01:58:52):
Maybe, yeah, pretty much.

Speaker 10 (01:58:56):
Do you have any final pearls or wisdom for us,
Jim before we go off to the discord.

Speaker 2 (01:59:01):
Oh, we have some fairly decent call, some fairly decent conversations,
which is good. We don't always get that and that's
always the fault of the caller. So I'd like to
think the callers for calling in and providing good conversations.
But if you think that a thing can be true
and not true at the same time, you've got some
issues in your critical thinking skills. So do you I

(01:59:24):
don't have Do we have any closing comments? True? Yeah?

Speaker 10 (01:59:27):
Only again, donate to the fund If you don't know
how to find fun discord, that would be at tiny
dot c c ford slash ACD discord. I believe correct
me if I'm wrong, because I can't. I can't read
the thing of Madrinker.

Speaker 2 (01:59:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (01:59:43):
But yeah, thank you for everyone for calling and thank
you for having me up. Thank you very much Jim
for for marathoning this extral long episode of The Atheist Experience.
And we are here four thirty Central every Sunday. Do
you feel free to call us? Take care.

Speaker 2 (02:00:02):
Dot albady ya.

Speaker 10 (02:00:05):
Stop qusten egg the bull shed everyone around your bias
se y'all walk.

Speaker 7 (02:00:16):
It's a mass diet Ellen.

Speaker 2 (02:00:21):
M of y'all.

Speaker 1 (02:00:43):
Watch Talking and Live Sundays at one pm Central. Visit
tiny dot c c slash y t t H and
call into the show at five one two nine nine
two four two, or connect to the show online at
tiny dot c c slash call th H

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

.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 29.27 with Forrest Valkai and Jim Barrow

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;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.27 with Forrest Valkai and Jim Barrow

Dateline NBC