The Atheist Experience 29.30 with Justin and @planetpeterson2824 2025-07-27_RX7

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Religion is a business. However, it's the only business where
you can fail miserably and not keep any promises for
thousands of years and still end up with millions of buyers,
tax exempt status, and a cabinet position in the White House.
And what do the buyers receive in return? They receive
holy wars, heretic burnings, divided families, shame culture, pedophiles, predators,

(00:23):
and endless excuses. Yet when us non believers speak up
and suggest, hey, maybe we stop buying this poison, we
get accused of being evil. Well, if being a good
guy means I have to accept deities that command genocide,
treat women like property, drowned babies, execute apostates, and need
their egos stroked every second of the day, then I

(00:44):
don't want to be one of those good guys. We're
tired of being polite, and we're here to inform you
that the Emperor of Heaven has no clothes. But hey,
if you disagree, feel free to call in and prove
us wrong. The lines are open and the show starts now.

(01:04):
Welcome in, everybody. Today is July twenty seventh, twenty twenty five.
I'm your host, justin You might know me elsewhere as
deconstruction zoner DZ joining me today is a great friend
of mine. He is the scion of science, the mitochondria Messiah,
a periodic table patriot, a master of molecules, a cerebral sense,

(01:25):
and the guy that Captain Planet goes to for advice.
Please join me in welcoming my friend Planet Peterson to
the show.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
That that was great, man, You blindsided me with that.
That was fantastic alliteration.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
Eric.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
It's great to have you on the show today. For
those who are new to the Internet, Planet Peterson is
on YouTube and TikTok and everywhere else. If you like
what you see today, you can find more of them
already out there. And I've already vetted him. He's a
great friend of mine. We've done lots of shows together elsewhere,
so I know you're gonna love him. You're gonna enjoy

(02:01):
his content. I hope you enjoy the show today. And
before we get started, I have to say that The
Atheist Experience is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin,
a five o'h one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to
the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the
separation of religion and government. Now, we do have some

(02:22):
callers already on the line, so with that, let's just
jump right into the calls. First up, we've got a
theist named Melon all the way from Germany that says,
why is death a bad thing in a world without God?
I'll be curious to know some thoughts on this. Can
you hear me, Melan? Melan? Hello? Is Melan not with us?

Speaker 4 (02:42):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (02:44):
Well, Eric, you can't hear anything.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
I can't hear anything, right, Oh, I don't hear anything.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
Oh, maybe Melan's not with us. We can we can
drop them and move on to the next one. Maybe
it's an issue on Melon's end. And if not, we'll
find out shortly. Let me see if I can and
return mellon to the queue. I won't drop them. I'll
just put them back in the queue for now, and
we're going to bring up the next the is from
Tennessee and see if if this works. If not, then

(03:10):
we'll have to look somewhere else. All right, We've got
with us HC from Tennessee that says the Bible is
a moral guide? Can you hear me, hc?

Speaker 3 (03:20):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (03:21):
I think we might have an audio conundrum. Let me uh,
let me check with our friends here. Usually when when
there's like a technical glitch, sty'll just announce it, so,
you know, let you know they're working on it. I
think they got a straight disconnect.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Yeah, don't ask me, that's all I know.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
We'll give them a second see if we can work
it out. Yeah, paging, paging, vern. Well, I hope their
computer didn't crash back at the at the home office. Well,
while we while we're at it, let's do this. We've
got a couple things in the announcements that we can
go over. I assume the audience can hear us even

(03:59):
though we can't hear the guests, So we'll go through
some announcements. Right, We've got the back cruise coming up, friends,
Bat Cruse twenty twenty five. It's going to be August
sixteenth at seven pm. Tickets are selling quickly, so get
yours today and join people like Tim b APRILW. Gabriel
and others who already have their tickets also not available

(04:20):
to attend. It's okay, we got you covered. You can
still help out by donating underneath the live chat to
purchase a ticket for one of our hosts or crew,
so you can visit that link. There's going to be
a link in the description for tiny dot c C
Forward Slash Back Cruise to get your tickets and we
hope to see you on the boat. There should be
some creators from AXP that will be able to join

(04:43):
you at the back cruise and so it should be
a lot of fun. And also please don't forget to
like subscribe and share out the videos and the channel.
Make sure you enable your notifications and then comment below
on your favorite caller. We'd love to hear your feedback.
I don't know about anyone else, but I typically re
through the comments on a lot of the videos because
I love to see the interactions with the viewers. You

(05:06):
can also join weekly watch parties at the Free Thought
Library on Sundays for live viewings of Talk Heathen the
Atheist Experience. The door is open at noon. It's a
great place for a building community and you can just
come hang out with your friends and watch the barbecues.
We want to also well, the crew is busy, we'll
save that for later. Well, thank you for later. We

(05:27):
are getting calls populating the call cue, so now we
just need what we need. Hopefully working technology is anyone
on the other end can confirm if we can bring
in another guest, here's somebody. Okay, I got some messages
to try a caller yep, want me to pull a
caller up? Yes, I think you can perfect. Thank you
so much. Lets let's grab HC again from the QHC

(05:50):
from Tennessee says the Bible is a moral guide, and
we do have confirmation that the audio is working this
time at least on one. So let's give it a shot.

Speaker 4 (06:01):
HC.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
Can you hear us? If HD can hear us, we
can ohe There we go, We got them.

Speaker 3 (06:04):
H C.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Hello, Yes, gotcha? All right, HC. Welcome in. You're talking
to Justin and Planet Peterson. There might be a slight delay,
so so bear with us. We'll try not to talk
over each other. Uh. The claim on entry is that
the Bible is a moral guide. Can you explain that
a little bit?

Speaker 5 (06:23):
Well, it's it's a way that you can kind of
it helps you with your life, like it's your situation
in the Bible. It's answer to everything in the Bible.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
Okay, So you think the Bible is like so if
I open the Bible and say listen, I've got questions
about like what to do. I don't know, say, for example,
if my children act up. You think the Bible would
be the guide for letting you know what to do, Yes.

Speaker 5 (06:47):
Because in the Bible talks about how that I you know,
to discipline your kids like lovingly and you know, like
show them like it's the instruction of the Lord to
tell your parents not to provoke their children.

Speaker 1 (06:57):
Right, Okay, so I'm pretty familiar with some of the
biblical laws. Let me know if you think these should
be applicable. So, like we can go to Deuteronomy twenty
one says, if someone has a stubborn and rebellious son
who will not obey his father and mother, who does
not heed them when they discipline them, then his father
and his mother shall take hold of them and bring
them out to the elders of his town. And at

(07:18):
the gate of that place, I shall say to the
elders of the town, this son of ours is stubborn
and rebellious. He will not obey us, he's a glutton
and a drunkard. Then all the men of the town
shall stone them to death. You shall purge the evil
from your myths. You think that's like good behavior to
enact with our families.

Speaker 5 (07:34):
This is like a different kind of society than one
lived in today. This is a barbaric society, one.

Speaker 2 (07:38):
That was rough on the edges, like a lot of
sure it was respect with respect specifically to children. Proverbs
have some real doozies. Proverbs twenty two fifteen folly is
bound up in the heart of a child, but the
rod of discipline will drive it away. Proverbs twenty three
thirteen and fourteen do not with whole discipline from a child.

(08:01):
If you punish them with the rod, they will not die.
Punish them with the rod and save them from death.
And Proverbs twenty nine point fifteen. The rod of correction
imparts wisdom, but a child left undisciplined disgraces its mother.
So the Bible's pretty keen on beating some sense or
behavior into your children. But like today, we know that

(08:24):
this is absolutely a horrendous thing to do. It's not effective.
Apart from just being grossly offensive and causing harm, it's
just not effective. I mean, they've removed corporal punishment even
from juvenile detention centers pretty much across the entire nation. Oddly,

(08:45):
you can still do it in public schools in a
huge number of states, but not juvenile detention centers, which
is pretty strange. But so if we I mean, if
we acted biblically, this just would not. First of all,
modern people I don't think would call this very moral.
But it's also just stupid, terrible advice that we know
for a fact doesn't work.

Speaker 4 (09:06):
Well for best.

Speaker 5 (09:07):
Then these laws were given by God for certain context,
for sgan systems to be achieved.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
But you are telling us that the Bible can be
used as a moral guide, except apparently it can't. Like,
what's the use of saying, oh, back then it well, okay,
there's so many things going on here. Do you think
that somehow children in the past were different than children
of today and that you could beat good behavior into

(09:33):
children in the past, Because I don't think that that
was ever the case. I think Proverbs was wrong back
then too.

Speaker 5 (09:38):
Well, I mean, is there like any proof that it's
not just metaphorical in the way speaking.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
But their laws in fact? In Deuterotomy twenty eight, God
gives you all kinds of punishments if you break the laws.
He does the same thing in Leviticus twenty six. He
even goes on to say like, if you break these laws,
if you disobey me, this what's going to hap happen.
Says if you disobey me and continue hostile to me,
I will continue hostile to you in fury, and in turn,

(10:07):
I will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins. He says,
you will eat the flesh of your sons, and you
will eat the flesh of your daughters. Like do you
think that that's a necessary thing to punish people with
eating the flesh of their children.

Speaker 5 (10:23):
No, not really, But they become true with God just
making a threat saying this would this is what would
happen if you choose to disobey me.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
It did come true. Yeah, if you read Jeremiah nineteen
nine and lamentations. During the siege in Jerusalem, God sends
an army and the battle is so intense that they
get hold up inside of the city walls and they
end up having to consume their own children to survive.
And God says he's the one that causes that.

Speaker 5 (10:50):
Jesus is a new Testament that says if not harm children,
he says it inself in the.

Speaker 1 (10:55):
Testament, Actually he says that kind of he contradicts himself
in Matth chapter seven when he chastises the Pharisees for
not executing the rebellious son or the son that curses
mother and father. So he wants you to behave a
particular way, but he also wants you to follow the law.
In March yeah, mark seven, he's chastising them for following

(11:18):
Talmudic hand washing laws, and he says, you abandon the
commandments of God and hold the human tradition. Then he
said to them, you have a fine way of rejecting
the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
For Moses said, honor your father and mother, and whoever
speaks evil of the father must surely die. But you
say that if anyone tells father or mother whatever support
you might have had for me is corban. That is

(11:40):
an offering to God. They can no longer permit them
to do anything for the father or the mother. So
what he's saying here is like this law of Moses
that allows you to execute children that curse their parents.
You're not doing it. You're supposed to be doing this.
You guys are hypocrites.

Speaker 5 (11:53):
Yes that he never really there's a story or Jesus says,
knock to throw the stone on the woman. Jesus the
advocating for stoning.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
Children John chapter eight. Yeah. So, first of all, I
think there's two things. As John chapter eight, I don't
think Jesus actually said anything in that particular episode with
the adulterous woman. That was something that doesn't show up
until the fifth century in the manuscript evidence, and it
first appears as a marginal note. It appears that it
was a popular story that made its way into the Bible.
Second of all, I don't think he was advocating for

(12:24):
abricating the Law of Moses in the way that you think,
not that he doesn't do it elsewhere, but what he
was doing in that passage is actually kind of smart
because he's saying, listen, the Law says we got to
stone this woman right now. What he doesn't want to
do is say don't do it because he knows he's stuck.
He's got to advocate for the Law of Moses because
he does everywhere else. So what he does he says, listen,
if you do what the law tells you to do

(12:45):
by stoning this woman, you're next. You without the first
ye who doesn't have any sin cast to first stone,
meaning listen. If you stoner, you can do it. You're
more than welcome to do it. But if we're going
to be carrying out this law effectively, you guys are next.
So think carefully about whether or not you want this
to actually happen. That being said, I don't think that
story is even original to the Gospel.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
An important note there is that Jesus is hardly calling
for abolition of this cruel and unusual punishment. He's just
calling other people hypocrites. I want to try to focus
back to your original point though, what justin brings up
with the killing unruly children? Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, all they
all say to do that. Now, your claim is we

(13:29):
can find your morality in the Bible. So if a
parent opens up the Bible and yes it's Old Testament,
but they'll read this and says, well, if my child
is unruly, I can have him executed. Now do you
think that's a good idea? And if you don't think
it's a good idea, do you think it was a
good idea back then? And then what would be the reasons?

Speaker 5 (13:52):
Oh no, I don't have a good idea. I think
that kids would never be harmed in any way Saper form.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
That's okay, but why does God think that they should?

Speaker 5 (14:00):
And then well, Paul, well, Paul, why God bade these laws?
Paul talked about it being like a neighbor, how broken
we are, So the laws don't really meant to be
like beings, like authoritated thing. How don't you show how
broken we are and how we need to say to
that Jesus?

Speaker 2 (14:14):
Is God indifferent to whether or not people lie under, oath, worship,
other gods, covet things, et cetera, murder, steel? Is God
indifferent to those things? Sorry? Now, then why would God
be indifferent to his other laws that he gives people?

Speaker 5 (14:30):
Well, saying this is what should happen, it's not really
what would really happen.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
So the consequences are what God doesn't care about, or
the law is what God doesn't care. Because if you're
going to say, God doesn't want you to stone your
children to death for unruly and it's just to show
you how broken you are, Okay, Well, then God doesn't
care if I covet my neighbor's wife and if I
have affairs and if I lie under I'm like trying
to point to the Ten Commandments, right, God doesn't care

(14:56):
if I break the ten Commandments then so because it's
just to show how wicked we are. Right, so why
should we follow any moral advice that we find in
the Bible.

Speaker 5 (15:07):
Then it take a new Testament we can catch avizes
this and took what it really should which is love.
Crazy In any old Testament, God shows mercy to people.

Speaker 1 (15:17):
H I want you to just for a second to
kind of process what Peterson was saying, right, which is,
if God gave these commands, you're suggesting God gave these
commands to do like horrible things to your children, but
he didn't actually want you to do it. Right. Well,
if that's the case, then why wouldn't we just extrapolate
this to all the other commands. God didn't want us
to be faithful to our spouses. God didn't want us

(15:38):
to worship him alone. Like, why are you picking this
one command and saying, well, that's not really what God
wanted because.

Speaker 5 (15:43):
God has a purposed behind everything he does.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
Right, But what measuring stick? What tool are you using
to determine that when God gave this command, he didn't
want you to follow it, but when he gave the
other commands, he did want you to follow it. How
do you make that determination?

Speaker 5 (15:57):
Well, we have the entire the entirety is criture now
and so we can see what exactually God's evolution was
plan truly was, and God's plan was to institute forgiveness
and love hc.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
Okay, let's say that it's two thousand and twenty two
years ago. So Jesus hasn't been born yet. Okay, what
should people do with the laws and prescriptions that are
ordained by God? In At that point, all we have
is the Hebrew Bible. What should people have done in
the past? Their kids are being unruly. Probably Jesus hasn't

(16:32):
been born yet, He hasn't preached anything. Paul hasn't written
any letters yet. But morality comes from this supposedly inspired text,
and God's morality is supposed to be the correct morality.

Speaker 4 (16:43):
Writer.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
So it's twenty twenty two, three, whatever years ago, a
child is being unruly. What should a parent do.

Speaker 5 (16:52):
Well, they should talk to their kids, and they should
try to talk things out. You know, because in the
Old Testament God shows against to David whenever he tells
the egregious sin, the murder and adultery.

Speaker 2 (17:02):
You listen Deuteronomy says, drag them in front of the
town elders and say this kid won't listen, and then
they get stoned to death. So would there be anything
wrong if they did that, because you're presupposing and you're
preaching univocality. And if that's the case, then somehow the
Jewish people before Jesus were born were as if they

(17:25):
were going around being like, yeah, we're not supposed to
actually follow any of these rules or anything like that.
So I'm just curious what would be so, And we'll
just go back to my original example. What should they
do the kid won't listen? Are they Are they permitted
to drag them in front of the town elders, declare
that the child is completely unruly, and stone them to
death as prescribed by the Bible.

Speaker 5 (17:47):
Yes, they should go see the town elders. Then it
should get to the elder to this it would need
to be done.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
Okay, So why is killing children who won't listen? Why
was that a good thing to do in.

Speaker 5 (17:56):
The past, But it wasn't a good thing to do ever.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
You just said that they should do it.

Speaker 1 (18:00):
God told them to do something that wasn't good to do.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Could be yeah, and the elders.

Speaker 5 (18:05):
Well, so there's a part in the Bible where God
will test the talks about child sacrifice, like he almost can.
He sort of commands it in a way that later
on he does. Yeah, so I think it should be
another example of that.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Well no, no, no, Ezekiel doesn't say it was to scare them.
He says that He gave you commands that you couldn't follow,
namely sacrificing your children, so that it might horrify you. Right, So, like,
the the idea is that what you're trying to say
right now is that God does give you bad commands.
But to what I asked you, and I think what
Eric's trying to get to as well, is how do

(18:37):
you determine that this is one of those commands? Because
God reiterated over and over again, there's a bunch of
places where God tells you these are the situations in
which you execute your children.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
Like, the problem I have with this is what you're
telling us the way to interpret this text, the way
to follow this text. To me, it sounds like the
equivalent of let's say I have a book and it's
just full of like all these like terrible things that
you're supposed to do for minor infractions. It just prescribes
death and torture and all kinds of crone unusual punishments.
And that's what the book says. It only says those

(19:12):
kinds of things. And then people are like, ah, we
can't form a society around this. And then somebody comes
along and says, well, hey, but you don't understand the context. See,
what you don't realize is that book was written on
opposite day, So you're actually supposed to do all the opposites.
All this stuff you're talking about about the later redemption
that you're not supposed to actually follow the law is

(19:35):
just meant to show that's not in there anywhere. And
like all these caveats you add to it, the thing
you added just a little bit ago with the maybe
it's analogous to the child's sacrifice of Isaac or this
other example, it's it's not meant to be taken literally. Well,

(19:55):
it doesn't say that anywhere in there. So as a handbook,
I don't I think that this is particularly all that good. Now.
I think there are good things you can cherry pick
in it. Jesus, I think Jesus he wasn't really a philosopher,
but he is one of my favorite moral philosophers because
I agree with a lot of the things he says.
But again, if the book is supposed to be good

(20:17):
at this kind of thing, then all this hideous stuff
that's in it that needs to be excused away, with
all this reasoning that's not to be found by reading
the text, but by having a particular worldview about some
multi thousand year arc that you then bake into it,
that you read into it is just not It's not

(20:39):
the kind of thing that you could or should form
a society around. It's not the kind of thing that
makes any logical sense to me or anything like that.

Speaker 5 (20:46):
Yes, but in the story, the story where God tells
Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he doesn't sacrifice. God put it
the last second to stop it. It would test to face
some of these laws could interpret it lied to it
like you, it's saying, God, you'll everything get to the situation.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
But the problem we have is he tells you if
you don't follow all the laws, every single one of them,
he's going to punish you. And then we see in
the Bible Helm punishing people for not following all of
the laws. So like I'm inclined to believe that he
wants you to follow the laws. He tells you to
follow the laws, like why would he punish you for
not following the laws if he didn't want you to

(21:22):
follow them?

Speaker 5 (21:23):
Well, I told you this as like a test of face.
See how well? Like how well do we follow these
the Old Testament people?

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Why you can't And you can't levy that expectation on
people reading a book. All I did was do what
it said. But you forgot the book was written on
opposite day, right, You can't. You can't retreat to that
kind of to that sort of defense. It's just it's
just not good.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
Let me. I want to do one other thing too
for you. Hc you read like one or two passages
with me if you will. Do you have a Bible,
I'm going to read something from from Deuteronomy chapter thirty.
You probably think of the New Covenant era like this
idea of the New Covenant era when God is going
to circumcize the hearts of the people. That we learned

(22:11):
about this in Ezekiel forty four, we learn about it
in Jeremiah, and we learn about it elsewhere. But it
also comes up in Deuteronomy thirty when he talks about
how the Israelites are gonna they're going to disobey. Because
of their disobedience, God is going to send them into exile,
and then after the exile, he's going to bring them back.
And then he talks about what's going to happen when

(22:32):
he finally circumcizes their heart. Right says, the Lord your
God will bring you back into the land that your
ancestors possessed, and you will possess it. He will take
you you will make you more prosperous and numerous than
your ancestors. Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcize your
heart in the heart of your descendants, so that you
will love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, in order that you may live.

(22:52):
Now listen, this is where it starts to get good.
The Lord your God will put all of these curses
on your enemies and on the adversaries who took advantage
of you. Then again, obey the Lord, observing all of
his commandments that I'm commanding you today, and the Lord
your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all of
your undertakings in the fruit of your body, so on
on and so forth. And so the idea that he's

(23:13):
laying out here is that finally, like when he comes
and circumcises the heart of the people, it includes this
idea that they're still going to follow the law. Do
you see that He never once does the lawgiver say,
I don't want you to follow these laws.

Speaker 5 (23:29):
Yes, it's the law is like in our heart we
without the law the single day that is making good
moral choices.

Speaker 4 (23:34):
You.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
No, he said the laws that I'm giving you today, Right,
he says in verse eight, then you shall again obey
the Lord, observing all of his commandments that I'm giving
you today, Meaning this is Moses speaking in Deuteronomy. Remember
it's the second giving of the Law. So he's reiterating
the law for all the Israelites to hear right before
he dies and they enter into the Promised Land. So

(23:55):
he's saying, all of these commands that I've given you today.
Eventually God's going to circumcise your hearts and then he's
going to want you to obey all of these commands.
So they're not going to go away and HC. You
have to know that Jesus agrees with this. Jesus was
a judaizer and Matthew five. He says, do not think
I've come to abolished the law or the prophets. I've
not come to abolish, but fulfill. And he says, truly,

(24:16):
I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not
one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass
away from the law until all is accomplished. And then
listen to this. He says. Therefore, whoever breaks one of
the least of these commandments and teaches others to do
the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But whoever does them and teaches them will be called
great in the Kingdom of Heaven. So Jesus's own words
says that, hc if you, if you practice the laws

(24:39):
of Moses, that makes you great in the Kingdom of heaven.
Do you see that? Did we lose them? I think
we lost them. Shit, I think it's connection crapped out.
Oh well, it happens, or yeah, or they just dropped
It is hard to say. I feel bad. He was
a kind young man, and I think he bit off
more than more than he was ready for. Yeah, that happens,

(25:00):
though it happened. Well, friends, we're going to get our
next caller up in here. And remember we don't have
super chats enabled on this livestream, but we are running
a somewhere we can't read any but we are going
to be. We are running a fundraiser for the back Cruise.
Details are in the description of the video. It's also
a link at tiny cc tiny CC Forward Slash Back

(25:21):
Cruise you can go and get your tickets. And also,
since we're re visiting our announcements, let's give a big
thank you out to the crew that everyone who makes
the show possible, the audio engineers, everyone who's taking notes,
screening calls, doing chat moderation, doing the video. Really appreciate you, guys.

(25:42):
None of this is possible without you, so big w
and we've got quite a few callers we had earlier
Melan tried to get in. It looks like Melan is
still in the quet, so let's get Mellen up. Melan
is asking why is death a bad thing? Without God's Melan,
can you hear us?

Speaker 4 (26:00):
Well, oh yeah, we can hear you. I can hear you, all.

Speaker 1 (26:03):
Right, So Melan, can you can you put some legs
into that question? For us before we answer, do you
want to flesh that out?

Speaker 4 (26:10):
Okay, So I've been I've been I'm a Christian, but
I've been trying to explore a bit. So I've been
questioning the Bible and everything. And I stumbled upon like
live stream and it's said the try atheism, It's fun.
And started thinking, like what would be if I will leave?

(26:33):
What would the moral code be when I am an atheist?
And I waited, I waited, not waited, but waited the
moral stuff. And I come to the conclusion that in
in Christianity like that can be like a very bad
thing because I gets suppose because like we have our

(26:56):
responsibility or goal. But in atheism, I don't really know
if like death is actually a bad thing or not,
because like life is basically suffering, and I think it's
after all, like the struggle, like the leastful moment a
few this most blissful moment that you have in life
doesn't really like balance out. Sure, the.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
Interrupt you, but I'm just going to give I'm just
gonna flash one thing out real quick, and then I'm
gonna let Eric answer, because I don't have a ton
to say about this at the moment. But like, so
in your worldview, you think death is bad too. So
I think one of the one of the things I
would recognize first is that whether you're an atheist or
a non atheist, like even the Bible recognizes that death

(27:42):
is is like a bad thing, but the Bible rectifies
it by saying it's okay, you'll be revived, right, So
the fact that you need to be revived, you need
to be resurrected with the righteous, indicates that even the
people in the Bible view death as being a negative experience.
Now that being said, as an atheist, I don't leave
in like objective goods, objective bads. I think some atheists do.

(28:04):
I just don't. So, like when I say I think
death is bad, you would just need to know that
this is my opinion, this is something that I believe
is bad. But I wouldn't say that death is objectively
bad because there are some people that actively seek out
like end of life services, where they might have a
terminal illness, they might have something else and they've decided

(28:28):
that rather than wither away and suffer in a hospital room,
they would rather go out on their own terms. And
in those cases, you could theoretically say, well, well, the
death is the best thing for them. But so I'm
not making any objective claims, but I'd love to hear Eric,
if you have anything to say about this topic.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, there's a I mean, there's a lot to say
about it, depending on and there's so many angles because
it depends on what you mean by bad and what
you mean by death. Now I don't mean to sound
like in Peterson, but we do. I think we do
have to unpack that a little bit, or.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
The metaphysical sub straight up death.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
Well, it depends what you mean by by death. So
melon like for me as an atheist, there have been
people in my life that have that have died and
so that's caused me huge amounts of grief. So you know,
I can say that death is bad. Now I assume
that's not what you mean, but I would like to

(29:28):
just hear what's your response to Like, I can make
the claim, well, I don't like death. I obviously feel
you know, a lot of negativity associated with it. So
what would you say to that? For example, I.

Speaker 4 (29:41):
Think like if the world few of ageism, that is
just something that is like maybe more like neutrals stuff.
So if someone died I can just say it's just nature.
So this is what right?

Speaker 5 (29:59):
H Uh?

Speaker 4 (30:00):
You can with you?

Speaker 2 (30:02):
Sure? So I think we're getting to I think I
know what you mean now by an atheism. There's nothing
wrong with death. You don't mean death, you mean being dead.
There's nothing wrong with being dead under atheism, because under atheism,
when you're dead, you're just you're not dead. Your subjective

(30:22):
experience ends. And so I can I can actually kind
of agree with you on that. But that's not the
same thing as that death or dying, the process of
dying is not a oftentimes miserable and an unenjoyable experience.
It's that wouldn't mean that it's still not the case

(30:44):
that like an un like a like a sudden death
and un like of a young person who has their
whole life ahead of them, that we don't feel a
tremendous amount of grief about that, and that we can
still think that somebody who was killed wrongfully, whether they
were assassinated or whatever, that we still don't see wrong

(31:06):
in that as well. But it sounds like you're really
just saying being dead there's nothing wrong with that under atheism. Now,
what I would say to that is I kind of
whenever I hear this, I think this is actually a
little bit bizarre because it can be flipped so much
more effectively back on the theist, especially the Christian, because

(31:27):
if there's an afterlife, and one of the possibilities of
the afterlife is the worst imaginable thing, which is Hell,
then how would not the most pragmatic thing to possibly
do be to race toward the complete eradication of all
human life on planet Earth so that no human can

(31:47):
ever in the future go to Hell. No other humans
in the future can ever go to Hell. So that's
actually that's what I would want to hear your answer
to why not just eradicate life that way nobody can
go to Hell, which subjectively the worst thing.

Speaker 4 (32:02):
Because like we got some God give us some responsibility,
and God respect our free choice. And I and this
is what I hear from my pastor, and he said
that hell is not a place, it's like a state
of mind, and like hell is also an absence of food,

(32:23):
where everything that is good in our mind is also
that I didn't I cannot say like pull out, but
it's like it's a chice for me to separate everything
from everything that is good.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
Sure, lots of Christians have lots of different ideas about hell.
Your's is less of a fire and brimstone kind of hell,
it sounds like, and more of the just separation from
God kind of thing, and we can talk about that too.
I guess I'm going to go backwards a little bit
on what I said, and I want I want to
ask you, do you think what I boil down your

(32:59):
question is correct that you're more so saying that under
atheism being dead there's nothing wrong with it, whereas in
Christianity being dead because there are two possible options heaven
or hell, death is extremely consequential. Do you think that's
a fair assessment of what you're telling us?

Speaker 3 (33:18):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (33:18):
Yes, sure, Okay, Yeah, So I guess that still kind
of confuses me, because there's no reason that an atheist
cannot value life. In fact, if life before death is
the only life that you get, then it's the most
meaningful thing imaginable. Right. So I don't think atheism cheapens death.

(33:42):
Honestly think I think theism cheapens life because if you're
going to live for an eternity in heaven, then nothing
you do here on earth matters at all. And in fact,
why not desire being smothered in the crib before the
age of accountability so you can guarantee that you're not
going to end up in hell. The calculus just really

(34:04):
doesn't actually make any sense to.

Speaker 4 (34:06):
Me, because, like in I'll answer the in theism, and
then I will answer I will ask in the atheism
in theism, like everybody has their own value, everybody got
their own responsibility, their own like way that God has
chosen for them. So it's not for us to choose

(34:29):
whether to end it or.

Speaker 1 (34:34):
Think about that, because I've heard this a lot all
my life, that like ending your own life would be
some sort of a grave like sin in Christianity. But
like Paul himself contemplates it in Flippings chapter one, he says,
for me, living is Christ and dying is gained. If
I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful
labor for me. Yet I cannot say which I will choose.

(34:57):
So when he's in prison, when he's writing to the Flippy,
he's literally trying to figure out, I don't know if
I'm going to go on living or not, Like he's
literally deciding for himself. He's contemplating whether I want to
end it now or keep going on. So like I
don't I don't know of a single Bible verse that
would tell you that like God would be upset if
you decided to go home and see him.

Speaker 4 (35:17):
What maybe this is a stretch, but I think it's Jesus. Remember,
I think I remember the story about Jesus saving someone
who is doing sin, and he said that the first
one to throw or mean that he is or she
is seinless. And in that passage it's so that only

(35:39):
God can give it.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
So in refer to John chapter eight. So in John
chapter eight, what happens is a woman is called an adultery.
They bring her before Jesus and they want to put
Jesus to the test because up till now Jesus has
been very much pro law of Moses and has tried
to pooh pooh the oral law also known as the
Bible as the tradition of the elders. So they find

(36:03):
a really difficult case. They bring a woman up to
him and said, this woman was called in the dauntry.
You know what the law of Moses says, you at
the stoner. And so Jesus not wanting to have her
stoned is like okay, sure, but he who is without
the first without sinning, cast the first stone. Essentially, what
he's saying is, if you want to execute this woman,

(36:23):
guess what you're next, So you can do it. But
just know, if we're going to apply this rule evenly,
you guys are next. I don't read anything in there
about suicide.

Speaker 4 (36:33):
I think it can do that to interpretation, I think I'm.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
Not sure I would. I'm not sure I would add
two interpretations. But listen, that's that's a side tangent. I
just wanted to kind of point that out. God does
seem to give you the free will to choose to
carry on or not. And we're not told anywhere in
the Bible that if you decide not to carry on,
that he's just going to cast you to hell forever.

(36:57):
But which is the other thing you mentioned, how I
gave you the free will? But like he doesn't really
give you free will, Like he says, choose me or
you get lit on fire for all of eternity. Like
that's not free will. It's coercion at minimum. At best,
it's like just some weird, sadistic game.

Speaker 4 (37:15):
But if we grant that God is good, so God
is everything that is good. That means that if I
if end of my life, then I'm going to be
one with God.

Speaker 5 (37:29):
Or so.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
I don't know why we would grant him that he's
all good based on his based on his behavior. So
and sorry, I'm not trying to overtalk you. It's just
that our delay is kind of severe. So I'm not
doing it on purpose. But the reality is, let's let's say,
for example, that my son grows up and says, Dad,
I don't want anything to do with you. Well, as
a good father, I'm not going to say, okay, well

(37:52):
to hell with you and then light them on fire.
That's ridiculous, right, And if God is all powerful, he
could do anything with us like the people who don't
want to spend attorney with him or the people who
don't believe in him. He could do anything with us
he wants to. He doesn't have to send us to hell.
Hell is in heaven are a false dichotomy. There's a
million other options between the two. So I don't I
don't buy this idea that will like, well, if you

(38:12):
don't want to be with God, he has to let
you on fire. That's not a real thing. Plus, I
never said that I don't want to be with God.
I just don't believe in the guy, right, And that's
completely different. Not believing in something's different than looking at
in the face and saying nah, I don't want that.

Speaker 4 (38:27):
Yeah, but that's that's going to be like a long conversation.
But I think I'm going to fornostick to to the
moral question.

Speaker 2 (38:39):
Can we go back to this thing about.

Speaker 4 (38:43):
Like, uh? I think what I want to ask, well,
if I am living as eightis like more more becoming
like subjective and then like what so if someone told
me if my morality is wrong, then what right does
he have have to tell me that my morality is wrong?
And I don't think like anyone can defend me to

(39:05):
put all off, for example, that I'm just going to
get some I don't know, some white powder.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
And after a good start and do andrax white powder
could white powder could mean different things?

Speaker 4 (39:18):
I guess.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
So, okay, Melan, what I with respect to this? So
you're you're saying, if I'm to live as an atheist,
what's to stop the other atheist from saying whatever they
say is moral, good, correct or whatever from being the
uh the correct thing? Well, what's to stop any Christian
from saying God told me we should do blank, So

(39:43):
you can't tell me that it's wrong.

Speaker 4 (39:45):
I mean, if some I think God loves us and
like it's he doesn't really want to do something that
is unnecessary. So I think there's going to be a purpose. Okay,
to be like.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
As, I'm not sure that's an answer to the question.
I apologize, but I don't think that was an answer
to the question. Can we try this again? I just
want to hear the answer.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
I think I can. I think I can ask it
a different way by asking a couple of questions. So, Melan,
do you think that a Christian can go to Hell?

Speaker 1 (40:17):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (40:17):
Oh interesting, Okay, that's not super common for people to
say that they think a Christian can go to Hell.
But I appreciate that. So that that derails where I
was going to go with it a little bit. But anyways,
so we'll go back to the original thing. If I'm
to live life as a Christian, and Christians throughout the
history of Earth have done things like endorse slavery, endorse

(40:40):
you know, beating up kids. They've endorsed kicking Jews out
of their country for whatever reason. I mean, Martin Luther geez.
I think Hitler probably Martin Luther might have been one
of his biggest influences based on this stuff.

Speaker 3 (40:54):
He said.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
And even in the present day, you find Christians on
like every spectrum of the issues. I mean you can read, uh,
that's how it is today, but also in the past.
I mean you can read some Aquinas and Saint Thomas
Moore and they openly talk about how, yeah, if you
steal from rich people, that doesn't actually count as theft.
That's just so we have this gamut of like extreme

(41:17):
authoritarian right is our right linking type of stuff to
like extreme leftist type of stuff all all over the place,
with different people that claim to profess in the same
sort of religion or at least in the same figure
of Jesus. So if I'm going to live life as
a Christian, and a Christian says well, I think we

(41:38):
should do these specific things, and all of those things
are counter to what I believe. But we're both Christians.
How do we settle this dilemma of who to agree
with who to follow?

Speaker 4 (41:52):
I think we go back to the Bible and like
we see we.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
I mean, that's what that is.

Speaker 4 (42:01):
But I think that's just a story for us those times.

Speaker 1 (42:05):
So Melan, let me, I want to help illustrate what
Peterson's saying here. Right, So, the Martin Luther advocated for
confiscating the property of all the Jews and burning down
their synagogues. He wrote a whole book about it, called
On the Jews and their Lives. So, like, this is
a man who rooted his moral system in the biblical text.

(42:28):
That's why he was one of the biggest reformers of
the church.

Speaker 4 (42:31):
Right.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
So if we're outsiders and we're looking at the objective
morality of Christianity, and we've got one guy saying, yeah,
let's confiscate all the property of the Jews and burn
their houses down, which has been Christian teaching for almost
all of christian I mean far back as the Edicts
of Theodosius the Second we were seeing the same type
of persecution of the Jews. Right. But now we've got

(42:52):
let's said, we've got melon, and Melan says, no, no, no,
we shouldn't be doing these things to the Jews. Right,
What good is the objective moral doing for us? If
we don't know what is the objective moral, we still
have to just fight it out using our own subjective opinions.

Speaker 4 (43:08):
Honestly, I don't really know, but you know, but right,
I think.

Speaker 1 (43:14):
Because even if they're one objective moral code we can
point to and say, look, these are the objective moral codes, like,
they still need interpreted, so they're not really all that helpful.
At the end of the day, we're stuck with our
own mind and we have to apply it and think
to ourselves what makes the most sense. And people have
been doing it for all of history. That's why for
most of history people thought it was okay to own slaves,

(43:36):
and now we're like, no, no, no, we shouldn't be doing that.
Even the Biblical authors agreed, yes, slavery's fine. In fact,
some of the earliest Christians like Ambrose, literally wrote that
it like it's an unavoidable consequence and some people aren't
fit for freedom. So but nowadays we would look at
that and say that's crazy. How could anyone say that? Right?
But the reality is like, if we treat the Bible

(43:58):
like an authoritative, objective moral rule book, then we're stuck
with this idea that slavery is permissible. Right, So I
think my personal opinion, I think even those subjective morals
aren't perfect. Sometimes we make decisions that are stupid. Sometimes
we screw the pooch. However, I think it's better than
being stuck with a book that says slavery is okay
and you can never question it for all of eternity.

Speaker 4 (44:21):
I don't really know where it's say like this. You
can give me a Bible person.

Speaker 1 (44:28):
Like maybe later you check out Leviticus twenty five forty
four through forty six. I think that's the most striking passage.
And there's others, but I think this is one that
best kind of demonstrates the situation. He goes on prior
to that, in verse thirty nine to forty three, and
he tells you don't make slaves of your own fellow

(44:48):
brother Hebrews. But he says, as for the male and
female slaves you may have, it's from the nations around
you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You
may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you,
and from their families who are with you, who have
been born in your land. They may be your property.
You may keep them as a possession for your children
after you, for them to inherit as property forever. So

(45:10):
he tells you explicitly these foreigners over here, you just
own him as property forever. It's sign Okay.

Speaker 4 (45:18):
The way I see it is like it's the with
the context that it's like what's happened that it's the
best for what possible to the best possible things to
do at the time. And I think like the Bible is,
especially the Old Testament, is just a story of warning
for us and and Jesus. That's why, like Jesus say

(45:40):
like this has come, and like say like, yeah, I
kept to feel fit a lot, but and this you
don't really need to follow this law anymore.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
Example, is it the best? Was it the best possible?
That it relates to be slaves in Egypt?

Speaker 4 (45:52):
I mean, that's not the best thing, but that's okay.
Say that God.

Speaker 1 (45:56):
Didn't want that God didn't want Did God want his
people to be slaves or did he want them to
be free?

Speaker 4 (46:02):
I mean yes, but I think I think he punished
them because you want them to feel like to how
know it feels to become a slave?

Speaker 1 (46:11):
Okay, But one is more preferable to the other, right,
I mean, if you say that being being a free
person more preferable than being a slave.

Speaker 4 (46:21):
I don't really know. I mean, I can be so
and then iRED. I'm sorry. It's not like I'm going
I'm dishonest, but I really don't know if I'm being
a slave, but I'm treated very, very good. For example,
I got my wage, I got my.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
I got Slaves don't get wages. That's employee mention melon.
That's not slavery. That's paid and they got beaten with
a rod if they disobeyed. So you're you're you're describing
somebody who is an employer and an employee, and you're
not describing someone who's a slave. So he explicitly tells
you just before the verse we read, he says, if

(47:01):
any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that
they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them
serve as slaves. He's talking about the Hebrews. He says,
they shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers.
They shall serve you until the year of Jubilee. Then
they and their children with them shall go out from
your authority. Then they should go back to their family
and return to their ancestral property. Because they are my

(47:22):
servants who I brought out of Egypt. And they shall
not be sold as slaves are sold, and you shall
not rule over them with harshness. But you can fear
your you shall fear your God. And then he says,
but here are the slaves that you are allowed to have.
So he says the Hebrews, don't turn your hebrew brothers
into slaves. That's not the preferred thing for you, guys.
I don't want that these foreigners. You can own the foreigners.

(47:45):
So God knows that the more preferable state is to
be free. But he says, you can own these other
people as property.

Speaker 4 (47:53):
I don't really know actually so much about the Mold test,
and when I knew more about the UH, I know
more about the new testing. But yeah, I think I'm
going to look this up and then I'm going to wait,
wait again, like what's going what's life when if I
become with the eightist? But still, like I think, like

(48:16):
I have not really got the answer before, Like what's
why people can stop? How people can tell me like
what to do when I'm an atheist, Like there's.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
Sure I was moral and the moral is.

Speaker 4 (48:29):
Just for them.

Speaker 2 (48:30):
Yeah, I was going to go back to this.

Speaker 4 (48:32):
I can I just become a prime melan.

Speaker 2 (48:36):
Does God have reasons for why he prescribes specific commandments, taboos, whatever.

Speaker 4 (48:44):
But a specific commitment to boost?

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Does God have reasons for why he tells us to
do anything or to not do certain things?

Speaker 4 (48:54):
I mean, yeah, I think God has to plan.

Speaker 2 (48:56):
Okay, well, then if if that's how moral works, then
we can appeal to reason and we have absolutely no
need for a god if God is telling us to
do specific There are arguments that people try to use, like, well,
you know, the whole thing about don't eat pork is
because of trichinosis or whatever. That is this horrendous parasitic

(49:20):
worm that you can get from undercooked pork. Oh that
was the reason behind that. Well, okay, any twenty first
century person could pick up the most basic of medical
books and find that kind of information out. So we
don't need a cosmic moral, magical lawgiver that lives in
the sky. We can just know that kind of thing.

(49:42):
Or how about that hardly sounds really like a moral
claim don't eat pork, But I mean, if the man
upstairs is telling you not to do it, then you
better not do it. So it kind of does sound
like it, But something more obvious as like a moral
command would be don't commit perjury. It doesn't actually say
don't lie as don't lie under oath, So it's like
perjury or don't murder, don't steal. Well, I think even

(50:07):
an idiot could understand that a society that openly endorses
it do as much stealing, lying, and killing as you
want would be a society that would collapse. So there's
just a very obvious sociological, biological and I guess you
could say civic understanding for why you wouldn't want to

(50:27):
do those three things either. And so again, by appealing
to reason, we can come up with perfectly valid justifications
for the same sorts of moral commandments that God gives,
and we can skip the middleman and appeal to reason.
So God's not required for any of this. They kind
of have to establish what I guess, the things you

(50:49):
value are. But in a lot of instances it kind
of sounds like a lot of the time God values
the same kinds of things we do. And I think
that's because ordinary human beings wrote the wrote the Bible,
so it would be reflective of the kinds of things
humans like and prefer. There's a lot of really that
I am a jealous God type of stuff in there too,

(51:11):
So yeah, you don't. You absolutely don't need a society
that has a rule that you have to worship this
one thing because it's a vengeful, jealous thing. You you
can completely do it with that and have a flourishing
society obviously. So what would you say to that All
we have to do is appeal to reason and skip
the millman because God has reasons for these things.

Speaker 4 (51:31):
God, the God of the Old test It was an
absolute piece, I think. But I think the biggest question
for when living in eighties a state is that why
should I care about society?

Speaker 3 (51:45):
For it for.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
I mean, I can answer you that.

Speaker 4 (51:49):
I can say that it's it's a good of the
for the good of the masters, But I don't really
think like society is good for me or like society.
I don't think why should I care about society?

Speaker 2 (51:59):
Should I care religious? Caused? Why should I care about
your religion?

Speaker 4 (52:05):
I mean, there's a tough fifty fifty chance of God, I.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
Think, no, no, but that's pretty damn close to zero.
But like to the point though, like like why should
why should I as an atheist care about society? Because
I live and die in that society. Like I'm a
part of the society. Right. That's like saying my finger
it hurts today, so I'm just gonna cut the finger off. Well,

(52:29):
ship that the finger is part of my body, right, So,
like there's nothing we can do at this point in
history to not be part of the society. We're just
we're going to be part of that society, right. So
if we if we want ourselves to have well being,
then we need to care about the society that we
are a part of.

Speaker 4 (52:47):
Yeah, but I think there's a good society and better society.
For example, I can join the mafia or some some
some type of gain and say that this this is
my society, and my society is like the thing that
I care about. So sorry, I mean the government for examples.

Speaker 1 (53:05):
I don't don't worry what I want, So, oh, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
I wanted to go back a little bit, Melon, and
I wanted you to try to address if God has
reasons for telling us, for giving us commandments or what like,
do these things and don't do these other sorts of things.
If there are reasons behind them, then why couldn't an
atheistic society just appeal to reason instat and and just

(53:38):
say we don't need to get this from a God. Like,
what is your response to that?

Speaker 4 (53:44):
Because I think God set the goal and the goal
is ful. I mean, it doesn't tell us about the metal,
so we might so we are free to interpret.

Speaker 2 (53:54):
It in our own metas is the goal.

Speaker 4 (53:56):
The goal is for example, that the ten commentment, like
he tells.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
What is the goal?

Speaker 4 (54:06):
The goal? Yep, the goal is I think, being like
I think in the ten Commandment, I think like the
most basic one that I think the most clear one
that we.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
Have the commandments.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Yeah, I think the tenth Commandments elucidating though, where it
says that you shouldn't covet your neighbor's slave, it's kind
of a weird thing to enshrine in some sort of
objective moral law code. It seems like you should just say,
don't own slaves.

Speaker 2 (54:32):
Yeah, so sorry, I.

Speaker 1 (54:34):
Just want to say one of the things, Melan, what
I'm hearing as you're dialoguing with Eric and whatnot, what
I'm hearing is that, like, you don't like the way
subjective morals work, right, because that means we have to
disagree in the marketplace of ideas, and that means sometimes
people disagree and they make horrible decisions. And we get that,
we understand that in like a subjective framework, sometimes people

(54:58):
make moral decisions that we don't like. But again, this
is still you don't have to like it. But it
not only not only can you not demonstrate objective morals exist,
but number two, you can't demonstrate what they are. You
can't tell me where they actually are, because I guarantee
if we read the objective morals of the Bible, you're
not going to like them. Number three, if the morals
of the Bible are the standard, they're not even objective,

(55:20):
they're just subjective, which means you don't believe in objective morality.
You just believe in divine command theory. And at that point,
why are you picking the divine commands of the Bible
as opposed to the Quran and so on and so forth, right,
Because now you're saying, well, here's the objective law code here,
but the Muslims but no, no, I've got the objective
law code here. So now you're right back at square one.

(55:42):
You've got a bunch of people arguing using their own
subjective thinking faculties, saying no, no, this is the objective
code no, no, this is the objective code, right, So
just claiming that atheists can't appeal to objective morals doesn't
fix any of the problem. At the end of the day,
you're in the same boat we're in. You have to
sit down at the table, you have to come to
the marketplace of ideas, and you have to make a

(56:03):
case for why your moral framework is the one that
people should follow.

Speaker 4 (56:09):
And yeah, that makes sense. That's setting up a lot
of confusion because I don't think it's small, Like I
don't like it small, Like I'm confused, like what to
follow when I am an atheism.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
Well, sometimes we don't know either, Like so Eric and
I both face moral dilemmas, and one of the first
ones I face as an atheist is this idea that
like I'm readjusting my moral framework and I'm like, you
know what, I don't know if I should be eating
animals like this is this is something that I'm now
trying to figure out right in my worldview, and we're
always learning, Like it does not to say that you're

(56:42):
going to become an atheist or you might become some
other religion, and you're just going to know what is
correct moral behavior we're all trying to figure it out together, right, So,
but I think us getting together as a society and
trying to figure this stuff out has always been more
effective than pointing at a book from the Bronze Age
that says you can kidnap women and rape them as
long as you're in war. So, like, I just don't

(57:05):
know if pointing to a religious text helps you to
decide what is moral behavior and the world.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
I'm currently reading this goal Yes, sorry, we have that,
we have that delay. I'm currently reading this book called
you think I'd remember what it's called, oh, an Anatomy
of Violence, the biological roots or Causes of crime, something
like that, and it provides us, it confronts us with

(57:34):
all these really fantastical and really really kind of uncomfortable
moral considerations we have to make in the in the
complex world that we live in, because we now know,
for example, there have been cases, for example, you have
two identical twins, one of them is and they've kind
of been the same their whole life, their identical twins.

(57:56):
You would expect that, but then one of them just
kind of later on life drifts off and starts to
kind of become a low life and a loser, and
this person one day kills somebody, and then well, we
all have the moral intuition that, well, a life, probably
taking a life probably deserves the taking of that life,
or if you don't believe in the death penalty, at

(58:18):
least like life in prison or whatever. This is an
unrehabilitatable person. I don't know if that's a word or not,
but I'm going to say that it is. Well, what
we have found out now thanks to technology, is somebody
can have a tumor pressing on maybe like their vagus nerve,
or it's in the nucleus cucumbence reason or region or

(58:39):
something like that that is basically causing this person to
become a completely deranged psychopath. And maybe that's treatable. And
once this person has been treated, they go back to
being just like their other twin, who is just by
all accounts, an upstanding citizen. So now we're confronted with
this really bizarre thing. Where can we actually have sympathy

(59:02):
for people that have committed murder or something like that. Well,
if we just try to rely on the Bible. The
Bible is a book that doesn't change, and it's very
black and white and it's very primitive, but the world
is going to continue growing more and more complex, and
we're going to learn extraordinary things like that, and complex
societies are going to put us into extremely complex situations

(59:27):
and kind of moral gray areas like that. And if
we just looked at the Bible, then we would have
that very black and white sort of dichotomists thinking of Nope,
if X, then do Y, and I just don't think
in the modern world when you really dig into these
kinds of things, that we can actually legitimize that text

(59:49):
as a proper instruction manual for every kind of reality,
for like general kinds of reality. There's a lot of
stuff in there that you can cherry pick that's pretty decent.
But that would just be another example, kind of a
piggyback off of what Justin was saying, like there's there's
stuff that happens every day that we have to be
confronted with.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
So Melan, we spend a little bit of time in
this call, and so we've got some others waiting to
get in, So we're going to move on, but I
want to give you the last word. Tell me some
of your thoughts on on talking what Eric was just
talking about.

Speaker 4 (01:00:21):
I think like, I think he clears off my view
of like morality being subjective even in the Bible. Also
likes we like I thought there was like one clear
goals in the Bible, but then like this clear goals
like become some kind of glorry and I think just

(01:00:43):
can't really like put put the words into order in
my head. And I think it's all clear up. And yeah,
I think morality is possibly possibly like relative and we
don't really know.

Speaker 5 (01:00:56):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Well, Melan, thanks for calling hit the phone call. It
was a good question. H Cheers Buddy W for Melan
for asking some questions and actually getting trying to probe
under the surface of some of the answers. Before we
bring in our next call, we're going to grab a
theist John from California. We're not reading any super chats today,

(01:01:20):
but we are raising funds for sending our hosts to
the back cruise. If you go to the bottom of
the video on the screen, you'll see a button to donate.
I've already donated, so we would love to see everyone participating.
We've got over a thousand people here. If everyone just
sent one coffee, even half a coffee, we're done. We
got everybody to the back cruise, but we love and

(01:01:42):
appreciate everyone here and everything that you do for the channel.
So don't feel compelled to give if you can't give,
but if you have some change to spare, we'd love
for you to help out with the fundraiser. And with that,
let's get John into the guest box. John is from California,
says I believe original interpretation of the Bible. Also, nobody

(01:02:03):
knows what the Lord's Prayer means. John, Welcome in.

Speaker 3 (01:02:06):
Hey, how's it going?

Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
Very good?

Speaker 5 (01:02:08):
Are you?

Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
John?

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
I'm doing pretty good?

Speaker 1 (01:02:10):
Hey, before we John, I actually is your interpretation of
the lords? Is your interpretation of the Lord's prayer that
bread is God and that the Lord's prayers teaching that
everybody should get free bread?

Speaker 4 (01:02:24):
Yes it is.

Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
Yeah, Listen, you're an adorable troll, but stop calling in.
If you ever call in on the show, I'll drop
you before you even get on the stage. What you're
doing is not funny. It's just annoying at this point, right.
And then we're going to grab our next guest, which
is Howard, a theist from Spain, saying observing the golden
ratio through nature is scientific evidence of a creator. I'll

(01:02:48):
be Eric, this is you, buddy. You got to deal
with this one. Okay. So Howard, can you hear me?

Speaker 3 (01:02:54):
Yeah? Hi, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Welcome in, Howard, and I'm reading the call notes. Is
so observing the golden ratio through nature as scientific evidence
of a creator? Do you believe in a generic creator
or do you believe in like a specific crater, like
the creator of the Bible or the Koran or something else.

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
I haven't decided. I'm searching for truth and I'm just
following the evidence, so I guess that would be generic.

Speaker 1 (01:03:20):
Yeah, fair enough. Okay, So go ahead and kind of
lay out your case for the golden racial point into God.
I'd be curious to hear how you fleshed everything out.
And then I'm going to let Eric tackle this because
he's going to do way better than I can ever
hope to cool.

Speaker 3 (01:03:34):
Thank you. Okay. So for anyone that isn't aware of
what the golden ratio is, it's digitalized as one point
six one eighth dot dot dot. It's an infinite number
sequence and it's what we see throughout nature. Nature tends
to aim towards this golden ratio. We see it geometrically inspirals,

(01:03:58):
the placement of and generally like the growth and scale.
So that's why it's called the golden ratio. So like
we can see in like pineapples and pine cones that
there's always a spiral going clockwise and a spiral going
anti clockwise, and they tend to be the Fiberinacci numbers,
which are the numbers that help us get closer to

(01:04:19):
the golden ratio because it's an infinite number, it's a
number that we'll never know the full digits of. And
we also see this not just in spirals, but also
we see it well, yeah, in spirals like the romanesquo broccoli,
we see it in snowflakes. We even see the ratio
in like the chicken egg where it's one across to

(01:04:40):
one point six one eight across, and we know that
eggs are really hard to break. And it also happens
to be the best possible ratio for placement, the best
possible ratio for growth. If we have like a propeller underwater,
the best possible ratio for that to have the most
force is the golden ratio. And it just happens to

(01:05:02):
be what we see in nature. So I'd like to
ask you, guys, how can you say it's not rational? Well,
how can you say it's rational to dismiss this evidence
for intelligence design?

Speaker 2 (01:05:13):
Well, I mean, the biggest problem is that intelligent design
isn't a working theory. Intelligent design did not predict that
we should be able to look to nature to find
technological solutions. That's just a retro or like a retroactive
or retrofitting of data onto an explanation. So that would

(01:05:37):
be like the number one thing.

Speaker 3 (01:05:38):
Can I word it? Definitely? Eric? Just to see if
I can get the answer a bit more clarified, could
you cite any alternative example of random chance producing reproducible perfection?
Because it literally is the best possible ratio that you could.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
I've never heard that you use the golden ratio to
create the best possible propeller design. I've never heard that
specific claim before, So I would like to see a
study on that. I don't think I'm not going to
google during mid stream here, because then I won't be talking.
And this is a call in show, so that's not
really what the people want. But what I can tell you,

(01:06:18):
you're giving a very straw manny presentation of the alternative.
If a god doesn't exist, then everything is just blind
random chance. No, that's not the case. At all things
in the universe happen according to natural law. I don't

(01:06:39):
really draw any distinction between the laws of physics and
whatever natural law is supposed to be me personally. But
if we take chemistry in life, why do compounds form
chemical bonds because they're always trying to reduce their energy
state or whatever. A real scientist would probably be able
to put that in better terms. But why is a

(01:07:00):
bubble always spherical because that has the maximizes the service area.
It's a volume ratio. Even when you start combining bubbles
together and you can get cool like Tesseract patterns, the bubble,
like the service area of those bubbles, will always maximize
or like minimize in energy. Right now, life is a

(01:07:22):
chemical system. It does the same kinds of things at
a very reductionist level. Life is just chemistry. And so
we can look to the reason we see this the
golden ratio phenomena is because it's a ratio of Fibonacci numbers. Now,
and life is all about conserving energy, right, So, like

(01:07:43):
a Fibonacci sequence you know what that is, right, Howard.

Speaker 3 (01:07:47):
Yeah, I mentioned it before, didn't you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
I didn't hear Fibonacci, but yeah, I'll take your word
for it. So if like organisms, because they grow and develop,
they do things, there's like a causal link, right, there's
a chain of events for the way an organism grows,
whether it's those cool succulents that grow in that spiral pattern,
or a pine cone or a nautilus shell. I have

(01:08:13):
a nautilus shell, but it's in the other room. Otherwise
i'd hold it up on stream here. Well, if what
you're doing, like the way the way an organism or
a part of an organism grows in those a series
of iterative steps, the next thing you do is based
on prior things. So you're just naturally going to see
a Fibonacci sequence. There's this weird like there's this not

(01:08:37):
like I don't know what to call it. We pretend
that numbers, like we glorify numbers in these weird kind
of ways, like oh, it's like we see for the
Fibonacci sequence like one, one, two, three, five, eight. Well,
but you can create a number out of anything. I
can say that there are I'm not going to count
them fifteen pencils or whatever right here, or I can

(01:08:57):
say there's one cluster of pencils right here. And an
organism can be like that when it's made of tissue
and the tissue is growing and in order to make
the organism or the part of it or whatever get bigger.
Because the way that occurs is through these iterative steps,
you're going to see something like a Fibonacci sequence result

(01:09:18):
from that. And it's not because the numbers or anything
are magical. It's because you're just doing one thing after
the other. So these golden ratios, yeah, sometimes they're seen
that way. From what I've seen, though, so much of
the golden ratio stuff is it's not really a golden ratio.
It's a golden ratio if you fudge the numbers, if
you round up or down to force a golden ratio

(01:09:40):
to fit, like they do that with the human face.
I was like, well, based on I can't remember exactly
where you draw the lines for it, but it's like, okay, well,
if it's like where the nose is, okay, do I
go from the very tip of the nose or the
base of the nose or what you can completely subjectively
pick wherever you're starting. An ending point is for so many,
any of these measurements to make a something that, if

(01:10:04):
you round it up or down, is kind of close
to that golden ratio. So I mean, that's a lot.
I can say a lot more, but I'll give you
an opportunity to what's up?

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
Thanks? I just wanted to quickly ask because I mentioned
that nature aims towards the golden ratio because we only
see perfection in number, we don't see it in nature.
What I think on my main point, just let me
say one thing.

Speaker 1 (01:10:31):
No, no, go ahead, I want you to finish. When
you finish, I got something to say about that.

Speaker 4 (01:10:36):
Cool. Cool.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
I wasn't originally saying that this is irrefutable proof of
intelligent design. I was asking, how how can you rationalize
dismissing this as evidence for intelligent design? When we think
of Okhama's razor. Surely my explanation is more way more
simple than your your what you're theorizing?

Speaker 1 (01:10:57):
Eric, So let me let me just add two things
to this, Because I think Akraham's raisor is something that
some people appeal to they don't really need to. But
in this case, you already did, but I think it
sides with us. Right, So if in fact things are
stronger when they evolve to have a Fibonacci sequence, like,

(01:11:19):
let's just imagine that that is the case, right, Well,
that matches what we see in evolution. The things that
have the best chances of survival are the things that
are going to reproduce, and the things that have a
lower chance of survival are the things that are not
going to be able to reproduce. So that being the case,
then what we would expect to see is a high

(01:11:39):
frequency of items that follow the Fibonacci sequence. And I
think that being said, we would say the opposite then
about God, because if God created all this nonsense here, right,
what that means is the vast If the Fibonacci sequence
is like the best possible way to create stuff, then
what that means is the majority of every thing God

(01:12:00):
ever created. He decided to not use the most preferred
method even with humans. He decided not to use the
most preferred method mathematically to create us. But he cared
about broccoli for some reason.

Speaker 3 (01:12:14):
All right, justin I get what you're saying, But can
I just remind you I'm not just talking about the
Fiberonacci numbers. I'm also talking about the ratio itself in
constructing the growth, you know, how things scale and growth,
and also in how we see these angles and spirals,
and you know, it's not just the Fiberinacci numbers. I mean,

(01:12:35):
doesn't that give more and more evidence in terms of
the because it's not just Fibernacci numbers, it's the ratio,
it's the angle of the spirals.

Speaker 1 (01:12:46):
The angles are not preferred. So I want to make
sure and attack the first part, which is that the
Fibonacci sequence is not the preferred like building sequence for strength.
So like I'm an engineer, had taken jeering classes, not
I'm an electrical engineer, but early on we had to
take lots of mechanical courses as well. I'm pretty aware
that like the most mechanically sound systems are not systems

(01:13:09):
that are built around the Fibonacci sequence sequence or so
we would see them in bridges, we would see them
in homes. Are they effective? Yes, arches we prove for
effective way back in ancient Rome. But are they the
most efficient and most effective ways to build things? No,
they're not. We've We've actually got better things so like
saying that we've got this Fibonacci sequence and somehow it's

(01:13:32):
it's like the best of everything.

Speaker 3 (01:13:33):
It's just not well, as you mentioned, evolution, And I'm
really glad that Eric mentioned about a seashell because that's
where we see the spirals most visually, most easily. You
guys are aware that some of these fossils are classed
as ancient fossils, so you know, without arguing about timelines,

(01:13:54):
I'm just saying, if these are ancient fossils and they're
showing the five ratio, that the spiral of the golden
ratio of the five in a spiral angle, well that
doesn't that kind of lend more evidence that there wasn't
no evolution because we see the golden ratio and construction
and also the spirals now and we see them in

(01:14:15):
fossils which you classed as ancients as well. So doesn't
that kind of show that there wasn't any evolutions from
then till now?

Speaker 2 (01:14:21):
No, And I'm very happy to get into that. But
you've said a lot of things, and I wrote that
one down so we can come back to it a
little bit later. But so earlier when you were talking,
you like you're referencing this golden ratio and perfection. You
specifically mentioned perfection. Literally, I don't think anything is perfect.

(01:14:42):
You brought up intelligent design, which I want to get in.
I want that to be the next thing we get into.
But the Okham's razor comment you made, you're not I
don't think you're understanding this very well. So you think
that you are preserving OCAM's racer because you're invoking a creator,
that it's these things that follow a Fibonacci sequence, express

(01:15:04):
a golden ratio or whatever. You specifically mentioned chicken eggs earlier.
So Howard do you think that a literal miracle occurs
every time a chicken egg forms?

Speaker 3 (01:15:13):
You tug into a creationist, so obviously the answer would
be yes. Whenever there's conception, I believe it's a miracle.

Speaker 2 (01:15:20):
Yeah, okay, what about a snowflake? Every time a snowflake forms,
do you think a literal miracle occurs?

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
Ah, God, bless you, thank you so much. I forgot
to mention snowflakes. Also, so the fi ratio and Fibonacci
not Fibinacci, stoy, But what you got it fractal Every
snowflake when you look at it under a microscope is different.
But every single snowflake has five. I guess you'd call
it arms stemming out from the center, and five is

(01:15:46):
how you get to five. It's the magical number, which
again ties all back to an intelligent designer, leaving for
those with ice to see I believe.

Speaker 2 (01:15:55):
Sorry, Okay, So the question was mirror occurs every time
a snowflake forms.

Speaker 3 (01:16:02):
Yes, because they're all differently our eyes, no two the same,
but they're all symmetrically geometrically perfect.

Speaker 2 (01:16:10):
Right, every every dump I've taken, they're all every Every
turd is completely different too. That's not an argument. So
do you understand that we, like with the water molecule,
we understand the bond angles, and so we know why
scientifically a snowflake is very very likely to form a

(01:16:31):
six sided shape. Are you aware of that? That's all
I'm asking?

Speaker 3 (01:16:35):
Could you rephrase that again?

Speaker 2 (01:16:38):
Are you aware that we know scientifically, because of the
shape of the water molecule, what the type of bond
geometry a water molecule will form with other water molecules.
Are you aware that we scientifically know that, and so
we already know why, Like we have a scientific understanding
of why they would be inclined to form six sided shapes.

Speaker 3 (01:17:01):
Unlike your turds. So they do have a pattern, but
they're all uniquely different at the same time. So back
to your argument. You've got a good argument. I'll give
you that, but I could argue that.

Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
God, I haven't gotten anywhere close to finishing my argument yet.
You don't know what my argument is at the moment.

Speaker 3 (01:17:19):
So to conclusion. Sorry, you don't know my.

Speaker 2 (01:17:24):
Conclusion yet because I haven't. I haven't given it. So
I don't think you actually think a literal miracle occurs
every time a snowflake forms, because a literal miracle suspends
the laws of nature and certainly the laws of physics,
because a creator doesn't use the laws of physics to
do anything. It's literally supernatural. Okay, So no, I don't

(01:17:46):
think that. I don't even think you think that a
literal miracle occurs every time a chicken forms an egg,
every time a snowflake forms. And so you and I
actually think the same way when we look out there
and we see that, you know, broccoli grows that certain
way that it does, that shells coil in a certain

(01:18:06):
way they do, we both think that when a snowflake
forms the shape it does. We both think that it
does that because the laws of nature, the laws of physics, whatever,
are set up in a way that that's how it manifests. Now,
what you do, and again we were talking about this
is all about Ocom's razor. What you do is you

(01:18:26):
attach the most complex imaginable thing a supernatural creator that's
responsible for all of it, and that's why we see
those things. You are very plainly the one violating Ocams
Racer when you do that, because we agree, we will
agree fundamentally about you know, how those structures form and
that they're like describable through physics or whatever. But then

(01:18:49):
you're adding the other thing, So you're the one in
violation here.

Speaker 3 (01:18:53):
Just I disagree, but with all respect. Yeah, I meant
to say it disagreed with your premise before, but fair
enough we can agree to disagree. I mean, my main point,
like I said that that you said you wanted to
get back to you anyway, was as we see it
in fossils, which you guys class as ancient. Doesn't that
show that there hasn't been any evolution If we see
it in fossils and we see it in life now.

Speaker 2 (01:19:16):
No, No, absolutely not there were because you don't know
that the shells are the same thing, right, Like, oh, geez,
I don't know t rex walked on two legs. I
walk on two legs. Therefore no evolution has occurred, like
to point to some random cherry picked generic phenotype and say, oh,

(01:19:39):
because I see preservation of that trait across different species
across time. Therefore, evolution isn't a thing that is just
that is terribly naive.

Speaker 3 (01:19:49):
Again, I agree to disagree because I can't see what's
about what I'm saying. If we see the same perfect
ratio in the past that we see now, then that
shows me there hasn't been no evolution and aspect, keep.

Speaker 1 (01:20:02):
It extreating perfect and thank you. Eric, and I have
the same question. You keep saying it's perfect, but it's
not perfect, like you're just asserting that it is. We
don't agree with that premise that it's perfect by any means.
What's it perfect for?

Speaker 3 (01:20:14):
Well, you know that YouTube channel number file that they go.
They really showed some really good videos about how perfect
the golden ratio is mathematically and how nature does aim
towards that, and that's why nature service it's objective.

Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
Yes, but you're saying it's perfect. So what do you
mean by perfect that.

Speaker 3 (01:20:34):
It's the best ratio of construction. It's the best possible
for what ratio for what do you call it? Seeds?
You look at a sunflower and you see the seeds.

Speaker 1 (01:20:46):
But best best for what is what I'm asking?

Speaker 3 (01:20:49):
It's the best possible scale. It is the best possible you.

Speaker 1 (01:20:54):
Mean by scale, it comes in all sizes.

Speaker 3 (01:20:56):
It's the best right for a structure. Sorry, I'm not
explaining myself very well. I'm a bit dyslexic. A structure
to be as strong as possible, it would have to
go up or down in the golden ratio. And we
can see this, We already covered this.

Speaker 1 (01:21:12):
Structures are much stronger, infinitely. Structures are much stronger in
like a geodesic form or typically in like a triangular format,
because you can distribute the loads more appropriately than you
could with like some sort of golden ratio. And we
don't even know how you could implement the golden ratio
into some sort of a mechanical structure like a building.

(01:21:36):
How would you even do that? There's not even a
method for it.

Speaker 2 (01:21:38):
If you had a golden ratio, arc or arc symmetrical.
It would it would not, it would not bear load consistently,
that that would be a terrible design choice. Actually, but
this whole thing about that it's perfect, the golden ratio
is irrational. Why can't I just say that only a
rational number would be perfect? How can there be perfection

(01:22:00):
in an irrational number? That doesn't make any sense?

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
Sounds rational to me?

Speaker 5 (01:22:05):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:22:06):
What what's irrational to us? Appears to have been designed
from something that's outside about physical space and time, because
the pie number is also infinite, and that has patterns
inside its code, inside its number sequence itself, which i'd
have to show you. I can't really get into that ratio.

Speaker 2 (01:22:25):
That is just a natural consequence of being round. It
requires no further deeper explanation at all. There's just a
property of things that are circular. Man, what else did
I write down from.

Speaker 3 (01:22:40):
Many before before we jump into that kind of Well.

Speaker 1 (01:22:44):
There's really nothing more to get into, Yeah, there's there's
There's not much else I want to I want to
hear what else was in his notes before we get
lost on another tangent, And we've got another caller that
wants to wants to get in, so and we we've
got a hard cut off at seven thirty, so I
want to make sure we can get to our next caller,
but go ahead, Eric, So.

Speaker 2 (01:23:03):
Howard, do you understand that intelligent design isn't a working theory.
It does like what, it doesn't make any predictions.

Speaker 3 (01:23:10):
Well, I predict that everything in the future will have
the golden ratio, because if it doesn't, that would be
the evolution. So there's a prediction for you, which would
also disprove evolution. Your golden ratio in this without the
golden ratio in the future.

Speaker 2 (01:23:26):
Howard, I just crumpled up this piece of paper. Is
there a golden Do you think there's a golden ratio
in this?

Speaker 3 (01:23:31):
You're not God? But if I can just ask one
last question, a quick one.

Speaker 1 (01:23:36):
Suggest So I just want I just want to address
what you said real quick before you move on to
your last question, which is like you're you're suggesting that
the preferred state is that everything is made from the
golden ratio. But if if you are a believer in
a god who designed things and then he didn't use
the preferred design methods, he's just kind of a goof well,

(01:23:59):
why would why would have this perfect design? Method and
then just not use it everywhere.

Speaker 3 (01:24:03):
I'm not a Christian, But what's that argument that you
know it better than me that from the fall due
to sin there's corruption and abomination and stuff. But like
I said, I'm not a Christian. I'm just a lot
of religions talking about.

Speaker 1 (01:24:18):
Seem to be a Christian. Yeah, So I mean what
I'm suggesting is that, like you're saying that we need
this theistic concept to explain the golden ratio because we
see it pop up and the golden ratio is like
the most preferred way to do things. But irregardless of
the fall, even before the fall, there was God didn't
use the golden ratio to build everything, Like animals didn't

(01:24:39):
become fundamentally different after the fall, Like animals were still animals.
Mankind still had ribs, Like the structure of our ribs
didn't change. That's ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (01:24:49):
Well, again, I could argue, if you look up the
video on YouTube the mathematical model of the universe, that
God did use the Golden ratio and pie to create
these So that's something you've been look into another time.

Speaker 1 (01:25:02):
Well, we'll certainly we'll certainly do some of that homework later.
So what was the last thing you wanted to ask?

Speaker 3 (01:25:08):
Cool? I think you'll enjoy this point. So you're aware
that supposedly Jesus lived to thirty three to live a
perfect life cycle in the Quran, Bible, even the Gnostics,
I think everyone agrees that he was thirty three years old.

Speaker 1 (01:25:21):
Yeah, I mean roughly thirty three. But it depends on
what you think about his birth. Was he born before
for BCE, during the reign of Herod or was he
born during the census of Quineius ten years later? So
when we talk about the age of Jesus' death, we
don't exactly know how old it was. We have to
use our best guess.

Speaker 2 (01:25:42):
I hate to ask. But what's perfect about the NME version?

Speaker 1 (01:25:45):
Well, he is you did it, Peterson? Why would you
do it.

Speaker 3 (01:25:49):
If I met? Well, I'm just about to get there.
I don't worry. So yeah, threemasons love thirty three degrees.
But my main point was, if we say that Jesus
is known to be thirty three years old, it's maybe
it's not a coincidence that the sun and the moon
realign with each other every thirty three years. The son

(01:26:11):
of God, there's thirty three years to do a perfect
life cycle. Well, the other son of God also takes
thirty three years to do a perfect cycle with the
moon and in pie. Like I was saying, the first
number zero appears in the thirty third position of the
number sequence, and you've got thirty three vertebrae in your spine,
which is supposed to be the Jacob's stairway to have them.

(01:26:32):
So it's just interesting. Now God leaves numbers in certain
places for people to put.

Speaker 1 (01:26:37):
We can do that with any number. There's no number
that we can't look at and just say, look, it
shows up in all these situations. Like you're just saying,
here's a number, and it shows up a lot. Cool
all the numbers do. This is like saying, oh, I
bought a Volkswegen. Now that I've got a vw alls,
I do is notice other vws on the road. It's
a miracle that we have all these vws. No, like

(01:26:59):
what you're just practicing a form of paradolia where now
you're just saying here's a number, I like, where else
can I find it?

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
That?

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
That's a meaningless and futile endeavor. All you're doing at
this point is just like convincing yourself of deeper and
deeper levels of nonsense.

Speaker 2 (01:27:15):
And also, I said earlier, I appreciate you earlier.

Speaker 3 (01:27:18):
Did you did you know about this sun in the
mountain take thirty three years or is that new to you?

Speaker 2 (01:27:23):
They don't, They take about thirty two point eight years.
But this is what I was talking about earlier. I
asked you, do you know that intelligent design isn't science
and that it's not a working theory, and that all
it is is retrofitting things. And I don't even remember
what you said to that, but for crying out loud,
what you just said is is the perfect tell of

(01:27:44):
that the creator of the entire universe coded in the
number of vertebra, we have something about the how long
Jesus lived for that is like, that's not a prediction.
That's just a Texas shooter fallacy, and a really wild
and silly one at that. And it's another subjective one

(01:28:06):
because you'd have to include the sacram and the cocksix
to get to thirty three. Your spine is your cervical,
thoracic and lumbar vertebra, and you have twenty four of those.
This is just you're just you're picking You're picking things
out and saying, oh, geez, these disconnected things are connected
with no evidence that they're connected in any way. There's

(01:28:27):
no explanatory mechanism here whatsoever. It's just, well, what if
that thing that if you kind of close your eyes
and don't look, is similar to that thing over there?
What if they're connected? This you're just making stuff up.

Speaker 1 (01:28:42):
I don't know if you know this, but like number
sixty nine shows up in nature all all over the.

Speaker 2 (01:28:48):
Place, and it's in the Kamasutra. Therefore it was divinely
inspired inspired.

Speaker 1 (01:28:53):
Well, listen, Howard, I think we've We've had quite a
bit of conversation, and I've actually enjoyed it quite a bit.
But the problem is we're running out of time and
I want to get to the next guest, So please
call in. You know, the show will be live again
obviously next week. We'd love to hear from you again
in the future. If we had more time, I'd love
to keep you on because I think you're a delightful

(01:29:14):
person to talk to. I think you're kind. It's just
that we we've unfortunately right now we've got to move
on to the next guest. But I appreciate you calling in.

Speaker 3 (01:29:22):
Thank you. Can I formally challenge you to a debate
on a neutral platform, a moderated debate, and I've been
speaking to James. I've been speaking to James, and he'd
be happy to host it. It's because I think it'd
be I'll pass so the evidence that I've got.

Speaker 1 (01:29:39):
So Howard Howard, every every monkey and his uncle wants
to debate me on m d D and I don't.
I don't. There's no benefit for maybe on the platform.
I love James's platform, but I have my own channel
that I do my own content on and that that
supports the work that I do. If I have somebody

(01:30:01):
who wants to debate a really good topic, like a
really great topic that needs to be debated, then I
agree to it. But other than that, no, I don't
just debate. You know, any guy on the internet that
wants me to get on MDD you like, you have
to earn that spot and I don't think you've shown
that you've earned it during this call. But we appreciate
you calling him. All right, let's carrebt Richard from California. Richard,

(01:30:24):
I think is an atheist or maybe an agnostic. It says,
is the Dictionary definition of the word creation proof that
the world is a creation and it should be a
lot of fun. How you doing, Richard, I'm doing great.

Speaker 3 (01:30:36):
But listening to the show on the phone.

Speaker 4 (01:30:38):
And you're doing great.

Speaker 1 (01:30:40):
Thanks buddy. So your question is, does the Dictionary definition
of the word creation entail that there was a creation?
Am I understanding this correctly?

Speaker 3 (01:30:51):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:30:52):
I mean, are you referring to the creation of the
creation of the universe.

Speaker 2 (01:30:55):
I think so, yeah, like the world or the universe
or however that work.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
Well, you know, I think there's differing opinions on it,
but I don't think so. Like when I think of
the word creation, I'm thinking that, like, theoretically I could
create a car, I'm creating it out of his existing parts.
But when we talk about like a theistic creation concept,
we typically think of like creating something from nothing, like
ex nihilo. So if that's the case, if we're talking

(01:31:23):
about that kind of creation, then no, I don't think
that the definition of creation gets you anywhere because we
have I don't, as far as I'm aware, I don't
know of any evidence that would point towards the idea
that there was once nothing and then something you know,
was given rise out of that nothing and certainly not
that a magic man in the sky did it. Now,
Eric might have a different take on this.

Speaker 2 (01:31:43):
What do you think, Eric, Well, what I'm kind of
thinking is I just think it's odd to appeal to
a like a word having a definition to invoke that
it therefore is real, because like leprechaun has a definition,
but they don't exist. I mean, the idea of a
leprechaun exists in folklore, pop culture or whatever, but they're

(01:32:06):
not real things. I mean, we could we could like
conceptually invent a word that the definition of the word
is something that does not exist, you.

Speaker 1 (01:32:17):
Know, and tell me the lens don't exist.

Speaker 2 (01:32:20):
That's that is what I'm telling you.

Speaker 1 (01:32:22):
Yeah, changes everything. I'm returning my lucky charms. I was,
I was under an impression.

Speaker 2 (01:32:29):
Yeah, yeah, it's like the tooth Fairy too. That was
that turned out.

Speaker 1 (01:32:33):
Tooth Fairy two.

Speaker 2 (01:32:35):
Also the tooth Fairy. No. No, so, Richard, I guess
i'd want to like, I'm just curious as to what
you really mean by does the definition of it like
prove that it's real or like, is that evidence that
it exists? I pulled up the definition for creation. There's
two of them. First definition is the action or process

(01:32:56):
of bringing something into existence, and the second definition is
the bringing into existence of the universe, especially with regard
as an act of God. So is because one of
the that's one of the entries, like, is that what
you meant?

Speaker 3 (01:33:09):
Pretty much?

Speaker 2 (01:33:10):
Yeah, okay, there's different schools of thought with dictionaries. You
wouldn't think that a dictionary would like there would be
all that much depth to them, but there actually is.
And I this is Oxford, and I don't know what
their particular philosophy is. Some dictionaries they just give you
the definition of the way words are commonly used, and
other definition or other dictionaries take like a like a

(01:33:32):
philosophically different approach. It's actually this very weird, like esoteric
thing that I don't know too much about. But and
I don't know how Oxford is doing it. But if
that's just what people often mean when they use the
word creation, which I agree with that, I don't see
that as evidence of anything outside of the way the

(01:33:53):
word is commonly used.

Speaker 3 (01:33:54):
That makes sense to me.

Speaker 1 (01:33:55):
Well, hey, thanks Richard, I appreciate the question. Good to
hear from you, Great to hear from you you guys
rock Hey, thank you, cheers, Buddy, I have a great one.
We've got one more caller in the queue. I'm going
to bring up George and let's see what George has
to say. George says, how do you maintain healthy relationship
with Christian in laws? And Buddy, this is a doozy.

(01:34:17):
So the first thing I would say, George is I'm
not a licensed professional therapist. I did have to take
counseling and when I went to seminary, so I know
a little bit about this, but I'm not a professional.
That being said, mat can you give us a little
bit of background information about your situation so we can
perhaps give you if we could give you advice, give

(01:34:39):
you the most applicable advice in laws get them, George, Well, George,
if you're listening to this back, I'll assume your connection
failed you. If you're listening to this back a day,
a couple of days from now, here's the only advice
I could tell you. If you have Christian in laws
and you want to maintain a relationship with them, it's

(01:35:02):
not your job to force them to lose their beliefs.
It's not your job to force them to become atheists
as a part of a family. You know, sometimes you
have to make sacrifices to keep the peace. For example,
in my family, we have a pretty good diversity of
belief systems in my family politically and religiously. But like,

(01:35:23):
we don't talk about that over dinner. That's not polite
conversation for us. Because we love each other, right, we
don't want to get into those fights. So that being said,
I would just say, listen, if you love your in
laws and you want to get along with them, don't
purposely try to create division. Don't purposely try to be like, yeah,
but this, that and the other. You should think like
I think, right, I think that's dangerous, whether you have

(01:35:47):
a religious view or not a religious view. That being said,
if your in laws are pressing you like they're trying
to drag you the church, they're trying to convince you
to be a believer, you know I would I personally,
I would stand my ground and say, listen, I appreciate
that this works for you, it doesn't work for me.
You know, I can't go and pretend like I believe

(01:36:09):
something that I don't believe in. But I don't know, Eric,
how would you handle such a situation.

Speaker 2 (01:36:15):
I don't think I really disagree with anything that you're
that you said, but I would I would maybe just say,
you know, ask them or like lay down the ground
rules or whatever or like like have a like meet
with them and say, can we agree on this like
one ground rule, And maybe the ground rule would be,
how about we never discuss religion ever. Like I know

(01:36:38):
there's tons of people. I just had a family reunion,
like I just got back a few days ago from it,
and almost everybody on that side of my family, they're
pretty deeply religious, and I'm pretty sure they all know
that I'm an atheist, and it just never got brought
up like one time, you know, because you know it

(01:37:02):
shouldn't matter. And now you know, I mean, some people
if that's the only thing that matters to them, and
lord knows all we know that there's so many Christians
or whatever can be like that, like if they hold
non believers in contempt, well that's something you just can't

(01:37:23):
hope to rectify, unfortunately. But yeah, I mean my unique advice,
I would say, like can we just like establish it.
It's like, you know, no politics at dinner kind of thing,
no religion, ever, if you're around me.

Speaker 1 (01:37:39):
Yeah, I think that's a good policy. Now George is
not on the line with us to respond, so I
guess we can leave it at that, and I agree
if the goal is to have peace by all means
have peace in the house. Now that being said, we're
out of callers, but we're also basically out of time
as well, So we want to thank our backup for
the night. Scotty, my friend, can you come up and

(01:38:00):
say hello?

Speaker 5 (01:38:00):
Well you there there? All right?

Speaker 6 (01:38:02):
Great show, great show, And I have to say, as
a math teacher, there was one call there in particular
that was very painful for me to listen. But I
thought both of you handled that just perfectly. And when
Eric mentioned the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, that was just the
cherry on the top. And so I need to have
a cigarette after this, but great job, great job on
that one.

Speaker 2 (01:38:23):
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know who that was. I've
seen him. I've seen him debate people before, and he's
out there. He's wild.

Speaker 3 (01:38:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:38:35):
Well, Scott, thanks for Beckham was up today. Did you
have any other thoughts on the other cause or did
you just get like a little turned inside out when
you heard someone destroying math.

Speaker 6 (01:38:44):
Well, I mean, you know, as far as the golden
I know we're out of time, so I'll just be
real quick as far as the golden ratio is concerned,
it's based on the Fibonacci sequence, which is a very
very basic iterative growth procedure, and so where do so
it shouldn't be surprising at all that we in play
and look where it shows up in nature, in a
plant that's growing, in a shell, that's building. It's all

(01:39:05):
these iterative growth situations, and so it would be shocking
if it didn't show up. And so it was just very,
very very frustrating to see all that misrepresented. And I
would ask to our caller that we lost at the end.
You know, I'm not a licensed therapist either, but my
wife and I are atheists and both of our parents
sets of parents are Christians. And the key is just

(01:39:26):
set clear boundaries. And that's that's really the main thing
that if you want to keep peace in the family,
if you want to get along with people that you
care about, set those boundaries, especially when there's children involved.

Speaker 1 (01:39:37):
Oh yeah, for sure. Yeah, well I appreciate that, Scott.
And with that, guys, we are out of time. Thank
you so much for being here today. Thank you Eric
for joining me on screen. It was an absolute blast
and a pleasure to have you here. And we'll see
you guys all again next Sunday at four thirty pm
Central time, same place, same time.

Speaker 7 (01:39:58):
Glad start stop listening the Bush am.

Speaker 2 (01:40:11):
If they watch Talking Than Live Sundays at one pm Central,
visit tiny dot c c slash y t t H
and call into the show at five one two nine
nine one nine two four two, or connect to the
show online at tiny dot c c slash call th
H