The Atheist Experience 29.46 with The Cross Examiner and Jmike

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

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
There is a subredd that I follow called clown arrested.
It's exactly what you might think vetted headlines about clowns
being arrested, with most headlines about child sex abuse headlines
like birthday clown charged with possession of child pornography or
Circus sued over cover up of alleged sex abuse and

(00:21):
former clown academy teacher accused of child rape. You don't
need any education license or certification to market yourself as
a clown. Most clown organizations are small businesses, and many
don't run background checks. In the United States alone, there
have been more than one of these clown abuse headlines
every single day for years. This is an epidemic. Where

(00:42):
is the outrage. We should be putting down these companies,
shutting them down and passing strict regulations, but we aren't.
Why not, Well, the main reason is that one key
thing I said was a lie. The subredd that I
actually follow is called pastor arrested, not clown arrested. Did
everything else I said is true? I just substituted clown

(01:03):
for pastor and circus for church. Now cute rhetorical flourishes aside,
if abuse was found to be happening in circuses and
among clowns at anywhere near the same rate as it
is in churches and among pastors, the nation would be furious.
We would demand immediate closure, boycotts, mass arrests, sweeping government investigations, subpoenas.

(01:27):
We would not tolerate it for a single moment. But
as Christopher Hitchens wisely observed, religion poisons everything. Religion demands
respect for authority, whether it is earned or not. Religion
demands faith where evidence is lacking. Religion demands obedience even
where non compliance is the moral choice. Religion views what
are now ritualized displays of contrition and submission to church

(01:50):
dogma as more important than conviction, incarceration, and rehabilitation. Most importantly,
religion creates a tribalistic us versus them mentality while insisting
that members protect the institution as the price of membership.
In other words, the reason this happens is because a
lawmaker who tries to hold churches accountable will be attacked

(02:11):
as being anti religion. It is the same reason Idaho
legislator's year after year, have consistently voted to keep allowing
fanatical parents to kill their children by refusing basic medical
care in the name of faith healing. So when people
ask me what's the big deal if they don't have
a sufficient evidence for their religious beliefs, I point to

(02:33):
things like this. Endorsement and participation provides passive political support
of a system that puts children at risk of death
or sexual abuse, while shielding participants from criminal punishment, basic regulation,
and even investigation, all in the name of religious solidarity.
And this is just one of the many ways that

(02:54):
religions hurt people. If you disagree, call us. The show
starts now. Welcome, Welcome, everybody. Today is November. What is
today the sixteenth, twenty twenty five, and I am your host,
the Cross Examiner. Joining me today right now is J Mike.

(03:16):
How are you?

Speaker 2 (03:16):
J Mike?

Speaker 3 (03:17):
I'm great. I only know it's sixteenth because I have
a loan payment to pay tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
I'm sorry to hear that.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
That's when that will we've taken out, But you know
it works out.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Let's see if we can get you some of that
sweet sweet money they pay us to volunteer here. Yes,
absolutely so, I'm happy to pay it.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
I'm on the road, I'm back on the road, and
all that kind of stuff. Yeah, so yeah, so yeah,
I'm dealing with crappy car situations my whole life. I
think that A I'm convinced a witch hext me at
this point because I offered myself up on TikTok. There's
a whole thing called witch talk, which I don't know
if it's the same as it was when you know,

(03:56):
twenty twenty COVID, but I would I would see all
these things like I'm gonna hext this person or do
this kind of thing, and I was like, so I
made a video and I was like, choose me. I
am a consenting adult and I'm willing for you to
put me to the text test. Please hext me, because
I'm so convinced this isn't real that I you know,
I'll offer myself up to the witch witches, right, and

(04:19):
I've had car problems ever since. So it works.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
Apparently, Apparently what is saying about correlation and exactly or correlation?

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Maybe I don't really think witches of hext me, but
you know, one of those strange coincidences, I will say.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
Yeah, but any any of those participants that want to
believe will point to you as an example, right, They'll
disregard others, and they'll.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
Say, look, oh that that j my guy.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
You know, but he hexed him and he had mildly
infuriating car trouble.

Speaker 3 (04:50):
For for you exactly. Yeah. I mean, look, I haven't
done the show in a minute. I'm a little rusty,
but I'm not rusty enough that I've given up, you know, right,
you know reason, good point.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
Well, let me let me do our notices here and
then we'll get to our discussion and callers. The Atheist
Experience is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin,
a five oh one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to
the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the
separation of religion and government. Now, I know we have

(05:25):
a few people in the queue, but they're in the
process of being screened. So I did want to ask
you a question if you had a moment, so you had.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
Special when people ask me questions, he cares about what
this guy who looks like he's going to ask you
for change on the street and has to say woo.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
So you and I were talking pre show, and you
were talking about your interest in this concept of moral
facts in relationship to God or the absence of God,
and I was wondering if you wanted to take a
minute to expand on that real quickly.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
It's funny because I wanted to expand and on the
one I sent you that was geared more towards you,
but yeah, no, which was like eyewitness testimony reliability. I
kind of sent Graham a few things like, hey, you know,
if we need if we you know, we need some
things to talk about away from kind of callers or something,
or to start to show out. Here's a couple of things. Yeah,
I just thought of like those two things. The I

(06:18):
think it's just stems from a lot of the conversations
I've had recently on different debate platforms where it blows
my mind that people think, I mean, this is a
This isn't like riveting or new information or novel for
anybody in the audience, because this is It's just it's
I think it's weighing on me so much that the
only thing preventing some people from doing horrible things is

(06:40):
the fact that they believe in God. And I'm someone
who's never believed in God, have had really wu kind
of spiritual esque beliefs that were you know, it highlights
a lack of good you know, critical thinking and reasoning skills.
I didn't have this massive deconstruct It's very easy kind
of for me to once I kind of saw the
light to kind of move on. But I just have
never in my life been like, oh, the reason why

(07:02):
I felt bad for taking the toy from my friend
or something was because I believed in God. It was like, no,
I recognize, like intrinsically, like I robbed them of time.
That's something that they their parents got them, or that
they've you know, they spend their time that I'm robbing
their time now away with this toy or whatever game,
whatever it is that you could take from somebody, which
it did, take a toy from somebody, and I was

(07:23):
a kid, and I felt really really bad. That's why
I bring that example up right, right, But yeah, even
as a kid, it wasn't like, oh God, I just
had this feeling even as a kid, like I shouldn't
have done that, Like that was a mistake for me
to make. And it wasn't grounded in some fundamental mind
that pre existed my existence. It was just recognizing kind
of what's intrinsic to the circumstances and so yeah, it

(07:45):
blows my mind, I guess is why I wanted to
talk or just mention that that it just doesn't click
for me.

Speaker 1 (07:50):
Well, and it's a great topic if anybody wants to
call in and talk about it. Is something interesting. It
reminds me of this concept. I was a red and
an assistant in college and I was in I was
an RA in the freshman dorm. So for people not
familiar with that, you're a more senior student who gets
free room and board to live in one of the dormitories,

(08:12):
and you are a bit of a counselor. You're a
bit of a social activities coordinator, a bit of an educator,
and a bit of a cop. And our resident director,
day one of training gave us this framework that has
lived with me to this day. And he based it
on the sort of hierarchy hierarchy of sort of moral
decision making causes. And he start, you know, like the

(08:36):
basic reason to do something that might be considered moral
is I'm going to do this to avoid punishment. Right,
That's why a kid doesn't steal the cookie from the
cookie jar. And then it goes up from there to
you know, hey, I recognize due to empathy that I'm
going to hurt somebody up to at the highest level,
I'm going to do what is right despite being punished. Right,

(08:57):
there's a whole level here, and he would talk to
us about like when you go knock on the door
at three o'clock in the morning because of a noise complaint,
try to hit them up at level seven, but you
may have to drop all the way down to level
one real quickly. And it reminds me of this because
if the only reason you're not stealing, murdering, raping is
because you're worried, I mean, you're worried about a god,

(09:17):
but I'm assuming from that you are worried about the
consequences because God will enforce post mortem consequences. Then you're
at level one, right, You're just doing it out of
fear of punishment. You're just a dog who doesn't get
on the couch because you're afraid that they're going to
tell you to get off the couch and spray you
with the water bottle.

Speaker 3 (09:35):
Which is weird because if I give a hypothetical scenario
to somebody like you know, at this level, one kind
of scenare if I'm hearing you correctly. It's like, we
have the moral fact Detector nine thousand, right, machine that
we can just go to and it'll report all the
moral facts, and it's like, you know, throw the third
child that's born in your family off of a building, right.

(09:56):
I think a lot of people won't feel the normative
force just because like there's a that like that, okay,
but what there's always this question of like why should
I care about that, like the fact that the moral
factor machineer. Well, one reason that someone might say is like, well,
this the fact the moral fact machine nine thousand whatever
I called, it's all.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
Right, we got to get a better commercial name, yeah.

Speaker 3 (10:18):
Exactly, Well, yeah, we'll patent and everything they might cite, Like, well, look,
it also tells us what the consequences of not doing
performing that action might be, right, And I guess depending
on like, there might be people that's like very selfish
and it's just like yeah, right, I'm gonna I'm gonna
do that because I don't want something to happen to me.
But it really tells this like inner psychology about the

(10:40):
person that's involved, case by case, and a lot of
people are gonna look at that and go, I don't
I don't give a shit. I'm not gonna throw my
third child off the building. Consequences be damned. And outside
of that context, you know, it's really at least it's
strange to me because I know they're not going to
do it based on the consequences. So I always wonder
what this psychological component is with the belief in God,
because you change it to something where they're not attached

(11:02):
to that, and all of a sudden, it's like, you know,
fuck that, right, but right, I just I don't know,
there's to me. He kind of highlights that you can
give all the arguments, let's say positive for atheism. I
could have like God doesn't exist as a conclusion, and
everyone's just kind of like, yeah, you know what, I
think that's true. You still have this psychological component. There's
you're the fact that they read words and you're commenced
by something still doesn't get pat The philosophical or the

(11:25):
empirical stuff still has to be met with this psychological component.
That's why we get anti vaxers right and flatterers despite
the empirical evidence.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
Right right right right absolutely.

Speaker 3 (11:35):
There, And it's Scott. I wish I could figure that out.

Speaker 1 (11:37):
Well, if you the callers have any ideas about this,
let me know. I'm reminded of Pendulette. I think said this,
maybe somebody else, but you know, he said in answer
to part of his questions, like I murder exactly as
many people as I want to, which is zero, and
I don't believe in God. So if you guys, especially
anybody who said, I'd love to hear from a listener
who's like, the reason I don't do this, this felony

(12:00):
level bad thing is because I believe that a God exists.
I'd love to hear from that color. But we do.
We've had a few callers screened already. First, we're going
to talk to Benjamin, who is a community a member
of the atheist community Austin, and I think that he
has an update for us on the work that we
are doing in the ACA. Benjamin, are you on the line.

Speaker 4 (12:22):
I am here. Thank you so much for having me on.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
Guys, Hey, Ben, how's it going.

Speaker 2 (12:26):
Doing all right?

Speaker 4 (12:27):
Been keeping busy doing work for the ACA.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
What have you been up to.

Speaker 4 (12:30):
Well, I'm super excited to announce we are now affiliated
with the atheist the American Humanists Association. We're now officially
affiliates with that organization, and we've been doing a lot
of work to try to partner with other nonprofits and
so actually this little thing that we're doing a community
spotlight every week or as many as often as we
can on our shows to try to highlight some of
those partnerships and highlight the work that different atheists and

(12:53):
humanist groups are doing all across the country.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
That's interesting. I missed this month's update meeting, so this
is exciting. I'm learning this right now. What are the
implications of this affiliation. Are we going to be doing
any sort of joint projects? Where are we going?

Speaker 4 (13:08):
We are Actually one of the first things that we're
going to be doing is happening within a month. We're
both working in partnership and they're helping to sponsor a
collaboration to helper an organization known as Quality Texas. They're
one of the leading organizations in the state of Texas
fighting on behalf of the LGBT community. Every year, they
do a statewide road trip to different LGBT communities across

(13:32):
the state that are resource deficient. And so as part
of that partnership, we're actually working with genetically modified skeptic
and the American Humanist Association to do a donation drive
on December seventh for the one that's interested in coming out.
We're looking for things like banned books, plan b gender
affirming clothes and cosmetics, and of course can foods that

(13:53):
then Equality Texas is going to take all across the
state to help distribute to the communities that need that support.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
And people donate to this that's only back of the
envelope about three weeks away. How can we help so?

Speaker 4 (14:05):
The best way if you live in the local, if
you live in the Austin area, or you live close
enough that you can come in, or you're willing to donate.
We're going to be at the Free Thought Library on
Kenny Lane. You can find that on our website at
Atheissibingcommunity dot org or look us up online the Free
Thought Library. We'll be there from twelve to about six
o'clock collecting donations from folks and working with the folks
from the Quality Texas. Otherwise, you can go on to

(14:28):
our website and click the donate tab and just put
in the message that this is going to this campaign
and we'll be happy to convey that onto a Quality
Texas fascinating.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
How about you, Mike, any questions for Ben on this?
This is I mean literally this sounds like I'm doing
a softball interview, which is a little bit it is.
But I'm learning this right now, and I know that
the American Humanist Association, I've done donated to them, and
I've watched their work. So I'm very, very excited about this. Mike,
have you ever worked with them? Or any other questions
for Ben?

Speaker 3 (14:57):
No, But I mean, you know, adjacent in many ways,
as I just actually flew back from Phoenix. My buddy's
vice president of the human Society of Phoenix, and so
I want to hang out over there and do that.
So I'm actually curious kind of I guess more of
question Ben, you wouldn't be able to answer, because I know,
I don't know if you're as familiar with like every

(15:19):
humanist kind of organization, but I am curious. I am
curious because of you know, this is one of my
best friends that's associated with them, kind of how we
intermingle this. And I remember one of my friends calling
me and just being like, I'm really pissed off that,
you know, my girlfriend or wife whose family's Christian will
go out and they'll do some some nice things for

(15:40):
like homeless people. But I understand that the ACA and
there's other organizations that do this, but you see this
with those churches, and they'll kind of hide behind this
we do good things kind of thing, and you don't
get that representation, you know, on the on the wide scale.
So I guess my questions mainly going to be what
can people at home do to either build a community
that gets kind of fed into this umbrella where we

(16:01):
can help each other out, or like, you know, how
do how does someone at home who has just no
idea what to do get get started with this and
maybe even develop a community. I know Secularity does stuff
in I believe it's Nashville, right, I always get cities,
I think, so, yeah, it's in Nashville, right, What could
somebody just kind of sitting on a couch watching the
show do?

Speaker 2 (16:20):
Sure? Yeah.

Speaker 4 (16:21):
So I've spent the last about four years doing a
lot of community organizing work before coming on board to
help out with the ATHEC community lost in And that's
a big question that everyone is kind of faced with,
and I think most of my advice is look up
other nonprofit organizations in your local community and start getting involved.
As part of this effort where actually the ACA, in

(16:42):
partnership with the AHA, is looking at launching a hopefully
nationwide volunteer organization to go out and do that kind
of work to go feed the homeless and how's and
how's the un housed go out and participate and support
other nonprofits all across the country. So we haven't we're
not launching it just yet, but that is an effort

(17:02):
we're looking at building up and so finding those local groups.
I know the American Humanists has on their website they
have over two hundred affiliate organizations, one of which is
the Atheist Community of Boston. Now, so you can try
to find chapters in your local area and then ask
them how they want to contribute, how do they want
to volunteer. Sometimes even if we don't have the money,
we have our fellow humanists, our fellow atheists that we

(17:25):
can go out and do that. We can go and
show up and pack boxes and help do logistics for
folks and just show up and be in those spaces
to help create community, to not only expand the atheists
and humanist communities, but help expand community and give people
a place to be a place community that cares about them,
that is doing the work collaboratively to support one another.

(17:48):
And so generally my advice is go out and find it.
Sometimes it's as simple as a Google search away for
what's the homeless shelters?

Speaker 3 (17:56):
Meet me as one I've seen where like people are
meet me, what does it meet up? Or yeah, meet
me or meet up or whatever. I get confused on
which every one's which, but I.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
See because nobody wants to meet with you.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
Well that's my dating life history and like, yeah, just
being unsuccessful. One of those apps is is.

Speaker 1 (18:13):
Probably that I had a question for Ben, But.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
The other one is like you can, well, the other
one is you can actually whichever the right one is
because I'm sorry, I'm just horrible with remembering names of
different apps. But I remember I searched online and that
was meet up or whatever that was. I had listed
a whole bunch of different like human well at least
there was only one near me that I saw, but
different like we're going to go to breakfast over at
this Denny's or something like that.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
Yeah, I live near I'm between molt, Washington and Baltimore,
and I see a couple up in Baltimore that are
breakfast with atheists or something like that, and I keep
meeting to attend and I never quite find the time.
But they're they're out there and you can find those.
So my question for Ben is I don't want to
keep you on any much longer. But one thing that
I'd like to sort of pretend I think I know

(18:58):
the answer. But I often see often religious organizations doing
the same thing, going out and feeding the poor, clothe
the poor, how's the poor? But many of them, not
all of them, condition receipt of the benefit on attendance
or receipt of propaganda like hey, we're going to have
a we're going to have a soup kitchen, but first

(19:22):
come over here and the preacher is going to talk
to you about God and then you can get the food.
I am assuming that I don't have to listen to
a humanist propaganda before I get any benefits from this?
Is that correct?

Speaker 4 (19:35):
Nos attached. This is about going out and being president communities,
finding people to support work, and if they want to
come and join our communities and come be a part
of what we're doing afterwards. Were of course receptive to that,
but absolutely not that kind of care and age should
never be gate kept behind some kind of missionary message.
And in the conversations I've had with the America Humanist Association,

(19:57):
they're very much in line on that. As we get
the Atheist Vanguard up and running, that is going to
be part of its mission and values is like, this
is not a proselytizing group. This is a group to
create community through support and through action, to go out
into local communities wherever you happen to be, to go
make things better for the people that you live with
that are around you.

Speaker 1 (20:18):
Absolutely, I would encourage anybody who's listening, whatever your religious beliefs,
to fully support that concept. If your church is conditioning
aid on being proselyzed ties to you should reach out
to your church leaders and ask if that's the right
thing to do or not. Because that's one of my
pet peeves is somebody comes back and says, this church
does so much good, and when you dig into it,

(20:40):
there's usually not always, but there's usually a hook. You
got to sit through the time share sales before you
get the golf clubs, so to speak. So anything else
to update this on Ben before we move on.

Speaker 4 (20:54):
No, this has been a real pleasure and privilege. Thank
you so much for having me on. You guys are
doing a bang up job once again. I just reached out.
Check us out at the fassigningcommunity dot org and get involved.
We are opportunities to volunteer. There's opportunities to donate, so
check us out. We are also on meetup for anyone
in the greater Central Texas area, so let us know.
And yeah, thanks for having me on, guys.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
And Ben, thank you for you know, I flew to
Austin for the back crewis and Ben, I'd have wheels
and stuff. Ben was so awesome and drove drove me
around everywhere and you know, helps me go get food
when I was hungry and all this stuff. So thank
you for all the work you do behind the scenes,
because a lot of people don't see all the things

(21:37):
that you do, and so I just wanted to let
you know that I greatly appreciate that. And I'm sure
I'm sure a lot of other people if they did know,
they would as well.

Speaker 1 (21:44):
I can I can second that when the call came
up and they told me who was the crew told
me who was in, they called Benjamin, and I didn't
put two and two together, and then I heard your
voice and you can see if you rewind the tape
on like, oh Ben that guys. Yeah, No, Ben's Ben
you were. It was a pleasure to meet you as well.
I didn't ride around, I heard it because you were
saying in order to get a ride, I had to
listen to your music, which seems to go against what
you just said. But now, as.

Speaker 3 (22:07):
Somebody who had horrible agoraphobia and was like just hard
for me to like leave my little nest in my
space and stuff, going to Austin a few years back
was like my real first like going out, you know,
into the wild beyond my kind of state, you know,
other than like doing some band stuff, which the whole
time it freaked me out. I was always just anxious

(22:28):
and stuff. And every time I've gone, you guys have
just made me feel that has not been an issue
for me. I've gotten over this kind of agoraphobia with
like exposure or something. But Ben, you made it like
extremely easy for me to feel comfortable. So I wanted
to want to thank.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
You for me Glad we could do that.

Speaker 3 (22:43):
You guys have a good one.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
That was great. Excited to hear that news. I had
not heard that before this, So that's wonderful. Unless you
have anything to add, I'm just going to jump right
to the next call, said, okay, Mike, anything to add there?

Speaker 3 (22:57):
Oh no, let's let's do it all right, Human Society
in Phoenix.

Speaker 1 (23:02):
Absolutely, So I've got very good news. The Supreme Leader
is on the line. That's their screen name from Colorado,
and the question is if you saw fulfilled prophecy, would
you believe it? Now, I'm going to make sure I
understand this because I think that's a bit of a
begging the question or assuming the premise. So first, did

(23:24):
I get your question right? Supreme Leader? And then, by
the way, pronouncy him? And second, I would first want
to define what you mean by fulfilled prophecy because that
seems to be the juxt of the of the question
is how would you detect that? Because I think the
answer would be if you if you saw a cat,
would you believe that you saw a cat? The answer

(23:46):
would be yes, but that's definitional. So, Supreme Leader, how
you doing? Did I get your question right?

Speaker 2 (23:51):
Hey? How you guys doing good?

Speaker 1 (23:52):
Good? Did I get your question right?

Speaker 2 (23:54):
You did? You did?

Speaker 3 (23:55):
Did you did you understand how what because I thought
I was very astute from grant.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
I'm there.

Speaker 3 (24:00):
That's actually like a very well uh said point, which is,
it seems to assume the thing in contention possibly right
to think it's a prophecy. For someone to tell me
it's a prophecy, it assumes that that kind of religion
is already.

Speaker 2 (24:13):
I'm trying to tell you I told you the future.

Speaker 3 (24:15):
Okay, yeah, that's what you just want to understand your term,
your term usage. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you might mean something
that that's not has the baggage of prophecy or something.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
So let's define terms. You know, I've I've got a
legal background. J Mike has a philosophical background. The professions
are similar if you start with definition of terms. So
hold on, hold on, We'll let you talk. Let's define terms.
So first, could you please define for us what you
mean by prophecy? And second, well I'll do a follow
up after that. Define for us what you mean by

(24:46):
prophecy and how does how does it? How do you
differentiate prophecy from any other prediction?

Speaker 2 (24:52):
Oh, I'm trying to tell you I see the future.

Speaker 1 (24:56):
Okay, but can you answer my question what is a prophecy?
And how is it different from a prediction or a guess.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
Oh, and instead of a prediction or a guess, I
actually see the future. I know that sounds redictant.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
I know it doesn't. It doesn't. But I'm not getting
you to answer the question, and I want I'm sort
of gatekeeping this conversation a little bit because I want
to make sure we can have a productive conversation. Sorry
j Michael, but you know, the question is just what
is your definition of prophecy? If your contention is if
your question, if you're asking us, would we believe a
fulfilled prophecy? My question back to you, before I can

(25:33):
even understand your question, is what is a prophecy? So
could you please tell me? Or maybe we could start
with the lottery in the United States, the Mega Millions
is up to like a billion dollars. If I go
and play the lottery and I win the billion dollars
this week, did I issue a prophecy and did it
come true? Or did I have a lucky guess or
was it something else?

Speaker 2 (25:53):
Well that's a little complicated. It's more like I traveled
into the future, I saw something that came back here
to tell you what I saw.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
Jay Mike, how would we tell if somebody traveled into
the future.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
I'm I'm not really sure. I haven't thought about that. Yeah,
I did watch one really good like short on this
kind of problem with like being able to convince people
that you're from the future, and I can't remember what
they went into, but it was actually a problem. I
was like, I've never really thought of it this way,
and I would do a horrible job recapitulating what was said.
So I'm not really sure. Absent retaining that videos information,

(26:28):
which is kind of all I've gotten in the bank,
I'm not really sure. I'm still kind of on Graham's
point with I wanting to understand what you First off,
did you use like maybe you were interpreted as giving
a prophecy because you said that you saw the future
into the call screen or put you with prophecy? Is
that a word that you use to describe you're seeing
the future kind of thing. I'm trying to understand what

(26:49):
you mean by the term is or if maybe it
just means the fact that you know when you see
something that's going to happen in the future, you know
it's going to happen in the future. I'm trying to
understand what you mean that way, we don't just equivocate
it on predictions.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Well, of course we're talking about the Bible here.

Speaker 3 (27:04):
Okay, I'm asking this the term usage Like you said
the word the reason I'm asking if you said it.
You said the word you mean something by it? What
did you mean?

Speaker 2 (27:12):
Right?

Speaker 3 (27:12):
When I say words, I mean something by it? And
when someone asked me what did you mean by that term?
I can try to like elucidate a little bit. I
might peter out eventually, but I can try to explain
what I mean.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
Yeah, so again, coming back, can you please define what
you mean by prophecy? Like you, If I said, what
do you mean by wagon, you'd say it's a box
with wheels or something on it and probably has a handle.
Like you could define it for me, or at least
come close. What do you mean by prophecy?

Speaker 2 (27:38):
Oh? Well, while I got the time, okay, just so
I could express how I feel about your show.

Speaker 3 (27:44):
Okay, Okay, I just muted. I just muted you. You're
being just honest, and anyone that's not wondering maybe why
we're getting hung up on a term that we probably
both all of us have a shared usage on is
that it's very important for somebody to establish what they mean,
so later on, when you point out an issue with
what they say, they go, I didn't say that. I

(28:05):
didn't agree to that. And it's always this backdoor escape
hatch for them when you get them to agree on
term usage and you can apply some type of internal
critique or or even just understand it better. There's no move,
there's no maneuver where you go, oh, I didn't say that,
So we're not even there yet. Like I asked you
how your day was and you said Tuesday, right, So
that's like not what we're asking. You have opinions about

(28:26):
the show. We get it, people have opinions about the show.
Not fucking interested in the opinions of the show. What
I am fucking interested in? As you answering the question,
please just answer. Don't be difficult. I got I got
another caller on the on the line. I don't want
to have to hang up to go to them. I
want to talk with you, buddy, So you're unmuted.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
So one more time, what do you mean by the
word prophecy.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
Prophecy would suggests that I've seen the future, So.

Speaker 3 (28:48):
It just means that you've seen the future. That's what
it means. Okay, and when you go ahead, Graham, Sorry.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
Sure, no, no problem. So let's uh so a prophecy
is a vision. Now I'm gonna expanded a little bit.
I assume you mean a view of the future that
you have told somebody about. Is that correct? Or are
you saying just the vision itself is a prophecy.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
Well, it's just a claim. Really, I've seen the future
and that's what I saw, okay, telling you okay, that's
what I saw.

Speaker 1 (29:17):
Okay. So how do we tell back to my second question,
how do we distinguish between somebody who actually saw the
future and is telling us about it from people who
claim they have seen the future and may well believe
it but didn't actually see the future. How do we
tell the difference between those two groups?

Speaker 2 (29:38):
Well, I guess unless you actually experience your time now
when most people told you it was going to happen
and now it's happening, that's all you got.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
I'm not sure I understand your answer. So the question
again was, so the question was we have two groups
of people that I assume you will agree exist, one
people who have seen the future and peopleeople who think
they have seen the future, or people who claim they
have seen the future but have not. So I've got
those two groups of people in front of me, and
they're both telling me I've seen the future and I

(30:10):
know what's going to happen. How do I tell which
of those two groups has actually seen the future? What's
an experiment or test or question I can do to
figure that out?

Speaker 2 (30:20):
Well, you wouldn't really know until you actually saw those
things happening.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
Aha. So that's led to my next question, which is,
just because the thing happens, does that mean that they
actually saw the future? For example, if I said tomorrow
in the United States there will be a car accident
that kills somebody, I have seen it, and then tomorrow
there is a car accident somewhere in the United States

(30:45):
that killed somebody. Did I in fact see the future
or did I make a guess or prediction? How could
I tell?

Speaker 2 (30:52):
Well, that's a bit vague, because hey.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
Yeah, you're onto me. So let's start at the vague.
So you agree that that's not interesting enough to make
your eyebrows go up right if somebody told you that
right right now?

Speaker 2 (31:06):
Now.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
On the other end, let's say I saw the future.
I know what the numbers of the lottery are going
to be, and it's one out of three hundred and
ninety million or whatever it is. And I got it right.
And then next week I do it again, and next
week I do it again, and ten weeks in a row.
So it's one in one chance out of more particles
than there are in the universe, that I would win
the lottery ten weeks in a row. And I do that,
and I tell you that's because I'm seeing the future.

(31:28):
Does it mean that I see the future.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
No, it means you figure it out. It's a statistical probability.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
And not even or or I got somebody on the
inside at the lottery office or who knows, right, Yeah,
there's lots of possibilities. So J Michael, you want to
jump in. Do you have any questions on that distinction.

Speaker 3 (31:45):
No, I think it's a good distinction. I mean somewhat related,
like you know, let's scale it down a little.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
Bit, sure, just over the middle.

Speaker 3 (31:53):
Well, no, just like as an example, like that, what
you're saying, Graham appears to work even with the case
where I don't see the future like in that sense,
but like let's just say I know that, like the
Packers will win the game tomorrow. I mean, I guess
I would have been today. I don't know if they
play Monday night football or not. Right, Well, hold on,
well we can shorten of you. It's your desire. It's

(32:14):
totally up to you. But I just want to make
this point. If you want to end it, you can't wait,
you still discuss if not. If I say I know
what could be going on is like I guessed and
got it right. But a lot of people would go like, well,
but how do I distinguish that from like you just
guessing and happening happening to you, like get it right or
like some some circumstance. People wouldn't say, you've like met
this kind of criterion to know that you knew that

(32:37):
was going to happen, as opposed to like just some
belief that happened to be right. Right, There's there seems
to be like more to knowing it than just merely
believing it and guessing it right. There's like two different
things there. And similarly, you just see it in the
future and then it just happens to be right. It's like, well,
like I might have a dream or a vision about

(32:57):
like the pizza. Let's say I work at a pizza
or something like that, and I have like this vision
that my buddy who's going to spin the pizza, Like
I see it and it's going to fall, Like I
even see the exact same scenario you like, knocks over
the garlic butter or something. Well, that's what makes him
trip up or something. I mean, it didn't really mean
that I saw it. It's like potentially scenarios. I ran

(33:18):
through my head and just reported back that happened to
be right, because people do make mistakes and stuff, So
you know, depending on like what the claim even is
might matter. Like oh, I knew that the child at
school yesterday would get the math problem right. It's like,
well yeah, I mean you're bound to probably get that right,
you know. Yeah you didn't really see that though, I
don't think.

Speaker 1 (33:36):
But so what do you think, Supreme Leader?

Speaker 3 (33:38):
What?

Speaker 1 (33:38):
What what's your take on that.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
I'm talking about something very unusual?

Speaker 1 (33:43):
Okay, so you're saying that a prophecy is something that
would be very hard to predict. Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 3 (33:50):
Yeah, so far this seems very usual. So we need
the extra sauce to make it unusual sauce. Right, that's
what we're looking for.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
Okay. So, but but I want to clarify with Supreme Leader.
So what you're saying is a prophecy has to be
counted as a prophecy. For us to detect a prophecy,
it has to be something that, on the face of
it seems very very hard to have predicted.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
Is that?

Speaker 1 (34:11):
Am I reading you right?

Speaker 2 (34:12):
I'm saying a circumstance that it's the one usual, right,
So it's probably not going to be predicted.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Okay, So very very hard to predict? Is that? The
definition like that means that anything that's like that that
somebody gets right, is a fulfilled prophecy, Like if I
just win the lottery once, that happens all the time.
I'm people, there's stories about people who have won the
lottery twice. So is there some threshold? How do we

(34:40):
determine where that line is?

Speaker 2 (34:42):
Okay, that's a good point. Now, this is the statistics
and probability something could happen. But what's the probability that
it would happen?

Speaker 1 (34:51):
That's a great question. Yeah, Yeah, that's why I go
to the lottery, because we can put a number on
that is very rare. But let's change the scenario I
started with. I started with, there's a car crash right
tomorrow in the United States, right, And you said, that's
real vague. There's like, statistically speaking, a car crash kills
more than like probably one person in every state every day.
So it's it's like you, like, I think it's Matt

(35:13):
Divila Hunt. He started this one where he's like, if
I order a steak from a waiter, am I making
a prediction that a steak will come out of a kitchen? No,
it's like I just observing reality. But let's kick it
up a notch for you. I predict that tomorrow at
the interstate of the intersection of Elm and Main Street
in my local town, at twelve oh three, a blue

(35:33):
Toyota who's driving northbound will crash into a red Honda
that was driving southbound, and the left front headcut head
hubcap of the blue car will fly off and hit
and kill a raccoon. And that actually happens, Right, Is
that the type of thing you're talking about?

Speaker 2 (35:50):
I'm talking about odds beyond that, far beyond.

Speaker 1 (35:53):
That, beyond that.

Speaker 3 (35:53):
Okay, Well, then We'll give us the example. What's this
thing that's like, you know, nobody would ever see coming?
Sounds like you're saying like no one would see this
thing coming, and I saw it coming.

Speaker 2 (36:03):
Ok.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
Yeah, give us an example.

Speaker 2 (36:05):
Well, notice how I don't try to overtalk to you exactly.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
You're good, You're good, You're good.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
What I'm saying is odds, statistical odds. You've seen a
movie casino and he goes in there, he goes, look, man,
this machine hit. Do you know what the odds are?
A guess that? And then the next one hit right
next to it. Do you know what the odds are? Guests? Now,
either you were in on this or you're stupid.

Speaker 1 (36:27):
That's a fair And do you do you see the
fallacy in his logic. That's a great scene, by the way,
I know exactly what you're talking about. I love that movie.
But do you see the fallacy in that logic?

Speaker 2 (36:36):
Well? I don't.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
There's a third choice that randomly both machines hit or
it hit twice. I forget if his two machines or
a machine, but both events happen naturally without He's not
stupid that they're not being robbed, and he wasn't in
on it that it could have just happened, right, That's
the fallacy in his logic. That's why that scene is
so impactful. Is he is he is such a math
guy that he knows the odds and says, Eh, there's

(37:00):
a vanishingly small chance that this just happened naturally. But
I'm willing to beat the crap out of this guy
cut his fingers off or whatever happened in the back room,
because I know how unlikely it is. But what he
says is not true. There is a third chance it
really couldn't just happened, so you need to acknowledge that, right.

Speaker 2 (37:17):
But he says, look, I know the odds this and
this happened all in a row, and that will never
ever happen.

Speaker 1 (37:25):
That's not the definition of odds. Like, that's just not
how slot machines are, lotteries work. You could get the
exact same lottery numbers pulled on an honest draw ten
times in a row. Like I said, the odds may
be lower than one for every particle in the universe,
but there's a timeline that exists where that actually happens. Right,

(37:46):
So he's saying, I know the odds. But what he
what he means is it's so unlikely. I'm willing to
go out and just go ahead and beat the crap
out of you because I don't think it would have happened. Right,
But he's not technically correct. It could have happened. And
if you can't acknowledge that it could have happened, then
we don't understand statistics and probability.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
Well, personally, that's a way beyond our paper. I don't
understand statistic fair enough. What I'm saying is what I'm
saying is, now.

Speaker 3 (38:13):
Why couldn't you see the future about statistical like advancements
and like, I feel like if you can see the
future and stuff, it feels like you'd be able to like.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
Well, I mean, you can see the future a narrow
range of topics. Right, let's hear. Let's hear what Supreme
Leader says. Let's tell us how you have seen the future.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
Supreme Leader was it was a just okay, I'm not
there leader, Okay, but Drulie Morod even compared to you,
all right, it was it was a joke.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
Soon doesn't sound like it, but go ahead, no, I mean,
it doesn't sound like you're drooling moron. I understood from
the get go it was a joke, but yeah, it
sounds like, I mean, you're carrying your own So I'd
love to hear what your what your prophecy or your
experience was in seeing the future.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
Okay, My entire point about to call it is suddenly
the entire monetary system of the world suddenly changes and
we do have to have the mark, just like we
used to have the mask in the vaccine. There, well,
all that's and suddenly we do have to have this mark.
Would that change anything?

Speaker 1 (39:06):
Okay, So I think Jamie's hand raised, and I know
that's not going to happen.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
Ever, like it's not going to happen. We don't live
in wizard Land where my friend Jerry's going to like
spawn like a fireball out of his fist. We don't
live in that world. I don't know why people entertain
this ship Like it's crazy to me. I know there's
a dragon behind me, not really doesn't really exist, not
real thing.

Speaker 1 (39:28):
Well, now, let's let's want to want to hear more.
I want to hear more for you, Supreme Leader, and
I know that Mike's going to have an answer for you.
But I want to clarify for for listeners who may
not be familiar with what you're talking about. When you
say the mark, could you please define what that will be.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
Well, it means we now have abandoned the cash currency.
We now have a digital currency, and we cannot buy
or sell anything without this identifying thing that biometrically identifies
us as being a participant in the economic system. Without that,
you cannot exchange anything.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
So I was gonna ask Mike. I just thought I
think he's relating this to He said that obviously that's
has to do with the Bible. I go to Mark
of the Beast and this is a translation. I know
it's that's a topic of interest to you as far
as translating meaning from the Bible into like this. So
do you have any questions here?

Speaker 3 (40:22):
Well, Grant, we talked about this prior, but I don't
I don't even know if it would be a good
idea to like lay this on top of that, like
the interpretive kind of problem.

Speaker 1 (40:32):
Yeah, that's true, let's start.

Speaker 3 (40:33):
I'm trying. Yeah, I'm not trying to insult this caller.
I just think we're working.

Speaker 1 (40:36):
It would spiral into an hour longfall.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
Yeah, yeah, it's yeah, I think maybe there's different approaches.
I'm happy however you want to take it. My issue is, like, I, look,
I don't think any of the contents of the Bible
is true. Why should I give a shit about any
of this? Like, I just don't like that's to say
coming up to me and saying, like, here's this astrology
handbook and what they say. Like at the end of
the day, we can bicker about the kind of like

(41:00):
between but as someone who is like a who thinks
gods do not exist, like I'm way further on the
spectrum of not only do I I'm not convinced in Christianity.
I think it's false. I think it's a false proposition
that Christianity is true. I think that's false. Right, what
you have to help me out? Why should I think
that that's true. There's gonna be a lot of work

(41:20):
to be done there. But like I maybe Grea, if
you want to entertain it, like on the internal kind
of side of it, I think that's probably maybe a
better approach. But I just listened to all this shit
and I'm just thinking it just sounds like nonsense to me. Well,
I mean, if we're going to get the mark and
we're good enough to go What am I? What are
we talking about right now?

Speaker 1 (41:37):
So what interests me personally is relating this sort of
argumentation line to where what we see elsewhere in the
world where the rubber hits the road. I'm always the
rubber hits the road guy like people can have these
sorts of conversations, But I hear echoes of this in
political circles, in Christian nationalist circles, in geo political conflicts. Right,

(42:05):
that this concept of the Bible says there will be
a thing of a time and a place, and then
people work very hard to find a thing that looks
like that time thing in place and say, Aha, this
validates my belief. Therefore I'm right, right, That's that's what

(42:25):
we're dealing with here, in my opinion, that the Bible
just says mark of the beast. And now we're talking
about a purely a digital economy as the mark of
the beast. Well, there's like a whole bunch of steps
there to get there. But the phenomena, the overall phenomena
of saying mark of the beast. I'm going to look
at the attributes as describing the Bible and then find

(42:46):
anything that I think tickles my conspiracy theory brain to
say I found it just validates my belief.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
Can I just say it's the red hats that people
are wearing a fight? Yeah, A good point, right, Like
that seems like the mark of the beast. Like if
I re that verse, and then I just look at
all these people with certain letters that say, you know
a certain phrase. I'm trying to be careful here. I
don't know what I can and cannot say. But it's
a red hat that we're all familiar with. Why is
that not with the market. It's just this is just
to me, It's like nonsense, child play, garbage.

Speaker 1 (43:16):
Right, It's in the same category as a car crash
will occur at some point in the future. Right, I'm
looking in the Bible for something that says a northbound
Honda will hit her at southbound whatever and kill a
raccoon with a hub capa da da da da dah.
And even then, I mean there's people who read prophecies
in the Bible about the red sheep or whatever, our

(43:37):
cattle need to be raised on the hills above Israel
or whatever, and so they they don't go and see
if they're there, they go and say they aren't there.
I'm gonna start raising them. It's like me ordering the steak,
Like I prophesize that the steak will come out of
the kitchen and then I go to the restaurant and
I order the steak. So there's this spectrum of what
I interpret as a need for validation or a need

(44:00):
to satisfy my conspiracy theories. And I find this this
argument about digital stuff. Are you following us, Supreme? I
don't want to cut you off. I want to hear
from you. So how do you respond to what we've
been saying.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
No, it's interesting to carry your thoughts.

Speaker 1 (44:12):
It's alla same. So so are you saying that you
saw the future and that this will be the mark
of the beast that brings about bad things? This digital
currency that you're worried about?

Speaker 3 (44:24):
What if it's on my left hand?

Speaker 2 (44:25):
Well, I don't suppose it will be in left hand,
But I'm just saying.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
What if it is? Is it all false?

Speaker 2 (44:31):
I'm just saying what if it happened? And you're like,
oh man, this is all real now. I mean the
truth is I.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
Could go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
It just feels weird, Like someone actively in power could go,
I don't like Christianity. We are moving to this like
a different kind of economic system, and you pay with
your finger. I'm going to make the prophecy fail by
forcing it on the left hand of everybody else. This
just isn't This isn't a prophecy. I could actively I
could actively work against it, right, I don't understand what

(45:00):
this is like saying, well.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
You could, it could, but you have no power to decide.

Speaker 3 (45:06):
In just like a blow up. The whole world is
I mean, Christianity is now false because this prophecy. It
seems like this whole thing is like so if it happens,
oh yeah, but if it didn't, it's like, oh well
we will agree. You will agree that Christianity. You know,
it doesn't mean it's false, but it's like it's like
it's it has like an insurance policy on it that
I really don't like. Do you understand what I'm saying? Graham?

(45:27):
It just sorry, you can go ahead, I just go ahead, Supreme.
It just seems really like low brow to me.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
Go ahead, Supreme, how do you surrong to that?

Speaker 2 (45:34):
Look, man, are you going to go tell the r
risk screw you are paying you go Texas, and you
know what's we have.

Speaker 1 (45:41):
I think we're getting a little far off field here,
because that doesn't really have anything to do with it.
I could, I could respond, like I can. I don't
see how bartering would ever be out lawed, Like, I
don't see how this this prediction you're making good could
ever be true under under your hypothetical, I'm not allowed
to trade uh some mulch for a chicken with my neighbor, right,
that's Is that what you're talking about? Or are you

(46:02):
just sort of glomming onto the fact that it's more
convenient for most people in the world to deal with
digital currency to the point that we're going to eventually
get rid of physical currency, but that that won't out
while bartering, will it? Like I can still trade a
chicken for a duck, right, or for a guitar?

Speaker 2 (46:17):
Right? Yes, I have thought about that. I think that well,
I suppose the black market are alternative?

Speaker 1 (46:24):
Are suppose Okay, Well, I think we're sort of at
the end of where we can go here. I appreciate
you calling in. I encourage you to call back any
last questions Mike, No, Okay, thank you so much, Supreme Leader.
Appreciate your time. Yeah, I don't know what to do
with that, Like I've The reason I wanted to give
oxygen to the conversation is it is a very common

(46:46):
argument to say I believe the Bible is true because
the Bible contains fulfilled prophecies. But that is not where
we end up. It was more I've seen the future
and conspiracy theory about digital currency or something, which.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
Yes, just a little strange. I'm sorry, I get in
a little heated I just like I just don't like
this pro It's always so uninteresting to me. It's like
nothing ever interesting happens, and it's we defend some Christians here,
it's usually with Muslims, and it's usually like really lame
shit like the yeah yeah yeah mix.

Speaker 1 (47:14):
So the God said that life is water based or something.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
Because it's always something where you could go, wait, couldn't
somebody observe this and write it down.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
That would be impossible for somebody to have detected that
water is involved in life.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
That's it.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
I've seen those arguments.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
It's it's crazy to me that people can't like realize
the things that are said. And some of these things
are things that can be observed and written down after
the fact. They're like, oh, I I have I deal
with farm animals, so I understand like a little bit
of embryology. We actually, I'm not even gonna act like
they have any credit there because right.

Speaker 1 (47:46):
Right, we have a few more calls waiting. So let's
jump right into and we have Alan who wants to
discuss Christian nationalism.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
Alan, he him from Arizona. Go ahead, what would you
like to talk about?

Speaker 5 (47:58):
I just to clarify, So for this conversation, we're just
going to go ahead, and I'll grant you that every
the most mythical, uh understanding of Christianity is a myth,
but it's the philosophical underpinnings of how a society should work.

Speaker 1 (48:11):
Okay, So so when you say should, but I just
want to define should before we move on. And then
I want to hear your stance. When you say should,
you're talking about you're making a moral argument that like
you really mean.

Speaker 5 (48:23):
That moral follow what morals mean?

Speaker 1 (48:26):
My question is you use the words should. I'm asking
what do you mean by should?

Speaker 5 (48:30):
That it ought to be we follow the prescriptions in
the Biblical text?

Speaker 1 (48:35):
Okay, so what does aught mean, Like where are you
getting aught? And this is going to be all J Mike.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
I'm happy.

Speaker 3 (48:41):
I'm happy, Like.

Speaker 5 (48:43):
I'm happy the prescriptions in the Biblical text.

Speaker 3 (48:46):
Okay, I'm happy with Aught being a satic primitive and
that like you either just understand this concept of aughts
and should and mistake and things that you shouldn't have done,
like I'm happy with granting all that.

Speaker 1 (48:56):
Then it then it pulls out the next question, what
rule led to the conclusion of we ought to follow it?

Speaker 5 (49:02):
No, it's the rules that come out of the art.
It's not that there's rules that precede the ot that's problematic.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
Go ahead, J Mike.

Speaker 3 (49:09):
I guess I don't understand, like you're saying it's not true,
but we should still follow it. So there's there isn't
a true for the moral fact I'm trying to he
said it was.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
He said he would granted for the purposes of this argument.

Speaker 5 (49:24):
Yeah, but so like just to clarify, so like we
we can read text all the time, like for example,
you can read Harry Potter and get stuff out of it,
and like we should follow like, hey, maybe I should.

Speaker 3 (49:35):
Follow that, And I understand that that's literally. Where I
was going was that if you're saying it, and that's
this kind of fictional sense, Yes, somebody can make this
stance dependent subjective notion that I ought to follow that
right now. The seconds hold on, I get that. The

(49:55):
second someone else goes, I don't think I should follow that,
and they go, why not know, there's some like brute
psychological facts about me genetics and things I didn't control
my environment and growing up that just make me go yucky.
I don't like that. That shouldn't occur. And then your
argument's done. Because what I'm trying to get through at
the beginning is that if you're going to be done,

(50:16):
I'm trying to elucidate that if you just give me
a second, right, if you at the very at the outset,
you just go, okay, well it's not the view isn't true.
So there isn't like a truth maker that makes those
moral facts end up stance independently true, right, like Yahweh
or Jesus or Allah or whatever it might be.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
Right.

Speaker 3 (50:34):
If there's nothing that is the truth maker for those
propositions being true, then they're not stance independently true. All
you are saying is I think that everybody else should
follow these rules, but you're not going to establish some
stance independent like I have a reason over and above
reasons I have. Even if I think I shouldn't get
the milk, I should get the fucking milk. I'm wrong

(50:56):
about not eating milk. I should get the fucking milk
because there's a fact about well what I should and
should not do. If your argument is just giving up
on that, if you're sold on, I want you to
repeat back what you think. My concern is, it's just preference.

Speaker 5 (51:10):
So like your preference has no moral responsibility over my So.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
Like I'm going to jump in with a clarification to
make sure I understand J Mike. So here's my question
to you. This is what I think we wanted to
ask you, which is you say we ought to. We're
saying why ought we?

Speaker 2 (51:25):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (51:26):
So we like what set of rules?

Speaker 5 (51:29):
I understand you, guys.

Speaker 3 (51:32):
No, real quick, just real quick. This is super important.
This is just super important. If you're just telling me
at the beginning that Christianity is not true, then there's
no yahweh right, there's nothing that makes the propositions true.
They're called truthmakers and philosophy, right, it's not like yahweh
doesn't exist, so he can't be a truthmaker that makes
some moral proposition true, right, So it can't be a

(51:52):
moral fact. So all you have left is just I
think that we should all follow this stuff. And then
all I have to say is I don't fucking can
about that because I have a different assessment. There's psychological
facts about there's problem facts about my brain that make
me go, I don't want to do that. I don't
think we should do that, and that the argument's over
after that point, because what are you going to do?

Speaker 2 (52:13):
Run?

Speaker 3 (52:13):
You'd have to run some like internal critique on values
I have, and I guarantee you're not going to be
able to pull out Christianity out of the values that
I have.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
So Alan, uh, do you understand where we're coming from
and what we're asking?

Speaker 6 (52:25):
So I don't.

Speaker 5 (52:25):
There was a beep? Can you hear me?

Speaker 1 (52:28):
We can. The reason you got a beep is you
kept interrupting and we were trying to get to this point.
So the question isn't exist. It's just like, man, why
ought we Where are you getting the ought?

Speaker 5 (52:41):
Like you asked me a question, so like I'll clarify.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
It, right, so you Ellen, Alan, Alan, just wait, Okay,
let us finish the question. This is a long process.
This is not TikTok back and forth six second things.
We're trying to understand you. So we can ask the
question and then let you explain it. So our question
to you is absent yahweh absent God? If that, if
you're conceding that for the purposes of this thing, then

(53:07):
why ought we follow the Bible or for that purpose
make any moral conclusion? So why ought we?

Speaker 3 (53:14):
Exactly?

Speaker 5 (53:14):
Yeah, so ahead the reason that we I prefer it Okay.

Speaker 2 (53:18):
That's okay.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
Your argument sucks. I don't prefer it done. Your argument's
not going to establish that we should be Christian.

Speaker 5 (53:23):
National Like we can get it, we can get into it,
but like why if you're how is your argument better
than mine?

Speaker 3 (53:29):
I prefer that we not be Christian nationalist. Boom, I
did the same thing you did.

Speaker 1 (53:33):
I just go.

Speaker 2 (53:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (53:35):
So there's nothing that there's nothing that has normative force
over any agent to a blog to be part of
that system. Do not connect those dots. No one is
going to feel the force that they ought do those things. Buddy,
do you have and you were talking all the time,
I said that. The reason it matters is for the
same reason when I say I don't think we should

(53:57):
have a Christian nationalist approach, all the other Christs that
are going is that just like your opinion, and I go, yeah, right,
it's just my opinion. One way to there's a way
to perform that, right, I can. I can get into
their values and show that they don't actually want this thing. Now,
it's a hard thing to do, but I'm going to
have to ask about their values and what they and
then finally find something that goes, hey, this is contradictory

(54:17):
to Christian values. To be much harder to do that
with me, right, very hard to do that with me
as somebody who like you don't have a roadmap for
what my values even are, right, whereas I can tell
things that are contradictory in your own view that you value.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
Okay, I want to level set and turn the mic
over to Alan. So Alan, I'm going to level set here.
Our current understanding of where we are in this conversation
is we're going to assume, for the purposes of this
conversation there is no God, and we're going to you
have asserted if I'm understanding you correctly, if we're understanding
correctly that we ought to institute some form of Christian

(54:52):
nationalism or follow the Bible or however you want to
do it. Because when we asked why, it was because
you like it, you wanted it. Is that correct? And
if so, why should we follow it just because you
like it?

Speaker 5 (55:04):
Well, we can get into that. So that's what I
was trying to get to. So, like one thing that
we need to do is changed back the definition of
property actually makes a foundational mythstep that a lot of people,
and especially in the atheist community, has a problem with.
So we need to get back to the ancient It's
just more definition.

Speaker 1 (55:24):
Hold on, it's just more should Yeah, you let me,
let me make an argument and then like we can
talk waiting for the argoment.

Speaker 5 (55:32):
Go ahead, like freaking out all the time because like
it's like something wrong with you.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
You're so aware. I'm sorry, you're so self unaware. You
don't realize you're just packing on more shoulds on top
of the shoulds. You've not you haven't justified.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
I think where he's getting and I want to let
him get there. I think he's getting to some sort
of utilitarian argument that we should do it because following
it is better for something. Is that your argument that
if we if we follow property law Biblical follow property law,
things will be better, and if we follow the Ten
Commandments things will be better? Is that your argument?

Speaker 5 (56:04):
So if you actually let me finish my argument and
we could start from there, because we need to put.

Speaker 3 (56:08):
A minute on that, we'll put a minute on the clock.
Producers throw the minute on there. I'll shomute my mic.
But just stop saying things that don't do the thing
you're purporting to do.

Speaker 1 (56:17):
I want to let you talk. Now, go ahead and
tell me why. Now, I'm going to warn you you
dove right into a specific thing rather than talking generally.
What the question we asked you was why we should
do a thing because you want to You started to
saying you start talking about property law on the Bible,
But go ahead.

Speaker 5 (56:34):
No, we we can address that. So why why are
you better than I am? Or are we not living
in a democracy where we should talk about our opinions
and like ft your opinions actually went out yes or
no questions.

Speaker 1 (56:47):
Or sixty we put sixty seconds on the clock. Keep
going and want you to make your case estion on't.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
Arguments give proposition and statements.

Speaker 5 (56:53):
So the first thing that we would need to do
is change back to the fundamental understanding of property before
the Enlightenment, which was it's a perspective change. So to
start the argument, you have to understand that when we
have property is not owned by anybody. When you have
when you have possession of something, you have duties and

(57:14):
responsibilities to that property. Okay, And what happened in John Locke,
who is the one that started property rights, is the
one that it's a perspective change where property now property
has a duty to us to make us money or
whatever it is. Well, we need to get back to
the premises of that when we have possession of something,

(57:34):
we have duties and responsibilities to that.

Speaker 1 (57:37):
So that's over your sixty seconds. I don't see, First
of all, I disagree with that. Second of all, I
don't see how that answers the question at all. It's like,
I'm trying to be generous and understand where you're coming from.
But the question was why should we do something just
because you like it? And then you told me that

(57:59):
because because democracy? Will you please? All right, Well, it's
not a democracy here. I think you're very confused about
the nature of this show. My argument is not that
we should do what I want because I want it.
I need you to understand that I've muted him obviously,
this person.

Speaker 3 (58:17):
We would try to find common values which I probably
fully represented to show somebody like, hey, there's kind of
an entailment here that you probably should care about these
because you care about A, B and C and D
seems to kind of follow from those things, right, Like,
you don't.

Speaker 1 (58:30):
Like me what I'm looking for.

Speaker 3 (58:32):
You don't like me pushing you know, I don't like
you pushing me. We seem to care about well being
of each other, right, or at least yourself. If I
push your daughter, you wouldn't like that, right, So like
we probably have common values we can extract from that.
So it's not just a This is my opinion man,
Building a secular humanistic society is is we care about

(58:54):
the humans and what they have to say and their
values and trying to establish kind of common ground with
what we have.

Speaker 2 (59:01):
Right.

Speaker 3 (59:03):
You can't just do that out of thin air and
go this is what I think you need to pull it.
You need to have the conversation. But I also just
this is what I think that's not really gonna fly, right.

Speaker 1 (59:13):
And we should clarify alan you're dealing with a false
dichotomy when I say i'm when I'm poking flaws or
hold what I perceive as holes in your argument that
doesn't is not the same as me saying therefore we
should do what I want.

Speaker 2 (59:28):
Right.

Speaker 1 (59:28):
You've multiple times you said when I say, why should
we just do something because you want it? And then
you scream back at us, does that you know, well,
why should we do something because you want it? That's
not me making the argument. Okay, I don't make arguments
that say when people ask me why should we do
X in the government or whatever, I don't say because
I want to, I give reasons. And that's what we're

(59:50):
asking of you is reasons. So when we say, the
only reason you've given us so far to do this
general thing of follow Christianity in our national government, the
only reason you cited in our over ten minute call
now is because I want it to be that way.
And then when we asked for why we should care
about what you want, you started talking about under different

(01:00:14):
views of property law or morality, different entities have different
duties depending on which way you look at it, and
that doesn't I don't know about you, J Mike. That
does not explain to me why we should do what
Allan wants. Let's put it this way, Alan, if you
were a politician saying, I want you to vote for
my bill, why should we do what you want to

(01:00:34):
do in your bill? When we make it Alan Topia
and you get to you get it to propose a bill,
why should we do what you want just because? Should
we do what we want just because you say it's
what you want? I guess that's my question. What are
your thoughts, Allan?

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:00:48):
So I can go on because I believe it produces
better results.

Speaker 1 (01:00:52):
Okay, that's a great answer. Now, or how what the
results does it produce? This is where I was going
with utilitarianism, right, So what result does it produce? Christian
national as a whole that is better, That is demonstratbly better,
that should convince people to do this thing?

Speaker 3 (01:01:08):
Yeah, and I worry because better? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:01:13):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:01:13):
Like all you so like if you asked me a question,
let me answer it. So like to start off with,
I think that Christian family values are better than secular
family values.

Speaker 1 (01:01:24):
Okay, let's let's let's put a stop on that. That's
a great question. Yeah, so yeah, let's let's take it.
That's your first go to answer as to what's the
better result. And you said, I think that family values
from the following Christian is better than presumably anything else.
So as as Mike pointed out, you're kind of betting

(01:01:44):
the question. But let's let's pull on that thread. What
are the outcomes of christian What are Christian family values
first of all? And how is that a better? Why
are those a better policy?

Speaker 5 (01:01:54):
So like to clarify so we can do that. So
it should be a marriage between one man and one woman,
and okay, Cads, you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:01):
Should have to Okay, Mike, Mike, Mike, we got to
give him some time here. I've asked him for an
answer and he was listing the answers, and I want
to give him his fair shake. So we started with.

Speaker 3 (01:02:20):
It's just going to list things that assume Christianity.

Speaker 1 (01:02:22):
I know, I know, but we got to let him
list them so we can then ask them about him.
So so well that's that's his point. So Mike, so
what excuse me, Alan? What I heard so far was
restrict marriage to man and woman. You quote unquote should
have children, what was what? What were the next ones?

Speaker 5 (01:02:41):
Yeah, and a woman should be prioritize having children.

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
Okay, anything else, anything else? Those are good three. Let's
start with those three. Okay, start with those three. As
Mike is pointing out, I'll hand it over to Mike.
This is sort of just more assertions that these are
good things. Why are those good things? So I'm going
to ask Alan first and then turn over to Alan.
Let's start with marriages between a man and a woman.
Why is that a should? Why should we do.

Speaker 5 (01:03:07):
That because we should be having children?

Speaker 1 (01:03:10):
That's not the that's not the question. No, no, no, no,
you answered, does that mean infertile cannot have He's done,
He's done. I want to ask him this, all right,
I'll let you ask him, but our question.

Speaker 3 (01:03:28):
He's really really, really low on the IQ spectrum here.
If you think that, you just have never no, you know,
and look, first off, an insult, right is not an
ad hominem. If I like, if someone called me a douchebag,
that's not an ad hominem. That's just an insult an
ad home, Learn what an ad hom is. You have

(01:03:48):
to give the an argument to ad home. I'm not
giving an argument. So not ad homing you. I'm just saying,
if you look, have you never thought of this when
you say we should be having women? So you think
you think that women that are infertile they're doing something
wrong in the world, that's what you think.

Speaker 1 (01:04:05):
No, I think his proposal is if women are infertile,
they should not be allowed to get married. Is that
what you're saying?

Speaker 5 (01:04:09):
Alan, If a car doesn't work, still.

Speaker 1 (01:04:12):
You're not gonna answer the question, oh my god, it
doesn't work.

Speaker 3 (01:04:15):
What do you think women have a role to be incubators.

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
In a car? Is it still a car? Yes? Or no?

Speaker 3 (01:04:20):
You're You're a fucking idiot. You're a fucking idiot.

Speaker 1 (01:04:23):
Look your view, your view.

Speaker 3 (01:04:26):
Your view is that women are incubators. I would love
to see how many women are actually interested in you
in your life because you are. You are a fucking
deployable more you are. No, no, no, I'll take heat
for this. I don't give a fuck. You are a
piece of ship. Go fuck yourself. You are a giant
piece of shit. I'll take keith anyone it wants to

(01:04:46):
give me ship for this. That's fine. Fuck yourself. That's garbage,
just such garbage. Why do we entertain that for that
much time. Oh, here's the recap, everybody. Oh, I assume
Christianity's value. I have no argument that does anything other
than assume the values in contention. But at the end
of it, I'm going to say that I'm a misogynistic
piece of shit the things that women are incubators and
that if you're infertile, Oh, you're getting facts wrong about

(01:05:08):
the world.

Speaker 2 (01:05:08):
Fuck you.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
I can't say that I disagree with you. Let's put
it that way. I will add to that, the reason
that I like to let those calls go on is
twofold one again. I'm the rubber hits the road guy.
This is a rising sentiment on the conservative right and
it is a real threat to American democracy. He is

(01:05:31):
not wrong when he is saying that these these concepts
underlie the concept of Christian nationalism in the United States.
This is what we are seeing an increase, especially amongst
young people who were raised on Joe Rogan and now
Nick Fuentis. There's an open debate amongst conservatives. There's an

(01:05:53):
open debate amongst conservatives in the United States as to
whether Nazism should be allowed amongst their circle. Like that's
a public debate that's happening, and this is the stuff
that's fueling the fire. So rather than cut it off,
I do like to give it some oxygen so people
can hear how vacuous it is, like the I can't

(01:06:14):
agree with you more j Mike. We started with okay,
why and his answer was because I like it. And
then when we said why do you like it? He
proceeded to talk about property law and all that stuff,
and I was waiting for him to go back. My
question was going to be, okay, well, under the Bible,
women are property. That's you know, rape is a property
crime under the Bible. Is that what you're talking about.

(01:06:35):
It's not a low chance that I think he would
have said yes, and I was trying to get to
that point. But that's why I like to give this
air and people should be aware of this. This is
one of the reasons I do what I do. Is
this is not uncommon like you go amongst certain conservatives groups.
This is being preached from the pulpit, This is being
preached in the halls of Congress. This is being preached

(01:06:55):
everywhere as an illogical rationale for why we should do something,
and the code that the answer reading below the surfaces
because I, as a male, a theoretically voting male, property
owning mail whatever want it, which is what he said,
and it's infuriating. I agree with you. I totally agree

(01:07:15):
with you. It's it's despicable.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
Go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:07:18):
And by the way, the callers they're still listening. Your
reasonings were like, let's just assume you never said that
your your entire your entire argument was assuming the values
in question and just going I think I prefer that right,
And you knew that you couldn't even give an argument
like you. You were, in my opinion, as it seems
expected upon the hypothesis of somebody terrified to have the

(01:07:41):
Christianity be true as part of their argument. He wanted
to do this weird thing where let's just say it's
not true there. I just think that's expected upon the
hypothesis that somebody's terrified to justify their position outright right,
that you have to like kind of be like, well,
I think the values are good, and I can't actually
argue for the position at all that would actually be
the truthmaker for those moral facts.

Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:08:03):
You gave up at the beginning of your call. You
gave up. I was I was the worst argument anyone's
ever told me.

Speaker 1 (01:08:09):
Ever, I was. I was waiting. I was trying to
almost steal man a little bit. I was waiting for
us to get to that focus on the family level.

Speaker 3 (01:08:21):
Sorry, so much more calmer than me.

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
I'm not saying your approach is better or worse. I'm
just trying to explain, like I was waiting for a
sophisticated like, Oh, he's just bad at telling us how
we got there. But the argument is the ship that
we heard in the Supreme Court arguments for gay marriage, right,
Like every single argument went back at the end to
because the Bible says, so, you know, oh only people

(01:08:45):
should that can procreate, Okay, So for infertile people can't
get married, people who are not willing to have kids
can't get married. Like that all gets shot down and
you're left with, I don't like it. It's creepy, and
the Bible says so. And I was waiting for that
level of utilitarianism. You know, Oh there's more disease, there's
like mental health. We don't want them to raise. Like

(01:09:06):
all of these arguments have been litigated and shot down
as being just I believe in yahweh and that's why
we have gay marriage in the United States now is
because the Conservative Supreme Court still at that time, said well,
that's not a good reason to deny somebody's civil rights.
So that's been adjudicated. I was waiting for something more,
some some other broader, like something you'd see from Prager.

(01:09:28):
You you know, bullshit propaganda about why staying at home
it's a good thing for the economy or something like something.
But nope, it's just I want baby makers.

Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
It's insane. It's absolutely insane, Like I can't believe somebody
walks around with the head like that on their shoulders.
But whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:09:44):
Well, yeah, I started wondering about trolling at the at
the end there because of the sure fury that was
going on. I hope that he's okay. I do have
a we do have other calls. I wanted to take
a few announcements here while we sort of come down
off of that parachute ride.

Speaker 3 (01:10:00):
What's the best for you? And I can tell you
what I mean by the best ever better, and that's
you to give up these garbage, bullshit values and join
the rest of society that cares about another fucking yeah.
Oh man, all.

Speaker 1 (01:10:13):
Right, So If you like what we do, please consider
supporting us on Patreon, Give to Giving to our Patreon
ensures our ability to continue to produce the content that
you love. You can visit tiny dot cc slash patreon
AXP to do that. Another way to support this is
by sending super chats. Get them in and we will
read as many as we can. Become a channel member

(01:10:34):
for as little as ninety nine cents a month. You
can click the join button below the video and this
will give you access to special chat emojis and early
access to YouTube's shorts and clips. And finally, the people
who have been putting up with us for so long,
we want to send a big thank you out to
the crew who put this show together every single week.

(01:10:54):
We've got video operators, audio operators, note takers, call screeners,
chat moderators. Look at a full house we have tonight.
Thank you so much everybody for being involved. We cannot
do this without you. J Mike and I just show
up and lose our lose our minds at these callers,
and you guys actually have to make it technically work.
Let's see do we I thought I saw some super

(01:11:16):
chants below? We did get one five dollars from Doctor
Fudge tip for the J Mike anti misogyny rant. Hell yeah,
go way to go.

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
J Mike.

Speaker 3 (01:11:28):
Oh sweet, awesome, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:30):
Thank you, thank you so much.

Speaker 3 (01:11:32):
That was uh maybe handled better I realized in hindsight.

Speaker 1 (01:11:36):
But I applaud your passion. I I do like my
criticism when you when you go out and you try
to avoid comments, but one of my criticisms is always like, like,
how's this guy so level headed? Like like, but I
lose it?

Speaker 2 (01:11:49):
I do? I do?

Speaker 1 (01:11:50):
I get off of this and I go talk to
my wife and she's like, yeah, it's like.

Speaker 3 (01:11:54):
When you talk to one hundred different people on TikTok
or discord or whatever a week and you hear the
ship like it boils over my Sunday, it boils over completely,
and then you're just like, all right, so.

Speaker 1 (01:12:06):
Well we haven't we have another one.

Speaker 2 (01:12:07):
J Mike.

Speaker 1 (01:12:08):
It's effective lose the dogma donated ten dollars first time
I witnessed J Mike justifiably lose it. Now there's an implication.

Speaker 3 (01:12:15):
Here, Jmike. There is. It means that I every time
I've lost it, it's just totally justified.

Speaker 1 (01:12:22):
Thank you for defending us with.

Speaker 3 (01:12:23):
That interpretation is that I probably lost it unjustifiably.

Speaker 1 (01:12:29):
Oh thanks everybody for those donations. Keep them coming with
the super chat. So we have another caller. We have John.
He him from New York who wants to discuss humanism.
Why don't we jump over there, John, what would you
like to discuss about humanism?

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (01:12:44):
Yeah, Hello, I h this first time I listened to
a the experience in a while. So it was a
nice coincidence that heard you. Your organization has joined a
humanous organization and uh yeah, So I just want to
call in and ask your thoughts about it. How do
you look at humanism? And who have you read and
so on? And I'd like to mention who I read,

(01:13:05):
my favorite authors and so on.

Speaker 1 (01:13:06):
I'll turn it over to j Mike first. He's very
well versed in all the sort of isms.

Speaker 3 (01:13:11):
The isms. Well, maybe I'm wanting to understand more of
what you're saying, because you're saying like who I've who
we've read specifically, and then what was the other one?

Speaker 6 (01:13:22):
Just how you would even say define it or anything
at all in generally you'd want to say about it.
Because my point is I'm just okay, God blow it.
Up tonight.

Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
Okay, so the one, don't we start. I'm going to
prompt you, Mike, for our listeners, what's your definition of humanism?

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
Well, I so that that's the things I don't like.
I can give you like term usage on what I
mean by things, but what I would prefer to do
is like read off the very specific kind of mission
statement that aligns with my values. I'm sure a lot
of you are probably familiar with that, so I don't
know if you want to go ahead, if you want to, well,
I have to pull it up. So okay, yeah, here's
the VA. I don't memorize these kind of things.

Speaker 1 (01:13:57):
But so are you talking about the ac points.

Speaker 3 (01:14:01):
Yeah, but there's a general, like secular kind of humanist
mission statement that I've seen share that I really enjoy.
So I want to pull that up real quick.

Speaker 1 (01:14:07):
Okay, well he's pulling that up. I'll tell you my
point of view. You know, humanism is the idea that
we should all strive to increase well being. That's one
aspect for me for my definition of humanism. And the
reason I ask for definitions is everybody uses terms differently,
so that we should generally try to enact policies and

(01:14:28):
take actions that increase human well being, and then we
can have arguments about the definition of well being, but
that it should be independent of unprovable assertions. Right, That
humanism is human centric. It is focused on those things,

(01:14:49):
policies and moral actions that are based on facts and
not fiction or wishes. Right, So when I go to
my lawmakers, I want to hear them say, all of
the facts point to this is happening. We have a
political debate as to whether we want that number to
go up or down it's a bad thing a good thing,

(01:15:09):
And then we enact policies that logic and science and
reason tell us will make that number go in the
direction that we want it to go, because we believe
that that will have a net increase in human well being.
So that's my take. What about you, J Mike, I
think you're muted. Possibly there, J Mike, there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:15:30):
You're bad.

Speaker 3 (01:15:30):
I said mission statement. I was thinking. I guess I
was thinking of like the wrong word here man, the
humanist manifesto.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
Y yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't know why.

Speaker 3 (01:15:38):
I can think of that. So I would agree with
everything and well being that you said. I mean, I
would tack on kind of the conversation about well being
to that and what we actually kind of mean by that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:49):
Yeah, I said, we can all argue about what the
meaning is. That's the politics of things, right, And I.

Speaker 3 (01:15:54):
Was gonna say that might not be like the maybe
the best thing to do here, But you know, I mean,
like I don't agree with like Sam Harris's kind of
like realism about like he thinks it's kind of a
moral everything he says content wise, I agree. I just
don't think it's a form of realism. So I'm very
in line with that kind of thought on well being.
If people are kind of familiar with like the moral landscape.
I don't think it's a great I think it's a

(01:16:15):
really bad book for an argument for moral realism. It's
a really good book if you take out the realism part,
because I think Sam's wrong about that about that being
a form of moral realism or objective morality. I think
he's totally off about that and confused. But you know,
if you're not a realist like me, or like a
subjectivist or whatever, I think that that's actually a really

(01:16:36):
good book to kind of look at these kind of
highs and peaks and valleys and.

Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
Of well being.

Speaker 3 (01:16:41):
But I will say on the American Humanist dot org
if you type in if you're interested, because I'm not
going to waste everybody's time reading all this. But has
been updated. I know a couple different times. The American
Humanists Association has a manifesto I think somebody else that
I don't know if it's the same one.

Speaker 1 (01:16:56):
But there's the latest one is just six bullet points
and I've got him up.

Speaker 3 (01:17:00):
If you want me to just reach now, that's the
what I'm looking for yet.

Speaker 1 (01:17:02):
Okay, So first, knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation,
and rational analysis. So this is empiricism, scientific method and
all of that. So basically that's where I'm saying with
I don't base my policy on stuff that I can't
observe and prove.

Speaker 3 (01:17:18):
Two.

Speaker 1 (01:17:18):
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of
evolutionary change and unguided process. Three ethical values are derived
from human need and the interest as tested by experience.
So this goes to well being, human well being, life's fulfillment.
This is for life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in
the service of humane ideals. It doesn't mean in service

(01:17:41):
of humans, but in the service of humane ideals. Five
humans are social by nature and find it meaning, find
meaning and relationships. And six working to benefit society maximizes
individual happiness. Now that is working in the whole from
a policy perspective. It's not saying you, the individual must
work to benefit society. We're saying that enacting policies that

(01:18:03):
benefit society maximizes individual happiness. I degree. I agree with
those six bullet points to various levels of degreeing, but
they're all a fall fairly high agreement.

Speaker 3 (01:18:14):
I'm so glad you said it that way, because that's
actually what I want to say is that I didn't
was it too about the humanism.

Speaker 1 (01:18:19):
Humans are part of nature, Yes, the result of evolutionary change.

Speaker 3 (01:18:23):
That to me is like it wasn't a crucial part
of my humanism to be a naturalist or something like that.
But yeah, it's like, very various degrees I agree with you,
but like that one kind of struck out to me
where I was like, oh, okay, so like they're like,
I don't feel like this kind of weird guy that's
like humanist and a naturalist, that's like I don't think
God's exist and I just think that kind of second

(01:18:45):
point is an important point. You don't have to have
this perspective that I have to be a humanist, where
like you're a metaphysical naturalist perhaps if you want to
call it that. I don't really like the term, but
I think people know what I'm saying when I use
that term. So I use that term. You could be
a way down and just like on this like I
really am a fence sitter, but I'm a humanist, and
you know, like it doesn't there's different. I think it's

(01:19:07):
important what Graham said of these kind of various degrees
of that. You know, it's like you're not if you
don't have if you're someone that's like, oh, I'm not
a Memphisico naturalist something like that's not really important as
long as you gather on the other kind of uh,
you know, components. But I want to give it back
to Johnson's wasting all this time while I do this
mean real cool?

Speaker 1 (01:19:26):
So what are your takes on all of that? Does
that fit in with your vision? And what is your vision?
John Well?

Speaker 6 (01:19:31):
A lot of you said is very good and interesting.
And the term I was thinking of when you were
talking about well being, the term human issues that I
like is human flourishing. That seems to uh bring a
lot of claverity to it for me, What the point
is the goal of it? You use the word flourishing,
that seems to really capture it for me absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:19:49):
And you can apply that word to both individuals and groups, right,
your individual flourishing and possibly groups of people flourishing as well.

Speaker 3 (01:20:00):
I feel like there's like, oh, sorry, John Gohan.

Speaker 6 (01:20:02):
Well, the other thing I want to mention is about
the authors or have you read any books or anything
along those lines.

Speaker 3 (01:20:08):
Yeah, so that's what I wanted to ask. That's what
I wanted to ask you about, was kind of what
you read because I don't even in philosophy. One thing
I really don't really care about in general is the
kind of meta ethical or ethic ethics, discussion, applied ethics
or normave ethics. I engage in it with like friends
and read a little, but it's so boring to me
a lot of times, so I don't even dive in

(01:20:28):
that much. I don't I don't read any like humanist
authors that I would define as like a humanist author.
I do have a book that I that I enjoy it.
It's like called a secular value in humanism in a
in a Godless world or something. I have it on
my shelf somewhere off to find it, but that's one
of the only ones. I can't remember that author. But

(01:20:48):
I really enjoyed that book. But it's a very like
anti realist. It doesn't assume any kind of realism. And
it's where I've derived an example I've used on the
show about kind of the example he kind of us
in the book is talking about like this kind of
intrinsic value, whether or not you think there's like real
value in the world. But like things that we project
on value, we say, like this is valuable, that person's valuable.

(01:21:11):
There's this notion that you recognize kind of what's within
those objects or like what's going on in that scenario.
Like the example that I've kind of made up is
if you were to throw like a baby off of
a building, we go to this philosophy, So go to
your major extreme here. If you're a Christian and there's
no God in that world, do you think anything wrong occurred,

(01:21:33):
like anything that makes you feel a certain way, like
at least do you feel like man that shouldn't have
been done or I don't know about that. Even if
God's going throw the baby off the building. There's like
two ways people kind of answer this. They can go, well, look,
God deemed it, and so there's nothing actually wrong. It's
this external force that's kind of put on it as
opposed to what's really going on. And I think a

(01:21:54):
common key that Themi points out in the book is
this idea that humanists are are really concerned not with
this extrinsic kind of the good salt or the bad
salt that sprinkled upon things like you know, religious believers
are that kind of imbue that scenario with either being
good or wrong based on the whim of an agent.
But everybody is a humanist in that scenario is going

(01:22:17):
to say it's going to analyze the intrinsic actions of
what's going on, regardless if they're a realist or an
anti realist. They're going to look at and go that
it shouldn't have been done because there's a victim, right,
there's people's like that might ruin relationships going down the line,
you know, it might it might tarnish people's well being
that weren't even the baby, right, And so I think
that that book was very insightful for me to kind

(01:22:39):
of take my kind of notion of humanism and then
kind of use that against Christians and just going, well, look,
the only thing that you care about is this extrinsic force.
That's like, you know, the good salt or the bad salt.
Without that salt, like you couldn't actually look at the
world and say that thing shouldn't occur. You don't actually
care about the intrinsic actions of anything. You only care
if there's extrinsic force put on it. And so that's I.

(01:23:00):
I'll try to get the book. Maybe if I can
solo on Graham for a second, I can go to
my shelf and look for it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:06):
But sure I'll ask John, Hey, John, what is your
take on on that?

Speaker 6 (01:23:11):
From Mike, I understand how it feels about how when
you really get into it that way, like a technical
philosophy with morality, how it's not it's not very attractive
engaging for a lot of people. Some people it is.
Some people really enjoy that type of thing. But I
could see the point is what's going to be appealing
to the broadest audience, which is what we want. Right

(01:23:32):
we're talking about humanism, Well, what is appealing to the
most people.

Speaker 1 (01:23:35):
And if we're talking, if you want to if you
want to propose it to the world, I'm sorry. If
you want to promote it, then yes, absolutely go ahead.
You do want you do want to appeal to people?

Speaker 2 (01:23:45):
Go ahead?

Speaker 3 (01:23:45):
Yeah you want to water net for sure?

Speaker 2 (01:23:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:23:47):
Right, So that's when that's the point. I absolutely agree
with that that you'd want to make. And the good
thing is, I think with you you can definitely do that.
You can present it in a way where it's not
going to be too technical and any way overwhelming. I
find the opposite. There's definitely a very accessible way to
present it where people will understand it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:24:08):
Also, hey, I have that talent, not necessarily, but I tried.

Speaker 3 (01:24:12):
I No, I don't have that talent.

Speaker 1 (01:24:13):
You should. You can do it small and large. So
the example I give sometimes in this is don't know,
I don't remember how long this ago.

Speaker 2 (01:24:21):
This was.

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
It was a while ago, fifteen years. Maybe there was
a senator or congressman. I think it was this. I
think it was a centator. Was it released and it
had to be it had to be a representative on
a committee for Science and technology, and they were holding
hearings and hearing from witnesses on global warming, and this

(01:24:45):
particular congressman opened up a Bible and said and read
the passage from Noah where it says God promised he
would never flood the world again. That's the rainbow that
reminds us he will never flood the world again. And
then said to the room, and therefore the United States
should not spend any money on even researching the impact

(01:25:07):
of global warming. That was the argument that was made.
And my point about secular humanism is it's the opposite
of that. Right, All you have to do is say, okay,
that we agree, we don't We're not going to say
Christianity's wrong. We're just going to agree that that's not
a good way to make public policy. We want fact
based public policy, that is science based, that can go

(01:25:30):
out and find what the best levers are to pull
on regulations and taxes and money spent and zoning and
all of those things to try to, as you said
in your word, help people flourish. And just looking at
a book that says it won't ever happen again, despite
what some scientists are saying, is not a good reason
to turn it off. So for me. Secular humanism has

(01:25:52):
two ends. One, it's the best way we've come up
with so far to sort of figure out what policies
are because it relies so heavily on the scientific method,
and to it avoid any one particular religion being able
to come in and say, my Holy Book says we
need to do X. There for like our last caller,
my holy Book says women are property and baby makers.
Therefore women are property and baby makers. Go make it.

(01:26:12):
So did you find your book, Mike?

Speaker 3 (01:26:14):
I did online. It's called Meaning and Value in a
Secular Age. Why You I've never interested says why you
practice Suffie matters. But it really just is like this
idea of good practice and wisdom. But it's a it's
kind of like a in viewed as something as in
on an addition to kind of secular humanism. But yeah,
I think that's a pretty good book. And what I
look online it says it's based on I'm never gonna

(01:26:37):
be able to quist or I am not blah blah
secular secularism the basics. It's kind of, I guess an
extension of that or something right, But it was it
was the first, like one of the first books I
ever got when I was getting into philosophy on the
like kind of the ethical side, and so I don't
know if it'll stand out for a lot of other people,

(01:26:59):
but it's really easy read.

Speaker 1 (01:27:00):
So what's your experience John in your area talking with
your friends? What are you seeing as far as people
the reasons that people want various policies to be enacted, Like,
are you seeing shifts in your communities moving towards humanism
away from humanism?

Speaker 6 (01:27:16):
Well, it's a reason I want to call in a
talk about it because I don't usually have people to
talk to about it. I'm not part of any community,
not in person or just online things. And there's some
good things online that I do and do interact with people,
but it's not you know, it's not an everyday thing.
But I'd like to make it more frequent than that
that way, but I haven't so far really done it

(01:27:37):
made an everyday thing with other people talking to other people.

Speaker 3 (01:27:41):
If you looked online for like meet up groups or whatever,
because I know when I've searched Sunday, they'll do someone
like Sundays around my area. They're far a little far
and few between, but you can you can find you
know some kind of group that usually meets up and
discuss these things, and I might scratch that kind of
itch for you.

Speaker 6 (01:27:58):
Yeah, I should look into that. But I want to
also talk about the author, the one that I really
how I found humanism was Paul Kurtz. He was a
college professor for years. He was a professor up in Buffalo,
and I did go up there one time and I
got to meet him, so that was a great experience.
So he's a key person. He's wrote a lot of books.
So if we just want to mention one author that
I recommend, He's been referred to as the father of

(01:28:20):
American humanism. So he's definitely the right person for anybody
listening if you want to know where to start with,
which author, which books him? He has more than a
dozen books, and he has one the term you mentioned
your proxify He wrote a book that specifically, Oh sweet, awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:28:36):
Yeah, I just looked up his biography. Wow, who was again,
hurts k you are you?

Speaker 3 (01:28:43):
Are you mentioning Kurtz?

Speaker 1 (01:28:46):
Mentioning Kurtis Okay, Yeah, yeah, that.

Speaker 3 (01:28:47):
Is the same author. Yeah, that's awesome, that's cool. I
just I'm glad I happened to pick out that one
that you suggest, because that was kind of like I
was at some books. I don't know what the bookstar
was called, but they sold guitars there too, brandon By
the bookstore, and I was so thrown off by that.
It was like the bookstore guitars, Like what the heck
is this? But hey, you know, start a model at
the bookstore. You That's why I was started rocking at

(01:29:10):
the bookstore.

Speaker 1 (01:29:11):
Excellent, Well, Johnny, do I will echo, go ahead, go ahead, Sorry, John, he.

Speaker 6 (01:29:16):
Wrote one, or did somebody else. It's sort of like
a best of called Embracing the Power of Humanism. So
if you get on that one, and a lot of
his books are also in the electronic form, but not
all of them, and I don't think that one is yet.
That might be a hard to find book now, but
if you can get that one, that's a great one
to start with, Embracing the Power of Humanit. It's sort
of like a summary of all his other like a

(01:29:37):
best of, So that's a great one to get if
you can get one.

Speaker 3 (01:29:39):
Yeah, I was looking online to see Yeah, I had
not for me, I had no idea who Kurtz was.
I just kind of stumbled upon this, which was great.
This says it was released in twenty twelve, so it's
still one that I got. But yeah, no, definitely definitely
look out for that. I need to read more on that.
I've been really just heavily philosophy of religion for while

(01:30:00):
and the one break that I kind of took from it,
I went on TikTok and was just debating transphobes the
whole time, and just, oh man, it was. It's like
the most frustrating but also the most like easy thing
to like it Like they never get it, they never
understand it. But it's always like god, man, like I
don't I don't have to think to explain this to you.

Speaker 2 (01:30:19):
How do you not?

Speaker 3 (01:30:20):
How do you understand this? Like I can take things
that you I don't even get into this right now,
yeah yes, but yeah I can take things that you
believe and show you that you don't even deploy the
concepts that you think you are.

Speaker 1 (01:30:30):
But yeah, awesome, Well, John, thank you so much. I
did not know about pol Kurtz. I'm gonna go out
and read him. Looking at this biography, I mean he
founded places like the Center for Inquiry, like like a
big big things.

Speaker 3 (01:30:43):
So yeah fromhen I heard you he's a pretty big
deal and that I just don't know anything other than
this book.

Speaker 1 (01:30:47):
And yeah, I will definitely look him up. Thank you
so much, John, And I will echo Mike's suggestion. I
did in the past go to some meetups that were
local to me way back in the day, and it
actually got me participating in a few things. One thing
that came out of it. There used to be this
organization I think they're still around. It was called Sunday Assembly.
It was an attempt to have a secular humanist sort

(01:31:10):
of social gathering, ritualistic social gathering that scratches that itch
that a lot of ex Christians have or ex Muslims
may have, where they want to come together for a
quote unquote church like experience. But they didn't want the
god layer put on top of that. They just wanted
to say, here's how we can do good things to
help the community. And I got involved in that for

(01:31:33):
a while. Even had the one of the founders, I
forget his name, Paul, and it's been years now, but
he came over and came to dinner in my house
and we had a meeting of people who are interested
in starting that in the local era, just because I
reached out on a internet meetup. I think it was
meet up, but this was like fifteen years ago, I
don't know if that existed, and just got involved for

(01:31:53):
a while, and then life happened. I had kids and
all that stuff, and I got uninvolved for a while,
and then I got involved in again. So I would
really encourage you. I found it very satisfying to just
be around other people and talk and and uh. And
the most refreshing part is they were not all of
the same exact opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:32:09):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:32:09):
We all agreed generally, but there were subtle things that
we disagreed on, and that's refreshing and not so much
allowed in many religious circles. So I would encourage you
to pursue that. All right, anything else on your side?
J Mike for John?

Speaker 2 (01:32:22):
Uh?

Speaker 3 (01:32:23):
No, I I.

Speaker 1 (01:32:25):
Was just asking if Mike had any more questions for
you before we moved on.

Speaker 3 (01:32:29):
No, I did have something. I'd brain fart, and I
lost what I had, so I'm actually kind of mad
about that right now.

Speaker 1 (01:32:36):
Okay, Well, thanks so much for calling John. I really
appreciate it. I really hope you have a nice day.
It was a nice to discuss this with you.

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
Thanks.

Speaker 6 (01:32:44):
I'd like to call it again soon, not very soon,
I know I shouldn't, but.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
Anytime you want, always welcome to chat each of us.
We've got sort of a stable of hosts. Each of
us host about once a month or so. So pick
and choose who you'd like to chat with, and if
you have any experiences you can share with people about
your attempts to get involved. I'm sure that would be
useful for a lot of our lists. A lot of
we get a lot of calls and emails and people
talking on our discord about I feel like I can't

(01:33:13):
get involved, and that's for one of several reasons. One,
I'm closeted atheist or secularists, or however they want to
describe it, agnostic. I'm closeted in my community. I live
in Smallsville, USA, and you cannot come out of that
closet lest you lose your babysitter, you lose your position
on the school council, you can't get somebody to mow

(01:33:34):
your lawn anymore. It's like, for practical reasons, they will
be shunned. So that's one reason people don't get involved.
The other is they have this false impression that they're
the only one in church in the pews that is going,
I don't believe this stuff right now, and they think
they're they're only one in their community that doesn't believe.
But when they reach out anonymously and find local meetups

(01:33:56):
and they go to those meetups, they find, oh, wow,
there are people in my community really have these concerns
about I don't want to be believing things that aren't true,
So how can we how can we prevent that? And
I want my government to be uh focused on facts
and not suspiciously motivated fiction. So there's lots of different
reasons people don't get involved, and it can't be just

(01:34:17):
feeling like you're isolated, so I would encourage it. It
was a big event, life changing for me as well.

Speaker 2 (01:34:22):
Very good. Thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:34:23):
That's definitely a very valuable point to make.

Speaker 3 (01:34:25):
Thanks a lot, John, Thanks Jean. You mentioned you mentioned
Graham the like the kind of community thing there, and like, uh,
my only taste of that because I didn't have this community.
I was, you know, part of it, like a Christian
then now ex Christian or anything. But man, I can
tell you how fucking disappointed and sad I was when
my we had this stupid like lottery kind of tax

(01:34:45):
thing happened and at something lumped in where it affected
coin operated machines. So my pinball league that had a
nice place the community for me to hang out with
my with my homies, a pinball league that got shut
down because of this law. I couldn't pay over that.
The overhead was like way too much to just by it.
So I lost the community. And I sat there and thought, man,
this is so small. I'm like gonna cry, And this

(01:35:07):
is so small in comparison to like, Wow, I just
lost my best friend Jesus that didn't actually exist apparently, you.

Speaker 1 (01:35:13):
Know, yeah, people, people can go through real Like We've
get calls all the time of people who lose community,
whether it's religious space or not, who have who feel
like anxiety, PTSD, anxious nightmares, all sorts of stuff, and
so community it's like that bullet point in the secular

(01:35:33):
manifesto set. You know, humans are social creatures and that matters.
So if you need to seek out community, jump on
our discard. Do go look up the new affiliation we
have with the American Humanists Association. Get involved locally, and
it may be that you just make a connection with
one person out or try in ten times and that's
more than enough. That usually like, hey, let's go clean

(01:35:54):
up trash somewhere, let's go donate food, whatever it may be,
and then you just have some interesting conversations and that
turn into board game night. Who knows, but but go
for it and see what happens.

Speaker 3 (01:36:04):
Paraforming Mars.

Speaker 1 (01:36:07):
You know, you know, you know, I do know.

Speaker 3 (01:36:10):
I think we talked about this. Uh do we briefly
talk about.

Speaker 1 (01:36:14):
I'm a heavy, heavy, heavy board game.

Speaker 3 (01:36:16):
So I thought we talked about it because I thought
we talked about like the all day kind of setup
of terraforming Mars.

Speaker 1 (01:36:21):
And I just played Shadows of Brimstone for six hours
yesterday with a monthly shed, say a Cowboys versus cathulehol
type of Amri trash, you know, roll and shoot game.
And it's a it's a lot of fun. It's good.
The thing we enjoy about it, to our point is
I enjoy I don't care what we're playing. I just
like being with people.

Speaker 3 (01:36:41):
If you like, like I'm not the biggest board game
person in the world, like I've ignorant to a lot,
but if you I know, if you enjoy it, You
really enjoy it, So I know that you probably enjoyed
all six hours of that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:52):
I sure did, I sure did excellent. All right, well, Ja, Mike,
I really appreciate you being here. As you know, when
we have these shows, we always have a backup post,
and I thought we would try to bring out our
backup post, Jamie. If he's lurking there, Jamie, how are
you doing you blind Lamey?

Speaker 7 (01:37:12):
The backup post is sleepy. He's had a long day
of listening to fallacious arguments and needs his nappy wappy.
He's eating sleevies and he's just a little guy who's
doing his best.

Speaker 3 (01:37:22):
Anyway, I heard you're not even supposed to be here, Jamie.

Speaker 7 (01:37:25):
But that's my apologies to to excellent and far more
awesome host than me, John Gleeson, the godless engineer who
was supposed to be the backup backup chair, and I
basically accidentally stole.

Speaker 2 (01:37:37):
It by being an idiot.

Speaker 1 (01:37:39):
Jamie elbowed him and said, I'm going to be here.

Speaker 3 (01:37:42):
To be fair, you would have to like actually leave
location to swap, and like John's just got to kind
of close out. And then yeah, I try to say
it's like John, go edit a video now or something.

Speaker 7 (01:37:53):
You know, I'm trying to make anyway quickly on this.
Uh to Alan, I want to get meta on that one,
because of course his thing was ridiculous. But I am,
I am, I'm a kind of one Graham's wavelength here.
I'm very much. I let them let them spoil out
their own rope and hand by it with a with
a good decisive strike. But it's more the whole what

(01:38:16):
is he hoping to get out of this conversation? Is
he does he actually think we're gonna we're gonna get
on board with any of this or is it just
groundstanding and there's just this impass about like what what's?
What was even his point in calling? As for the
conversation about humanism, it's the best philosophy I've encountered. I
didn't really have a name for these feelings and thoughts

(01:38:36):
of morality and how to go about interacting with the
universe until I really started getting involved with the atheist
community Boston, and it became sort of codified and more
easily identified and more easily taught. Great and I I
and I see your terrorforming mass, and I raise you
an all day game of a clip second dawn. Next

(01:38:56):
time you two are in Austin. That really is an
all day board game. It's got five hundred and seventy
seven pass.

Speaker 3 (01:39:04):
Yeah, that's right. I think you told me about this
when I was in Austin because I was like, that
sounds excessive, but I'm down.

Speaker 1 (01:39:10):
I've got the player Matt and the expansion.

Speaker 3 (01:39:13):
So you're on, oh oh really into?

Speaker 1 (01:39:17):
I am into?

Speaker 3 (01:39:18):
It is your pantry full of board games. Like I
have walked into their house and open up their pantry
and it was all board games.

Speaker 1 (01:39:27):
I'll send you a picture, an embarrassing picture of the
multiple klaxes I have of board games, and I ended up.
I have instructions on board game Geek on how like
I built my own game table and put instructions up
in the headline was guy who's never done carpentry built
a game table for under five hundred bucks. And I've
been doing that for I don't know, fourteen fifteen years now,

(01:39:48):
and I think it's great. I think a community b
keep your mind busy so when you get old and feeble,
you'll have be exercising your mind and see you can
do it until you your your dad basically, you don't
have to. It's not like my volleyball I used to play,
Kill your Knees. It really is And there's something for
everybody role playing card games board games. There is a

(01:40:13):
lot of people who end up playing board games in
the community, and it's a great way to have conversations.

Speaker 7 (01:40:19):
Here the here the Freethought Library. Go on, go and
meet up. We have games nights. They're currently being rejiggered
a little.

Speaker 2 (01:40:25):
Bit to.

Speaker 7 (01:40:28):
Make it a little bit more accessible and thematic. But yeah,
if you like playing with card and plastic god bud,
here's the place to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:40:35):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:40:36):
Absolutely all right. Well, thank you so much Jamie for
being our backup, and thank you so much Mike for
being the wonderful host you always are. I've said it before,
I'll say it again. I always look forward to hosting
with Mike because he has this perspective that nobody else,
pretty much on the Internet that's doing this has. It's
much more heavily weighted into this deeper philosophical stuff, and

(01:40:56):
I find that fascinating because it really does get to
the problem, which is why should we do what you say?
You say ought we say? Why?

Speaker 2 (01:41:05):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:41:05):
No, thank you Graham. I I I didn't even realize
we were going to be like I like I knew,
but like I think I just like I saw the
schedule and I got mixed up. I was like, I
think I'm with Godless because that had been put up
on like the first that was the first one I saw.
And then I messaged you and I was just like, bro,
like I just appreciate you. I see a lot of
like crap going on in the world and just want
to reach out and appreciate it. And then you're like, yeah,

(01:41:26):
we're doing the show. I'm like, yes, let's go.

Speaker 1 (01:41:29):
Let's do what.

Speaker 3 (01:41:30):
Maybe I didn't want to give I did want to
give a shout out to somebody in the comments. I
just joined there and looked at the live chat, which
I try not to do because it will distract me.
But Joe Imannon says that he loves he goes I
love you guys, and I think I speak for all us.
We love you too, and anyone that feels out, we
love you, and thank you for even spend it. You
could have spent your time anywhere tonight and you spent

(01:41:52):
it with us, so thank you. That does not go unnoticed.
I really appreciate that.

Speaker 7 (01:41:56):
Please the people that come up to the bats and
say really likely Steve Toth like.

Speaker 1 (01:42:00):
Why, yeah, get involved, come volunteer, start you know, grab
a mic, make your own channel, do whatever you can
get the word out because the mission, the reason I'm
with the a c A. Is because their mission is
ends with promote the separation of church and state. And
that's the biggest sort of existential threat we've had in
a long time, and it's very real. So please do

(01:42:23):
get involved, volunteer whatever you want. Game night, just start
talking to people. You talk to one neighbor and you
might find a new friend. So yeah, keep it up.
So for the crew, everybody, thank you and we'll see
in the comments. Bye.

Speaker 2 (01:42:43):
Start up.

Speaker 3 (01:42:46):
Stop Watch, Talking and Lives Days at one pm Central.

Speaker 1 (01:43:01):
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. Connect to the show
online at tiny dot c c slack hal