The Atheist Experience 29.47 with Justin and Richard Gilliver

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Good evening freethinkers, skeptics, closet doubters, haters, and people who
clicked on this only because their pastor told them not to.
We're looking for anyone who can defend their God, their ghosts,
their guardian angels, the easter bunny or crampis, or your
deceased uncle who visited you once when you were intoxicated.
Bring your miracles, your revelations, or just I know God

(00:24):
is in my heart. Because we've got questions and lots
of them. If you've got a belief that you think
can stand on its own legs, call in and let
us test it. Worst case scenario, we both learn something.
Best case scenario, you finally stop blaming your demons for
your bad behavior, and you stop poisoning the minds of
our nation's youth. The lines are open and the show
starts now. Welcome in, friends. It is November twenty third,

(00:54):
twenty twenty five. I'm your host, Justin. You might see
me around the internet as Deconstruction Zone, and I'm joined
today by our friend Richard gil Ever. Richard is great
to be on a screen with your friend.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
Absolutely, it's been a long time coming. I think this
one so I'm hoping our two backgrounds polish off well
against each other, and I hoping we get some good
religious callers in trying to give us the proof for God,
which they seem to do in drives shouting from the
rooftops on social media when they can hit the keyboards

(01:29):
really hard, less forthcoming when it comes to actually having
a conversation. So come on, theists, break the habit and
give us a call.

Speaker 1 (01:37):
Are you telling me that you're not just suppressing the
truth in unrighteousness? We're all doing doing that a little bit.
Oh no, I told you lost the playbook. Here listen,
at least one of us wants to hear real evidence
for God. And today is Sunday. But maybe next Sunday

(01:57):
we'll join you in church. Who knows. If it's really
good evidence, you might convert all of us. You might
even convert the people running the show behind the scenes. Shoot,
depends on how many people are watching this. But that
being said, statistics as they are what they are. We've
been doing this for a long time and I haven't
heard any good evidence. Have you heard any evidence?

Speaker 3 (02:16):
I have not heard any evidence, that's all, Leah. I've
been doing this for over thirty years and I'm still
waighing on the evidence. So maybe tonight'll be the night
who knows I.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
Mean to be fair. The Jesus on toast was a
little bit convincing. The Jesus on but butts of dogs
was even more convincing. But the Marie apparition in tree
Bark that might be the most convincing. I nearly committed
myself to that religion over the tree Bark.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Tree Box, Tree Box are convincing. They can portray a
whole lot of different knowledge on you, and let's hope
they portray the right knowledge on our call is today,
and that knowledge is give us a call.

Speaker 1 (02:57):
Yeah, and listen. If you think you've got a solid
philosophical argument, Richard would love to debate your philosophical argument
while I watch it mostly fail. As far as I
can predict the future, if you've got an argument from
the Koran or the Bible, we'd love to hear it.
And also, as I always say, if you've got a
unique argument that you think no one's ever heard before,

(03:19):
that's the one we want to hear the most. We
want to hear the argument that never been aired yet.
It be the you could be the one to break
open the whole atheist community with the brand new argument
for a god that we just don't know what to
do with it.

Speaker 3 (03:33):
And you back on your opening as well, you did
mention ghosts in there. I in fact, she used to
be the resident skeptic in the ghost on Singer group.
So if you do think you have evidence for ghosts,
if you think you've seen one, if you think you've
experienced one, if you think psychics can communicate with them,
I am your mom. Give me a call. I'm very

(03:54):
excited to hear all that stuff.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Absolutely well, we've got one person the queue already, and
I think one possibly being screened. I'm going to go
ahead and do our announcements and we'll get right to it.
The Atheist Experience is a product of the Atheist Community
of Austin, a five' one c three nonprofit organization dedicated
to the promotion of atheism and critical thinking, secular humanism,

(04:16):
and the separation of religion and government. And it's also
important to know if you want to support our channel,
one of the ways you can do that is by
sending super chats during the stream. We interact with our
super chats between calls at the end of calls. It's
one of the great ways that the audience can dialogue
a little bit with the hosts and it also goes
to support the channel. So with that, I think we've

(04:37):
got perhaps Joe from Oregon in the Q first, So
let's bring up Joe Oden here. Hello, Joe, welcome to Yeah,
welcome in.

Speaker 4 (04:45):
Joe.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
You're talking to Richard and Justin on AXP. How you
doing doing good?

Speaker 4 (04:49):
How about you guys?

Speaker 3 (04:51):
Very well? Thank you? What have you got fris Joe?

Speaker 5 (04:54):
So, I'm an atheist and I've been listening to the show.
I'd like learned to kind of converse a little bit
with people of like different denominations. The biggest one is
the unfalt of liable propositions kind of and I totally
and I had these Jehovah's Witness come to my house
and I totally blew it on the interview. So when

(05:17):
you are trying to converse with people of like different denominations,
like different denominations have their own like little things. I
was a like worship leader like way back in the
day for like Presbyterians, and it seemed like every denomination
has their own thing. How specifically do you like talk
to get like specific information out of them without actually asking,

(05:41):
without almost being antagonistic.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
Yeah, they we got. It's funny as you mentioned the
Joeovah's witnesses actually because uh, not this year, but last
year Jamie the blind Limer came over from the States
to visit me in the town in which I live,
and we went home. We had a couple of drinks
and something, so we eat and we had to to
see some Jehovah's witnesses on the street, and we'd had

(06:03):
perhaps one or two whiskers by this point in the proceedings,
and we thought it might be a jolly good idea
to go and have a conversation with them. Regarding Jehovah's
witnesses in particular, my line of questioning is always why
are you taking the Lord's name in vain? Because the
name Jehovah is I think it's a tenth century scribal error.

(06:26):
And what it does is it makes us the tetragrammaton,
which is y hwh up with the word of donie,
which means my load, And it is quite literally you know,
it was transcribed and it was incorrectly transcribed to the
vowels from a donie were placed in the tetragrammatron, and
that gave you Jehovah, and that's where the name comes from.

(06:49):
So that's always my leading point with Jehovah's witnesses in particular.
And watch them squirm when you do that. That's all.
And then Jamie the blind Lime, we will very this.
We actually are. During the conversation, we actually apologized to
them and said we were going to leave them alone
because it got to the point where it felt like

(07:09):
we were bullying them a little bit because they literally
started stuttering us. And I'm all about friendly conversations. I
don't want people to feel uncomfortable when I'm having those conversations.
So they does come a point I think you've got
to gauge your audiences of regardless of who you're talking to,
you need to gauge your audience. And you know, I

(07:30):
have had many, many, hundreds, if not thousands, of these
conversations over the years, and I'm pretty good now at
picking out people who are kind of experienced, people who
want genuine conversations, and there are a lot of them
out there. There really really are people who want to
try and throw gotchas your apologists all that there's so

(07:50):
many different kinds of people within so many different denominations
or so many religious groups, and it really is a
case of learn from experience. I think, you know, people
can throw tips at you, and people can throw tricks
at you. But the best way to have a conversation
with the people have different denominations, different religious groups is

(08:12):
to just go out there and do it. Have those conversations,
try and make them friendly, try not to be combatitive
with them, and just learn from having the conversations. Pick
up on the psychological cues you get from people, pick
upon the body language cues if it's in real life,
and introspect, really think about what you're saying, really try

(08:36):
and not to misrepresent stuff. I have so many, so
many arguments with atheists who throw throughout bad arguments out there,
bad philosophical points out there.

Speaker 1 (08:47):
You believe it or not.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
I'd probably argue with atheists on philosophy much more than
I do with theists. Introspect, look at what you're doing yourself,
make sure you're using the right information, and if you're not,
correct yourself, and if somebody gives you information, if somebody
corrects you, and it turns out the right, be humble
and thank them and learn from that. And it is

(09:10):
a process. It's a process having these conversations. I think
it's a process of refining your skill at doing it
looking at the subtleties rather than the kind of black
and white points, really delving into the subtleties, and I
think that's where the successes come when you can do that.

Speaker 5 (09:29):
Okay, So you're like, I think what I did is
I like they had a claim that claims came from
the Bible, and I kind of validated the claim, but
then just ended with like, I don't know, and I
think I should have dived more into what their claim
was saying in the process of their own interpretation of
the Bible. So you just say, like, like where do
you how is this claim? Would you ask like how

(09:51):
is this claim different than maybe somebody else? Because I
almost want to say, like how are they differentiated from
other denominations? So it would it be fair to say, like,
how does this plane differentiate you from like like a
Petecostal that takes this claim they're saying that they like
speaking tongue and this means this.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
I can't answer that. I can't answer that because I
think you've got to take every conversation on its own merits,
and I don't think it's as easy. And this is
what I was talking about, like differentiating the sort of
stuff from the black and white stuff. I don't think
it's as easy as just saying right, you go into
all of these conversations with this game plan, because I

(10:30):
don't think you can do that. All it depends. You know,
you might talk to one Southern Baptist who is completely
different to a different Southern Baptist, and as a completely
different interpretation of Biblical versus, they might be a much
kinder person than the other person who's a Southern Baptist.
That will also affect how the conversation goes. I know

(10:52):
it's not helpful to say I don't know, but I
think in this it is a case of going with
a kind of openness to have these and don't be
afraid of saying I don't know. If somebody I'm not
a biblical scholar. My background is in largely Buddhism, a
little bit of Islam, and I'm very new to looking

(11:13):
at the Biblical stuff, so people very often throw stuff
I don't understand out of the Bible at me. And
I have to say, look, I don't know, I'll go
I'll go and have a look at that, and I'll
come back to you on it. And there's nothing wrong
with doing that.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
You do.

Speaker 3 (11:28):
Not having all the answers straight away is not a
failure in any by any stretch of the imagination. And
being willing to say I don't know, I'll go and
have a look and I'll come back to you with
my opinion on that is a much stronger and more
earnest way of conversing with people than just trying to
throw answers that you don't necessarily have in there.

Speaker 5 (11:48):
You know what, I think that's what I probably should
have done, because based off of what you're saying, I
was talking to an individual and not the religion, so
he might have had like a different immediate interpretation of
what that claim was versus maybe their overall religion. Is
what I probably should have honed in on and then
saying please come back after I examined this.

Speaker 3 (12:09):
Yeah, just to you know the Bible guy, well, I
would do on the situation.

Speaker 1 (12:13):
Well, so I actually really agree with what Rich was saying.
If someone is bring up a Bible claim and you're
not really intimate with what the Bible says, it's okay
to be like, hey, I need to look into that.
Let's let's put a pin in this for now and
let's look at it later, because what you don't want
to do is make an argument from the Bible and
then be wrong about what it says, because then all
your future conversations are going to be clouded by the

(12:35):
fact that you said something about the Bible that was
wrong and they no longer trust you.

Speaker 2 (12:38):
Right.

Speaker 1 (12:39):
So, like, I'm comfortable making biblical arguments because that was
my expertise, that was my field of training, right, But
if you're not comfortable with it, and there's nothing wrong
with saying, hey, let's look into it and we'll get
back to you, right, Or if you've got plenty of time,
let them really walk through the passage with you and
make their best case argument and then say, oh, you've

(13:00):
made your best case argument. Let me look into it
and then we'll finish this up later, and there's nothing
wrong with that. Like when people make arguments for me,
like from other religions like that I'm not familiar with,
sometimes I have to be like, Okay, well, I don't know,
that's not my field.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Right.

Speaker 5 (13:14):
Oh no, that's perfect. Guys, thank you. The next time
they come back, that's exactly what I'm going to say.
So they keep coming back because I want to. I
want to have a deep conversation. But when they make
something very specific to a realm that I don't really know,
I'm just like, I don't want to sound like an idiot.
Where they have that you know, those gotcha things or
something where you can actually have a discourse of what

(13:36):
they're actually trying to talk about.

Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yeah, it's very important, not think to have that ability
to just say I don't know when they you know,
I've been in this sphere many many years and the
amount of time people have tried to argue in evolution
with me and I'm stuff to help me on something.
I'm out of biology. I don't know. I can't argue
and evolution with anyone because it's not my field of

(14:00):
I just can't do it. And you know, people can
take that how they want. They can see it as
a victory. Some people do see it as a victory.
And you know, if if that's if you think that's
a win that somebody admits that they don't know something, well,
you know, good on your you know, let's hope you
don't get asked questions at the pearly gates. That's all

(14:21):
I can say on that score. But yeah, do it.
Just just go out and have the conversations and you'll
you'll get better at them with time.

Speaker 5 (14:29):
Well, thank you, guys. I have only like one small ask.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
Of you, guys.

Speaker 5 (14:35):
I am like an amateur mathematician. I only took like
a math up to like cal three. And with a
friend who is a chemistry like physics PhD person, we've
kind of been going through quantum mechanics and I've been
trying to teach myself partial differential equations, and I hear
a lot of cis talking about quantum mechanics. Can you
can you ask them one thing for me when they

(14:55):
bring that up? Possibly, can you ask them what God
Hamilton me and they apply to their way function to
get a God eigenvalue.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
I don't know what any of that means. And based
on the advice that I gave previously, I don't think
it's good for me to ask questions that I don't
even understand the question of.

Speaker 5 (15:13):
Okay, okay, but that's fair, guys, that's fair. It's just
like I've been like years actually trying to like understand
it on a mathematical proposition, and when I hear the
people talk about it, they go straight to conclusions without
doing any of the dirty work. But sure, anyways, guys,
thank you very much for the conversation. Guys, I don't
want to take up any more of your time. I

(15:33):
enjoyed it.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
Yeah, it's good to hear from you, all right. I
do feel like quantum physics for most people is like
that that box of stuff that nobody really understands unless
you're a real professional. So it's easy to reach into
that box and be like, well, what about this, and
then no one else understands that either. Yeah, no know
what to do with this?

Speaker 3 (15:53):
Right, that's right about it? Recently, and it's been in education,
let's put it that way. Up, I've I've refined the
focus of what I was writing about film, thinking it'd
be cool to write about quantum physics in this, and
then actually starting to look at what quantum physics is,
and then realizing I don't have a clue, so I
better refine a little bit what I'm saying there so

(16:14):
I don't look a complete idiot looking a bit of
an Idiot's fine, I do it every day, but complete idiot,
that's right out.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Indeed, And listen, if you want to talk about your God,
the number is five one two nine nine one nine
two four two. We'd love to hear from you. No
matter what your God concept is. I'm sure you'll be
met with some let's say, some pointed questions about your God, however,
so'll definitely be prepared for that. And we're going to
bring in our next guest, Jim from Missouri, and I

(16:43):
think Jim might be an agnostic. The call notes for Jim,
does I want to talk about how Homer Simpson's rebuttal
destroys Pascal's wagers? So I assume you're not a Christian?
Am I understanding that correctly?

Speaker 2 (16:57):
Jim?

Speaker 6 (16:57):
Yes, yeah, I'm not a Christian. The reason I say
that Homer's rebuttal destroys Pascal's wager is it goes as follows.
I'll even do the voice more.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
Suppose we've chosen the wrong God.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
And every time we go to church, we're just making
him matter and matter.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Sure, I mean that's usually the retort right from atheists.
Pascal's wager assumes that there's only two options one is
Christianity and one is atheism. But that's certainly not the case.
You could be wrong about atheism and wrong about Christianity
and end up in Islamic Hell.

Speaker 6 (17:30):
So yeah, or you know what about the Greek version
of hell.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
Maybe they got in Hades for sure, which is also
one of the hell's mentioned in the Bible. So it
is one of the words full hell mentioned in the Bible.
So is a possibility.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
I hope you're good. You'll be ballen stones.

Speaker 6 (17:48):
Maybe you'll be or maybe you'll be cast out of
the boat into the what was it the sea of
sand instead of going to the sea of reeds like
the Egyptians say.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Yeah, I don't know much about Egyptian myth all, No
neither do I.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
And I'm as imagining Jimmy Junior in the background or
our backup post today's probably screaming because he's been telling
us before the show. I's been reading a lot about
Egyptian stuff in Egyptian history recently. I think the thing
with that is, and it is a good point, As
Justin said, it is kind of the standard response. I
actually think it's a really really good response anyway, when

(18:25):
just when anybody of any religion talks about God in
general as if you should know which God they're talking about.
I think the question which God is a really really
good question to ask, because more often than not you'll
get the response of, well, Jesus, of course, or insert
god here, if you should know. And I think that

(18:48):
can be a really really good starting point for conversation
to say, well, you know, why, why am I expected
to know which God you're automatically you're talking about? There
were so many different gods, so many different god concepts
within human history that we need to kind of narrow
it down, and assumptions like this are made all over

(19:10):
the place. I was having a conversation with someone on
I think it was Threads, I think it was yesterday,
and they were saying they were talking about how Christian
Britain is a Christian nation and these other cultures are
coming in and trying to take over, and I just
kind of put forward the proposition that that's exactly what
Christianity did in Britain. There was already tribal religions out

(19:34):
there that you know, the Celtic religion was one of
the big ones, the Pigs, the Celts, we had all
these different Britons. We had all these different tribes around,
and Christianity came in and inserted its religion. These dirty
foreigners came in and inserted their religion on our people.

(19:54):
And it's the exact same narrative now that Christians are
complaining about. And I think it's always useful to point
out the hypocrisy in some of these statements. And you know,
Pascal's wager is a is a great one for doing
that with you know, which which, which Hell? Which God?
Are you sure you've got the right one? Perfect questions
to asking, really really good starting points for conversation.

Speaker 1 (20:17):
Yeah, Jim, we appreciate the appreciate the input. And uh,
I mean it sounds like we agree then, but thank
for contin is going to hear from you later. I
do remember, and I'm embarrassed to say that this happened.
I do remember there was a point in my life
as a young man, when I was a Christian that
I did say Pascal's wager in front of actual like

(20:39):
listening ears And why was that silly?

Speaker 3 (20:44):
That's great one of the great things I love about
because I've never been a believer in God. I've never
been a religious person. One of the great things I
find great on about, you know, doing these shows is
when I'm paired with someone who was formally a believer
of some sort and they start talking about the deconstruction.

(21:07):
So we get a call about deconstruction, someone's personal deconstruction,
and the other whole kind of narrates their journey as well.
Because I get to learn so much from that. I
never had that experience, So it's great for me as
a fan of the show to kind of sit back
and listen to those conversations. You know, you do get
to learn so much. And you know, I said and

(21:29):
on the first call, sometimes being humble and just saying
you know what, I don't know or I was wrong
is the best way to learn things. And to recognize
that we have made mistakes in the past is a
great great learning tool to use.

Speaker 1 (21:45):
Yeah, I agree. Well, we've got dumb people in Q.
We've got an agnostic from North Carolina that we're going
to bring in, Adam. Adam says, why was Stephen murtyered
for the same thing that Paul was preaching? Adam, welcome,
and you're talking to Justin and Richard. Can you add
some meat onto your question a little bit? I may

(22:07):
not know exactly what you're trying to get at just yet.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
Sure, thanks for having me on, guys.

Speaker 7 (22:11):
And I believe it is acts around chapter five or so.
I could find the exact versor if you want, and
it talks about how Stephen was out there preaching certain
things here it is it is acts chapter six, seven,
well through fourteen seven R one back six.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
I believe twelve through fourteen. Maybe.

Speaker 1 (22:29):
Okay, he's arrested in chapter six and then I thought
he dies in seven. I could be wrong. Yeah, he
dies in seven.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
Thin, you're right, this is the season.

Speaker 7 (22:37):
Yeah, And so my main contention is it seems like
what he dirested for is from false witnesses, because it
says about the Laws of Moses, that he's trying to
change the customs that Moses handed down. But then later
on we see Paul saying, you know that the law
was a temporary school master, and it seems like Paul
is then doing the same thing which Steven is falsely
accused of and put to death for. So I find

(22:58):
it's very interesting. I'm wondering how good of are apologetical, Like.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
I guess I don't really know what you want to
use as a counter apologetic. Still, I mean, theoretically, Paul's
ministry was after Stephen. In fact, he later says, we
learned that he was at Stephen's execution. So like Paul's
message was certainly against the law of Moses, and he

(23:23):
does tiptoe around it in the Book of Romans saying
was it bad? No, it wasn't bad, heavens no, right,
but he does say it, like he said in Glatians
three twenty three that it was temporary. And then you know,
even in one Corinthians nine to twenty he says even
he's not under the law Ephesians two fourteen fifteen, he
says that all the requirements of the law have been abolished.
That being said, I mean, you're only going to get

(23:44):
arrested if the right people hear you say it and
they apprehend you. And so the crime that Stephen was
accused of was a crime against the Jewish converts or
against the Jewish people. The problem you have, though, is
that Paul wasn't really preaching to the Jews. Right, if
we look at Paul's ministry, he's mainly preaching to the Gentiles.
It does say inn acts that he went to the

(24:05):
synagogue first, and then to the Gentiles whenever we traveled.
But the reality was they mostly threw him out on
his bum because his message wasn't convincing, right, And so
I would imagine he spent almost all of his time,
you know, ministering with the Gentiles, rather than in Jerusalem,
where the Jewish faction of the church was causing ire

(24:26):
among the Jewish Elites. Describes in the Pharisees, when the
scribes Pharisees council members, they hear people among their ranks
saying this kind of nonsense. Yeah, then they're going to
apprehend you. But a guy over here up in you know,
Southwest Asia or Asia Minor as they call it, preaching
this foreign gospel, I don't think they're going to go

(24:46):
out of their way to go out and apprehend them,
you know.

Speaker 7 (24:48):
Yeah, And I love your thoughts on this. That's why
I wanted to throw this idea your way, because I'll
throw one more at you as a counter apologetic, because
I'm trying to develop better counter apologetics that are my
own thoughts, because I feel sometimes he'll just use what
they've heard online. And so I know with Paul's ministry,
Yet the book of Acts, I think is three different accounts,
and you might also do it in either Galatians or Chronicles,
where I think it's it might be ananias comics and

(25:09):
getting names wrong, but of course he meets to get
the scales removed from his eyes. The book is three
different accounts of what happened, with like a three year
gap sometimes where he doesn't begin his ministry. And I
think this often called into questions like the truthness of
his story, as though he's developing it over time for
different groups of people, like a common day megachurch minister.

Speaker 2 (25:29):
Might talk about their past and how evil they were.

Speaker 7 (25:31):
I think Paul was kind of working his story and
working as one liners. What are your thoughts on this?
Counter apologetic to say, like so it called it out
the question of Paul as a good source.

Speaker 1 (25:40):
I mean, I think it's a good tactic. For example,
if you just compare the Letters of Paul to the
Book of Acts, there's all kinds of problems and so like.
One of the most famous examples is even of Paul's conversion.
Within the Book of Acts, it's told twice and with
contradictory details. In one account, there are some who saw
the light but did not hear. And then the other
they didn't see the light, but they did hear the voice.

(26:02):
In another occasion, Act shep for fifteen, we learned that
there were four stipulations according to the Council, that were
given to the Gentile churches. And then in Paul's writings,
so he says, when I went to meet with the
disciples in Jerusalem, they didn't impose any stipulations on us,
which means like that certainly can't be the case. And
the same thing we find if Act chapter fifteen is

(26:24):
true that they were supposed to abstain from meat sacrifice
the idols, then we have to explain why later after
that council, when he writes to the Corinthians that in
chapter eight he says that you are permitted to eat
the meat sacrificed the idols, provided that you don't cause
it to be a stumbling block for those who used
to believe in the pagan deities, because there really is
no other god other than the one God. So like,

(26:44):
if you just compare Paul's writings to the Book of Acts,
which is about Paul, supposedly written by Paul's companion Luke,
it's weird that they disagree so much, and we wouldn't
expect that if they're written by different authors, we would
expect that. But the narrative is that Paul had Luke
writing for him as the traveling companion, the good doctor,

(27:05):
and so Paul's account in Luke's really should at least
match Paul's own letters, and they don't. Though either Paul
was schizophrenic, or he had some sort of mind lapse
where he like forgot details, or maybe I don't know,
maybe Luke wasn't really the traveling companion to Paul, or
maybe Luke didn't write acts, or maybe people were just
making this up as they went, you know, during Paul's lifetime,

(27:28):
from stories that they heard.

Speaker 7 (27:30):
Last question for you and think you as for your time?

Speaker 2 (27:32):
Of course, Luke the physician, as you mentioned, and maybe
my Bible knowledge is.

Speaker 7 (27:36):
Not as high, it obviously is not as hig as yours.
How did Paul and Luke need? Is that ever described?
Because wouldn't Luke if he was a traveling companion?

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Also either when Paul fell off his horse on his
way to mask us no thing.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
We really get the backstory of Luke. He gets brought
up only narrowly here and there, and you have to
kind of like triangulate Bible passage to get to the
conclusion that Luke was the one who wrote Luke based
on the we passages from the Book of Acts. But
whether or not we have any firm evidence from the
Bible internally or external to the Bible that there was

(28:09):
a guy named Luke who literally was a traveling companion
to Paul and that he wrote the book I think
is pretty loose. And while that might be the tradition,
I don't know if like if scholarly consensus would would
agree with that. It seems like it's it's a loose
association that's more or less supported by later tradition.

Speaker 7 (28:29):
Like the last word I have is this, when Trump
used to call under radio shows, well, actually was this
guy John Barren?

Speaker 2 (28:34):
I should say, who's to call on the radio shows.

Speaker 7 (28:36):
To promote Trump and talk about amazing, how amazing Trump is?

Speaker 2 (28:39):
This guy Luke is sounding a little bit to.

Speaker 7 (28:40):
Me like maybe John Barren if you get what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Anyway, that's my final thoughts.

Speaker 1 (28:44):
I totally do. I totally do.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
Thanks well, thanks for your thoughts. It was good to
hear from me. Adam and well not.

Speaker 3 (28:51):
Such saying buck and listening to all the people took
biblical knowledges far greater than mine. One thing I think
that strikes me about things like this, and the way
I tend to like to take those kinds of conversations,
is looking at the psychology of stuff. Because you know,
the Gospel accounts are we are told eyewitness testimony, and

(29:14):
we can argue about whether they are or not t
all acounts come home. But even if they are, even
if they are in Eyewinness testimony, Eyewinness testimony is phenomenally unreliable.
There are multiple, multiple psychological studies that show this. One
of the four front researchers in this is Elizabeth Loftus,
who has done an amazing amount of work. And you know,

(29:38):
regarding false memory, with the misinformation effect, trauma, all these
things apply to the Gospel accounts. And when you actually
apply psychology to the Gospel accounts, you have a very
very good reason for thinking that the Gospel, even if
you take them as actual eyewitnesses and their writings as

(29:59):
first stand of the accounts, you've got a very very
very good case that these psychological mistakes are being made
by the Gospel writers, and I think that's something that's
so important and so very very often overlooked when looking
at the gospel accounts. I'm doing a whole thing, I'm

(30:21):
writing a whole well, it's a whole chapter of a
book on about this very thing, is specifically about the
resurrection account and how eyewitness testimony gives us very very
good reason to doubt the validity of the resurrection account.
I think that's a really really good line of question

(30:43):
that people should go down far, far more in this
fhere is what are the psychological effects of these things?
And it's a fascinating subject, and that call just kind
of that perks that in my mind. It just kind
of broad of that in my mind when we're talking
about this, like of what these what would have these
people have thought at the time, What can we take

(31:05):
from them if they are in fact witnesses and interpret
the words? Really really fascinating stuff.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
Yeah, I agree. And so one of the examples I
like to point out on this is like, think of
a sermon you heard, and you might think of like
something you heard like a year ago maybe, and like okay,
say you heard a sermon a year ago, how much
of the sermon do you remember reality? They probably heard,
they remember like a one liner. They might remember like

(31:32):
a brief story, but they're not going to be able
to write down the whole sermon. But you know, the
Bible wants us to believe that at some point decades
after Jesus' death, people were able to write down entire
conversations that they remembered, word for a word, or even
private conversations that Jesus had that nobody was around for.
To me, this is a work of fiction in real life.

(31:53):
This is not how memory works.

Speaker 2 (31:55):
You know.

Speaker 3 (31:56):
Yeah, exactly, high one hundred percent on the same page
with you with that one.

Speaker 1 (32:00):
Well, let's grab I'm going to do some super chats
and then we'll grab the rest of our announcements and
then good question is waiting in the queue. Next, we've
got a ten dollars super chat from Duke of Shaska.
Duke is great to see you tonight. Duke is saying,
is this some sort of British person? Unlike the other
Robin hoods, he speaks with perfect Sheffield accent.

Speaker 3 (32:22):
Justin's accent is amazing. A second and non I cannot
give any higher praise. And Justin sheffield accent is fantastic.

Speaker 1 (32:32):
I don't know much, but I don't think he's talking
about my accent. But yeah, that seems to be the case, Duke.
It certainly does. And we've got a five pound super
chat from Bill Ash. Good to see it.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
Bill.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Bill says, justin when you release your book, could we
possibly get an audio book version read by dulcid tones
of Seth andrew Please, Oh, the dulcid tones of Seth Andrews.
So here's the problem with with the book is I
don't know how it's going to convert to an audiobook.
I've got tables, charts, manuscripts of different languages in there,

(33:08):
and I just don't know if it's the type of
book that can actually be read out loud and understood.
So this is just going to be I don't know.
I might release an audiobook where they have to skip
over the charts, the manuscript readings and things like that.
We probably could make that reality, but that's not my
primary concern. But my primary concern right now is getting

(33:29):
a rough draft finished as soon as possible and getting
it edited.

Speaker 2 (33:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Great question, though.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
Yeah, I think this is the first time the atheist
experience is that two people on at the same time
we're writing books Holstin. It's not an easy process. It's not.
It's what we were talking about this before the show.
It's an interesting process and there are lots of kind
of threads and webs that you have to traverse in doing.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
So mine's pretty research heavy. So I find like I
get down and I'm like, I know what I want
this chapter to contain. And then when I get through
some of the research, I'm like, well, now it's ten
times longer than I expected, and like I have to
write all this out and I was like, oh my gosh,
I waste like ten hours doing research for one thing
that I thought was going to take an hour, and
there goes your entire day. But it is what it is.

(34:18):
It's the joy of the process.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
Yeah, the nature of the beast is this all.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
Listen, friends, If you like what we do here at
the ACA, please consider supporting us on our Patreon. Giving
to our patreon insures our ability to continue to produce
the content that you love. You can find the patreon
at tiny dot cc forward slash patreon AXP. I'll say
it again, tiny dot cc forward slash patreon AXP. Another

(34:42):
way that you can support us is by the new
super chaps. We get them during live stream. We read
as many as we possibly can, and we get to
interact with the audience in this particular way, and it's
a really fun way to do a little bit of dialogue,
question and answer. You can also become a member of
the channel for as little as ninety nine cents a month.
Just click the joint button below this video. It'll give

(35:02):
you access to special chat emojis, early access YouTube shorts
and clips, and last binalitees. We want to send a big,
big thank you to the crew who puts the show
together every single week. We got video operators, audio operators,
note takers, call screeners, chat moderators, and they're the ones
making the show actually run. We're just talking heads on

(35:23):
a screen. So I definitely think that the people behind
the show making things happen. And with that, I think
we've got good question next in Q. If you want
to talk about your God, we would love to hear
from you. We do take calls from non believers, but
we do prioritize the calls from believers. The number to
call in is five to one, two, nine to nine

(35:43):
to one, and part of my screen is covering up
the letter. Give me a second. There you go, five
one two nine nine two four to two. That's the
number to call on the screen. And we'd love to
hear from you. Let's get a good question in here,
and a good question. I believe is an atheist. But
let's see if they have a good question from Washington.
The question is there are objective and subjective morals? Oh,

(36:07):
this is a statement. Well, good question. Welcome man, friend.
Can you can you define what you're referring to a
little bit?

Speaker 4 (36:14):
I just think yes, thanks for techemical. Yes, so pretty much.
My contention is that we apist let peace drive the
conversation and the final what morality is and what objective is?

Speaker 2 (36:27):
Right?

Speaker 1 (36:27):
That's I don't think they get to define what objective means,
right like they. I think we have to all agree
on what objective means, don't we correct?

Speaker 4 (36:35):
But we let them define it and they define it
as whatever was commanded by God, so it's supported to him,
but it becomes objective to us.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Well, I definitely wouldn't let him do that. No way,
this is not true to the definition, you.

Speaker 4 (36:49):
Know, right, Well, in this case, my contention is that
there are can I agree with you my great percentage
of all models are subjective. If we cross a red
life is bad. If we don't use a seat belt
is bad, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (37:03):
Right, but who is your contention with? Good question, because
you've mentioned this contention, but I'm not quite sure. I'm
not picking up who this contention is with.

Speaker 2 (37:13):
Yeah, thank you for a question.

Speaker 4 (37:15):
My contention is with us atheists because we let the
narrative be driven by fasts.

Speaker 3 (37:21):
And I'd like to push Justin just told me he
doesn't do that. I don't do that. You seem to
be content in it. I don't think you do that.
So who are these atheists?

Speaker 2 (37:32):
Okay?

Speaker 4 (37:33):
Indicates, for example, we accept the definition of subjective by theists,
and we accept that either all moralities are are subjective, right,
and we don't recognize there are some moralitiests that are objective,
but they are covered by this plus the conversation.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
Well, I think this is where you and I might
not agree. I don't see a reason to believe in
objective morals, like we would have to prove that there's
some sort of transcendental moral category, and I've never seen
proof for it.

Speaker 4 (38:02):
Yeah, excellent point. Trans The word transcendental is pretty much
comes from from play to and pie is that they
believe things are spiritual or whatever. But in this case,
by using the word transcendental, what I understand is something
that is true for different object people beings that have

(38:22):
happened commonly, but they are not designed into each each
of them. Right, For example, people and cats have legs?
Is that objective or subjective? It's objective?

Speaker 2 (38:33):
Right?

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Well, no, no, no, that's that's not what we mean.
So when we talk about objective morals, we're not saying
that it's it's true, like the way you're using the
word objective, you're meaning like it's it's non debatable, it
must be true. Right, But objective just means that it's
not dependent upon the mind. Right, when we talk about morals,
like a moral that is non dependent from the mind

(38:55):
just means that it has ontology independent of all human
beings or all minds.

Speaker 4 (39:00):
Yeah, and I agree with that, And I would like
to dial it a little bit harder than what you
just said and say, objective is opinion independent or non
dependent from opinion?

Speaker 3 (39:10):
I think it depends on who you're talking to. And
I think we're missing something here. And when we're having
a conversation with theists, I think it's very very important
that we ask what that person's definition is. And yeah,
asking what that person's definition is and listening to that
person and accepting the definition as their understanding of it

(39:33):
is not the same as agreeing to it. And I
think maybe there might be some confusion here because where
if I'm having a conversation with a theist and they
tell me their definition of objective morality, I will of
course accept that they believe that that is their opinion,
but I don't necessarily agree with their definition, and where

(39:56):
I might be able to have a conversation around it,
because when to understand terms, we need to make sure
we're on the same terms when we're having a conversation
and we have the same understanding, unless, of course, the
actual understanding of the word is where the contention is.
But there's nothing wrong at all with accepting a person's
understanding of a definition as that person's understanding of a definition.

(40:20):
And I'm wondering if this might be where you're getting
slightly confused with atheists accepting this definition of terms. Do
you think it's possible that that might be the case.

Speaker 4 (40:33):
Partially, Yes, I'm not confused. Actually, I've heard many debates
and actually just In debates a lot with physicians that
they have as you mentioned, they have their own definitions
of what objective is, what melody is, and Justin's really
good at, you know, the spelling all those misconceptions that
believers have just by proving them all by the Bible, right,

(40:56):
And yeah, yeah, I agree with you that we should
listen to their opinion, but we should also drive a
little bit of conversation by exactly the way, digesting that right,
proving their points wrong. But in this particular case, my
way myself with you, I'd like to propose pretty much
one idea that there are objective moralities, plus object subject

(41:19):
to moralities, and subjective morality are more than ninety nine percent.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
That's what I was asking you a minute ago, Right,
what would be the evidence that would lead someone like
me to conclude that there are objective morals? So my
position is, if all human beings cease to exist at
this very moment, tell what morals? Because they're dependent on minds,
So like, what would be the argument that morals would
exist independent of any in all minds?

Speaker 2 (41:45):
Perfect?

Speaker 4 (41:46):
I'm going to focus on that, on that one Okay,
So a subjective morality, right is pretty much everything that
we have in the laws and our rules and regulation,
et cetera. Right, And I'd like to add the one
the morality right. The wrong definition of morality is that
takes us as a as a way to assign blame

(42:06):
in order to achieve ange.

Speaker 2 (42:07):
Right.

Speaker 4 (42:08):
That's the common kind of background understood definition of morality.

Speaker 2 (42:12):
Right.

Speaker 4 (42:12):
But what I'd like to propose is that morality is
actually based on the receiver of the moral act. The
victim in multiple cases, but also in good cases and
good moral actions is the receiver of the moral action.

Speaker 2 (42:25):
Right.

Speaker 1 (42:25):
So if we we're talking about whether or not morals
are objective, correct, because if it's based on the receiver,
that makes it subjective.

Speaker 4 (42:34):
Okay, that's an excellent question, excellent point. Actually, if there
are no conscious if there is no conscious receiver, morality
just doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
So in order, that's why it's subjective.

Speaker 4 (42:47):
Okay, yeah, but okay, yeah, Actually my main point is
that there are conscious receivers, but there are objective concept right.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
Yeah, we agree, Yeah, there are objective processes we can
engage and to determine whether or not we're adhering to
our subjective moral framework properly, But that doesn't make it objective.
That just means we have some objective methods for determining
what is right and wrong. But at the end of
the day, if our framework or the ontology of morals
is subjective, then it doesn't matter if we have objective

(43:18):
means and measures. Our more framework is still completely subjective.

Speaker 4 (43:22):
Okay, I'll give you and give an example of an
objectively bad thing to happen to someone. Let's say Mitchura
also on the head of someone. Right, the receiver is conscious,
definitely and in the cause of the issue.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Right is a rock. Right.

Speaker 4 (43:38):
But and this is my contention with atheists that we
lead that everything be driven by theists, is that that
thing that happened is called God, something produced by God,
God action, I don't know, but the insurance companies name
it God act or something right, So we're always trying
to find the blame.

Speaker 1 (43:57):
Is the person who got the meteorite? Did he want
to live or she yes? Yes, Okay, then it would
be it would be bad. But that's subjective. It's based
on their wants, their desires. It's subjective if they if
they in fact wanted to be hit by meteor, then
it would still be subjective, but it would be subjectively good. Yeah, okay,
so this is still not an objective scenario case.

Speaker 4 (44:20):
The main point is that if someone is going to
evaluate the situation, say is this morally good or bad? Right,
it would be bad for that person that received the media.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
Right, right, But the evaluation is subjective. Evaluations happen in minds,
and when minds are doing moral evaluations, it is in
fact mind dependent.

Speaker 4 (44:38):
But remember that the point of morality is to assign,
assigned evaluate what the cause was, right, the effect is
bad for the person. Now, we always look for the cause.
In this case, the cause is objective.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
Because is not a claim subjective. Yeah, that does being
a subjective moral claim.

Speaker 1 (44:57):
Causes are independent from moral frameworks the same.

Speaker 3 (45:02):
To put it. To put it succinctly, subjective morality can
be based on objective facts, but that doesn't make it
objective morality.

Speaker 2 (45:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (45:12):
Well, the theists would disagree heavily, but okay, all right,
that's that's a good point.

Speaker 3 (45:17):
Well let them call in, please, theiss so disagree with us,
call in, because that's what we've got a call in
show for. And I would love to talk to you.
I would love to talk to you that the degree
I have is based in three parts. It is religious studies, philosophy,
and ethics, which deals with morality. So if any any
thesr out there who disagree, give us a call. We're here.

(45:39):
I'm here. I want to take your calls. Pick up
the phone. I feel like I'm on some kind of
talent show. Pick up the phone and give us your vote.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
All now, and there's three easy payments of six sixty
six if you call within the next fifteen minutes. Anyways, listen,
good question. We appreciate calling in, but I'm not really
sure this is a conversation we need to have right now.
I don't know if it's if it's beneficial to the
audience tod be here this particular phone call. I could

(46:09):
be wrong, but I think most of the audience have
already heard this discussion a dozen times from theists, and
so I'm not really sure they need to hear it
again from atheists. But I appreciate you calling in, and
it was good to hear from you. I hope you're doing well.

Speaker 2 (46:21):
Thank you, just.

Speaker 3 (46:23):
Thank you. I've just been glancing at the chat by
the way, and there's at least one thest in there
be doing a good keyboard whilerior job. And there's also
some people having a conversation about Buddhism. All of those
people call, I want to talk to you. Let's have
those conversations. Don't do it in the chill having the show.

Speaker 1 (46:42):
Well, we've got one super chat from our friend doctor Wsembla. Doctor,
thank you so much for the ten that supertest. It's
great watching you to rockhard for Doug. It's late here
in Scotland, but I can stay up late eleven twelve
pm now as I nurse my flu. I'm sorry to
hear that you're sick waiting eagerly for books. I have

(47:03):
published too, and I know how much it takes. Well,
we appreciate the empathy. It really is kind of a
big undertaking, and I you know, the problem is, I'm
also kind of a perfectionist. Every time I hear new
or learn new information, I could go back and edit
a chapter that I already thought was completed and it
just continues to grow. It's it's ridiculous, but that's my problem.
That's on me. Let's get we have one agnostic though, Richard,

(47:26):
that is calling in that I assume they kind of
believe in God, because the question on the board, Patrick
from Florida, is asking atheism. Is nihilism proved me wrong? Interesting?
So Patrick, I can tell you for me as an atheist,
I didn't revert to nihilism. I know there have been
some who do, so I guess I don't really understand

(47:47):
the claim that in order to be an atheist you
have to be a nihilist. Can you give me an
argument for that?

Speaker 8 (47:53):
Well, on Google if you google it as a for Patrick.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
Why do you change your name every time you come
to this show? Every time you call? You call in
every week. Every week that I call in, you come
in and crash out on a name that I've never
seen before.

Speaker 8 (48:08):
Well, this may be my real name.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
You're not an agnostic. We know you believe in God.
We've heard you fifteen times just this month.

Speaker 8 (48:16):
I've been I've been an agnostic.

Speaker 2 (48:19):
This is a serious.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
Call here, Yeah, it sounds real serious. Sorry, give me
your argument.

Speaker 9 (48:24):
Well, I mean, like for Dawkins, for example, I see
the misery on his face when he talks.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
You know it's I'm not asking you about Dawkins. I'm
asking for an argument.

Speaker 9 (48:35):
It's a dead end, What does atheism offer besides another
form of faith from reality base, from my agnostic base,
and I see it as another faith that's a faith
that there's.

Speaker 8 (48:49):
No evidence of God, not knowing what evidence would be
or not be.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
So it's to be clear, you don't have any evidence, but.

Speaker 2 (48:56):
That's not been established.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
Yeah, sure, you're not going to bring any evidence.

Speaker 2 (49:01):
God ever established.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
To be clear, Patrick, you don't have any evidence for
God existing.

Speaker 8 (49:07):
I mean either I don't know. I'm more agnostic to
be honest, I like that if you don't.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Know if you have evidence. I mean you might know
if God exists or not, but you should know if
you have at least evidence for it.

Speaker 8 (49:21):
Look, how would any human being know what evidence of
God would be?

Speaker 1 (49:26):
I'm asking you if you don't even know what the
evidence would be, that means the answer to the question
is no, you don't have any evidence. If you asked
me justin do you have any evidence that Vishnu is real?
I would say, huh, I don't think I have any
evidence either way, which means no, I have no evidence
regarding Vishnu. I could probably put together a pretty good argument,

(49:46):
but no actual evidence.

Speaker 8 (49:48):
There could be evidence.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
We just don't know what it would be.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
Well, it sounds like you don't have any then and
until such a time as evidence presents it. Yeah, pay
so such time as that evidence is presented, then whoever
holds a belief in that God has an entirely unjustified belief.
They are, in fact believing without good reason to do so.
And that is not a position I want to be in. Now,

(50:16):
you seem to believe in the God, and you also
seem to be telling us that you don't have evidence
that that God exists. Is that a position you want
to be in? To hold that position?

Speaker 8 (50:24):
Agnostic is neither having faith nor disbelief.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
I'm not interested in arguing terms with you. I'm not
interested in arguing terms with you. I'm asking you a
question about whether you you you like. First of all,
I'm not going to look up the definition of it,
because arguing definitions is boring. I argue definitions with atheists

(50:50):
about atheism all the time. I'm certainly not going to
do it with somebody who doesn't seem to know what
a definition actually is. Do you believe that a God exists?
It is a yes or no answer.

Speaker 2 (51:01):
You're trying to read a sign as you believe.

Speaker 3 (51:06):
Do you believe that a God exists? It is a
yes or no answer.

Speaker 8 (51:12):
I neither believe nor disbelieve. That's the act, sir.

Speaker 3 (51:16):
If I may say, that is fucking bullshit. That is
not a position you can hold. You either believe that
God exists or you do not believe that God exists. Now,
whether it comes to evidence and justification, you might not
have any, and that is fine. But to say you
need to believe nor disbelieve that God exists, you are, frankly, sir,

(51:37):
lying to us. Now, do you believe that God exists?
It is a yes or no question.

Speaker 8 (51:44):
If you google the definition of agnostic, you.

Speaker 3 (51:47):
Go and fuck yourself off. Dropture, You do not speak
to me like that. I don't know who you think
you are, and you might. You might entertain yourself calling
just in week after week, but you're not going to
talk shit to me. You either want a good quality
conversation or you want to talk shit, and you, sir,
are talking shit. You are gone from the show.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
Can you imagine having him at Thanksgiving dinner?

Speaker 3 (52:12):
To be fair, I can't imagine be the thanks Giving
a British.

Speaker 1 (52:16):
That's right, yeah, Thanksgiving? Here is where we celebrate a
fictitious peace deal with the natives that we slaughtered after
thumbing our noses at the British who merely just wanted
to click some taxes. What are you gonna do? Oh well, well, listen.

(52:36):
Patrick's always fun. Although I wish I knew what his
real name is so we didn't have to use a
different name for him every single week. We could actually
have a consistent name. But what are you gonna do?
You know, let's grab We're gonna get our super chat.
We've got one person in the screening room that wants
to talk about the Bible, it seems like, so let
me grab our super chats real quick. We've got a

(52:58):
super chat from good question just called in. Thank you
so much for the ten that war. Superchat says good
points about morality. Thank you guys, good question. We don't
mind taking good question. They can be helpful for the audience.
But I would say that most people are here to
watch well, they want to watch a robust debate with
a believer, not somebody kind of doing like a Devil's

(53:21):
advocate type of argument. But we do appreciate the question nonetheless,
and Duke, thank you for the additional Superchat says, don't
worry justin You're not alone. It took me a few
years to finish a book recently. See I too am
a slow reader myself. Well, Dick, I listen. I appreciate
that you've already been through the process. I might have
to give you a message on discord at some point

(53:43):
for some pointers. But yeah, it is a laborious process, Richard.
How long you been working on yours?

Speaker 3 (53:49):
Oh? Well, I'm because I'm clearly insane. I'm writing two consecutively. Well,
one is a i'd say it's about epistemology, and the
other one is just a purely really just studies book
about the history of the religion in my area. The
religious studies one I've been working on about six months.

(54:09):
The other one all together from conception probably about four years.
Is a long I mean, each chapter is a long long.
It's going to be a hefty old book. But yeah,
it's a long, laborious process. And you know, you go
through cycles of wanting to do it and not wanting

(54:31):
to do it, and motivation and you know all that stuff.
And as you said earlier, one of the most interesting things,
and we were talking about this before the show is
just getting that kind of you get to a point
where you think you've got it nailed what you want
to say, and then your information comes along and you
get took down a completely different rabbit. All it's a
great process, it really really is.

Speaker 1 (54:53):
And the funny thing is, too is like I'll go
through and I even I'm really particular about white space
and formatting. My motto in my life I was an
engineer for a long time, is like details matter, So
I pay attention to lay out white space things like that.
And I hate it when I get a chapter completely
formatted and not only do I have to add new information,

(55:14):
now I have to reformat the chapter to more appropriately
use the white space that it's like visually pleasing. And
that's still my biggest complaint about the new Oxford Annotated Bible,
which I love, by the way, if you want a
good study Bible, but they cannot use white space. The
study notes at the bottom are an absolute train wreck.
If you're listening to me, anyone on the committee, please

(55:37):
learn to use white space properly. But what am I
going to do?

Speaker 2 (55:41):
You know?

Speaker 1 (55:42):
Maybe I'll hear my please. Eventually, I kind of.

Speaker 3 (55:44):
Had a cheat sheet because a friend of mine. Note
was also one of the nonprofits on the ACA. Dr
Richard Firth god be Here has already written a best
selling book called The Human History of Emotion, and he
was very very kind and sent me lots of advice
and lots of notes and everything on getting the journey started,
which I'm really really appreciative of, and I really do,

(56:07):
I mean can he kind of sent me a template
and you did use that as a cheat sheet, So
it's really good having that as somebody who's a published
best selling author, doing that is really really helpful to
get your started along your journey. I just need the
motivation to keep doing it now.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
That is the key you do get I don't want
to use the word burned out, but you do go
through periods where like I need to take a breather,
and that's just that's the name of the game, you know.
But I think I think our next guest is loaded
up and we don't have a name for the next guest.
The next guest came in as the Preme Leader from
Colorado that if you don't believe in God and also

(56:46):
the Bible is true and want to maybe talk about prophecies,
there's a couple of claims, Supreme Leader, can you elaborate
on at least one of those claims?

Speaker 2 (56:56):
Oh? I guess The point was like, if you happen
to see you guys, don't called it last week?

Speaker 1 (57:03):
Right, I wasn't here last week.

Speaker 3 (57:05):
I listened to the show. Yeah, you sold last week.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Well my call must have been pretty good because you
put me up on a repost.

Speaker 3 (57:12):
Anyhow, that's just stunned it.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
They repost all the guests.

Speaker 2 (57:17):
Well, it felt like a great honor, like my call
must have been important or something. So the point of
the last cab was if you saw prophets come true,
would you believe it? And this call is, well if
you believed it, well, you don't like God even if
you believed him, Okay, you didn't like him.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Right, well, listen, what kind of prophecies are you referring to?
Because I've got a book with prophecies in it right here. Actually,
it's got Babylonian prophecies and some of them actually come true.
There's geopolitical prophecies about eser Hadden, there's geopolitical prophecies about
other Assyrian kings, so they come true. Does that mean
that the Babylonian prophets were correct and that we should

(57:54):
worship Marduke.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
All that stuffs very interesting.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
Well, my blind, but what's the answer to the question,
and you.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Realized God was there? Well, my question is.

Speaker 1 (58:03):
But what's the answer to my question? If these prophecies
come true, does that mean that we should be worshiping Marduke?
To be fair, Mark Duke really fucked up the biblical God.
I don't know if you knew what he did in Judah,
but he just steamrolled the Judeans.

Speaker 2 (58:18):
Well, I don't know anything about Marduke.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
Actually, I want to hear a prophecy. There's prophecies to Ashrabana, Paul,
there's prophecies to eser had In. Do you believe in
ishtar Well studies? Okay, So my point is is quite simple.
A prediction coming true is not necessarily an indicator of
the God behind the prophecy being real. For the same

(58:41):
reason that you wouldn't accept Babylonian prophecies, I also don't
accept non Babylonian prophecies. Also, it's the case that the
ones that kind of did come true were like guesses
that anyone could have done. Yeah, yeah, we know that
the Babylonians were going to come in and rough up
the Israelites. They did it to everybody else along the way.
We already knew that the were going to come in
and conquer people in the Promised Land because they already

(59:03):
did it to all the neighbors outside of the Promised Land.
It was the easiest prediction somebody could have made.

Speaker 2 (59:07):
That.

Speaker 1 (59:08):
Being said, we have no evidence that the predictions in
the Bible even predated those events. They're all written in
a form of Hebrew that came after the Babylonian exile.
So if they're writing the prophecies prior to the exile,
we should have those prophecies preserved in Paleo Hebrew. We
do not have any prophecies preserved in Paleo Hebrew to

(59:28):
that would indicate that they were written prior to the events.
It seems to me like there were probably events that
were written about as historical, pretending to be prophecies until
we come up with new evidence to the contrary.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
Well, my point was, if you knew God was real,
like the first creator, the first mover of the universe,
and all of a sudden he realized okay, he's there,
you still wouldn't follow him, would you? Because it's the
time ran.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
If I believed in a God, I would believe in
a God. Following them is a different question. But again, like,
it's an irrelevant question until somebody can demonstrate that God
to exist. And even if they did demonstrate a God
to exist, they would then have to demonstrate that that
God is good and that it would be good to
follow that God. I don't think that they can actually
do that. So the existence of a God is irrelevant

(01:00:17):
to whether or not I would follow that God. That
being said, what are the reasons why I would be
compelled to believe in God, especially the Bible God. The
Bible God made so many failed predictions, got science wrong,
got history wrong, There's so many internal contradictions. Jesus himself
is a walking contradiction. If he's part of the trinity,
Why would I possibly believe this version of God?

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
Well, the universe, Okay, we're talking.

Speaker 3 (01:00:40):
About the universe, the.

Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
Console argument and so on and so forth.

Speaker 3 (01:00:47):
Let's go into it then, because you know what's you know,
we're asking for evidence of God, Supreme Leader. We're asking
for evidence of God. Give us the argument, give us
the causal argument. Let's discuss not the.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Point of by car Okay, I'm saying the person that
we suppose created everything, even if you did believe in him,
you think the guy's a terrible person.

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
But why don't you just convince us that he exists
and then we can make the decision on whether that
guy is a decent person or not. After that, You've
got you've got a prime opportunity here to convince everybody
who both myself and justin everybody else who follows the
atheist experience, you have got a perfect opportunity to give

(01:01:32):
that argument as to why that God actually exists. That's
once you've convinced us of that, that's half the thing over.
We don't have to talk about hypotheticals about whether we'd
follow him or not if we believe he exists. Convinces
he exists, and then we can talk about the merits
and following him after that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:53):
Okay, So I can't try and talk about what my
point was because you don't want to.

Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
No, you can, But I'm saying as surely, surely a
much better direction to go in would be to convince us.
If you believe, you can convince us that God exists,
give us that argument and try and convince us that
God exists, because that would make the point you want
to talk about, which is whether we would follow him.

(01:02:18):
That would make it a much more fruitful conversation. If
we're all on the same page and we all believe
in the same God, that conversation would be then much
more fruitful rather than just having this hypothetical. Well, if
you believed in him, you wouldn't follow him anyway. Well,
I don't know whether i'd followed him because I don't
know what his attributes. I don't know if he's true

(01:02:39):
because you've not given me that. You've not given me
any argument to decipher that information out. I don't know
what that God's attributes, So I don't know if i'd
find him good or evil because I haven't heard an
argument for his existence.

Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
Guys, do you really think I'm going to present an
argument you haven't heard before?

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
Well, probably not, but I can present an argument that
you haven't heard before. Want to hear it?

Speaker 2 (01:03:02):
I'd love you. I like you your thought.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
Sure, Yeah. My argument is that Jesus was a liar
enter fraud case. In point John thirteen and John thirteen eighteen,
he claims that he's fulfilling scripture when Judas is portraying him.
He says, I am not speaking of all of you.
I know whom I have chosen. It is to fulfill
the scripture. The one who ate my bread has lifted
his heel against me. So Jesus is saying, listen, the

(01:03:25):
scriptures are predicting that, in fact, someone close to me
is going to betray me. That seems to be what's
happening with Judas. But the reference for that comes from
Psalm forty one. The interesting thing is in Psalm forty one.
It's just a lament of David. It's not a prophecy.
There's nothing in here about the Messiah, and the individual

(01:03:45):
in this particular Psalm refers to himself as a sinner.
Do you think that this could be about Jesus?

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Well, you see my point as the call. It's the
same thing I stated earlier.

Speaker 1 (01:03:57):
I'm going to need an answer the question in verse
four of Psalm forty one, when the author says he
will me for I have sinned? How could this also
be about Jesus? When it says, my close friend, whom
I trusted eight of my bread has lifted his heel
against me, how could that still be against or be
about Jesus. If the person writing is a sinner.

Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
Well that's an interesting question.

Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
So why is Jesus lying about what the Hebrew Bible says?

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
Well, I guess it comes down to Jesus. He's a liar,
a lunatic, or a savior.

Speaker 1 (01:04:29):
I think you mean liar, lunatic, or lord. But he
also could be legendary. That's another combination. I think he
was a liar and a lunatic personally.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
Well, the point of the call was even if you
did see these prophecies come true.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
But they didn't come true. That's the problem. Not a
single Messianic prophecy came true under Jesus.

Speaker 2 (01:04:46):
It's a hypothetical.

Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Okay, okay, So pretend the Bible's wrong and that Jesus
did fulfill the prophecy.

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
So what d if I pretend the Bible's wrong? Man,
I'd be as happy as you are. I'd be so
happy about it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:59):
Oh, oh, he's I can show you where it's wrong,
all over the place. Matthew three says that Jesus was
born of a virgin because of what it says in
Isaiah seven. Isaiah seven doesn't mention a virgin, doesn't mention
a messiah and is talking about a child that was
born during the reign of King a Has, and the
prophecy says, before that child knows right from wrong, the

(01:05:20):
two kings that are attacking a Has their lands are
going to be laid waste. They're going to get wiped
out by the King of Assyria. And that came true
hundreds of years. In fact, about seven hundred years before Jesus.
That prophecy came true, completely unrelated to Jesus, completely unrelated
to any virgin birth. So the whole virgin birth narrative,
the whole nonsense, is not even in the Hebrew Bible. Yeah,

(01:05:42):
Isaiah seven. Isaiah seven is a chapter that is quintessentially
the virgin birth prophecy. But if you go to the prophecy,
it's not about a virgin it's not even about a Messiah.
It's about God trying to reassure his people, the Judeans,
that He's with them in their time of war. That's
why the prophecy prior to this one says, if you

(01:06:03):
do not stand firm and faith, you shall not stand
at all. Then we get the second prophecy, which says,
again the Lord spoke to a Has, saying, ask a
sign of the Lord your God, and let it be
as deep as shoal or as high as heaven. But
a Has said, I will not ask, and I will
not put the Lord of the test Then Isaiah said, here, then,
a house of David. Is it too little for you
to weary mortals that you weary my God? Also therefore

(01:06:25):
the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the
young woman is with child and shall bear a son,
and shall name him Emmanuel. He shall eat kurds and
honey by the time he knows how to refuse the
evil and choose the good. For before the child knows
how to refuse evil and choose good, the land before
whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
So the passage is very clear. There's a pregnant woman

(01:06:46):
at the time of King a Has who's about to
give birth, and before that child knows right from wrong,
the two kings attacking a Has are going to be
wiped out. And this comes true. Turn the page to
chapter eight and it gets described in a little bit
of detail. You see it actually happening, and as it
comes true. In chapter eight, the prophet cries out twice,
o Emanuel, because the name Emmanuel is not about a

(01:07:10):
god Messiah being born seven hundred years later. The Emmanuel
is about an actual spiritual truth of God being with
his people during this war. So there's nothing here about Jesus.
Matthew is lying to you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:24):
That's very interesting. Obviously he studying.

Speaker 1 (01:07:27):
This, studied the Bible. I think I've read it at
least once, only once. The problem is, every single prophecy
that Jesus supposedly fulfilled is an out of context quotation
from the Greek Old Testament, not even from the Hebrew Testament.
And even when Matthew quotes from the Greek, he doesn't
understand it. He doesn't understand classical Greek. Whoever wrote Matthew

(01:07:49):
only understood Greek in the first century, and words change
over time. For example, in Judges nineteen, we learned about
the concubine who belonged to the Levite. Remember, they go
to Da Gibea. They get harassed. The men of the
town come and want to rape the man. They end
up raping the woman all night. The concubine, that same

(01:08:09):
concubine who was already married to the Levite. It was
really a kin to a sex slave. If she's a concubine,
she's referred to in the Greek sceptuagen as a Parthenos.
But Matthew when he sees Parthenos in Isaiah seven in
the Greek, is like, oh, she must be a virgin.
It's a miracle, it's a virgin birth. No, Matthew, you

(01:08:30):
don't understand classical Greek. Read Homer. Parthenos is not always
referring to a virgin. Read the Greek sceptuagen your own book,
Matthew is not. Parthenos is not always referring to an
actual virgin. So the reality is the authors of the
New Testament were goofs. They didn't even quote the Hebrew
because they didn't have access to the Hebrew Bible, or
they just chose not to use it. And when they

(01:08:51):
did quote from the Greek, they either changed it, they
misquoted it, or they just like intentionally, well intentionally bastardized
the verse to sound more like Jesus, which well, we
can talk about if the topic comes up. It happens
in the same passage we're talking about. It says they
will call him Emmanuel, meaning like people in general will

(01:09:12):
call him Emmanuel, But in the Greek subtuagen it doesn't
say they. It refers to the to the woman. The
woman with the baby's going to call him Emmanuel though.
It's just it's just one of those things, you know.
Matthew is making stuff up. He's a goof.

Speaker 2 (01:09:25):
Well, you've obviously given us all the.

Speaker 3 (01:09:28):
Thoughts, Supreme Leader, may I ask you have you I'm
not being glib when I asked this question. I'm going
to follow it with something else. Have you read the Bible?

Speaker 2 (01:09:37):
Well, I don't know the Bible about fifteen times, I
suppose by now.

Speaker 3 (01:09:42):
Okay, so how have you read it?

Speaker 10 (01:09:44):
In?

Speaker 3 (01:09:44):
What context? Have you read it?

Speaker 2 (01:09:46):
Well? That's why I talk to people like you.

Speaker 3 (01:09:49):
Okay, So this is kind of important and it's kind
of a poign you. There are different different ways to
read the Bible, and all of them are legitimate, even
as a and I might get some kickback from some
atheists on this. I will fight you. You are wrong.
Reading the Bible as a believer is a legitimate way

(01:10:09):
to read it. You can read it when you're looking
at the textual criticism. You can look at it as
you know and shine the spotlight of history on it
using tools like archaeology. You can look at it from
a theological perspective. There are many, many different ways to
read the Bible, and you'll find as you study those

(01:10:31):
different ways to read them. And I'm not a biblical person.
It's you know, I'm pretty new to Christianity, but I
am familiar with the Buddhist texts and it's the same
for them. There are different ways to read it as
sorry I said that again.

Speaker 2 (01:10:48):
You can think it's just as well as any personal and.

Speaker 3 (01:10:52):
When you're when you're reading the Bible in different ways,
you're taking different contexts into into consideration. And the fully
you read it from these different perspectives, and the more
you understand the techniques of these different perspectives, they will
give you much much more insight into the Bible. And

(01:11:13):
this is what Justin has done. Justin has done the
work is read it is use these insight, is use
these tools, and he's understood the context. And it's really
really important when you're reading that you do that. And
it doesn't matter if you've read the Bible fifteen times
or if you've only read one chapter of the Bible.
It's the quality of how you read it that is important,

(01:11:36):
and I think and I don't want to kind of
I don't want to say this as if I'm kind
of attacking you, because I'm not. I don't think you've
kind of taken those perspectives into account when you've been
reading it. It sounds to me like you've gone for
kind of quantity over quality. And I think the kind
of stuff you're throwing out about prophecy and the information

(01:11:58):
Justin's given you out about prophecy really does kind of
lead to a chasm of difference in the way that
you two guys have read the Bible. And I think
it's interesting, and I genuinely applaud you for this that
you stopped. You genuinely stopped. You didn't follow your line
of question, and you stopped after getting that information from

(01:12:19):
Justin and you said, that's interesting and that's good. That
showed that shows a maturity in you as someone who
wants to try and understand, and I applaud you for that.
I genuinely genuinely applaud you for that. And I think
that's the way to go for you as a person.
That is the way to go. Look into the techniques

(01:12:40):
and how this is actually read in context and learn
about that. And you know, I'm sure Justin will give
you some guidance on where to go to find that information.
But kind of focus on that. Don't focus so much
on trying to convince people that prophecy is true. Look
for yourself for the context of this prophecy and how

(01:13:03):
to actually read that in context and through these different lenses.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
Yeah, I have a lens. That's true, that's very true.
And uh, these other people here, these atheists, they're giving us,
giving us a different perspective, and we're looking through their
eye at the same thing, and we're gaining their perspective
by doing that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:23):
You know, I used to be a Christian too. You know,
it's not like I didn't. I didn't choose to be
an atheist, you know what I mean, Like I was
a Christian just like you ones.

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
That's really weird.

Speaker 1 (01:13:32):
That's the thing is. I was a type of Christian
who read the Bible every single day. Like I literally,
even as a teenager, slept with it next to my pollo.
I read it every night before I went to bed.
Even today, it's an atheist, I still read the Bible
every night before I go to bed. I went to Bible, college,
and seminary because I believed in this God so deeply.
But you know, the problem that we have is like

(01:13:53):
the atheists who came out of this religion, like we
didn't come out of the religion like typically because we
got hurt, or like you know, we just wanted to
go sin, Like a lot of us came out of
it because we really read the book and the math
wasn't really math in anymore. So, like I'm not up
here saying that I don't believe in God because I
don't want to believe in God or because I don't
want to follow a god. I legitimately don't believe in

(01:14:16):
a god. So like, listen, if you could demonstrate that
there was a God, I would certainly believe in a God.
But until such evidence is provided, I just you know,
I have no other choice than to believe in no God.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
Not as how, I didn't interrupt any of you, and
I tried to sit here and listen to you, right,
he did good. Important to listen to people, to listen
and try and understand their perspective.

Speaker 3 (01:14:38):
It's very important with you, weird, we both agree.

Speaker 2 (01:14:41):
Yes, Well, I'm just saying you're just as smart. As
anybody else on the whole planet. You are and you're
important to listen to, and the fact that you bring
up the subject is very important. And you have a
lot of arguments. You've heard them all before, and you
think and that was the main point of the call.

Speaker 1 (01:14:58):
Well, I mean, supreme leader thing for calling in, and
we appreciate that the call ended with what we would call,
you know, some honest dialogue and candor. So we appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
Right, Well, do you remember the initial point of the
entire call because you were Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:15:14):
You had asked, Yeah, you had asked, if there was
a god, would we worship it? Like if it demonstrated
that that was the case. And I still believe my
first answer is true, you could demonstrate the existence of
a god, but you'd have to still demonstrate why we
should believe and follow that god.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
Well, my point was if he indeed exists, and of
course this argument, but if he was there, well you
would like him bring it, will you? I mean, looked
at everything that's happened, it's terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:15:41):
Yeah, if the biblical God showed up, yeah, I mean
that guy's a prick. And believing that this god exists
is different than believing this God is good, I would
still need evidence that the God was good.

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
That was my point was, what do you think about
this person?

Speaker 1 (01:15:55):
Well, I don't think that it's a very good god concept, Like,
for example, do you think that it's good to go
to war with nations, kidnap their women and force them
into sex slavery.

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
Among the other point?

Speaker 1 (01:16:05):
My point exactly, But no, that that's my point. Like, listen,
even if this god was real, this god thinks that
little children, girls, little little virgin girls should be pawned
off as sex slaves and prizes of war. I don't
think that's a good thing.

Speaker 2 (01:16:20):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
Any god who thinks that slavery is okay, I don't
think is a good thing. Any god that thinks that
women should be treated like property, I don't think that
god is good. Right, So, even if you could demonstrate
this god to exist, I would still need some kind
of evidence that this god was good before I would
follow it. Until such evidence arises, I have no other
conclusion to make than this god is evil if it.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
Exists, right, And that was the whole point of the
conversation was just to know what you personally think about him.
About the first mover well, he doesn't seem like a
great guy, does he. I mean, look at the world terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:16:56):
Well, listen, Supreme Leater. We're closing out the show, but
callback next week and I'm sure we can have some
continued dialogue.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
Okay, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:17:05):
Well that was something he listened to some of that, right,
I was actually pleasantly surprised.

Speaker 3 (01:17:12):
Yeah, And I think that the turnaround in that from
the kind because I genuinely expected him to kind of
go on this heavy thrust about prophecy and he kind
of did listen. And that's brilliant. And as I said
to him on the call, that that shows the maturity.
And I think that's that really really does open dialogue,
even if he even if he doesn't turn to the

(01:17:34):
dark side and becomes even if he didn't go down
that route, it shows the maturity in conversation that you
can have those conversations. And it sounded to me at
the end like he perhaps is doubting himself that that
God is a good God.

Speaker 1 (01:17:49):
Totally seems the case. And one of the things I
think as atheists we really should be able to do
is we're still used to religious people propositioning us like, well,
you should believe in this and here's why, and then
a lot of us just like, well, we don't believe it,
and that's the end of the conversation. I think if
we really get to the point where we know the texts,
we know the religion and the teachings, we can point

(01:18:09):
the finger back at the believer and say, listen, here's
something in your book that you need to take account for.
You're questioning me. Now, gird up your loins like job,
and I'm going to question you like a man. That's
what God does the job. So like, I think we
really like we can make a lot of movement in
the world if we're willing to get familiar with these
religions and turn the questioning back on the believer, because

(01:18:30):
like we're not going door to door, we're not converting
people to atheism by government mandate. So the opportunities that
we get is typically when they come to us and
be there, they kind of have to come to us.
Most of the religions dictate that they have to convert
all the atheists, except for the Jews. They don't believe that. So, like,
you know, reality is like they're going to come to us,
we should be prepared with arguments, right.

Speaker 3 (01:18:51):
Yeah, absolutely, And I think he mentioned something else on
the call, which I think is really interesting that we've
heard all the arms before. Well even if we haven't,
we've certainly heard a large part of them, and they
haven't convinced us. So what is it out there? And
this is a general question for believers watching the show,

(01:19:11):
what is it that convinces you that God exists? And
I think that is an important question to hang on
to and to kind of look at in your own
mind and follow those lines, follow those spider webs that
come up when you're doing that investigation, and really kind
of go intricate and deep with it and don't just

(01:19:32):
stop when it becomes difficult. Justine just said, there are
many other biblical scholars, doctor about Irman is probably the
most famous one in kind of this earthyer space who
have been believers and have followed those threads themselves and
they've come out the other end not believing anymore. And
that says something about the valid validity of kind of

(01:19:56):
self reflection on these things. And it's a very very
importan and power very important aspect of genuinely questioning faith.
And when I said question in faith, I don't mean
going and asking your pastor saying or I'm questioning and
them saying, well, read the Bible more. I mean genuinely
go out and look at yourself and have those moments

(01:20:17):
of insight and kind of reflection within yourself and follow them.
You might not come out, you might still end up
a believer at the end of the day, but it's
important that you do it, regardless of what the outcome is.

Speaker 1 (01:20:29):
Indeed, well, Richard, we got a couple of super chats,
and then I want to hear Jimmy's thoughts on the shows.
Left over a mana, thank you so much for the
fid our superchat says, any studies you all recall about
the benefits of meditation outside of Buddhism, and this might
be a better question for Richard. I don't know if
I've looked into this very much.

Speaker 3 (01:20:48):
Yeah, I mean, I don't recall any particular specific studies,
but there are plenty of them out there. Meditation is
I've been a meditation practitioner for twenty odd years, is
really helpful. It really really is helpful. It's good. In fact,
it allows you to do everything I've just been talking about,

(01:21:09):
which is that self reflection thing, and you don't need
any kind of spiritual or religious baggage to be able
to do it, and studies have shown that. I think
the most interesting study I've read on the subject was
regarding I think it was a Tibetans they were doing
the study on, and it actually shows that when pain

(01:21:32):
is inflicted, people who meditate regularly feel during the point
of pain being inflicted, actually feel it more intensely than
people who don't meditate, but are less bothered by it overall,
and so they don't have the kind of recurring baggage
that most people feel when they have painful experiences, and

(01:21:54):
this is emotional and physical. When they have emotional experiences,
the meditating person has a much more direct experience of that.
It's an elevated experience of that painful experience, but it
is in the moment and it kind of the lasting
effects disappear much much more quickly. There are lots of

(01:22:16):
fascinating studies around the meditation, and you know, if you
can get it without the baggage, that's always better than
getting a lot of a lot of psychologists, a lot
of people who studied the brain, really really like looking
at meditation because it is. You know, it's a useful thing.
It's a useful thing, and it really does gives it

(01:22:39):
gives an insight into the brain and into consciousness which
we don't always get from other sources. So yeah, it's
you know, go and look those studies up.

Speaker 1 (01:22:49):
Good information, and we've got another super chap from laying
too ory to I'm sorry, the fact doesn't show me
the syrups. I'm not sure I think that I yan to. Hey, guys,
Richard sounds maybe Yorkshire. Justin sounds like he wants me
to be gay for him, rock hard for Doug, simply
drench for shared and rigid for Richard, and yes, you

(01:23:10):
absolutely can be gay for Justin. Here we approve good
question from good question. Thank you for the twenty dollars
super chat. Because we're prophecies really a way to explain
after the fact why their divine protectors seem to fail
them both excusing their God and to keep their hopes up,
and today THEUS incorrectly think they're divine premonition. So kind

(01:23:32):
of it's hard to say. So the problem is the
process in which these prophecies came to light is difficult.
So typically a prophet would have writings, they would have promulgations,
but they usually had like students underneath of them. They're
like we talked about like the school of Isaiah, the
School of Jeremiah, or we talk about Baruq the scribe
of Jeremiah. And typically after their death, somebody eventually collects

(01:23:55):
those writings and as symbols them into something. That's why
we see like in the Book of Ice, they're referring
to Isaiah in the third person, because somebody is taking
Isaiah's writings and making a narrative out of it. Right,
So the problem is we don't know how long after
Isaiah would have lived that they were assembled, and we
have no way to test the veracity of whether or
not Isaiah actually said it. And so that's one of

(01:24:18):
the difficult things with the prophecies, and we have do
we have some prophecies that we know were written after
the fact, like the Book of Daniel. Most of Daniel,
almost all of Daniel was written in the second century.
There's no reason to believe that it was ever written
during the supposed sixth or fifth century of Daniel. And
that is pretending to be prophecy. And when it gets

(01:24:39):
to the parts where we know it's making predictions for
the future, like after the second century. Well they all
fail because whoever they're writing is not getting divine knowledge.
They have no idea what's happening in Daniel's time period.
They know a lot about the second century, and they
screw up everything in the first century. So I mean,
yes to your point, there are prophecies for sure that

(01:25:00):
we're written in post pretending to be prophecies. We don't
know if that's all of them, however, and a last
super chat from Interstate five. Thank you for being a
member for six months, and thank you for the time
that I was. Superjest says in July, I attended a
Pride event and was confronted with a hate preacher. I
used Justin's critiques of the Bible to deconstruct him in
front of a crowd. He lasted an hour before leaving.

(01:25:23):
Thanks Jay, That's fucking awesome. I love to hear that.
That's why we're here. I want to give people the
tools to dismantle this nonsense, hateful rhetoric in real time,
and so I'm glad that you were able to do that.
I'm glad that you shared with us that you were
able to do it, and that just that makes my night.

(01:25:43):
I'm so happy for you. I'm just thrilled to hear that.

Speaker 3 (01:25:46):
That is great, That is great.

Speaker 1 (01:25:48):
Well, let's let's grab our backup for the night. Jimmy,
Jimmy Junior, what are your thoughts? Oh, my thoughts? Well,
I find it.

Speaker 10 (01:25:57):
We had excuse me, a conversation about this today on
talk Ethan about atheists getting caught up with the definition
that theists have for us, and it usually kind of
can throw off the conversation. So you kind of have
to set boundaries up early, uh, and and kind of
understand whether or not the person you're talking with is

(01:26:18):
going to be an honest interlocutor and and be able to, uh,
you know, take challenges or if they're just going to
add hominem attack you with the things that they've been
programmed with about you.

Speaker 2 (01:26:27):
Uh.

Speaker 10 (01:26:27):
So that came up, and then a little bit of
a discussion about Egyptian mythology. Yeah, I would have loved
to talk about that. I heard you reference that, and
that's that's great. I will say that you know the
similarities that we see between Egyptian and Canaanite and Mesopotamian
gods to name a few.

Speaker 3 (01:26:45):
You know, these aren't.

Speaker 10 (01:26:46):
Only a result of war between these these these nations,
these countries, or the subjugation by one over the other.
Trade also took place, but also, uh, there were common concerns.
You know, if you share the same line of latitude
and you you're a culture that is separated, but you
still have arid environments or rivers that flood, you may

(01:27:08):
very well come up with the same similar concepts of
a god without even being in contact.

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
With one another.

Speaker 10 (01:27:13):
And so we've seen that with the different river cultures
of the ancient worlds, as we've seen it with the
different rain and storm gods. No surprise that Yahweh and
Zeus have a lot in common. And they both had
a son that was half human.

Speaker 1 (01:27:27):
So think about that. I'm glad that you dropped Patrick.

Speaker 10 (01:27:30):
You know, Patrick has an opportunity to have an honest
conversation and just decides to kind of throw it all
out the window. Why not, just if you're going to
use your time, which is, in my opinion, the most
valuable thing we own, don't just throw it out the door,
you know, make some use of your time.

Speaker 3 (01:27:48):
Justin I'm a little offended.

Speaker 10 (01:27:50):
I actually love the new Oxford Annotated Bible. You know
I've been using this for years. I mean the white space.

Speaker 3 (01:27:58):
I don't need the white space.

Speaker 10 (01:27:59):
I love the this, So I was a little bit
offended there, but you know, I trust your expertise on Bibles,
so I'll just stick with mine and you do what
you do.

Speaker 3 (01:28:10):
But guys, thanks for letting me come up and.

Speaker 10 (01:28:14):
Give my thoughts and I had a great time listening
to you.

Speaker 1 (01:28:17):
Absolutely Thanks Jimmy.

Speaker 10 (01:28:18):
Also, everybody check out talk ethen and check out the
nonprofits this week.

Speaker 1 (01:28:24):
Gonna be fantastic. Can't wait, cannot wait. And with that,
thank you so much for being here today. Everyone. Thank
you Richard and Jimmy for joining me. Both always a pleasure,
and we'll see you next week, same place, same time,
four thirty Central time, five thirty Eastern Time.

Speaker 11 (01:28:40):
Glad to start stop n.

Speaker 3 (01:29:25):
Watch Talk ee than live Sundays at one pm Central,
visit tiny dot c c slash y t t H
and call into the show at five one two nine
nine one nine two four two, or connect to the
show online at tiny dot c c slash call th
H

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Atheist Experience 29.47 with Justin and Richard Gilliver

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.47 with Justin and Richard Gilliver

Dateline NBC