The Atheist Experience 29.48 with Godless Engineer and Jmike

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

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Biblical morality is a corrupt and arbitrary code designed to
uphold patriarchal dominance at the expense of marginalized groups. Far
from promoting the pluralism its defenders claim, it enforces rigid
hierarchies that deny equality and autonomy. Women are not honored
as equals, but relegated to subservient roles, treated as property

(00:23):
rather than persons. Christians often excuse or rationalize horrific abuses
committed by their favorite apologists like David Wood and leaders,
even when those abuses involve the sexual violation of minors.
With the Biblical framework, such acts are not condemned as
crimes against innocence, but merely as in fractions against another

(00:44):
man's property rights or violations of marital propriety. The text
contains no command forbidding the sexual assault of children. In
several passages, it even sanctions their capture and sexual enslavement.
A system that cannot distinguish exploitation from virtue, consent from ownership,
or justice from obedience cannot rightly be called moral. Biblical morality,

(01:07):
strip of its modern reinterpretation, fails the most basic tests
of ethical coherence and human decency. If you disagree with
anything I've said, please call in because the show starts. Now,
what's up? He then's how y'all doing? I am the

(01:29):
Godless Engineer and I am here with Jay Mike today.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
How you doing there?

Speaker 3 (01:33):
J Mike?

Speaker 4 (01:34):
I am good. I'm I'm awesome. That was you you.
I can give you golf clap for that intro. Man,
that was really good. You said that with confidence, and man,
I I'm all here for it. I'm all about it.

Speaker 5 (01:46):
Let's say maybe somebody would call in and point us
in the direction though, like maybe we just haven't found it,
you know, right where it explicitly kind of tells us here.

Speaker 4 (01:54):
But you know that's why we're here. Call us We're
we're here.

Speaker 5 (01:57):
Five one two, Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
And I mean, jim Ike, just how have you been
in general? It's been a while since we've talked.

Speaker 4 (02:05):
I've been good.

Speaker 5 (02:06):
One of my I caught up on one of my
favorite shows that I'm sure everybody knows about because it's
released a new season. So I'm really really stoked about that.
So I've been pretty lazy playing music and watching catching
up on shows. So I'm having I am having I'm
gonna be really rusty, I guess because I have done
no philosophy or much debating.

Speaker 4 (02:26):
So it's been nice. It's been really nice.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
I've actually caught a number of your TikTok videos where
you've been playing guitar and everything like that, and they've
been pretty good. So I know that I know you
played pretty regularly, right.

Speaker 5 (02:43):
Yeah, And if you want to see like the most
pretentious of guitar players ever, you can, Yeah, you can
go check out the I'm like, uh, I don't even
know what my handle is, so I couldn't even tell
you what that is. But my friend has turned my
friend Aaron has turned me onto adding four extra strings.
So I'm playing on a ten string, which is like
massive and huge. But it's been really fun. So it

(03:06):
probably looks very pretentious, like.

Speaker 4 (03:08):
I need more strings and I'm better than you for
having them. But no, I just like really low tuned metal.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
So yeah, the closest I've got is this banjole ale.
Oh yeah, it's just got four strings and I do
not know how to play it, like whatsoever?

Speaker 4 (03:23):
Yeah, this is this is this is massive. Actually I
have I have two tens.

Speaker 5 (03:31):
I was very fortunate to have a really awesome friend
and gifted me some pretty sweet gear.

Speaker 3 (03:38):
So nice.

Speaker 4 (03:39):
Yeah, I'm still learning.

Speaker 5 (03:40):
I'm still it's like feeling like it's a new instrument
though when you add that many strings.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Yeah, like I said, I have no idea how to
play any kind of like guitar or string based instrument.
I played a trumpet in high school, nice in middle school,
but it's been years since I've I've picked one up,
and I'm sure it's like riding a bike, like as
soon as I get back into it, like I could
figure it out that like strings, I don't know. It's
like my my mind can't comprehend all the different you know, uh,

(04:07):
finger positions and everything. Plus I've got these giant honker
of fucking fingers and so like it's hard for me
to be precise.

Speaker 4 (04:14):
About Man, that's no excuse.

Speaker 5 (04:15):
I'll I can turn it on some blues cats that
got some some real fat fingers and they're there.

Speaker 4 (04:20):
They'll it's I'll never learn the shit that they're doing,
you know. Put it that way.

Speaker 5 (04:24):
Yeah, But I imagine it's very similar in the sense that,
like the muscle, it's really the muscle memory is really
like a core component of learning an instrument. Developing that
muscle memory. So I think, like it's not really that
much different. I mean, like, uh in that sense, Like
I think the one difference is, like you go through
some physical pains at the beginning, especially if you're like younger.
When I learned, I was fourteen, I remember having during

(04:45):
band practicing to like tape up my fingers or put
band aids on them or do whatever I could because
it just hurts so bad or.

Speaker 4 (04:50):
They'd be bleeding. Other than that, though, I just don't.

Speaker 5 (04:54):
I think it's like anything else, if you put the
amount of time in it, you just develop that muscle memory.
So like when you're when you're playing, you know, something
really technical, it's it's really just like breathing to you,
you know at that point, because you've just done it
so many times.

Speaker 2 (05:06):
So oh yeah, I know.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
I mean I got that way when I was playing trumpet,
like you know, in high school and everything like that.
So I totally understand, uh, that that particular aspect of it.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
But we do have I do.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
I do need to read off some some pretty standard stuff,
like the atheist experience is a product of the atheist
community of Austin A.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Five point one c.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking,
secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government. And
we are definitely here to take your calls. If you
are in the chat right now and you disagree with
my opening statement or anything about the atheist position or
anything like that, Uh, please do call in. The number

(05:50):
is five one two nine nine one nine two four two.
We'd love to hear from you now.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
We do have a call in the queue.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
Uh, do you you want to go ahead and take
that first call before we get to our other announcements.

Speaker 5 (06:03):
I don't think we have a choice. Were like, aren't
we like contractually obligating?

Speaker 2 (06:07):
I think so.

Speaker 6 (06:08):
Yeah, I had to.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
Sign in blood for that part of it, you know, okay, volunteer, but.

Speaker 5 (06:13):
It's like a kind of different usage of the term
not just kidding. I would absolutely love to.

Speaker 1 (06:19):
All right, So we've got Supreme Leader it seems to think.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
A lot about himself calling in what's up there? Supreme Leader?

Speaker 3 (06:29):
The name is a joke. The name is it kind
of a joke thing I got.

Speaker 5 (06:34):
Well, we're joking kind of guys, And so we're cool
with that as long as you don't really have the
illusions of grandeur.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
Don't underestimate yourselves music. You could do far more than
you think.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
Okay, well, so you you've given no pronouns, and I
have no idea how to refer to you after the fact, So, like,
how what would be the best way for us to
refer to you when we're talking about you in the
in the break room afterwards?

Speaker 3 (06:59):
Oh? Really, you can decide for yourselves. I don't mind
anything you want.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
Okay, all right, well, I mean how you kind of
feel like.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
Him, her or sir whatever you want?

Speaker 5 (07:10):
Hold on, wait, hold on, We've got to have a dialogue,
and John's trying to ask you.

Speaker 4 (07:13):
Let's just you'll get to speak a promise.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
Yeah, So, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
I generally, whenever somebody comes out and calls in with
the none given as far as our pronouns go, it
just seems to me like they're trying to identify as
a little bit. So I think they'll probably just call
you that later, you know, in the in the break room.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
Yeah, I will. So, all right, what do you want
to talk about there?

Speaker 4 (07:34):
A little bit?

Speaker 3 (07:37):
So last week, I think it last week I called
in about prophecy and stuff.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
Okay, should I don't care about I got you, Well,
what do you want to talk about this week?

Speaker 3 (07:45):
Well, what's on your mind today?

Speaker 5 (07:47):
Like you called us, I don't call. I don't call
someone task to be like, hey, man, what are you
thinking about right now? I want to call John's like, hey,
what you're thinking about?

Speaker 4 (07:56):
Buddy? I'm just working on this new video from a channel.
You know?

Speaker 3 (08:01):
Well last week it was not prophecy.

Speaker 5 (08:02):
Okay, you're going to have to give us more, my man,
I cannot do the work for you.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
I wish I could solve all the theistic problems.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
Though the one world economy predicted one more of the economy.
You're going to have this smart in order to participate
in the one more of economy. Okay.

Speaker 5 (08:17):
I actually remember talking to this guy about like the
mark and all that. So I don't know if you
want to start this out, John, I wasn't the very
forthcoming last time, and I don't expect it to be
forthcoming this time.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
But right right, okay, I have I have no idea
what you're talking about there. But as far as like
prophecy in general goes, how do you how do you
know that these are actual prophecies? For one that either
will be fulfilled or have already been Like, is that
your claim is that they have already been fulfilled or
that they will be fulfilled in some kind of way.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
Well, last time I called, I said, well, if you
did see those things happening, would you believe?

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Then I have no idea of how to verify that.
The problem that specific prophecy is, you know, being fulfilled.
For one thing, you're not giving me specific prophecies in
order for me to address. But also another thing is
that prophecies are normally worded so vaguely that they can
apply to nearly any situation, uh that would even remotely

(09:19):
apply to it, but also multiple times over human history.
So like you know, I guess I just I want
to know if you can name me a concrete prophecy.
Because I've not talked to you before, I have not
heard the previous calls or anything like that.

Speaker 3 (09:35):
So uh yeah, so I can't watch YouTube while I'm
talking with you, So can you tell me what? There's
two hosts here, right, so what are especially I'll be
in terms of it.

Speaker 5 (09:47):
That, Well, if I if I like died right now
of a heart attack and didn't reveal my special my
what I'm good at or what my job is or
what I'm an expert in or not. We would still
have it would still hold on. You would still like
have this unanswered question about the prophecy stuff, so you
know what I mean, So like nothing would turn on
that question.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
I don't know you. I know that, and so your
life like do you have a degree in something?

Speaker 4 (10:14):
And what I do?

Speaker 3 (10:15):
I do?

Speaker 4 (10:16):
But that's MA, it's irrelevant. We both have degrees, and
that's irrelevant.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
I don't think your life are irrelevant.

Speaker 4 (10:21):
It's not about that.

Speaker 5 (10:22):
It's just irrelevant to the actual content of what we're
talking about.

Speaker 4 (10:25):
Right, there's like really clear, it's very obvious on your
life and.

Speaker 3 (10:28):
Your life what specific thing have focused on.

Speaker 4 (10:31):
I'm not I'm not here to play doctor phil. What
is this?

Speaker 2 (10:35):
Can we move on home?

Speaker 5 (10:36):
I'll talk to my therapist about this if I get
a therapist, right, I don't need to talk to you. Yeah,
I just want to talk to you. Look, we want
to know what the prophecy is supposed to be. What
I'm hoping for, at least with these types of prophetic
claims is that they are more akin to things that
I value, like novel testable predictions, and things like that.
So I'm interested in this idea, right that you can
predict something in the future, but we don't.

Speaker 4 (10:58):
Really have much to go off of.

Speaker 5 (11:00):
There's a lot of things you can predict that are
pretty mundane and not very interesting. Like I can predict
the sun will come up tomorrow. So like something new
or novel or something would be really great to hear.
But you're making it extremely difficult for us to understand
what the prophecy is. And if we just don't get
anything out of it, then it's going to be hard
to like, you know, bring us to whatever you believe, right.

Speaker 3 (11:18):
Okay, you're asking for specifics about what I think.

Speaker 4 (11:22):
Well, that's that's fair, that's yeah, yeah, it is.

Speaker 3 (11:24):
Okay. So I'm talking about Revelation thirteen about fourteen through
probably seventeen.

Speaker 1 (11:31):
Okay, So, how is a second century document that is
more about Nero and the Roman Empire going to be
applicable to today?

Speaker 3 (11:40):
Well, have you noticed that our laws are actually spoken
in Latin?

Speaker 1 (11:45):
I don't see how this matters at all to anything
that we're talking about right now.

Speaker 4 (11:49):
One thing we're looking.

Speaker 5 (11:50):
For our statements, not questions, right, Questions aren't propositions. They
can't be like true or false. So we're looking for
statements that we can analyze as being true or false,
not questions that right.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
Right. So the initial question was if you and this
is from the past call okay, So, if you saw
a prophecy in the Bible and it happened to become
an actual thing in the real world, would you believe it?

Speaker 5 (12:14):
Dead If what you're you're just sorry, John, if you
want to go it just seems like you're just assuming.

Speaker 4 (12:18):
The thing to be true to begin with.

Speaker 3 (12:20):
But let's just look we are, we're assuming things. Okay,
So hypothetical, that's what it is. If you happen to
see this thing actually happened in real life while you're
living in the world, then would you believe it because
you saw you.

Speaker 4 (12:35):
No no what it is? Like if you saw a
flah blah, would you.

Speaker 5 (12:38):
Believe I don't know what the fucking flah blah is.
I need to know what the prophecy is, what I'm
supposed to believing. Would you believe this very vague thing
that if the vague thing happened like you would believe it?

Speaker 4 (12:46):
I don't know, maybe.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yeah, And I don't know what you mean by believe, Like,
would I believe in the Bible? No, I would not
believe in the Bible if only one thing happened in
the Bible happened to get it correct. No, a broke
claw can be twic right twy today. But just because
maybe it did accurately predict something, or maybe it just
just so happened to get a prediction correct, that doesn't

(13:10):
mean that the Bible is true, that Jesus is the
son of God, or anything like that. You would have
to prove, like the magic exists, that Jesus is magical,
and that Jesus is the son of a sky wizard.

Speaker 2 (13:20):
So, I mean, you've got a long way to go.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
No simple, vague prophecy in the Bible and it is
seeming to come true is going to convince me of
fucking anything.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
Okay, what would help if you've read the verse?

Speaker 1 (13:33):
It would help if you gave us the first to
fucking read what?

Speaker 4 (13:36):
God damn what we don't.

Speaker 5 (13:38):
I don't feel like we're in reality right now. I
think I'm still in a dream. As is kind of
weird set you guys. You're we're asking very simple and
basic requests, and for whatever reason, you're like, really Oh
my gosh, you're like extreme, Oh my goodness, right, is
what'm I do?

Speaker 4 (13:52):
When to meet you?

Speaker 5 (13:52):
You're like extremely obtuse about this, Like, dude, just give
us the verse and like, let's move on. I'm kind
of done having fun with us, Like I want to
talk to you. I don't want to have to just
move on. But at the same time, I want something
to be able to analyze.

Speaker 4 (14:04):
I have nothing so far.

Speaker 5 (14:05):
I have a big plate of nothing. I got absolutely
nothing I have. What would you think if this thing
maybe happened? I don't know, Tell me.

Speaker 4 (14:12):
About it, right, let's let's talk about it. You're you're unmuted, and.

Speaker 5 (14:15):
Just tell tell me, just read the verses or tell
us in your own words what you think there.

Speaker 4 (14:19):
I don't care. Just give me fucking something, man.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
Okay. So Revelation says there's image that commands. Everybody's just
taking mark. They can't buy or sell without it. That's
the point.

Speaker 5 (14:30):
Wait, it's the the This is just the same thing
you just this is the same thing that you talked
about last time. It's just the the one currency that's
like on people's forehead or whatever you were saying.

Speaker 4 (14:42):
That's that's your prophecy.

Speaker 5 (14:43):
So why why would I think if that came true,
that that means that that raises the probability of Christianity
as opposed to like it also being compatible with the
hypothesis that some guy wrote in a you know, wrote
in some documents and happened to be right about something, which,
by the way, isn't hard. It's either going to be
like multiple forms of currency or.

Speaker 4 (15:04):
Like one or none.

Speaker 5 (15:05):
It seems like your options not like you're not really
you know, it's like the I predict that my steak
will come out rare.

Speaker 4 (15:12):
You know, you only have a few options.

Speaker 5 (15:13):
It's not very impressive when they come out one of
the three that you have, right, it's kind of dumb.

Speaker 3 (15:18):
Now, right now we use the Federal Reserved note. Now
without it you can't do business with people. Now suddenly
it changes to a digital currency. And unless you abide.

Speaker 5 (15:31):
Change the Bible, say, digital currency or is this new
language that you have to introduce to make this work?

Speaker 4 (15:37):
Sounds like you have to make it dance a lot,
right well, And.

Speaker 1 (15:40):
Also you're being very myopic about this digital currency because
the digital currency, if you're talking about crypto, like there's
multiple different crypto coins that are out there, and I
mean they're I mean they're they're what the mean coins shit.

Speaker 5 (15:55):
Can take And there's so many pump and dump coins
that you would Yeah, this is why you should learn
good skepticism and protect yourself from those types of scams,
right right.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
I don't believe in digital currency because it's the encryption,
and if there's a being smarter than that, it can
undo the encryption and make a new one that nobody
else can encrypt.

Speaker 4 (16:16):
If we have anything else that you want to talk about, well.

Speaker 3 (16:20):
My point is, hypothetically, okay, if we transferred from this
system to a digital system, hypothetically a digital word cash
is no longer a thing anymore. You have to have
a digital currency.

Speaker 4 (16:35):
Okay, And so what that's Christianity is true, I don't
get it.

Speaker 3 (16:38):
Well, what I'm saying is, and I'm telling you guys
out there, everybody listening, if you had to accept this
digital currency, and the only way you could do it
is if you worshiped this person as God in order
to do it.

Speaker 5 (16:51):
I don't even know what that sentence fucking means. If
you had to accept the digital currency and you could
only do it by worshiping the one what the that is?
You could literally end world hunger with the amount of
word salid, and now it doesn't make any sense?

Speaker 4 (17:05):
What is that?

Speaker 2 (17:06):
Well, yeah, you're so so, so hold on a little bit.
Listen it.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
You're you're you're essentially creating this hypothetical, and you're loading
up this hypothetical by presenting it as this like alternative
religion that you have to partake in in order to
use this supposed one world currency, this digital currency. And
so you're basically creating a situation where you're going to
get to your preferred narrative, Like you're you're leading us

(17:34):
in a direction. Right, this is an entirely loaded hypothetical
and you're not going to get anywhere. It's not compelling, uh,
you know, to try to argue that with us, because
you're just we've already recognized you're loading it up and
we're not going anywhere with it. So maybe you can
provide some other kind of argumentation for Christianity. What's you're

(17:54):
seg this, Since this seems to be your first argument
for Christianity, this digital currency thing where we've got to
like bend down and worship some new God, what's the
second one? What's the second best proof for your.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
Particular version of Christianity. What's doll there?

Speaker 5 (18:11):
Yeah, and right before you do that, like something that'd
be nice, like that would meet like a standard that
I'd care about with that type of predictive expectations is like, imagine,
like you have these different domains of sciences like geology
and astrophysics and biology, right, and you have all these
different domain domains.

Speaker 4 (18:30):
What would be what would be a.

Speaker 5 (18:32):
Really good prediction is if I unified, I made a
prediction that not only would confirm like a hypothis I have,
but it unifies other domains of science. So imagine, right,
I consult these other sciences and I'm like, okay, well
there's there was this land like you know, giant super
continent Pangaea.

Speaker 4 (18:48):
It broke apart.

Speaker 5 (18:49):
I imagine like if I looked in the geological strata
in like Africa or in South America and like the
same layers, I'd find very similar species, if not the
exact same species. I go, look, I find it. Right,
That's like the one of the best things that you
could do, right to confirm your hypothesis. And not only
that you're you are you have a unification, you have

(19:09):
this this virtue of unification between not just like this
evolutionary theory or something, but with other domains of science.
That would be immense If you had something like that,
that'd be very interesting. But like digital currency, what could
you know? We can go with currency, we can go
multiple currencies, monocurrency or none. That isn't very that is
as impressive getting to one of those in predicting that

(19:32):
as me predicting that the stake will either not come,
be rare or be well done right.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
It's just as interesting as that.

Speaker 5 (19:38):
But anyway, if you want to give the second one,
I just wanted to give you kind of a background
of what I think.

Speaker 4 (19:42):
A novel prediction.

Speaker 5 (19:43):
When a novel prediction is actually valuable, it's not in
these weird like spooky metaphysics, right, none.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
That's how I don't interrupt you. I appreciate that because
I want to hear what you think. That's what.

Speaker 5 (19:53):
Yeah, No, I appreciate you know, I appreciate that. So
do you want to move on to the second thing
or because I just don't. I really don't think we'll
get in anywhere with this. This is just there's just
such a massive disconnect, like I have our time believing
that someone can really believe this.

Speaker 4 (20:06):
I'm not trying to sound rude to you. I just
it's kind of silly, man, not gonna lie.

Speaker 3 (20:11):
But you do both have like degrees right where you've
been through school and you've earned it.

Speaker 5 (20:16):
Irrelevant, I'd say the same thing to you if I
didn't have a degree.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
Look, I'm a high school traught that. Okay, I'm not
saying I'm smart.

Speaker 4 (20:22):
Very hard for me to believe.

Speaker 3 (20:23):
Well, I'm not, and I consider you more intelligent of myself.

Speaker 4 (20:27):
That's why I'm not here to play that game. I'm
massive imposter syndrome.

Speaker 5 (20:31):
So I'm not interested in that game, right, I'm interested
in just hearing the content of what you have. Like
the meta stuff's not very interesting. That kind of stuff
gives me anxiety. Honestly, I don't like doing that, Like,
I don't like having to result to that. I'd rather
us just have a conversation about what you believe and
why you believe it.

Speaker 4 (20:46):
But it just seems really difficult to do that.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Well, you've heard all of our arguments over and over again.
I know you have.

Speaker 4 (20:52):
I haven't heard all of them.

Speaker 5 (20:53):
I went on TikTok, not that long ago and someone
presented and argument to me, I've never heard it sounded
like a bunch of gibberish, and I couldn't understand it.

Speaker 4 (21:00):
But you know, it was a new argument, and people
come up with arguments all the time.

Speaker 3 (21:04):
You've got brilliant minds. You can think. Probably anyway, I'm
not supreme.

Speaker 5 (21:10):
I'm not interested in that. I'm just I appreciate it.
It's flattering. I'm just it makes me feel weird. I'm
not great with compliments in general. If you met me
at the at the back Cruise event, I'm I probably
hopefuy I didn't come up weird. I'm horrible compliments. I
don't want to do this game, right, I just would
want to talk about the I just.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
Think if you're educated, you deserve a compliment.

Speaker 5 (21:29):
Okay, that's fine, the compliment taken. Let's actually get to
the content now. I'm sure the audience is not interested
in the compliment.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
I'm not interested.

Speaker 4 (21:39):
Why should be interested in what you have to thinkish kidding?

Speaker 3 (21:43):
Well, I appreciate that also, I do. So my point
is look for exist.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
Oh my god, move on to your second point. For
fu's sake.

Speaker 5 (21:52):
We we got another call in the queue, and I'm
telling you, the second that comes up and you don't
have anything, we're going to move on to that call.

Speaker 3 (22:00):
Well that's okay. If you don't want to listen to me,
I understand.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
No, we want to listen to you.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
We're begging, we're begging you to move past the cryptocurrency
thing and move on to your second proof that God,
that your God exists, or that the Bible is true,
that Jesus is some magical first century wizard. I like,
it doesn't matter to us, Like, just name anything anything
else other than this fucking cryptocurrency thing. And yes, I
will interrupt you when you start going on like either

(22:27):
a dishcap or you start preaching at us or something
like that, Like I will interrupt you for that because
it's not compelling information, it's not interesting information. It's just
not So this is me trying to like move the
conversation along to something that's actually interesting.

Speaker 3 (22:43):
Well, it's true, show you're allowed to interrupt me whenever
you want to.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
Okay, then there was no point in you bringing up
that you allow us to talk. It just makes you
seem like.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
A little bit.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
So let's move on to the second point. If you
can what's your second proof for your God?

Speaker 3 (23:00):
Well, remember my premise for the conversation to begin with, I.

Speaker 5 (23:03):
Mean not really, because it was just a bunch of
like vague nonsense about Curtncy. So I don't know that
I could put that in a sentence. It would be
like me trying really hard to make that coherence.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
Remember the premise of our conversation that my previous call.

Speaker 5 (23:18):
Was, Oh my god, I am so over this man.
I'm going to give you one last chance. Just be like,
be direct.

Speaker 3 (23:27):
The point was prophecy. If I could point out to
you this was predicted this thing, and if it happened,
would you believe then that's.

Speaker 5 (23:36):
A horrible criteria, And just predicting something that it coming
true is not a good criteria.

Speaker 4 (23:40):
You need a more rigorous criterion than that.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
Right I would I would turn this around on you
there little bit, because I could predict right now that you,
at some point in your future are going to stub
your pinky toe on some piece of furniture or some
piece of your house in the future, or just something
somewhere doesn't matter, or if you do that, will you
believe me?

Speaker 3 (24:02):
Then? Well, it's seems like I'm wasting the time of
your show right now, and you have another caller, don't you?

Speaker 2 (24:07):
Why don't why don't you answer my question?

Speaker 5 (24:09):
Trying to give you a chance. Man, We're not trying
to be completely rude to you. We're trying to help
you get the thought out.

Speaker 3 (24:15):
Well, my main point was, even if you did delete,
you really don't like god, do you?

Speaker 4 (24:21):
Oh my god, Let's move the fuck on. I'm so
done with this guy.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
All right, good goodbye, little bitch.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
I hope you have a nice little bitch night, and
you maybe next time reconsider the whole pronounce thing because
that makes you again look like a little bit.

Speaker 3 (24:35):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (24:35):
Anyways, before we move on to our second call for today,
hopefully a better call, it already looks like a better call.
That's uh, that's in the queue there, But we do
have some announcements to get through.

Speaker 3 (24:49):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
First up, we've got this announcement.

Speaker 7 (24:52):
Hey guys, it's Drew and Taylor from YouTube dot com.
I'm excited to announce that the Atheist Community of Austin,
the American Human Association, and genetically Modified Skeptic that's me
also the anti bot that's her, are partnering with Equality
Texas for their Rainbow Rights roadshow.

Speaker 8 (25:09):
We're collecting donations of the items listed on screen so
Equality Texas can personally deliver them to LGBTQ communities and
need across Texas.

Speaker 7 (25:19):
A lot of folks at the ACA have actually been
working on a car to use for this Rainbow road show,
and that car happens to be the one that I
got when I was sixteen years old, and first we're driving,
so there's a little bit of work to be done
on the car, but luck doing a lot of really
good work on Yeah, there's some really cool people who

(25:39):
are involved at the ACA here in Austin and they
have just like worked wonders on this thing so that
we can actually do this.

Speaker 8 (25:46):
The donation drive will take place at the ACA Free
Thought Library that's fifteen oh seven West Knig Lane in Austin,
Texas on December seventh, from twelve pm to eight pm.

Speaker 7 (25:57):
So bring your donations toward the only atheist community center
in the country. Sometimes I don't think we realize how
fortunate we are here in Texas actually to have a
place at the ACA where you can go and hang
out with people in person, right, that's quite rare. So
you'll also be able to hang out with Taylor and
I that day, so we'll see you there.

Speaker 4 (26:17):
I taught him everything that Drew knows.

Speaker 5 (26:20):
I'm just kidding. I've never actually got to speak with Drew.
I'm sure it doesn't even know I exist, but.

Speaker 4 (26:25):
Do great stuff. I think you're mute to John, So sorry.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
Yeah, I didn't want to didn't want to mess anything
up there during the thing. But yeah, so so we
got that going on. Another way to support us here
at ACA is missing in super chants. We'd really love
to read your super chants, either during the show or
right there at the end of the show. We will
be interacting with as many of the super chats as
we can, so please do go ahead and send those in.

(26:48):
We'd really love uh to see those. So let's see, Uh,
do you want to get to this next call right here?
I think it either might be short or or something.
I'm not sure.

Speaker 4 (26:59):
Yeah you ready, I'm ready. Looks like a fun topic.

Speaker 2 (27:02):
All right, so we're gonna talk.

Speaker 4 (27:04):
Oh is that on me? I'll bring up Patrick that
we lost John. Oh, I'm hearing any come back there?
You are odd. I thought I unplugged my internet. Yeah,
I was like, oh.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
God, no, Yeah, Hey, Patrick, how you doing.

Speaker 9 (27:21):
I'm doing all right? How are you doing?

Speaker 3 (27:25):
Sorry?

Speaker 5 (27:26):
John?

Speaker 3 (27:27):
Okay.

Speaker 9 (27:27):
I think that uh, you know, purposeful design, like intelligent design,
Like if there was a God that did intelligent design,
that everyone that was born would be capable of being successful, right.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
I mean maybe, But I don't know what you mean
by successful because that seems to be like a very
subjective thing. Success looks different for different people, so it
kind of it kind of would depend on what you
mean by success. But also, like as far as something
being designed, like humans being designed, I guess you would
mean that there would be no maybe mental deficiencies or

(28:06):
intellectual deficiencies or any kind of you know, physical ailments
that would prevent us from uh succeeding in.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
Whatever kind of way.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
I would think that a God being omnipotent and omnipresent
and omniscient, I would think that that God would be
able to create people to where there are no like
genetic diseases, mental defects, or intellectual disabilities. It seems rather
odd that that those do exist if God is the
creator that Christians claim them to be, or well creationists specifically.

Speaker 5 (28:40):
Yeah, like you can just design agents with good desires, right,
and certain faculties where they're always geared to being in
accord with the good rather than you know, sin or
the bad or something. And it seems like if God
has these types of motivations with like people wanting to
either do the good or in your case, like being successful,
there's like both kind of normative concepts and that you know,

(29:02):
it's like.

Speaker 4 (29:02):
What should success look like? What should the good like
look like?

Speaker 5 (29:05):
Well, if a being has that like ultimate desire of
wanting the good and that's what's expected, right, it seems incompatible,
Like when I look in a world and find people
choosing you know, bad things or something. The same way,
like if you had this being that just wanted to
like maybe not design things, but wanted to destroy all chairs, Right,
it'd be very odd if I like walked in the

(29:26):
room and saw a chair and I was under the
impression that such a you know, chair destroying God existed.
It just seems like it just seems like incompatible and
not expected under that hypothesis. So I would say, like
vaguely with what you're saying, Like I might agree, but
you would have to, like you would have to get
the theist to like sign off on some some premises
like he's mostly rational, maximizes you know X wherever he can,

(29:51):
and those kind of things. But but yeah, I would
tend to agree with you. I mean in the vague sense.

Speaker 9 (29:56):
Well, we think about like with purposeful design, you would
I expect like the stuff on earth to work really well,
like either everything or at least most things should be
working while on a beautiful but you know, like the
creationist they try to like they showed the good hearts
of nature, and they try claiming that's part of God.

(30:17):
But when you show them that there's fools and things,
they say, it's.

Speaker 5 (30:21):
Well yeah, but I mean yeah, I mean people have
this kind I mean yeah, because like what they can
kind of say, you know, they can try to claim
is that well, look like I mean, this is why
I said what I said earlier, which this is what's
hard for me to wrap my head around. Is that
God is you know, this being that desires the agents
in mind to do the good, and you know, but
he gives them this free will and so ultimately it's

(30:43):
up to.

Speaker 4 (30:43):
Them and they could go either way or whatever.

Speaker 5 (30:46):
But it seems kind of incompatible to me that like
a god or someone that's you know, this designer with
mostly rational you know, cognitive faculties if you want to
call them, would even create a scenario where agents could
like like create things that malfunction or that it doesn't
seem it seems like incompatible with the nature of such
a being that you just wouldn't find those things. The

(31:07):
same way with the chair destroying god, you wouldn't You
wouldn't find chairs in such a world, right, But I.

Speaker 4 (31:13):
Don't know if that answers you. I might have missed
part of what you said. I'm sorry.

Speaker 9 (31:17):
Well, I mean, like the creationist and Christians, they always say,
look help beautiful natures, so there must be a God.
But if you point out anything that seems to have
vault so that comes up broken, they say it must
be like sin that caused it. Like you could say,
like who created you? Then you'll say God. You're like, no, really,
who created your God? And they say, like, why did

(31:38):
you create some disabled? Then there was like you didn't
do it, it was sin.

Speaker 5 (31:43):
Yeah, I mean, I'm familiar with that perspective, but I mean,
to me, it's just kind of a cop out response
to just say, like it's just like you're kind of
creating safety nets. Everywhere you go for yourself, right, I mean,
you're always going to be caught by this net when
you chalk it up to sin or something.

Speaker 4 (31:58):
But I'd find that notion of sin to be.

Speaker 5 (32:02):
Incompatible with the type of gods that they they believe in.
I mean, for one part, I don't it seems like
such a being a perfect being from my perspective, like
you got to think, prior to it creating anything, it
exists in a perfect state, right. It's in a state
of perfection right according to its properties, and there's nothing
extrinsic from God or there's something outside of God at

(32:24):
that moment until he decides to create things. But it
just like I get stuck at least from the very
kind of beginning here, which is, it doesn't seem like
such a being whatever even make the steps to decrease
the state of perfection.

Speaker 9 (32:38):
Right.

Speaker 5 (32:38):
It seems like what's expected under such a being is
that they're going to maintain the state of perfection, never
letting that slip of perfection go.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
Right.

Speaker 5 (32:46):
It seems totally incompatible. So all of this stuff that's
kind of umbrellaed under that, like I have like more
of a I guess a philosophical issue in general, which
is that the second you kind of give me these
properties about it being perfect and stuff like, you have
to really redefine what you mean in order to get
out of problems that I see, which is that such
a being would never decrease the state of perfection. That

(33:08):
it just seems like analytically true, right, that a perfect
being would maintain the state of perfection.

Speaker 4 (33:14):
Right, that's what makes it perfect. So sin and all
that kind of.

Speaker 5 (33:19):
Stuff that you bring up just seems like wildly incompatible
with such a being.

Speaker 9 (33:23):
Well, I think the reason why they blame it on
sin is because they don't want God to look bad.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
Right, Well, I mean the very concept of sin makes
God look bad, I think because sin isn't really anything
real like in reality or tangible in reality. It sin
is basically transgressing like the opinions or the wants and
needs I say needs loosely there of God. Right, And

(33:49):
so it all depends, like what is sin depends heavily
on your interpretation of what God wants and needs and
you know, commands of people. So it's a little hard
to nail down the very concept of sin. But I
feel that it's saying that oh, all of this is
because of Sin is ultimately saying, well, there's a magical

(34:11):
reason for you know, all of these things to happen,
and I'm just not convinced by magic like whatsoever. You
first need to establish that magic exists and that magic
actually has some kind of tangible effect in this world
before I can even start to even consider sin is
being a possible like explanation.

Speaker 5 (34:33):
Yeah, because like the things in what they call in
philosophy or ontology, right, the things that you think like exists,
like you know, me and John are coming from a
perspective where that's not part of our ontology, right, Like
we don't have those kind of things, and presumably you
don't either. But you know, one tactic when you talk
to people, it's like, look, I don't share, you know,
when you categorize kind of the things that you believe in.

(34:55):
You know, like we both believe cows exist and all
these kind of things exist, but you kind of you
not only add a new quantity of things, you add
like a new quality of like it's a new type
of thing, a new kind of thing, right, this like
immaterial like a temporal kind of notion of a being
that's not shared, you know, with with I guess what
you would call my metaphysics right as a naturalist, that's

(35:17):
not something that I that I would bring on. So
to kind of John's point, like one one thing that
you could do if you're talking with somebody is just say,
look like I'm coming with a completely different background than
you are. If I, you know, if I just think
all there is is the natural world, and you're kind
of already assuming these supernatural stuff, you have like a
lot of work to do, you kind of kind of
to show me why I should even think like this
is even a possible candidate, you know, to explain things

(35:39):
around me or that.

Speaker 4 (35:40):
Like what what?

Speaker 6 (35:41):
What is it?

Speaker 5 (35:41):
Even more even talking about right, like I know what
it means to create things temporally, but what does it
mean to create the world or sin when God's you know,
not temporally bound. Like that's a whole new usage, that's
a whole new concept of verb usage, right, a temporal
verb usage, and temporal verb usage not something that I
need in my theory right or my view of the world.

(36:04):
And so like my kind of tactic on this is
kind of honing it back to show them, look at
how many things you have to postulate that you have
to add to your theory to make sense of the
world around you, when all you could do is shave
a lot of that stuff off and you'll end up
with my view and it will explain it just as well.

Speaker 4 (36:22):
Right. So, I don't know if that's a tactic that
interests you.

Speaker 5 (36:25):
But you can be like, you know, more like inquisitive
on the review and say, look, I need you to
get me off the ground.

Speaker 4 (36:31):
I just don't think magic stuff exists, right.

Speaker 5 (36:33):
It's kind of hard for me to accept when you
say that sin that's just something I don't believe, right,
I don't.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
Know if that helps.

Speaker 5 (36:38):
I'm sorry, Patrick, I'm trying to read between the lines
a little bit and give you kind of advice there
if that helps, but probably probably not, probably missing the mark.

Speaker 9 (36:46):
Oh, so, what do you think is the purpose of
life without a God?

Speaker 4 (36:50):
I don't think that there are what are called stance
independent like norms, so like in English, I don't think
that there's like anything of the following should be done
independent of what I think, right, Like if I go
see Spider Man or or whatever movie, I don't think
that like it makes sense to say, oh, you are
actually wrong. Mike.

Speaker 5 (37:10):
You you were out of a chord with what you
should have saw, like you were the esthetic, the objective,
you know, esthetic value. There was to see Batman instead
of Spider Man. I don't understand that. And I and similarly,
I don't understand what it means for there to be
reasons right, things that I ought do independent of the
values that I have.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
It just makes no sense to me.

Speaker 5 (37:33):
That concept is as meaningless to me as talking about
someone being taller without referentiality. Right, It's like, they're not
taller than anybody, They're just taller. It's like, well, I
understand what taller than means, but when you divorce it
from referentiality, I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
And similarly, when people talk about purpose talk and they
divorce that from things that I believe in my values,

(37:55):
and it's just now, this kind of untethered, floating notion
of purpose that sounds is meaningless to me as saying
John is taller. And when someone asks, oh, what's he
taller than? I go, no, no, No, he's not taller than anything.
He's just taller. Do you understand my concept? Nobody should
understand that concept it's meaningless, right, So I kind of

(38:15):
don't think the concept of a purpose independent of what
I think or a collective.

Speaker 4 (38:19):
Group think makes any sense. So there's no purpose, that's
what I would say. There's my purposes or.

Speaker 9 (38:23):
You don't think there's any purpose.

Speaker 5 (38:25):
To No, there's Yeah, there's no reason to do anything
other than what you value to do. I don't see,
like what why that even makes sense?

Speaker 3 (38:32):
Right?

Speaker 1 (38:32):
I feel like Patrick, I feel like the thing that
you're that is not being said in this question is absolute,
Like there's no absolute purpose, like some transcendental purpose to
our lives for everybody. And I feel like that's a
very religious concept because you know, religion, specifically Christianity says

(38:52):
that everybody's lives should revolve around pleasing God and putting
God first and putting Jesus first and everything like that.
And so in that way, it makes God like the
everything in our life and that should be the purpose
of our life, is worshiping God. That's very religious concept.
As far as without religion goes, you're kind of free

(39:13):
to figure out whatever purpose you.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
Want to in your life.

Speaker 1 (39:17):
It's going to be subjective to like you and your
experiences and you know, just you as a person in general.
So everybody's gonna have different purposes for their life.

Speaker 2 (39:30):
You just got to figure that out.

Speaker 1 (39:31):
And I mean that's a harder answer, right, That's a
more complicated answer than just saying God but everything is
a more complicated answer than just putting God in that gap, right.

Speaker 5 (39:42):
Yeah, And you can actually have a conversation through like
if John goes Mike, like, I know you don't share
my purposes in life and stuff, but I know you
value X, Y and Z, and that seems totally counter
towards like what you're moving towards, right, Like you care
about well being, but like you know, slapping the child
when they grab skittles when.

Speaker 4 (39:59):
I talk them?

Speaker 5 (40:00):
Know, was you know that you were out of a
chord with your purpose of like you know, humanism and
treating people with respect and you know, not hitting them
and stuff like that. Right, So you know, they could
someone despite the fact that there's no purpose in the
world that they can show me I'm out of a
chord with. They can point out that I'm inconsistent with
my own values. Now someone could say, well, the values

(40:21):
are arbitrary. No, there's brute psychological facts about me. I've
never had to reason myself into you know, I've never
seen this happen. But if I saw like a dog
get kicked, why am I going with such a violent
philosophy is like tinting me? It's like violent fucking scenarios.

Speaker 3 (40:36):
Jesus.

Speaker 5 (40:36):
I need to see I do need to see therapy,
I guess. But if I walk out and I see, like,
you know, a dog get kicked, I don't reason myself
kind of into that.

Speaker 4 (40:43):
Like I noticed these like kind of.

Speaker 5 (40:45):
Brute psychological facts about myself, you know, and me and
John we share in nature, so we probably similarly feel
ways about you know this, And I think because we
share that nature, it's not it's not like we're starting
from this completely arbitrary kind of ground of what our
purposes are. There's a lot of common values that we
all hold brute without ever reasoning ourselves into it. Never

(41:06):
reasoned myself into thinking kicking a puppy was wrong. I
just into it, and I see that, and I feel
a way about it immediately, right, I feel discussed the media,
So I think we can build off of that. I
think it's actually pretty much easier project than well, my god,
purpose is this purpose and you kick your gads.

Speaker 4 (41:22):
Like, you know, it just seems ridiculous to me. Hope
that helps. I feel like I'm saying that all the time. Yeah,
not getting any feedback from you.

Speaker 5 (41:28):
Patrick, I'm I'm worried that I this this break I
took him. I'm losing my steps here, man.

Speaker 9 (41:34):
So what do you think of the idea of a
god creating wife with a specific purpose? Bond?

Speaker 4 (41:41):
I take that.

Speaker 1 (41:42):
Yeah, So, I mean I would have to I would
have to get somebody to identify that purpose, right. And
I feel like if you're talking to a Christian creationist,
you're gonna be talking about, you know, the God of
the Bible, uh specifically the New Testament and the Old Testament.
And if you're if you're talking to like a creationist
of Islamic type, then obviously that's going to be a

(42:05):
law who the main purpose is to, you know, be
a reverent of that God, to worship that God, to
do what that God wants.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
And so I mean as far as.

Speaker 1 (42:18):
Like everything being created for a purpose, I would think
that you would need to define, you know, more more
components to that in order for me to like have
like a meaningful position on it. But as far as
everything having a purpose, just an absolute transcendental purpose. I don't.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (42:38):
I don't see the I guess objective way that you
can establish that, because it seems to me like more
likely than not there there is life elsewhere in the universe.
And is that life elsewhere in the universe beholden to
the God that's very specifically revealed himself to a small
section of the earth at a very particular to the

(43:00):
point in time in human history, like and somehow all
life has now now has to like give, you know,
give reverence to that particular God that decided to reveal
himself in such a very specific area at a very
specific time. That seems incoherent to me. It seems unreasonable.
And I would think that if you're arguing for a

(43:20):
god that is reasonable, saying that, oh, he's very unreasonable
in this way, but trust me, it's totally reasonable.

Speaker 2 (43:28):
That's not going to help you make your point for
me at least.

Speaker 5 (43:31):
Yeah, there's like there's like a massive value gap too,
Like people talk about this is ought gap, like you
can't get an aught from you know it is, But
there's something it's like not noticed, I think, or something
that should be noticed a little bit more often. I've
talked about more often, which is like this gap between
my values and then what I should do, Like if
we talk about this purpose that's independent of what I
think and my values, Like if I go to the purpose,

(43:54):
you know, a meter nine thousand machine or whatever, and
it spits out the purpose for me, and the purpose
is for me, like throw my third child off the
bill I doing I'm doing it again, Mike, I'm doing
it again.

Speaker 4 (44:06):
I am doing it again. Why philosophy fuck you so much? Anyway,
if it was.

Speaker 5 (44:11):
Some horrible thing, I'm just gonna say it because we're already,
we're already at the dance.

Speaker 3 (44:16):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (44:16):
If I if I, you.

Speaker 5 (44:17):
Know, get this moral arch or purpose that I should
throw the third child, I'm just not gonna do it.
There's a gap between like what you know I ought
to do independent of what I think, which still is
like gibberish to me. But if I can try to
understand that concept that I have reasons independent of what
I think, I'm.

Speaker 4 (44:33):
Gonna look at that and go, I don't give a shit.
What the what the purpose O meter nine thousand machine says?

Speaker 5 (44:38):
I Am not going to throw the child off Like
it's It would be no different if, like, you know,
some entity came up to you and he calls himself,
you know, the glory on and it gives you the
Glorian facts. Well, if the the glory in facts just
vastly go against my values, I don't care. If those
facts are like objective facts of things that I should do,
I'm not gonna do them, right, just not gonna do them.

Speaker 4 (44:59):
So I think there's this mass.

Speaker 5 (45:00):
Gap between like even if there was some purpose, like
I'm interested on what the content of the purpose is
because it seems pretty impotent, right, It seems pretty vacuous.

Speaker 4 (45:08):
It seems pretty vapid.

Speaker 5 (45:10):
That that if you know, it could be any proposition
that I'm supposed to do, well, I don't think it's
going to be privileged to my values. It could just
be something totally insane and horrible, like eliminate the human
race or something.

Speaker 4 (45:21):
Well, I'm not going to do that, right, if that's
the purpose that was reported to me, I'm not going
to do it.

Speaker 5 (45:27):
So I think there's there's that notion too that it's
much better to have something that's not a detached purpose
as something that's actually grounded and you know, something that
you can sink your teeth into and something that is cogent. Right,
it makes makes sense from the ground you build from,
which is you right? Yeah, anyway, I don't know if
that helps you. I think I think we got a

(45:47):
new caller coming in, so I don't know if you
want to ask another question before we move on to
that caller.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
But yeah, I mean, do you have anything else to
talk about their patrick or any other questions, sorry, any
other questions that you have for us.

Speaker 9 (46:00):
Those purposeful design you would think about everything or at
least most things in the world would work well, right, So.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
I don't know about that.

Speaker 1 (46:09):
What I do know is that coming from an engineering perspective,
we try to try to create everything so that you know,
it works and it works the way that it's intended.
And I think that we would need to first be
able to identify intent for things, but also we would
expect the things to work as intended. And with humans,

(46:32):
we can't you know what, We don't know everything that
could happen or that could plague something, or that that
could do one thing or another. So but we try
to do our best to you know, do the whole
risk management thing and try to figure out what is
a risk in it. I would expect an omnipotent God
or an omnipresent God or omniscient god rather to be

(46:54):
able to know everything that could happen and for it
to work perfectly. But I'm not exactly sure if we
would be able to know what working perfectly actually looks like,
and so in that kind of way, I would be
agnostic about it, agnostic as to whether or not something
is working perfectly or is working as designed. The problem

(47:15):
that I have with creationists out there is that they
claim that something does work perfectly or that it is
operating perfectly when it's very obviously one not, but also two,
you don't know what working perfectly actually looks like, So
that that would be my contention with that particular proposition.

Speaker 5 (47:33):
Our buttholes and mouths share the same tube, so perfect
I know, all right?

Speaker 2 (47:40):
Patrick?

Speaker 1 (47:41):
I mean, do you let me ask you real quick,
do you think that everything should work perfect or do
you think or like, do you know what working perfect
would even be?

Speaker 4 (47:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (47:50):
I actually want to slap myself for not turning and
asking you kind of on your view, So thank you
for I got to feel like an asshole now, I
didn't ask you.

Speaker 9 (47:58):
Well, I think that MOI red from an AI bought
that a purposeful design is when things work really well.

Speaker 1 (48:06):
Well, it depends on what well means. But also I
wouldn't trust AI bots with complex philosophical questions like.

Speaker 5 (48:13):
That as somebody who has tried to, like see what
it spits out, it gets like it gets it's really
not its thing. It's yeah, it's really bad with propositional
logic too, which kind of surprises me.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
But yeah, well, and also what you're going to get
is all of these bots, I'm not sure which one
you tried, but it doesn't matter, but they're they're all
specifically trained to do particular tasks, right, And like if
you've got an LM, which is probably what you're talking
about here, if you get an LM that's trained to

(48:46):
be like a general kind of LM, then you're not
getting anything that's going to be specific to philosophy. So
what you're going to end up probably getting is whatever
it's been trained on, and it comes to concl illusions
that way on what it's been trained, or it searches
the internet, you know, for what it is, which is
no better than just you going out and searching the internet.

(49:07):
It can just search a lot more things than you
can in a in a lesser amount of time.

Speaker 4 (49:15):
So I think AI is really bad with philosophies.

Speaker 5 (49:17):
A lot of the content is like you have to
go buy a book, it's not most of it's not
just on the internet, on a PDF file somewhere. I mean,
you will find a lot of that, but it's kind
of like, you know, does it have a you know,
knowledge and resentment?

Speaker 4 (49:29):
I mean, I don't know.

Speaker 5 (49:30):
I don't know if that book is on a PDF.
I don't think it is, but you know, my beanie fell.
But yeah, so you know, I wouldn't trust that. At
least it's very good though. Whenever I can't figure out
something in my life and I realize how stupid I am, I'm.

Speaker 4 (49:43):
Like, chat GVT, why am I so dumb? And I'm like, oh, yeah,
thank you.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
Well, yeah, if you're wanting chant, if you're wanting chat
GPT or any LM to be able to like summarize
a position for you or like, you know, or you
could tell it, like to make a compelling r argument
for one thing or another.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
You know, it can do that.

Speaker 1 (50:04):
Whether or not it's going to be accurate, makes sense,
or be logically sound. That's a different aspect of it
because it's not exactly trained to be logically sound in
that way. I mean, I've I've done many conversations with
you know, some lms out there, and I have to
tell it like, no, you didn't do that right?

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Can you please do this right?

Speaker 1 (50:23):
And you know it's like, oh, you're totally right, I
totally messed up and all this other stuff. So I mean,
you just you kind of have to take it with
a grain of salt. You also have to be very
specific and you have to limit your chats.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
Not a lot of people.

Speaker 1 (50:37):
I don't know if a lot of people know this,
but with llms, it does not have memory.

Speaker 3 (50:41):
Right.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
Well, some of the products they've integrated memory into it,
but like as far as in your chat, when you're
having a chat with an LLM, it does not have
active memory that it's referencing. What it's actually doing is
it's sending the entire chat back to the LLM for
it to reprocess it and then and it will continue
the conversation. So every time, you know, at some point,

(51:04):
I don't know if anybody has noticed, but at some
point LM's will actually break down or they'll get super
super unreliable if the chat goes on long enough, and
even I know some of the chats, the llms will
actually make you stop at some point. And that's primarily
because of the fact that there's a limited amount of
times that you can like go back and forth with it,

(51:26):
depending on how extensive the answers are and how extensive
your questions are and everything like that. So keep that
in mind when you're interacting with it, that it's literally
based on train data or it's doing internet searches that
you can do yourself and then coming to some kind
of conclusion, and it's not necessarily going to be logically
sound or anything like that. When it gives you the answer.

Speaker 5 (51:47):
You got anything else for us? Patrick, Okay, I am
curious that I don't know if I heard this though.
Did you say you do believe like the like is
your view that there's a purpose independent of what your values, goals,
stance are you?

Speaker 4 (52:01):
Is that your view? I didn't know if I heard that. Fully.

Speaker 9 (52:03):
I was thinking it would be like that if there
was a god, But I think that there's either no
god or as one, it's one that does not intervene
in the world.

Speaker 5 (52:14):
Sure, I will put some pushback on it, though that
I don't think even theism rescues this in the sense
that like, like, what I'm concerned about is whether or
not the purpose or these morals or any kind of
these normative terms that we're talking about, whether or not
they are stance independent or stance dependent. For for brevity

(52:35):
and just pure understanding, we can just say mind dependent
versus mind independent. There are some problems with like using
that terminology. I guess that some people have problem with,
but I think everybody here understands what you what I mean.

Speaker 4 (52:46):
By independent of a mind or dependent on the mind.

Speaker 5 (52:49):
In the case of theism, like you don't actually like
create this scenario of a stance independent purpose. It might
be independent of you, but I mean, so is like
legis in my town, right, it's independent of me. And
I might be like, oh, I really want to not
break that law, and I like my freedom.

Speaker 4 (53:06):
But really what's going.

Speaker 5 (53:07):
On is I have a mind dependent desire to not
go to jail, to have my.

Speaker 4 (53:12):
Freedoms right of these kind of things.

Speaker 5 (53:13):
And so there's prevailing desires and prevailing values that I have.
But that's no different in the case of theism, if
you think about it, that it's all going to be
mind dependent or stance dependent on what God thinks, what
kind of nature God happens to have out of all
the nature's God could possibly have, And so I don't
think theism even actually gives you this view. I actually

(53:34):
think that if anyone was going to take this view,
it's in me and John might disagree here.

Speaker 4 (53:39):
I think it's definitely religiously based and stuff.

Speaker 5 (53:42):
But I think when you actually look at this philosophically,
the only co attempt at a coherent notion of purposes
independent what I think would be a type of atheism,
that there are like values independent of what people think,
like maybe they're embedded into natural objects.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
That's not my view.

Speaker 5 (53:58):
That's a lot of spookiness and weirdness, and I don't
think I need those things to explain it. But that said,
I think that that's a view an atheist could have
all right to kill. Bill Grammy's a philosopher and he
has an external kind of value view and he's an atheist.

Speaker 4 (54:11):
So it's a view that I.

Speaker 5 (54:12):
Think an atheist could have if I can make sense
of it to my best ability. But it doesn't seem
like a theist can unless they want to say the
purpose is independent of God, kind of like a youth
defro and he just kind of looks to the purpose
and then reports the purpose back to us. But that,
you know, then God just seems like a pretty useless
cosmic peeping tom middleman, right.

Speaker 4 (54:31):
It doesn't seem like he's really doing very much.

Speaker 5 (54:32):
So I don't know if that helps, but I just
wanted to give for you or the audience that I
think if you're going to make that view compatible, it's
probably going to be mostly compatible with atheism.

Speaker 1 (54:41):
All right, all right, Patrick, Well, if that's all that
you have for us today, then we will let you go.
I hope you have a great day and everything, and uh,
you know, I hope you'll call in with more questions sometime.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
All right, fine, thank you, Patrick, you too, going?

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Oh yeah, you two, so sorry. I didn't mean to
It takes a second for to actually drop. So that's
that's my bad there, Patrick. I do let me get
back to my notes here. So I do want to
throw it on over to the crew with the crew
cam this week, who puts the show together every week.

(55:17):
That would be video operators, audio operators note takers called
screeners chat operators. Yeah, you are awesome. Thank you guys
so much for helping us make this show great.

Speaker 4 (55:26):
Alex, he's like on a sleigh. I can't tell.

Speaker 5 (55:29):
My screen is really small at the moment. That looks
like he was like on a Santa sleigh or something.
I don't know, very festive.

Speaker 1 (55:36):
Yeah, yeah, but there are a lot of people in
the chat that are you know, wanting to to you know,
put in their two sensitive thing. We do have somebody
calling in from the web that's trying to get going,
but it's just not taken and I don't think they
have the option to use the actual phone number. But
maybe we'll get somebody up there. But if you're in
the chat right now and you want to challenge us

(56:00):
on any of these things, on the biblical morality or
you know, the creationism argument or anything that we've discussed
here tonight, the lines are open. You can call five
one two nine nine one nine two four to two.
We would really love to talk to you about any
kind of questions that you might have. If you're an

(56:20):
atheist out there and you want you have some questions
that you've been wanting to ask I guess maybe more
seasoned atheists about just get some other input. We would
love to have that discussion with you, so consider calling
in five one two nine nine one nine two four
to two.

Speaker 9 (56:39):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (56:39):
In the meantime, we do have some super chats.

Speaker 5 (56:41):
It looks like to get to kind of scroll down
to get to those, but I'm lost in the.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
So there's a there's tabs now in the document?

Speaker 4 (56:50):
Is that? Oh that's so nice, that's so neat.

Speaker 3 (56:52):
Nice.

Speaker 4 (56:53):
Good job, guys, that's great. I love that.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
So first supper chat we we got is leftover. Who
says any studies you all recall about the benefits of
meditation outside of Buddhism.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
I don't know. J Mike, do you have any ideas
about that?

Speaker 5 (57:09):
I was talking to my father about this, like when
I went to go see them for Thanksgiving actually because
I was like super into the meditation stuff. If you're
if you're not familiar, my deconstruction, if you even want
to call it that, which is like insulting to all
of you that have actually deconstructed from Christianity, was very wooey.

Speaker 4 (57:27):
I mean, I know it's really hard to tell looking
at me.

Speaker 3 (57:30):
Very wooy and uh.

Speaker 4 (57:31):
New Age spiritual again.

Speaker 5 (57:33):
I know, it's very hard to believe that looking at me,
but I had those kind of boiefs. And the one
thing that really stuck with me that I still do
is I meditate. I mean, I don't sit with my
legs crossed and you know, and do that whole thing.
When I was more of a hippie than I am now,
I was all into that, into the esthetic and the
mode and looking a certain way, almost like you want

(57:54):
someone to see you do it, you know, like, hey,
check it out.

Speaker 4 (57:56):
I'm really deep and spiritual, you know, that kind of thing.

Speaker 5 (58:00):
And so it was really beneficial for me and my
anxiety and insomnia. You know, I saw a therapist when
I was pretty young because I couldn't you know, since
I was about nine, I would just stare at the
ceiling fan and just never be able to get to sleep.
And so I tried like anything legal that I could
to help with that. Meditation was actually very beneficial. But

(58:22):
I mean, I think I don't know if I'm doing
quote unquote meditation. I mean I think maybe what I'm
doing is clearing my mind and kind of untethering these
kind of anxieties. Realizing that some of the anxieties I
have aren't directed towards any specific statement or proposition like
oh I'm worried about X, or why it's always like
just a feeling of it, you know, And that process

(58:43):
of kind of recognition and focusing on that kind of
one thing has really helped me kind of clear my mind.
And if you want to call that meditation, it's something
I do. I would say pretty regularly, but not as
much as I probably should. So I think I think
it's beneficial if you're asking, like any studies, I don't
have any of that. I can just give you kind
of my own personal anecdote, So.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
Okay, I don't. Yeah, I don't know about any meditation studies.
What I have found though, is that studies, when they
compare like religious prayer in various forms and meditation, you
get similar benefits from them both.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
And so I know, yeah, I remember having.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
A caller specifically one time, who was trying to make
the case that prayer was better, specifically Christian prayer, but
they couldn't actually discern between meditation and prayer as far
as benefits go. And I thought that it was rather
telling that it's like there's no difference. It's just you know,
they preferred prayer over like any kind of meditation or

(59:43):
anything like that.

Speaker 5 (59:44):
Maybe it's like the masquerading is more beneficial in the
sense that it's very self serving a lot of times
of like, oh I want this, I desire this thing,
give me this, whereas in meditation you're not like, I mean,
I'm not asking the world to give me things or
to make the world this way rather than that way.
And so maybe you can just trick your fucking self

(01:00:05):
into thinking like, oh, this is way more beneficial, you know,
because I'm like, I actively think that I'm influencing the
you know, the way the world will be with what
I want or something I don't know. I mean, it
seems like pretty easy for someone who's kind of self
serving themselves in those instances to think that it's more
beneficial than meditation. But it sounds like a whole bunch
of garbage to me, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
Yeah, let's see, let's get to our next one. I
believe is the good Questions seventy nine to fifteen, Who
says were prophecies really a way to explain after the
fact why they're divine protectors? Seem to fail them both
excusing their God and to keep their hopes up, and

(01:00:47):
today theis incorrectly think they were divine premonitions.

Speaker 5 (01:00:51):
What do you think, Well, I mean my first thought
was just like the destruction of the temple, and like
why we would think that that was written you know,
after and that wasn't really like so I don't know
if you wanted to touch on the something similar, but
I would just point out that it does seem like
and it seems like an even John, you're better at
this than me, but it seems like a New Testament
scholarship that a lot of like rule of thumb of

(01:01:13):
that seems pretty common is when you make these kind
of predictions like.

Speaker 4 (01:01:17):
The instructure of the temple.

Speaker 5 (01:01:18):
You know, it's a pretty big rule of thumb that
these were being being described after the events in such
a way that make them look prophetic. And so I
tend to care about expert consensus over like, you know,
people's opinions.

Speaker 4 (01:01:32):
That's why I take my cat to a vet and
not a.

Speaker 5 (01:01:34):
My friend down the street, you know, So I tend
to I tend to think that that's probably that the
experts on this are probably right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
Yeah, Well, for me, it's that the evidence, you know,
concerning all of these supposed prophecies are are rather scant,
and and we we can't actually establish for any of
the prophecies that the uh they that they occurred, you know,

(01:02:02):
prior to them being fulfilled. And so it definitely seems like,
at least you know, from my non expert position, that like,
they could have written this afterwards, or they could have
written it before, and they could have just intuitively guessed
about it, right, And so I don't see how we.

Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
Can actually.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
I don't see how we could actually discern that particular
aspect of it, like whether or not it is actually
a prophecy that is to be fulfilled, or that if
it was just intuition, or if it was written after
the fact in order to justify something. So like, until
we can actually provide some clarity on distinguishing between those things,

(01:02:41):
I think that prophecies were just always going to fail.
And I think that they were originally meant to explain
why things happened, because you know, people were questioning things
and it's like, oh no, look that was all in
a prophecy. God gave the prophecy. It's fine, that's part
of God's plan. I think that it definitely was meant
to like comfort people about uncomfort things that happened in
their past. Why things happen to be able to explain it,

(01:03:04):
because people don't like it when things are go unexplained.

Speaker 5 (01:03:07):
Right, So look at look at the mysteries and and
like cases of you know, these crimes like people, it's
intoxicating to want that answer to solve. I'm following a
case right now of like some TikTok rapper guy. I'm
not going to mention the name or whatever, but you
know there's a whole serious case out of la and
stuff and that miss It's like an intoxicating thing to
like to be like, I want to see the justice
and I want to explain this. And I think, you know,

(01:03:28):
if you look at like the internet kind of people
with this kind of stuff, they'll just make kind.

Speaker 4 (01:03:32):
Of stuff up. They want to create kind of an answer.

Speaker 5 (01:03:34):
So I don't know if that's kind of what you're
saying in a sense, but I feel like there's this
intoxicating kind of notion of wanting the answers and feeling
like you can provide them, right, but just without any
kind of justification behind it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):
Right, it looks like we did get a call uh
through the screen or are you ready to take another
call before we get some more super chats?

Speaker 3 (01:03:54):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (01:03:54):
Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
Okay, all right, well.

Speaker 1 (01:03:57):
We got Cyrus calling in from uh uh England.

Speaker 5 (01:04:01):
Let's see, I would think of trailer park boys.

Speaker 4 (01:04:06):
Sorry, I got work to do. Such a good shake.

Speaker 2 (01:04:11):
Hey, there's sorry. Is how you doing what you want
to talk about?

Speaker 10 (01:04:13):
Well, I'm doing good. I want to talk about like
debating people on atheism and religion. So I've been debating
people on discord politics and religions servers for about two
years now, and I've noticed that there's one of two
people and in that kind of like debate sphere, which

(01:04:33):
is either the people who are so deep like up
their own ass in their beliefs to where no amount
of evidence or reasoning will ever make them change their mind,
or there's the people who are already so nonchalant in
their beliefs that any amount of reasoning will immediately make
them change their mind. I feel like both of those
are pointless situations to be in, because especially how because

(01:04:54):
I'm not doing it on a on a show like
you guys are, for someone at least someone gaining from it,
So would be better for me to drop the whole
debating as a whole and just start making videos, just
educational videos.

Speaker 5 (01:05:06):
Try to say that to someone like Justin though, right,
because he goes live on TikTok and you know, just
like we do, and those are all debates, the TikTok debates,
and I think he is probably I was telling someon
of this on I was tell my friend Aaron this
on the phone that I think he's probably out of
anyone in the community that I know, has gotten more

(01:05:26):
people to get off that fence, right, So I think
it's immensely beneficial. Debates are what got me better. It
was a way for me to hone my skill. It's
like playing in a band or something, to get better
at communicating and learn from your mistakes and that kind
of stuff. So I find it immensely valuable. Does it
change people's minds often?

Speaker 7 (01:05:46):
No.

Speaker 5 (01:05:46):
I think the mystery behind that is because you're coming
with a background set of beliefs, and it's in compati
like the reasons that you'll offer, Like if you're giving
like a premise by premise argument, often like what happens
is you give some premise that will either assume the
falsity of like what they believe or like you know,
it's it's it.

Speaker 4 (01:06:02):
Seems to assume the conclusion. It seems to be question begging.

Speaker 5 (01:06:06):
You'd have no reason to accept it unless you've already
accepted their conclusion.

Speaker 4 (01:06:09):
So, like I understand, there's.

Speaker 5 (01:06:11):
This kind of like heads hitting and it doesn't seem
like it goes anywhere for people, but the people sitting
on the fence, it does because they're hearing two different
perspectives and it helps move them so certain platforms. That's
why I don't go on discord anymore. I am just
in a room with all the people that want to
debate debating, Whereas if I go on TikTok or I
go here, it's a bunch of people that don't debate,
that want to listen, that need that need help, that
need advice, that want to think about it from a

(01:06:32):
different perspective. So I think, yes, you're wasting your time
on Discord. I think that's an absolute waste of time.
But I think if you go to something like TikTok
where people are coming in and watching you, or.

Speaker 4 (01:06:43):
Stereo or whatever it might be.

Speaker 5 (01:06:44):
These kind of apps that we've used in the past,
those are I think immensely beneficial. It helps you hone
your craft. There's going to be people that stumble in.
You'll find people that will make you better. Like with
friends that I have in the community've made me just
way better at reasoning than I ever. Could you ever
stand to be on my on my own? So I would,
I would really think about the discord perspective of it

(01:07:05):
as opposed to the debate perspective.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
All right, yeah, just sorry, Just from my perspective. I've
had a lot of people message either my Facebook page
or email me and discuss how effective I was in
their deconstruction or how they initially found me while they
were deconstructing, or something that I said caused them to

(01:07:29):
rethink something that led them down, you know, a deconstruction path.
And I have to say that that is the thing
that I treasure the most is the effect that I have,
like on other people as far as deconstructing from religion,
because I feel like religion is inherently harmful to people.

(01:07:50):
And I mean, I get that people can find positives
in religion and they can implement religion in non abusive ways,
but I still feel like any belief that and comport
with reality is going to ultimately be harmful in some
kind of fashion. And so that's why I, you know,
do debates like either on TikTok or here on YouTube
or anything like that, somebody's gonna watch it and be

(01:08:12):
can and you know, be swayed away from religion in
one fashion or another. And so I definitely think that
it's it's definitely worth it, and that people do watch
these debates and are influenced by them. And so even
if you feel like you're not influencing the person you're
talking to, you're probably uh influencing the people that are

(01:08:34):
watching it. And I agree with J Mike about discord
is that that's a very self contained sort of area
and you're not gonna get a lot of exposure to
people that are just sort of casually watching. That's why
the TikTok and YouTube and all this other stuff can
be a lot more beneficial, Like as far as making
an impact on people, you.

Speaker 4 (01:08:55):
Can you can play and get talk.

Speaker 5 (01:08:56):
My dad kind of said this to me when I
was younger, like, look, you can sit down in that basement,
you know and play guitar, you know, or you.

Speaker 4 (01:09:02):
Can get the fuck out there and play it for.

Speaker 5 (01:09:04):
Some people, but you're never gonna go anywhere sitting in
that basement, you know, practicing all the time. You gotta
do more than that. And I think Discord is like
the basement. Nobody there. There's some really smart people that,
you know, debate in that platform, but it's just it's,
in my opinion's full of some of the worst people
that I've ever interacted with ever in my life. Just
like terrible people, and not just like exclusive to debate

(01:09:26):
community or something, just Discord in general. But it's just
it's it's like John said, it's so self contained. It's
it seems like you're I wonder why, Like maybe that's
not people's purpose, But I always wonder why people hang
there constantly all the time, like they're sitting in the
basement playing guitar, Like, go play a gig, you know,
go somewhere where people are actually watching you. Like, otherwise,

(01:09:48):
what the fuck's the point? Right, You're not actually making
a difference, And that might not be your goal, And
that's fine, right, I don't I can impose my purpose
over you. But it does seem just like a waste
of your time to do that. It's not a waste
of your time. Like John said, I.

Speaker 6 (01:10:01):
Was a fan.

Speaker 5 (01:10:02):
I was a subscriber to I was a fan of
John before I ever did any of this stuff. I
knew godlesss channel and so you know, like, I'm glad
I debated because now I consider myself friends with them.
I could, you know, sit next to him virtually, right
and and uh and so that's really cool.

Speaker 4 (01:10:15):
How it was self gratification for me as well as
hearing other people say that I've helped them.

Speaker 5 (01:10:20):
So so I would do it, man, I would just
keep debating or better yet, man, like, don't debate. But
if you really care about this, figure out how you
can get involved in you know, different organizations similar to
the ACA or you know, the Human Society out and
Phoenix wherever you are.

Speaker 4 (01:10:35):
I'm sure there's something right.

Speaker 5 (01:10:37):
And if you really care about the values that we have,
then you know you don't have to debate. Just depends
I guess on what you're going for. I'm gonna shut
up now, I'm saying a lot.

Speaker 3 (01:10:46):
Now.

Speaker 10 (01:10:46):
My follow up questions that would be, would you guys
recommend YouTube before TikTok or do both at the same time,
because I wouldn't know how to stream on both, but
I'd figure it out.

Speaker 4 (01:10:54):
I'm on TikTok. I will DM me on there.

Speaker 5 (01:10:57):
I think it's like Underscore J Mike, d m me
hop in a room with you and h or if
you want to watch it from afar and I can
invite you up and I'd love to.

Speaker 4 (01:11:05):
We can just discuss some stuff. I'd be happy to
do it.

Speaker 3 (01:11:07):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:11:08):
Yeah, as far as accessibility goes, I would definitely say
TikTok is the most successible because all you have to
do is have like the app, and then you've got
to have your profile has to have a certain amount
like of criteria on it in order to like go
live and stuff. But uh, you know that's going to
be your most accessible way. Other than you know, I

(01:11:31):
know that there's probably some YouTube channels that offers like
open panels or something like that. If you can find those,
you wanna jump up into them. I guess I don't wanna.
I don't want to add, you know, advise anybody to
do that necessarily. But I think that, you know, TikTok
is going to be a great place for you to
you know, one you can sit back and watch and

(01:11:52):
learn about you know, that kind of operating in that
kind of space, but also would probably be the fastest
route to uh, you know, having those kind of live
conversations are one on one conversations with people.

Speaker 4 (01:12:07):
All Right, well, I hope that helps.

Speaker 10 (01:12:10):
Yeah, I'm sorry, could you say the user name you
said again that I should fund.

Speaker 5 (01:12:14):
I think it's like at Underscore j Mike, I think
is what it is.

Speaker 4 (01:12:18):
I've had enough time to think about it after I
blundered it the first time. I think that's right. But
I have I have admittedly taken a little break.

Speaker 5 (01:12:25):
I sprinkle in there, but if you and I am
also admittedly a terrible person with DMS and getting back
to people, but I will eventually if I get on there,
if I see it, or if you see me on
and alive, just be like, hey, I was the guy
that called in. I'm really interested in like seeing how
this works. I'd be happy to do that. There's a
really awesome community I have for some really awesome friends
on there, Like I've met some of the nicest people

(01:12:47):
in the world over there that that host debates, like
my friend Coco hosts you know, debates on there, and
they get like judges in a panel. They do like
this whole kind of like Friday night thing, A bunch
of people come in. It's real fun, it's really cool,
like it makes you feel kind of connected sitting in
your room, you know, eating popcorn and listen to Bates
playing run Escape like me.

Speaker 4 (01:13:02):
I did not just say that out loud. I don't.
I'm not a nerd. I don't play roun Escape. I
swear I play.

Speaker 10 (01:13:09):
Okay, Well, you guys have a good one. You've guys
addressed every single point I've had and expected DM from me.

Speaker 5 (01:13:16):
Then yeah, awesome, man, sounds good. I'm gonna make my
screen bigger. Cyrus, I will remember your name because the
trailer park boys will be.

Speaker 4 (01:13:23):
Very easy for me to remember. So if I won't
say what they say, which is fuck off, Cyrus. You Yeah,
thank you, Cyrus. We appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (01:13:31):
Man. You two guys have a good one, all.

Speaker 2 (01:13:33):
Right, see you, Cyrus. All right, So that's been a
great show. Let's let's actually bring up our our background host, Jamie.
Oh hey, Jamie, how you doing.

Speaker 6 (01:13:45):
I don't care if I was born blind. I don't
need to see the price tag anyway this year man, anyway, gentlemen,
I was gesticulating quite wildly in the background as I
do some of the calls when they get frustrating.

Speaker 4 (01:14:00):
Literally, sure way, Jamie, I've got to see that in person.
I've got to see that in personally.

Speaker 5 (01:14:05):
I've got to stand next to Jamie like during a
talk he then and I'll look over and he's just like, oh.

Speaker 6 (01:14:11):
Man, let me let me in there.

Speaker 4 (01:14:13):
I'll say it.

Speaker 5 (01:14:15):
We both had a calleral listen, do we both are
looking at each other just like responding the same thing
to each other.

Speaker 4 (01:14:20):
I think we both had to step out.

Speaker 5 (01:14:22):
Back like and then I forgot, well the audio is
still back there as I'm not escaping anything, and I
look by me as a TV.

Speaker 4 (01:14:28):
I'm like, just get this guy out of my ears, sorry.

Speaker 6 (01:14:31):
Jam Yeah, Well, here's the thing, Like I try and
be chill, and this actually is to sort of talk
to maybe Cyrus's point there. You don't necessarily need to debate.
One of the things you can do is just try
and have a conversations what we try and do on
talk even but this is XP it's a little bit
more sort of nice fight phone box kind of thing.

(01:14:51):
But the and not to get meta. I don't know
how you don't like getting meta there, j Mike but
I always want to ask callers, especially callers like we
had today with Patrick and Supreme Leader, what are you
hoping to get out of this call? What is the
purpose of your call today? What would you hope would

(01:15:13):
be the best outcome?

Speaker 3 (01:15:15):
You know?

Speaker 6 (01:15:15):
Would it be us converting to your religion? Would it
be us just acknowledging your point or are you just
calling to get attention? I don't know. I'm always wanting
to know the motivations of the person that I'm talking to.
And although there will be people in the audience going no, no, Jamie,
don't don't say this. If I'm on and if you're
stood out there listening, Supreme Leader and call, I wouldn't

(01:15:37):
mind having a chat with you myself. Just try and
tone down on the sort of overt self effacing rhetoric
and the flattery, because much like Mike, it just feels
like diversion rather than rather than earnestness. So yeah, let's
just keep to the points and I will. I will
take your points as seriously as I possibly can. I

(01:15:58):
always do. I always try and give the benefit of
the dab. But good show, guys, Thanks for having me up,
even though it's I have no methodon must scream or
anything back sometimes.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
No, Yeah, we we appreciate you being back there taking
notes and giving your input.

Speaker 2 (01:16:17):
I mean it's very valuable. Uh And yeah I was.

Speaker 1 (01:16:20):
I was not impressed with the supreme leader I've seen.

Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
I've seen way more.

Speaker 1 (01:16:26):
Chiloupas that are supreme, more supreme than that guy.

Speaker 5 (01:16:30):
Diversion was an understatement. I mean, it's just like geez bro,
like I couldn't get up. It's like and look, I like,
I want hopefully this comes off this way. I don't
like think you know, anything negative about the person I'm
talking to. Then, Like last time I was on, you know,
someone had some pretty wild things to say, and I
felt a lot of ways about that person. But generally,
like I'm I'm I hope it doesn't come across it.

(01:16:51):
It's not like a personal thing. That's what I was
trying to avoid the whole time is not have to
talk about what I believe in my degree and you
know this kind of stuff. So hopefully that comes off
the supreme that like, all we want is the content.

Speaker 4 (01:17:03):
And I'm happy to talk to you again, man, I
just I.

Speaker 5 (01:17:05):
Need from you to sit on like a piece of
paper and write down what you think is the most
coherent way to ask this and have like follow up
kind of stuff so that we can we can kind
of go through it. Get actually one time I'm requesting this,
get a script. I actually am requesting this this time,
get a script.

Speaker 4 (01:17:21):
I actually would prefer a script this time.

Speaker 9 (01:17:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:17:23):
I always say to people that call, like I work
at a call center in my day job, I always
ask I always talk to people when they're calling in
and the conversation is kind of wondering, I'll say, the
more specific your questions can be, And in the case
of these kinds of cause and debates, the more specific
your arguments are, the better a conversation we're going to have.

(01:17:43):
Trying to be vague either makes me feel like you
don't really know what you're talking about, or worse, you're
trying to maneuver me into some into some kind of gotcha.
And I wouldn't say, on any great shakes, I believe both.
And again now complimenting you, and you don't like that.
But anyway, I feel I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.
But I'm not a slouch either. I can tell when

(01:18:04):
someone's trying to trick me. So if that was the
idea behind all that, Like what's your degree and you're
trying to maneuver me into saying something that is gonna.
I was born in the morning. It wasn't this morning anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:18:21):
Yeah, And as first as Supreme Leader goes, I don't
know what it means to believe it, like as like
we're supposed to forego all of the evidence against like
the Christian claims just because there's like one world currency
or something like that. Like, I don't understand how that
makes sense, but.

Speaker 6 (01:18:40):
Wouldn't mind investigating it further. I'd like to just get
some clarity on it, and maybe we will and maybe
we won't.

Speaker 2 (01:18:45):
Yeah, who knows.

Speaker 1 (01:18:47):
We do have one last super chat though, I don't
want to pass anybody up on the superchats. Yeah it was, Yeah,
it was just how are these atheists seasoned? Paprika And
I don't know, I've got I've got whatever Puerto Rican
seasoning is.

Speaker 5 (01:19:03):
I don't Maybe I'm just having horrible memory loss from
the things that I did back in my spiritual days.

Speaker 4 (01:19:08):
I'm just kidding. Do we do the one that talks
about the Pride event?

Speaker 3 (01:19:13):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (01:19:14):
Before I got to it, it was crossed out I.

Speaker 4 (01:19:17):
Think let's think, let's let's read. Let's read that if
we can.

Speaker 5 (01:19:21):
I mean, because I they sending ten dollars, so I
want to make sure that they're heard.

Speaker 2 (01:19:25):
Okay, yeah, well you do it. So let's see.

Speaker 1 (01:19:27):
That's uh Interstate five who 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.

Speaker 6 (01:19:41):
Thanks Jay, I think that might have been a super
chat from last week. But yeah, Justin was it?

Speaker 4 (01:19:47):
Oh well, I'm glad to have heard it. You know,
that's great.

Speaker 6 (01:19:50):
But someone when in the chat was asking, who's Justin?
That's just in the deconstruction zone. Another another yeah, yeah right,
and he's yes, he's a Bible scholar and knows he's
forgotten more about the Bible than I will probably ever know. Yeah,
that's right.

Speaker 4 (01:20:05):
I'm trying to make just Justin a household name.

Speaker 5 (01:20:08):
That's like, it's not catching on, but it's just it's
gotta be a household name, just Justin.

Speaker 4 (01:20:11):
Right, Everyone's like, oh yeah, dude, Justin, that's right.

Speaker 1 (01:20:15):
All right, well, that's gonna be our show today, I believe,
and you know, I hope that everybody will tune in.
Next week we do have you know, Truth Wanted that's
going on this Friday, and you know we've got shows
all throughout well not all throughout December, just you know,
the first two weeks of December we've got shows. So
I hope everybody will tune in.

Speaker 3 (01:20:35):
Then.

Speaker 6 (01:20:36):
Yep, I'll be hosting. I'll be hosting Cookeeating in two weeks,
and I will be here on Sunday this coming week,
just to remind everybody about that wonderful Drive for Equality Texas.
Bring your stuff, come meet me, come meet the Genesee wonderful.

Speaker 5 (01:20:56):
My brain was doing the same thing your brain was doing.
I was like, wait, which word goes first?

Speaker 6 (01:21:02):
But it'd be fantastic and we'll all be here.

Speaker 3 (01:21:04):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (01:21:05):
It really is cool to meet people in person.

Speaker 4 (01:21:07):
Yeah, I know it is.

Speaker 5 (01:21:08):
It's like every time I get to the opportunity to
go out there, it's just it's so fun. That's some
of my best memories and so I'm looking forward to
more hopefully.

Speaker 3 (01:21:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21:18):
I would definitely suggest anybody if you can meet in
person like that is always such a very uh, you know,
uplifting thing and pretty cool thing. I was at conferences
like you know, all throughout last year, and it's just
great meeting everybody in person.

Speaker 6 (01:21:32):
Cool man cool, it really is.

Speaker 1 (01:21:35):
All right, Well, that's gonna be our show for today.
I hope all of you heathens out there have a
great day, and don't forget to stand up and use
your voice.

Speaker 4 (01:21:43):
This is perfect timing because I'm so hungry. Oh my gosh.
All right, guys, see you, I'm gonna eat some bagel bikes.

Speaker 5 (01:21:53):
Start a.

Speaker 6 (01:21:56):
Stop ray around your boys.

Speaker 1 (01:22:03):
They set up your walcome.

Speaker 8 (01:22:08):
Diet l.

Speaker 5 (01:22:12):
M will be ready.

Speaker 7 (01:22:33):
Watch Talk een and live Sundays at one pm Central.

Speaker 6 (01:22:37):
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 with the
show online at tiny dot c c slash call th
H