Truth Wanted 08.37 09-12-2025 with Kelley Laughlin and The Cross Examiner

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Throughout history, every religion has had items that they deemed
to be holy relics, whether they were possessions of or
actual body parts of the gods, saints, or prophets of
that religion. It's claimed that they have had magical powers,
things from healing all the way to ensuring pregnancies. Do
you know about any holy relics? Do you believe they

(00:22):
hold magical or holy powers? Is so we want to
talk to you, So give us a call because the
show is starting right now. Hello, and welcome to another
episode of Truth Wanted. I am your host, Kelly Laughlin,
and how if you're not sick of seeing me? But

(00:43):
this is a live call in show that happens every
single week on Fridays at seven pm Central Time, where
we talk about what you believe and why you believe it,
And if you'd like, you can call us right now
at one five, one two nine you four two, or
you can call us through your computer at tiny dot

(01:04):
cc slash called tw truth one. It is a product
of the Atheist Community of Austin, a five oh one
c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism,
critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of government and religion.
And every week we have a special, super special guest,

(01:26):
and this week is no different. And my guest this
week is the amazing Cross Examiner. How you doing, How
you doing?

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Hello?

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Yeah, it's great to be here. I'm not sure amazing,
but amazingly pleased to be on the show with you.
For sure. I got to meet you when we met
up at the back cruise. That was the first time
we met in person. It was a real thrill for me.
So thank you so much for having me on your show.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
I hope this doesn't embarrass you, but I'll be honest
with you. I can still see your face, your look
of amazement when all those bats came flying out.

Speaker 3 (01:55):
That was all I gotta say. Man, it was really cool.
There's very, you know, very few times in your life
where you see something like that for the first time,
and you know, you just got to revel in it
because that was just stunning.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
So I was watching you look in amazement and I
was like, that had to be what I looked like, so.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
Very true. I was just worried. I just wanted, didn't
want because it's like one point to one point four
million bats live under that one bridge, and I'm like,
that's a lot of poop. I don't they don't poop
on us.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
Keep your drink covered when you're flying. So yeah, I really,
I really was thrilled to meet you in real life.
I was really glad you were there.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Thanks, thanks so much. It was it was it was
much better than I thought it would be. I mean,
I thought it'd be great, but meeting every person that
was with the ACA, and then meeting people who were
just viewers who wanted to come along and hang out
and be able to sit down and have a drink
with them and chat, it was really a highlight. I'm
really glad I went, and I look forward next year.

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, I'm looking forward again to next year as well.
So I really really am. So a lot of people
know you. I guess from our flag Well, I don't
want to see our flagship show because the Flagship Show
is the nonprofit that's right. But let's say from the
signature show, the atheist experience. So how long have you
been on that on that.

Speaker 3 (03:19):
That's a great question. I'd say coming on two years,
maybe it's a while ago. I decided to start a podcast.
It was basically the January sixth situation that really I
had been pondering what to do as an attorney, and
my chief concern is the rise of Christian national and

(03:41):
the nationalism that we've seen since pre Bush, and that
got heightened with Tea Party and then Trump and all
of that stuff. And Jan six really got me off
my butt and decided to start, you know, at least
trying to do a podcast. And then I heard that
the ACA was looking for some people to help out,
and I volunteered and started out on UH Nonprofits and

(04:01):
other shows, and eventually had the opportunity to start appearing
occasionally on The Atheist Experience. And I've enjoyed that too,
but I love all the shows. If I could appear more,
I would so let the producers know. I like coming
on and just chatting with people.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
I've really been looking forward tonight. Actually we have actually
worked together before on AHP, and so I was really
looking forward to it again. I actually have a relic
left over from that episode, the My Mango on The's
Right Mango episode.

Speaker 3 (04:33):
Oh my gosh, that guy. Oh that episode was frustrating
and hilarious at the same time. The guy just would
not get past that. We were fixated on the mango metaphor.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
Yeah, it was really fine. And and then when we
use the mango metaphor back to him, it just went
right over his head. It was amazing. It was amazing. Folks.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
That's a lesson to you. If you're gonna bring a metaphor,
you gotta know all the ins and outs and the
ways that we're going to sort of playfully go along
with it.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Well, you know what, before we get too far into this,
every week we do a question of the week and
we always have our backup post come up and do it,
and we have. I couldn't believe we had the backup
post today, but here they are. It's godless engineer John Gleeson.

Speaker 3 (05:17):
Hi, Jay, John, what's up? He?

Speaker 4 (05:20):
Then's how y'all doing? Hey?

Speaker 1 (05:21):
Hey, what's up? Buddy? Just heaving it out?

Speaker 4 (05:24):
Yeah, yeah, all right, yeah, So first time in the
in the backup slot really, so, you know, it's it's
a little weird for me. But before we get started today,
we did want to give everybody the results of last
week's We Want Truth or w w TT segments. And
last week we asked people here on Truth Wanted name

(05:46):
of time, believers don't mind playing god and here are
our favorite answers. First up, number three, We've got no
no what says believers don't mind playing God when they
water their plan m that's.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
You know, that's really funny. Could my stepdad or not
my stepdad? My real dad when he was alive, lived
in Portland, Oregon, and when he was watering his flowers,
his neighbor would always come out and yell at him
and say, ah, you're doing God's work. Don't be doing
her I supposed to water your flowers. When I saw that,
that reminded me of my dad. So thanks, no what.

(06:23):
I appreciate that. That was a good one. Uh.

Speaker 4 (06:26):
Second up is Chuck Gaetos or Gaetos saying believers don't
mind playing God when their daughter's first date picks her
up on his motorcycle.

Speaker 3 (06:38):
Is it playing God or screaming Jesus Christ?

Speaker 4 (06:42):
They could work both ways on And the number one
from last week is know what again saying believers don't
mind playing God when they take y agra.

Speaker 2 (06:54):
Wow?

Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah, yeah, I disagree with that.

Speaker 3 (06:58):
Any medical miracle quite frank? I mean, who says that
the Jehovah's witnesses don't have it right and you shouldn't
be taking blood transusions. Yeah, yeah, yeah, excellent, know what?

Speaker 4 (07:10):
Yeah? And so this week's prompt is what is a
job you could get in heaven? And so I'm really
curious as to what you guys have for that you
want to go?

Speaker 1 (07:21):
You want to go first?

Speaker 3 (07:22):
I have a slightly more serious answer. Do you want
the serious answer or your silly answer? I don't know.
I have a serious answer. Go ahead, psychoanalyst. And here's
why many people have made this observation. It's really stuck
with me. If you have a relative who's religious. Let's
say your mom and you die an unbeliever, and under

(07:42):
her belief system, you're going to Hell and she goes
to heaven. Either she's going to know you're in hell
and be horribly upset for eternity, which in which case
not heaven, or she's not going to know you're in
hell and not remember you. Therefore she can be eternally
happy and she's going to need therapy trying to remember you.
Either way, there's a problem here with this whole heaven

(08:04):
and hell and who you loved and all of that
sort of stuff. So maybe a psychoanalyst to help with
the misery, or a psychoanalyst to help you recover lost memories.
I don't know, but that's my serious answer. I think
that's a real job that would be needed in Heaven.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
I was thinking I might be able, I might be
able to get a job as a halo polisher. I
was thinking that if I if I went to Heaven,
I don't think they're going to give me a very
good job. That's all.

Speaker 3 (08:30):
Is that halo polisher coming from rock polishing?

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Is that where you got that? I just figured I'm
going to be on the bottom wrong if I make
it up there.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
So I think helo polishing is really important. You got
to be ready for all of those, you know, Renaissance
portraits that they're going to paint you. So about you, John?

Speaker 1 (08:49):
Yeah? What about you? John?

Speaker 4 (08:50):
You know, to be quite honest, I feel like I
would have to go with something starkly different than whatever
I'm doing now. So like, yeah, you know, probably what's
that what's that job where funk shue. I'll be a
fun guy. I'll just be able and I'll be a
total hic about it too, right, because I'll just be
able that Yeah, why don't you just put that count

(09:13):
right over there? It really works with the flow of
the energies. You know, I don't worry, I could see energies.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
That's what happened.

Speaker 4 (09:19):
Uh, you know they got me here.

Speaker 3 (09:21):
Oh it's great. I thought you were going to go
a different direction to say, I'm gonna have to do
something totally opposite that when I do you now, which
is I guess I'll be wrong in heaven because I'm
always right now.

Speaker 4 (09:32):
I mean, that's what I essentially said.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
I mean, thanks a lot, John, I really appreciate you
coming up and do this. I'm gonna have you come
back at the end of the show. We'll check in
with you again. So thanks a lot, appreciate it. Alrighty,
that was awesome.

Speaker 3 (09:48):
John is just an awesome guy.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
Yeah. I was about to say that was like the
best backup post I ever had.

Speaker 4 (09:53):
That.

Speaker 1 (09:54):
I was not expecting that.

Speaker 3 (09:56):
Hey, I've been your backup.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
You know, have you been my I backups?

Speaker 3 (10:00):
So I don't know, I.

Speaker 1 (10:01):
Don't think so. Just I know I usually have a
really really really awesome backup post. That's Eli Slack. I
really appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, good.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Eli's freaking awesome. So where were we we were talking
about your are you starting out on the show, and
then and then you mentioned your own podcast. Tell us
a little bit about that.

Speaker 3 (10:22):
Well, it's the Cross Examiner podcast. I've been on a
hiatus for a while now because it takes a surprising
amount of energy to produce a regular podcast of any
sort of quality. It seems that the Ai Sludge and
the TikTok generation are not interested in the type of
stuff that I want to do very often. I have

(10:42):
a lot of followers, and I'm going to produce more
content this season, but it's been slow to get motivated,
quite frankly, because I prefer to do deep dive sort
of If you imagine the introductions that Rachel Maddow would
do on her episodes, whill she'd be like in nineteen
twenty eight, a person invented the the little rubber thing
that you put on the end of your toothbrush, and

(11:03):
then somehow she connects that through a series of interesting
facts five minutes later to whatever happened in the news today,
and she educates you, entertains you. I kind of like
doing those deep dives where I sort of teach about things.
But what I've learned recently is I need to get
back to why I started this which was January sixth,
and I think it's because I'm passionate about educating people

(11:25):
about what things are and how their government works, how
law works, and what civics are. I think we're missing
basic civics education, and that's how we get election denial.
And we have basic science education that's missing, and that's
how we get vaccine denial and all the things that
you see on Truth Wanted, where you get conspiracy theories
and arguments from ignorance and things, those sorts of things.

(11:46):
So this season, I think I'm going to be focusing
more on let's talk about what is the Constitution? What
does it say? In fact, I have this idea of
creating a high school level ethics course that says, let's
look at all the major clauses of the Constitution and
what can we derive from them from an ethics perspective,
like ethics through the filter of the Constitution. So I

(12:10):
might be doing some of that on the air as
well as well well as some deep dive like hey,
did you know why the Supreme Court can be the
final word on things? And why it's a problem with
any given president says they're going to ignore it here's
the whole history of that and why it's important. So
that's what I like focusing on. So that's my podcast,
and when I come here, I really really enjoy hanging

(12:30):
out with people like you guys and our audience and
seeking people who have inter things, interesting things to tell
us while being open to being questioned because we're all,
you know, should be a little skeptical of crazy claims.
So having those discussions is a lot of fun for me.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yeah, I'll agree to that. I have those discussions myself.
I find it very entertaining and informative too, because I
always end up learning something right.

Speaker 3 (12:56):
Absolutely, absolutely, just prepping for this show on the topics
you said you were interested in, I've learned a whole
bunch of things today, so I really appreciate that, you know.

Speaker 1 (13:04):
And I was going to mention that you mentioned doing
a deep dive on something, and we have been doing
deep dives now. We're starting one regularly every week. We
call him the truth Bombs. It was Dan's idea originally,
and you wanted to bring it back, so we're doing
it every week. And I wanted to bring this week's
truth bomb to us to everybody, So if you'll bear
with me for a minute or two. Absolutely, I want

(13:26):
to talk tonight about the Holy prep whos Now. I
started out the show talking about holy relics, and there
are many, many holy relics that are associated with Jesus' existence.
There's pieces of the cross, there's the nails, the shroud
of turin, all kinds of things. However, unlike a lot
of the saints that came after him, we don't have

(13:47):
any actual pieces of Jesus's body. This is, of course,
because he's supposedly ascended into heaven and apparently nobody thought
to keep any of his fingernail clipping or all the
trimmings from his hair and beard. I guess nobody thought
he was going to be famous in the future or anything,
so they didn't think of saving that. But and maybe

(14:09):
Jesus actually didn't need to do any of that grooming.
Maybe he just woke up looking heavenly every morning. I
don't know. But there was one thing that was supposedly
cut off from his body that does seem to have survived,
and that's the Holy prepouse, or it's more commonly known
as the Holy foreskin. Now, there is an account in

(14:30):
one of the Infancy Gospels, which would probably be a
good idea for a deep dive in the future. But
it's about the circumcision of Jesus. And this gospel was
pretty popular amongst the populace. That's why it was popular
until it was ruled non canonical at the Council of
Nicea and it was completely tossed out by the church.

(14:51):
So popular was it, in fact, that there was a
holy feast egg or the foreskin, that was on January
we first, Yes, we used to start every year off
with the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord. That
was its actual official name. And every town that had
a holy foreskin would bring it out, showed around to

(15:15):
all the townsfolk put it away back in the church.
And yes, I did say every town that had one,
because there were a lot of them. There were even
possibly hundreds of these things. And you gotta wonder, how
does a story like this even start. And it, of

(15:36):
course it starts with the Holy Roman Emperor, right why not?
And it's not just any old Holy Roman Empire, but
emperor but Charlotte made himself, and good old Charlie supposedly
gifted it to Leo the third, the pope when the
Pope crowned him emperor, and it's claimed that Charlie got
it from one of two sources. He either was presented

(16:00):
by an angel when he was praying, or he received
it as a wedding gift from Princess Irene of Byzantium,
which probably has to make it the weirdest wedding gift
of all time. But that story is a lot more
plausible than the first one, So I would believe that
over the angel story. This foreskin was supposedly apparently placed

(16:25):
inside of a golden cross shaped relquarry. I always have
a hard time saying relacquerry. And it was. It was
actually included in an inventory of holy relics that was
made in nineteen oh five, so the cross was still
there in the Vatican. However, it was stolen in nineteen
forty five, so it's gone that Holy prep Bous is

(16:46):
no longer around. Now there's another story of another Holy
prep boost that was supposedly in the Vatican, and it
was it was supposedly brought there by Saint Brigida, and
that will was supposedly stolen in the Sack of Rome
in fifteen twenty seven by of all people, the Holy

(17:07):
Roman Empire, and it was stolen, completely stolen, along with
a lot of other relics. There is a legend that
a German soldier was captured with it about fifty miles
away in the Italian village of Calcatta. It was placed
in the church there. It was officially was like the foreskin,

(17:27):
the real Holy foreskin. It was brought out every year
and shown to everybody up until nineteen eighty three, when
it too was stolen. You've got to wonder who's out
there stealing foreskins right now. Of the hundreds of foreskins
that possibly existed in meanievul times, not a single example

(17:49):
still exists, not a single one. As I mentioned, the
two most famous claimants to the title being the one
true foreskin, were both stolen in the last one hundred
and twenty five years, which has led some people to
believe that the Catholic Church was behind the thefts, and
behind the disappearance of all the foreskins for that matter,

(18:11):
in order to squash the veneration of what they deemed,
more in modern times to be an embarrassing relic of
the Church. Now. I don't know if that would happen personally,
I'm not sure the Church would do anything in secret.
How about you? How about you cross exam you think
the church would do anything secret.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
I could do a whole season on that.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
Yes, absolutely, I thought that was a pretty good topic
for a book stunning.

Speaker 3 (18:41):
So, like my first question is, and this is the
stuff I learned you stuff you don't know about. I mean, first,
I have this image of the Catholic Church, like making
it rain four skins on John j anyway, first, because
every town has one, So first 't that. But then
the more the deeper question I had was if you
study the history of Jesus and what people wrote about him,

(19:02):
and when we see a pattern of all we see
that the early writings of Jesus of when he was
born and what happened when he was a kid, that
all came down much later, and they get a lot
of stuff wrong, just playing out wrong. The dates are
all wrong. The whole story about a census and having
returned to your city, that's all bs we know that
didn't happen. So it's all obviously stuff that was written

(19:23):
after the fact to give a backstory to this Jesus character.
And then there's this gap of nothing and then as
an adult. We follow up with Jesus and he's oh,
now he's here, and he's performing miracles and tough. Jesus is,
you know, making whips and chasing money changers out of
the temple and being a cool dude, and you know,

(19:45):
healing people and doing a lot of nice things. But
I've always wondered, like if the stories were made up.
So obviously nobody was writing anything real at the time
that Jesus was born. Nobody's sitting there going, WHOA, this
kid's gonna be somebody someday. We better follow this guy
quick grab his foreskin. Like so, if that didn't happen,

(20:05):
if they're not writing about it, there was no like like,
oh my god, this star came over and all these
wise men came along and like like it beig came
news and that this kid is going places. Then how
the hell do people think that the foreskin was retained?
Was it a Jewish tradition to keep the foreskin of
your kid for thirty years? No, it was what happened there,

(20:25):
do you know.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
Yeah, Supposedly the mother of the man who performed the
circumcision had a vision that this kid was going to
be somebody famous. In the future, and she preserved it
in a bottle of oil. I can't remember what kind
of oil it was. It was one that I had
never heard of before. It was a weird one. But yeah,
it was supposedly preserved in this bottle of oil and

(20:47):
then apparently passed through the centuries until it got the
Princess Irene of Byzantium. That's how one of the legends goes.
I'm not sure how Saint Bridgeta got her foreskin, so
I don't even know if she was out there looking
for forth with you out there actually hunting forest and hunters.

Speaker 3 (21:04):
I tell you, we need a new Indiana Jones movie.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
I tell you I was wondering. You know, you gotta
wonder if there's hundreds of them. You know, they can't
all be real, right, but maybe they could. Maybe like
every time he cut it off, he just healed it.

Speaker 3 (21:20):
I mean, we have this whole concept that all things
are possible in prayer, and people have claimed that they've
seen amputees grow their toes back, among other things. Recently,
go to show me Thetoes dot com, by the way,
and that's not my site. It's just the whole story
about a church you gotta see it. So yeah, absolutely,

(21:42):
he could have sort of lizard DNA powers where he
regrows his foreskin as a little side hustle, just keep
cutting it off selling the relic. Although I learned researching
for this show, First of all, I learned most Christians
don't venerate relics the way that Catholics do. I kind
of knew that intuitively, but I went and looked it up,

(22:02):
and sure enough, not only do Catholics venerate relics, they
have a classification system. There are three classes is class one,
Class two, and class three relics. Class one is the
body of a saint or of Jesus or something like that,
so the foreskin would be a we're talking about a
class one relic here. Class two is the possessions of
such a person, so the clothing. And I don't know,

(22:25):
does the foreskin become a possession after it's cut off.
Is it demoted to a class two relic because I.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
Was once supposedly the older woman kept it, so it
wouldn't be right.

Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, I don't know. And there is anything that has
touched a class one or two relic becomes a class
three relics, So there's a whole business into touching things
with relics, So this would be a class one or
class two relic. I assume class one. But it is
apparently a sin, like a very big sin, to sell
a relic, And that led me to ask the question,

(22:59):
well if it so, if it's a sin to sell
a relic, is it a sin to buy one? Isn't
like both sides of the tracks action to blame, But no, no, no. Conveniently,
the Catholic Church says, no, no, no, it's not it's
not a sin to buy them, and then they proceeded
to go around to buy a bunch of relics, so
that's kind of convenient as well. So, yes, it's a
sin to sell relics, and it's a sin to keep

(23:21):
them for yourself if you are not a true believer
and you're not going to share them with others who venerate.
But it is not a sin to buy them.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
It can't be, because then the church would be sitting exactly.
That just seems like to me, so exactly. Drew Harrison
said something really funny in the chat Indiana Jones and
the Holy prep Us of Doom. Yeah I know, Eli
said that for the record, the crew came up with
the Indiana Jones reboat reboot. First. I'm sorry I didn't
see it, but man, that was pretty funny. I got

(23:52):
to say the Holy prep rouse of Doom, so I had.

Speaker 3 (23:54):
That's going to be the I'm going to make a
I'm really into board games and now I'm in my
mind's spending on a on a on a board game
for you know, be a kid like an old nineteen
a seventies nineteen eighties Hasbroro Monopoly, like you know, mouse
Trap game something like that where it's like, you know,
a spinoff on Saturday Night Live of Who's going to

(24:16):
get the Prepousive Doom? And Well, and there's like this
little plastic foreskin that you're chasing around the board. I
think that would be great. It's holy, it's a relic.
How dare you say that it's not appropriate.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
I'm not going to say it. We should probably get
to a call though, when you.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
Think sure, absolutely.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
We have one of my favorite callers, John from Canada.
He him John and he says, Charlie Kurrk does not
the zero of all the bad press he's getting. So, Hi, John,
how you doing?

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Kelly? How are you?

Speaker 3 (24:48):
Man?

Speaker 1 (24:48):
Good. How are you man, I'm doing alright.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
That's happy to hear that. Man. How are you across, examiner,
I'm doing well, John.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
How are you doing?

Speaker 2 (24:54):
I'm doing well. Okay, let's get to it. As you know,
two days ago, sort of comment dere Tellier kir was
tragically viciously gunned down as a tragedy. In my heart
goes out to his wife, his children, it was a
cut barum.

Speaker 1 (25:09):
But to any victim of gun violence in their families,
my heart goes on too.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Yeah, good, excellent. But it's really sicking in me that
you have people who are out there who are saying
that he deserved it. Instead instead of saying like, is
it traggy, they were talking about his politics without the
place in this scenario.

Speaker 3 (25:27):
That's it, because I'll ask two questions of you. I
just want to clarify because you said two things there. One,
you said there are people out there saying he deserves it,
and that's a separate statement from there are people talking
about his political stances. So I want to clarify what
you're objecting to to be clear. As far as I know,
I personally, everybody i've spoke to it, the ACA and

(25:47):
the acas. You know, certainly their stances. There is no
place for violence in the world, much less in political discourse.
You know, political change through violence is imhorrant and uh
and horrific. So I don't know anybody in my personal
set of friends who are saying he deserves it.

Speaker 1 (26:08):
Now.

Speaker 3 (26:08):
I'm sure the Internet being the Internet, there are people
saying that, but I would immediately block those people on
my social media platforms and I would ignore them as
unserious people. So can we can we agree that nobody
on this call, and I assume Kelly would agree, nobody
here is saying that Charlie Kirk deserved to be shot?

(26:30):
Can we all agree on that with that? Okay? So
is your objection simply that now is not the time
to talk about his political stance? Okay, why do you
think that's.

Speaker 2 (26:40):
The case, Well, he just said it. There's no room
for violent and political course or in the world. We
all have to unite here because it's tinoa anyone.

Speaker 3 (26:50):
Who whoa, whoa, wha, wha, wha, whoa whoa. You made
a big jump right there. So I asked you why
now is not the time to talk about his political
stances without getting into politics on the show, we're talking
in the abstract here, and you said, because now is
not the time, you sort of repeat it, and then
you said we have to unite. I'm going to object

(27:12):
to that, first by definitionally I don't know what you mean.
And second, I don't think anybody has to unite over anything.
But what do you mean you have to we have
to unite?

Speaker 2 (27:20):
I met as a specie, we're all one people, Okay.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Time should we? I don't know that we should all
be grieving, John, but I think we I think as humans,
as a good human being, we can all condemn what happened,
But I don't think that everybody needs to be grieving.
It's like if if if I don't care for a
person for whatever reason, that I don't care for that person,

(27:46):
and that person does have bad luck, something bad happens
to them in this case of death, it doesn't mean
that I even though I can condemn the violence, I
can say that person doesn't deserve to have that happen
to them, it still doesn't I can be apathetic about
how I feel about them having to suffer from this.
Do you understand what I'm saying. It's like if I

(28:09):
don't know Charlie Kirk. I don't agree with Charlie Kirk.
I actually have very opposite opinions of some of the
things that Charlie Kirk says. So when Charlie Kirk gets hurt,
I can condemn the fact that he was hurt, but
I don't really care that he got hurt. Do you
know what I mean? I care about how he was hurt,
but not that he was hurt. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (28:31):
To clarify, this is sort of like the question of guilty,
not guilty, innocent? Right, I don't have to I don't
have to actively mourn somebody that I do disagree with,
but that doesn't mean that I actively wanted them to die.
I can be indifferent. My heart goes out to his family,
my heart goes out to his loved ones, my heart

(28:53):
goes out to the world in this country that we
are in this state. But it doesn't mean that I
can't be apathetic about the individual right, Like millions of
ten thousand kids starve to death every single day on
this planet, I am more upset about that than I
am about one politician in the United States being killed.

(29:16):
From a just individual case perspective, does that make sense?

Speaker 2 (29:20):
I'm not asking you to put their lives on hold
for him. But the least the people should say this
is a tragedy.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
We said that, yeah, it is that we must unite
and that we should mourn him. And that's I think
where we're disagreeing.

Speaker 1 (29:34):
You're right, I like, as cross examiner said, the fact
that all these children are dying actually has a way
bigger impact on me than Charlie Kirk does.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
But he was a human being. It should be the same.

Speaker 5 (29:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
No, well not necessarily. I mean, you know, like, like,
do you care about some guy who lives in Saskatchewan
that you never met before when he died? No, you don't.
I mean you're.

Speaker 3 (29:56):
Apathetic evially at least you know, you're.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
Apathetic toward that. And I just had that same feeling
towards towards Charlie. I just, you know, I condemn what
happened to him. I don't think he deserved what happened
to him. But Charlie Kirk himself, I don't really care about.
I really don't care about him. I care about the action.
I care about the outcome of the action. I condemn

(30:21):
both those things. I don't think they should happen to
anyone anyone, but I don't really care specifically for one
particular person.

Speaker 3 (30:31):
Let me ask you this, John, when is the appropriate
time to reflect upon Charlie Kirk's political stance?

Speaker 2 (30:38):
Okay, we shall give it a year?

Speaker 1 (30:42):
WHOA, Wow, that's quite a while.

Speaker 3 (30:45):
Wow. I would have given you maybe a twenty four hours.
It's something I would have thought about maybe, like people
might say a week. But we can't talk about Charlie
Kirk's politics for a year after he's dead.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
That's what you meant right now?

Speaker 3 (31:02):
Is and is that the rule for everybody? Like if
your neighbor dies, we can't talk about their politics for
a year. If if if any sort of like for example,
we had what was her name, uh so Horman Hortman,
thank you in Minnesota or yea died, we can't talk
about her politics for a year when she was assassinated.

(31:26):
Why why is this? Why can't we Why can't we
reflect upon somebody's politics after they've died for a year.
What's the justification?

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Okay, we could talk about his politics if it was
if it was equal, because the conservative people are are
turning by on him. I guarantee you if he was
a liberal, people will be saying he was a wonderful person.
He braves, Well, I would.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
I would think I would think that liberals would be
saying that, just like conservatives are saying that right now.
But I don't think conservatives would be saying that. I
think that the people who would follow him and agree
with him would be say saying that. I don't think.
I don't think it would be like everybody just because
he was a liberal. That doesn't make any sense at all,
does it really?

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Do you think that's exactly what a double standard?

Speaker 3 (32:12):
Well, sure, no, it's not at all.

Speaker 1 (32:15):
It's it's the standard people people agree with the people
that think the same way they do. So because Charlie
Kirk was a conservative, conservatives are grieving him more than
a liberal would. If Charlie Kirk had been a liberal.
You're right, liberals would be grieving him more. What conservatives
would not be because he doesn't fit their their frame

(32:37):
of mind, just like he doesn't fit the liberals frame
of Ryan right now. And I just want to point
out that the person who did this, that that that
I don't want to say, did that, did do it,
that allegedly did this is allegedly a conservative, was a
Trump supporter. Yeah, and I don't know. I don't know
how to. I don't know how how to.

Speaker 3 (33:01):
In your point of view now, So yeah, I think
that we should realize that there is this race to
sort of point it go. Okay, the shooter was this,
the shooter was that, and I think we can all
agree the shooter was unstable to do this right. Your
claim that there is a double standard amongst somebody somewhere,
the media or whoever. The usual suspects are about what's

(33:24):
proper and how people condemn each other after these events
and all this stuff is an utter false narrative. The
conservative Christian movement loves this persecution complex. They have to say, oh, well,
we can't say bad thing. All the bad things we
say about liberals were condemned about, but then you guys
say bad things about these people, et cetera, et cetera,

(33:44):
which is not even what we're talking about. We're talking
about not talking about Charlie Cook, the person. We're talking
about his politics. But if you want to go on
the record, we've had Melissa Hortman assassinated. The Conservatives were
fine with that, and pardon them. All the people the
liberal judge had her son executed by a conservative. Nobody

(34:06):
said anything about that. On the right, we had period,
we had the guy from Florida sending pipe bombs to
the White House and Charlie Kirk says a patriot should
bail that man out, and nobody said anything about this.
It goes on and on and on. So don't give
me this false double standard narrative. It is horrific on
both sides to attack the person and to say, like

(34:28):
Charlie Kirk did, that, Hey, we should bail out somebody
who nearly murdered a politician's husband, but instead we should
revere him when he dies, that a we must come together,
that we can't talk about his politics for a year,
and that we must unite in mourning him. That's a
double standard, if there's anything. So, I'm sorry I sort

(34:49):
of got a little hot under the collar there, but
if you're going to bring this information to bear, you
better be ready to recognize that humans as a whole
tender run to their corners when this sort of shit
happens in a useless way and start pointing fingers at
each other instead of really trying to solve the problem,
which is we're in a state now where political violence

(35:10):
is becoming more and more normal, and that is because
on many sides there is amped up rhetoric and increased
threats to people's very being. And that is an unfortunate
state of affairs. And if anybody, including Charlie Kirk, contributes
to that atmosphere, we should be allowed to talk about that,
and whether or not we cared about the person, we

(35:34):
should be able to talk about his politics. Put another way,
are people who like Charlie Kirk allowed to talk about
his politics for a year after he dies? Yeah? Okay,
so there's your double standard. I can't hear you. Kelly.
By the way, I'm not sure if I'm doing all
right here.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
No, that was my bad. Okay, I muted my mic
because I coughed. That was my bad. I was totally wrong. Again. Well,
I got a really good double standard in this. In
this particular case, though, you're asking us to have empathy
for somebody who said that empathy didn't exist.

Speaker 3 (36:10):
That's true, that's true. Empathy is a made up.

Speaker 2 (36:14):
New age word, you guys to realize right now, you're
laughing about dead Man, right you don't.

Speaker 1 (36:20):
No, No, we're laughing about we're laughing about the standard
We're not laughing at Charlie Kirk. We're laughing at the
double standard. John. We're laughing at the fact that people,
and it's not just you, it's many people that believe
what you believe, and you have the right to believe that.
I don't have any problem with that, but many people
who are that are on your side are calling for

(36:44):
the people who don't like Charlie Kirk to have empathy
for Charlie Kirk. When Charlie Kirk said that empathy didn't exist.
That's what I'm laughing at. It had nothing to do
with Charlie Kirk himself. And as we were laughing at
the double standard, excellent point.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
Don't you realize I didn't realize that the Finnish speech
can be at risk now because if that's what you
can speak in public.

Speaker 1 (37:05):
Hey, I don't know how how can freedom of speech
be at risk?

Speaker 2 (37:08):
Now?

Speaker 3 (37:08):
Define define freedom of.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
Speech being able to say what you want to say
without fear of being killed.

Speaker 3 (37:14):
As mister Kirk was, that's not freedom of speech the
way that ninety nine point ninety nine percent of the
people use that phrase. So I suggest you rephrase it
and don't use freedom of speech as a shorthand for that,
because freedom of speech means, on the common parlance and
in every possible way in public discourse, it means the
government cannot control your speech, It can't compel you to

(37:38):
take a position or speak, and it cannot suppress your
speech in a unconstitutional way. At least here in the
United States, and other governments have made interestingly different decisions
from a legal perspective and from a public policy perspective
because of what you're expressing a concern about many other countries.
In fact, most other countries do not have the freedom

(38:01):
of speech that we have in the US exactly because
of the political violence that we're seeing here in the
United States. I'm not talking just about Charlie Kirk, but
they recognize that hurtful speech is something that can get
people very angry and can also harm people psychologically. For example,
if you're in the UK, most people view it as

(38:21):
sort of like a sister country. Everything's fine. If you
go over there and use a racial slur, you can
end up in jail, convicted of a crime and stay
there for months. That would be crazy here in the
United States. So that is what we're to mean by
freedom of speech. The government cannot come in and control you.
What you're talking about is I'm crazy. I'm worried that

(38:42):
we have such access to guns and such low mental
health care in this country, and people are so stressed
out in their lives about what's going on in this
country right now that controversial figures will get shot. That's
what you're worried about. It's not freedom of speech. It's
on a powder keg, and people who are controversial are

(39:02):
gonna be easy targets. Does that make sense.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
It does make sense, but it's not.

Speaker 3 (39:10):
Let's not get into the gun control problem. It is
one factor, Okay, it is absolutely one factor you can have.
You can have the same societies around the world, and
the deaths per gun per capita, per capita, again are
insanely low compared to the United States. So one element.
If you can't even admit that one element of the

(39:32):
gun violence in America has to do with the prevalence
of guns in America, I can't take you seriously. I
didn't say it was the only thing. I listed a
whole bunch of things, and you jumped on guns as
if that's the really important part here. The important part
is it's a powder Keg. There's political violence and people
are scared of speaking out in a controversial way, and

(39:55):
we have to address that as a country. What's your proposed.

Speaker 2 (39:59):
Solution people can't speak see I think.

Speaker 3 (40:04):
What's your proposed solution? I agree it's a problem. It's
about we don't want to live like this. This is
not the country I grew up in. What is your
proposed solution to this powder keg situation where people are
worried that if they speak out publicly with their genuine
let's let's give them the benefit of the doubt, genuinely
held radical, somewhat radical, what people would call radical beliefs,

(40:25):
that they will be physically attacked. What's your solution.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
Well, it may seem a bit naive, but we need
better people. I'm sure you two would never that's fair education,
that's true.

Speaker 3 (40:37):
I would think you would shoot anybody that I disagree with.
I agree, and I don't think you would either. John.
I've I've taken calls from you over the time. You
seem like a very level headed person, if not sort
of passionate about what you talk about. Most people I
know would not do this, and I think most people
who end up committing these sort of heinous acts. A

(40:58):
disproportionate amount of them have mental health issues. I don't
tend to run to the corner and say he was
a this or he was a that. It's okay, what
happened in this person's life that led them to this decision?
Oh wow, they were radicalized by this organization. They were
radicalized over here. They had mental health issues. You may
have seen the video down in North Carolina, a guy

(41:19):
stabbing a woman on a train. What do you find
when you get past the finger pointing. Oh, his mother
tried to have him committed to a health care facility
involuntarily multiple times, and there wasn't enough money to do that,
and he ends up killing people. So if you get
past the finger pointing, if you get past the politics

(41:40):
and you look to root causes, I think we can
have genuine conversations where we try to come up with solutions,
where we don't have to say things like, oh, we
shouldn't talk about the politics of the dead. Well, people
are dying every day. If we followed your rule, we
couldn't talk about politics constantly. So I think we should
instead talk about the politics and see where we can

(42:01):
tweak them to come up with a solution where we
don't have to live in fear that a bomb's going
to go off when I go to the mall.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
No one have to live in fear.

Speaker 1 (42:12):
Correct, You're right, I agree, I agree, and I think
I think we can both agree that extremist ideology is
a problem, right, And I think one of the things
that Cross Examiner was trying to get across is that
because of the the scenario that we are living in
right now, our current paradigm is driving more and more

(42:32):
people to those extremist views. And that's a problem. And unfortunately,
when we have a country and you're in Canada, so
you don't really have this problem, but if you have
a country where people where we have as free access
to weapons, with people who are extremists and are already
hateful and spewing hate and are willing to act violently

(42:54):
on that hate, that's a problem that those people are
getting those guns. I'm not saying all guns are bad.
I own guns, John, I was an avid hunter most
of my life. I have a whole collection of guns
for hunting. I am not against guns, but I am
against hateful extremist people, whether right or left, getting guns

(43:14):
when they shouldn't have them.

Speaker 3 (43:16):
Yeah, I agree. I have banned on my social media platform.
Over the last two days, I have banned and blocked,
and my wife will testify to this, at least one
hundred people, all of them liberals. All of them liberals,
not because of hate. I haven't seen too much hate.
There was one person who came out was like, I'm
so glad this happened that guy got banned. Most of

(43:37):
it was conspiracy theory bullshit. Oh, this was a false
flag stuff. Oh look at this guy that's standing behind
Kirk and he's doing this weird thing and where he's
just adjusting his hat. That's a false Like. I have
no patience for this anymore. I have no patience for
the bullshit politics, self affirming confirmation bubble that the social
media algorithms have produced in this country, where the instant

(44:00):
anything bad happens, we run to our corners, we self
confirm whatever preconceived notions we have by accepting conspiracy bullshit.
We've got a gullible generation of people that have been
trained by the algorithm to believe any sort of nonsense
rather than do the hard fucking work of talking about
the politics of this country. The politics of the country.

(44:23):
The is the discussion. It is the lifeblood of the country.
It is what our country was founded on, is what
our forefathers did. Is a as almost a pastime. Right,
Let's talk and debate about how to make everybody's life better. So, yes,
let's talk about politics, but let's not shoot each other
in the process. And I think we all agree on that.

(44:45):
But when you come in and you tell us that
we must mourn somebody who wanted through who through their politics,
wanted to disenfranchise people, take rights away, imply that people
were lesser, van cite the Bible that said, hey, gay people,
you know God's perfect law. Bringing it back to religion,

(45:07):
God's perfect law is that gay people should be stoned
to death. When we're advocating that that, hey, I'm not
saying I do it, but God says you should kill
gay people. When they've got people out there making these stances,
I think we need to talk about it both before
they die and after they die. I talked about it
after Jerry Fallwell died. I didn't mourn him, and I

(45:29):
found that his politics were repulsive. Jerry Fallwell did one
great thing, and he filed suit against Hustler when a
hustler satirized him with a rude cartoon and Hustler won.
So thank you Jerry Fallwell for shoring up free speech
in America in Hustler, in Fallwell versus Hustler. So he

(45:51):
did a great thing there. But I'm not gonna I'm
not going to not talk about a person's politics because
somebody else wants to clutch pearls and say, how dare you?
This is not the time. This is the time. It's
always the time. That is what we should do as
a society. We have short lives. We're here to make
our lives better, to make the lives we want. And
if we want just people to get out of the

(46:11):
way so we can live our lives, I want those
people to get out of the way and stop trotting
on those people who are less fortunate than I. So yes,
let's talk about politics, and no, thank you, I will
decline your insistence that I don't talk about politics after
somebody dies. Sorry for the rant there, but we've spoken
a lot. We should probably let John reply.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
Go ahead, John, okay, Well, first of all, Charlie never
said killing you one. He was only speaking the truth
that men are men and are women, and men don't
believe the spaces and he wants to put the Bible
up to him.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
But I'm saying is that he did advocate violence. John,
you got to admit he did advocate violence, making making
jokes about people who attack other people as advocating violence.

Speaker 2 (46:54):
He didn't deserve what happened. We all agree that.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
That's not what I said.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
I agree with, That's not what I said.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
You're You're absolutely right. Nobody deserves what happened to Charlie Kirk.
Nobody does, including Charlie Kirk. What I said was Charlie
Kirk did advocate for violence. That's all I said. He
thought that ALGBTQ people should be killed.

Speaker 3 (47:15):
He did advocate to violent followers to bail that person
out and call that person a patriot.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
That's all I'm saying. I don't think he deserved what
happened to him, but he did advocate for violence. That's
all I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
Well, I get it's a sad day in America where
anyone who dies he's kirk ser of liberal, or whoever
dies or violes a threaten and people run through the
corners and either considered a victory. I don't you agree absolutely?

Speaker 3 (47:42):
I think can you keep coming back to that point?
And we agreed to that in the first two minutes
of this call. I think we're all on the same page.
I just went on like a five minute rant condemning
people who ran to their corners, telling you I was
blocking people who were conspiracy theorists, and celebrating him. Like,
we're all on the same page about that. But that

(48:02):
is a separate issue from the debate goes on. We
can't stop every time somebody is the victim of violence,
who is a political figure, for fear of offending somebody
by continuing to talk about their politics, because if not Charlie, who,
now somebody's going to take up his banner. Somebody is
going to hold those positions and try to make that

(48:25):
the law of the land. There are people actively trying
to make this a Christian nation. When he I don't
know if you know the context of the Hey, you
know God's perfect laws that we should stone gaze. He
was addressing a fellow Christian, a Christian who called in
or submitted a video of woman who said God is love,
God doesn't want us to harm anybody, And he said, uh,

(48:47):
uh uh, God's perfect law says that, and he cited
the scripture a man who lays with a man should
be stoned to death. So his point was we should
tell people that truth and oh, by way, that law
is perfect. He didn't I agree. He didn't explicitly say, hey, everybody,
go grab stones and kill somebody. He just said, oh,

(49:07):
by the way, if you're a Christian and you think
God's all about love, you're wrong. He also has a
law where we should kill people. And oh, by the way,
that law is good, and that is God's love.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
Hey, in this.

Speaker 3 (49:21):
Country world, and it's called stochastic terrorism.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
I'm gonna cut you off for a second because I
got a supertruth here. We got a super chat from
Kelly King, the Detroit atheist queen, for ten dollars. After
Charlie Kirk was assassinated, several HBCU college campuses received death
threats because his platform targeted black people because it was
assumed that the shooter was black. Originally assumed that he was.

(49:48):
So that's the chat from the super chat from Kelly King.
And my supertruth for that is is that a blue
whale's heart is so large that a human could actually
crawl through the arteries. So there you go.

Speaker 3 (50:05):
That is great. Yeah, you're absolutely right, Thank you, Yeah,
thank you for that super chat. That was Alabama State University,
Hampton University, and Virginia State University all had to go
on lockdown within hours after the Kirk shooting because people
made assumptions, and I condemned that as well. They shouldn't
do that. This is what we're talking about, right, conspiracy theory,

(50:29):
not only low information no information conclusions by people, anti
factual conclusions by people because it all serves their own
self confirmation bubble of I'm right, everybody else is wrong.
If you're wrong, then you hate me and you're a
lesser than right. And that is what we're dealing with
with talking about the politics of those who support somebody

(50:53):
who says, yeah, trans people should be killed by the
government and that law that says you should stone people
is perfect and it is love. So yeah, I'm going
to talk about that because we have people rising up
in his name targeting who minorities. The tweet I saw
from a black woman on Twitter was went right to

(51:14):
us and we don't have shit to do with it.
Right on Q Like it's like right, it's predictable. And
it's very very sad. What were you saying, John, Well,
you know what that means.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
It means not that mister Kirk is dead. That means
he's now a murder which means a person who did
the shooting act, he did him a favor.

Speaker 3 (51:30):
There is there, absolutely is a view there that yes,
this is another reason reason number one hundred and twentieth
on the list. Reason number one is it's just morally reprehensible.
But yes, don't kill politicians because you create a counter
movement in their favor. There is very sympathetic if if
you're a horrible person, this is a message for you.

(51:52):
If you're a horrible person and you're considering political violence
of any kind, throwing bricks at somebody or shooting somebody,
maybe that that reason we'll sink. Then don't do it.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
Right.

Speaker 3 (52:02):
You kill a politician and all of a sudden they
gain all sorts of fame and sympathy and all sorts
of things, and it creates a martyr. I agree with you, John, John.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
I hate to say this, but we've been on this
call for quite a while. I need to move on.
I got some other I've got some announcements. I got
to make I have other calls, and as always, John,
I'm really happy to talk to you. I know we
often disagree, but I think you and I always have
some really good conversations. So I hope next time i'm
here you call me back again. Okay, John, Okay, Yeah,

(52:35):
thank you very much.

Speaker 3 (52:36):
John. And I know I got a little hot onto
the collar there, but I was vehemently agreeing with most
of what you said. Yeah, I just disagree with the
part where we have to hold off on the conversation
because then we'll always be holding off on the conversation.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
I think I was in agreement with a lot of
what you were saying as well, John, So I think
maybe at some points we were just talking past each other.
So I really appreciate your collin, John, and I'll talk
to you next time I'm on Okay, Yeah, Dan, I
was just about to say, and I hope you have
a really good night tonight, John, and a great day tomorrow.
Have a great weekend. Hell, have a good weekend.

Speaker 3 (53:12):
That's great.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
Bye bye. All right, and uh, that was a pretty
pretty good call. I gotta say. I do have some
things I need to say, though, like like once every
week we talk about or we honor one of our
Patreon members, somebody who donates money to keep this show going.
None of us make any money off of it. All

(53:33):
the money goes to the show. We're all volunteers here.
So I want to think this week's patron of the week,
and it is the Victoria Vanderveer. Yes, thank you Victoria,
and thank you to everybody else who donates to us
through Patreon at tiny dot cc Patreon tw So, I really,

(53:56):
we all really appreciate it because I think this show
is worth some He too, I really love this show.
Of course I kind of have to say that, but
I still think it's worth and supporting.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
No, I love this show. It's a little more laid back.
Things don't get as crazy, and you get you know,
calls about UFOs if anybody wants to talk about what
happened this week. We had a UFO video in Congress. Nonethelest.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
I was totally expected at the call. I have some
announcements I'd like to make real quick. A great way
to support us is by sending super chats. We did
go one from Kelly King. Hi, Kelly, I appreciate you.
Get him in and we'll read him as we can
we'll give you a supertruth back for sending us a
super chat so that that'll happen. The Atheisticommunity dot org

(54:43):
has printable flyers. You can go there and get these flyers.
You can put them up with permission. Don't just put
them up anywhere, but you put them on community billboards
so that people know to call our show. I have
one on the billboard right inside my store. I've gone
to like six of them now from people pulling a
ta off. I and I when I drove down to Texas,

(55:03):
I actually brought some with me and I had three
of them. I should have brought more because I had,
they were all gone on the first day. So I go,
I hung them up in different places. I'm gonna bring
more next year. So absolutely, and you know, we really
want to hear from you. I really want to hear
from you. I want to get some feedback on the
on the Truth bombs and so email us at truth

(55:24):
at Atheist Typhoncommunity dot org. That's truth at Atheist Typhoncommunity
dot org. Or you can reach out to TV at
Atheist Hyphencommunity dot org and at our website at ace
Atheist at Atheists.

Speaker 3 (55:41):
Atheist Community hyphen community dot org and I forget that
to say it seven times fast, Kelly.

Speaker 1 (55:48):
To about toybout toy bo to do that. So yeah,
I mean, I really do. I really want to get
your feedback, you know, if you send us an email
put some comments down below. I was really hoping to
get some feed back on the on the truth bomb
last week. I got absolutely nun So helped me out here.

Speaker 3 (56:04):
Man, you need to you need to give me some
context because you you jumped in this truth bomb. Somebody
made this great comment and then you followed up with
the blue whale heart thing, and I was just like, so,
it's just random. Yeah, They're just random random, all right,
got it? I'm in. I'm in on it, and like
the most.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
Important announcement that I could make here, seriously, the very
most important one is that I want to thank the crew.
The crew is freaking awesome. Let's get the crew cam up.
Without them, I would look like a jib. They are
They are the real magic people and the people who
make this all work. So I just come in here
and talk. I don't do anything else.

Speaker 3 (56:44):
It just so I just focused right in on on
Greg's dog. To be honest, puppies. Thanks guys. I got
to meet a lot of those folks when we came down,
and it was great to I got to see so
for people watching, I got to see what happens in
the control room.

Speaker 1 (57:03):
There's your super chat. That one's for you.

Speaker 3 (57:05):
That's for me.

Speaker 1 (57:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (57:07):
How do I invest in relic futures? So now I
have to do some sort of trivia thing.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
Yeah, give us a trivia thing.

Speaker 3 (57:14):
All right, trivia boy, I'm being put on the spot.
Can I think about it for a minute.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
No, you got to.

Speaker 3 (57:23):
I was a division one of men's and women's volleyball
referee when I was younger.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
All right, that's good trivia. There you go. I'll count
that you were talking about something before I cut you off, though.

Speaker 3 (57:40):
That's all right. I was just running in my mouth.
I don't remember what it was. It was something interesting
but cool.

Speaker 1 (57:45):
I didn't remember either, so it was probably.

Speaker 3 (57:47):
About Greg's dog, that's all I think. Oh yeah, it
was everybody down there, and I wanted to tell the viewers.
You would be stunned at how much activity there is.
They've got a very big control room in a very
little house, and they're making so much happen with so
little budget that it's me shilling. Yeah, please do if
you can donate to this organization. They do a lot

(58:08):
of good. This is, i think, other than the Freedom
From a Religion Foundation has a podcast, but it's all
promoting their stuff. They don't really do these sorts of debates.
I can't think of another charity organization that's doing this
for nonprofit. There's obviously other shows out here that do
this for a profit. They're free to be much more
political than we are, et cetera. But as a charity

(58:30):
where everybody here is a volunteer, this place is amazing.
So any dollar you can give goes a long way
to continuing the work of the ACA.

Speaker 1 (58:38):
Well, second that really that really is a labor of
love over here. We really is. And with that, I think,
take another call. What do you think?

Speaker 3 (58:47):
Absolutely this one looks.

Speaker 1 (58:49):
Kind of interesting. It's a Catholic traditionalist. He him says
that God is real, has an argument, and if we
answer his questions, we'll be admitting the existence of God.
I have a question sure.

Speaker 3 (59:02):
If we answer God's questions or if we answer the
callers questions, Because if we can't answer the callers questions,
then it's going to be a real short call.

Speaker 1 (59:08):
Yeah, So how you doing Catholic Traditionalists?

Speaker 5 (59:11):
Yes, I'm doing very good.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
How you doing good?

Speaker 5 (59:13):
Good?

Speaker 3 (59:14):
Did I get the relic tier system?

Speaker 5 (59:16):
Right? That was for you?

Speaker 3 (59:17):
Can I call you CT for Catholic Traditionalists?

Speaker 2 (59:20):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (59:22):
Okay? So did you hear our previous discussion about the
relic tier system the tier one, Tier two, Tier three
relics for the Catholic Church? No?

Speaker 5 (59:29):
No, but that's not why I'm here.

Speaker 4 (59:31):
I know.

Speaker 3 (59:31):
I just was hoping that you had heard and I
could get some immediate verification. So what's up?

Speaker 1 (59:36):
You have the floor? Did we lose him?

Speaker 3 (59:38):
I don't know. Are you there? CT? It's a miracle
God intervened and prevented the call.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
Yeah, I was. I don't know what happened and did
he drop? You know, I'm going to return him to
the queue for a minute, and we'll see what happens.
We'll try to pick him up here in a minute.
Hopefully it's not just a technical problem. Yeah, that's hopefully
it is just like a slight technical problem.

Speaker 3 (59:57):
Right, be interested in chatting?

Speaker 1 (59:59):
Yeah? I was hoping to too. I was wanting to
see what his questions were going to be. I had
a feeling they were going to be kind of loaded
questions that didn't have that, and he wasn't going to
get the answers he was looking for. I was kind
of that might have happened.

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
If you answer the questions, you you lose. The argument
feels like presuppositionalism. It sort of feels like, hey, logic
can't exist without God, and so if you're using logic
to answer questions, you admit that God exists type of thing.
But that's just my guess. I'd be interested to hear
what he has.

Speaker 1 (01:00:27):
I would love to I would love to hear that.
So we'll see. We'll keep an eye on the crew
chat here and see if they can work that out.
Maybe or maybe we just lost them, who knows here.
We'll see what we can do.

Speaker 3 (01:00:38):
So I heard from a producer that they're calling back
going back in.

Speaker 1 (01:00:42):
Yeah, you see that too. So in the meantime, let's
talk about your podcast a little bit more.

Speaker 3 (01:00:47):
Okay, sure, okay, So what would you like to know?

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
First of all, I guess I was thinking, how long
have you been doing your podcast?

Speaker 3 (01:00:56):
I've got two seasons out, so about two years. I'd
usually do a handful of eight to ten episodes a season.
Like I said, I've been on hiatus both because it's
hard to do as somebody who has to hold down
a full time job and has a kid in college
and has a kid who's on the autism spectrum and
all of these things going on in life. But I've
recently been sort of reignited with my passion. I had

(01:01:18):
a lot of plans for this coming season, so I've
been doing it for about two years. I've learned a
lot in those times, and I do think there's a
space in the internet, the blogovers, the podovers for people
who are interested in teaching other people. I think that's
my interest, and I do think there's a space. I

(01:01:39):
do see videos from other people like Dan McClellan, especially
who creates content that is educational and polite and straightforward
that is getting a lot of traction, and I think
the next generation will be very hungry for that sort
of information.

Speaker 1 (01:01:55):
I have to cut you off because we got another
super chat and it's again for Kelly King love it.
I love it, and she don't edge of five dollars
and says, you guys make a great call host team. Well,
thank you, Kelly, I appreciate that that was awesome, and
I as a you know, the dogs developed that puppy
eyes expression just to manipulate humans. They didn't have that

(01:02:18):
original like wolves don't have that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:20):
I've heard that that is a great truth bomb. I
also heard that cats don't normally meou in the wild.
I don't know if that's a urban legend, though. I
heard that cats developed a particular meow to manipulate humans.
But I will ran, I will willingly be manipulated by
any cat dog, prairie dog. I've been seeing baby skunk
videos online that are hilarious, but yeah, I will buy

(01:02:43):
into any of that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:44):
I'm just checking in to see if we're ready for
the call.

Speaker 3 (01:02:47):
Oh, looks like we might have that caller back here.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
Yeah, it looks like checking in with the crew. I'm
a bad typist. Typhing.

Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
We roll the bones and see what happens the relic bones.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
So yeah, the relic research and relics. That someone was
like Buddhists tooth Oh yeah nice, who would have figured, right?
So they say that he is ready to cook. So
let's bring Catholic Catholic traditional news back. How you doing?
Sorry about that?

Speaker 5 (01:03:17):
Can you hear me?

Speaker 2 (01:03:17):
Now?

Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Yeah, totally can hear you? Sorry about that?

Speaker 5 (01:03:21):
Okay? Yeah, because I could still hear you guys, and
I didn't see that the call ended, so I don't
know why.

Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
Yeah, that was weird. It might have been a problem
with our with our call in programs, so that it
does happen sometimes.

Speaker 3 (01:03:32):
So what you got for CT?

Speaker 5 (01:03:34):
Yeah? So you guys are atheists? Right? You claim to
be atheists?

Speaker 1 (01:03:37):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:03:38):
I always always claim to me, I guess I claim.

Speaker 5 (01:03:40):
What do you do?

Speaker 1 (01:03:41):
I always label myself as an atheist? But fair enough?

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
Why don't we get Why don't we skip the label
word and ask like specific questions because I think the
word atheist is loaded and people use it differently. Should
I should we tell you what we actually believe?

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:03:56):
What? What?

Speaker 1 (01:03:56):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Now?

Speaker 5 (01:03:57):
With regards to whatever god it is that you don't
believe in? Could you define that god that you don't know?

Speaker 2 (01:04:03):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:04:04):
I can't because on this show, and I'm sure Kelly
can confirm this, I get presented almost every single caller
has a slightly different God that they present us, they
propose to us. There's losts of gods out.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
There, which is why I'm an igtheist.

Speaker 3 (01:04:20):
And what is igtheist? I'm not familiar with.

Speaker 1 (01:04:23):
Fish is the idea that the question of the existence
of God really has no meaning because no two people
have the exact definition of what God is. Basically, there's
no unambiguous definition of God that everybody uses, so we
can't really define whether or not that God exists. If

(01:04:44):
we can't define the God first.

Speaker 3 (01:04:46):
That's great, that's a great term. My position's a little different.
My position is I have yet to be convinced that
there are any gods, but I am open to being convinced.
So I'm not saying I am convinced that there are
no God. I have just yet to be convinced that
there are any So everybody who's presented me with some

(01:05:06):
model of a God I have found wanting. And that's
if you want to call that an atheist, so be it.
Some people prefer the term agnostic, but I think linguistically
there's a problem with that. But that's my position for
want of a better word. Do you understand where we
come from, CT.

Speaker 5 (01:05:22):
Yeah, that's fine, So for the sake of discussion, I'll
go ahead and give you my definition of God. And
by the way, there are more than two people that
share this definition, Like, for example, I'm sure, you're familiar
with Darth Darkins, right, and Thatt Slick.

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
Yeah, But I bet if you and you and him
were together, you wouldn't agree on everything one hundred percent.
I would guarantee it that you would not one hundred
percent guarantee it. And and I'm going to ask you, right,
I'm going to say, right now, I hope you are
not using a Dark Dawkins argument.

Speaker 5 (01:05:49):
Well, with regards to the nature of God, we would
be in agreement. Now, perhaps with regards to teachings, Biblical teachings,
we might not be in agreement. But with regards well
that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
Well, there you go. Then that's what I'm talking about.
You're not totally in agreement. And that's and I don't
know two people that are even the people who are
sitting next to each other in the same pew in
the same church, are not going to agree one hundred percent.

Speaker 2 (01:06:12):
Sure, sure, but with regards to.

Speaker 5 (01:06:14):
The nature of God. I've spoke to Matt Slick and
Darth Darkins many times and we're one hundred percent in agreement.

Speaker 1 (01:06:19):
But you're not one hundred percent in agreement about everything
about God. And that's my point. You can say you're
one hundred percent in agreement about this one thing of God,
but not one hundred percent about all of God. And
that's the point I'm trying to make. And you keep saying, no,
that's not right. We still agree on this one point. Well,
I'm not talking about one point. I'm talking about the
whole big picture.

Speaker 5 (01:06:40):
Sure, I understand, but there are people that do share
my view because I'm a traditional Catholic and there's other
traditional Catholic.

Speaker 1 (01:06:46):
And I'm ensure that those people do not agree with
you one percent.

Speaker 5 (01:06:49):
Speaking without being interrupted? Am I going to be interrupted
every single time?

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
If you're going to keep saying the same thing over
and over, I'm going to interrupt you to tell you yourself.
I'm going to tell you the same thing I just
told you before. So let's not repeat ourselves about.

Speaker 5 (01:07:01):
Other traditional Catholics, or I'm not going to be able
to make that point. You're not going to allow me
to make that point.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
Well, did you believe the same thing other traditional Catholics?
Sure you can make that claim.

Speaker 3 (01:07:12):
I don't believe it is that core to your discussion.
How many people agree with you?

Speaker 5 (01:07:16):
Well, just refuting the fact that the individual said, you
won't find two people that believe the same thing with regards.

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
To God, and that.

Speaker 3 (01:07:24):
I mean, I could make the sure I could make
the same argument about you won't find two people who
believe exactly the same thing about George Washington. Right, The
visualization in one's mind is unique to oneself, if you
want to get deep about it. Right, So it's kind
of an interesting position from an actual like what do

(01:07:45):
we know and how much can we actually like? How
much does language limit our ability to convey meaning to
each other? And so we what is our ability to
even check to see if we have identical beliefs about
a concept. So we've got to inguistic limitations. But we
also just have a physical problem of two brains are
physically different things, and the way that you model and

(01:08:07):
thought in your brain chemically is going to be different
from person to person. So I think we should probably
move past that concept to to what your point of
your call is.

Speaker 1 (01:08:19):
Yeah, let's get to your question.

Speaker 5 (01:08:20):
We could we could do that, but I was simply
refuting his claim and showing that yes, if you.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
Have let's yeah, but you called with some questions. Let's
get to your questions.

Speaker 5 (01:08:29):
Okay, I understand you want to move past this because
I was refuting your earlier claim.

Speaker 3 (01:08:34):
Okay, we want to move past conversation.

Speaker 1 (01:08:37):
Be any fucking proof at all. You didn't refute shit, Okay,
you didn't. You just made You just made a counterclaim,
and okay, I accepted your counterclaim. I even said that,
let's move on.

Speaker 5 (01:08:50):
Now, right, So let's move on. Don't get calmed down.
No need to get angry and upset.

Speaker 3 (01:08:55):
All right, no need for before before we move on.
But before we move on, I think we need to
level set here, all right. I took the time to
give you an example of what I meant, or what
could be meant, about the physical and logical impossibility of
two people to hold the exact same idea at the
same time. Okay, I took the time to explain that out.

(01:09:18):
You then got all snarky and started making snide remarks
about Kelly and his response and lack of response, and
are you gonna let me? I very strongly suspect, based
on this whole thing so far, that you are not
an honest interlocutor, You have no interest in actual conversation.
So I'm going to level set and pretend like this
is a brand new call, and I would hope that

(01:09:39):
it's going to be productive. I genuinely tried to engage
with you, and you ignored my whole explanation and just
kept pointing at Kelly. So let's start again. You called
in to tell us something about an argument for God.
Could you please tell us what that is?

Speaker 5 (01:09:53):
Sure, I'll be happy to do that. So with regards
to God, I'll go ahead and find God. For the
sake of discussion, Let's say generally God is an intelligent
agent who has the power ability to instantiate and impose
all states of affairs, and didn't have a beginning like
you and I, in other words, not a creative being. Now,
you don't believe that God exists.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
Right, I'm not convinced that such a being exists. Are
you going to present any evidence of this being?

Speaker 1 (01:10:20):
Yeah, I don't accept the existence from God because I
haven't seen sufficient evidence. But I'm not saying that there
is no God, just that I haven't seen.

Speaker 3 (01:10:27):
You're going that's not how this works, Godla, there's a game.
Knowing who you cited when you called in, I am
guessing you're going to make some sort of pre supplisitionalist
argument that try to shift the burden of proof. So
Let's be clear. Let's be clear about how burden of
proof works. All right, I'm an attorney. One of the

(01:10:49):
things I've studied in my studies is where does law
come from? For example, the common law of England dating
back to the Magna Carta. It is a set of
rules that we've established that is seeking to find truth
using the best systems we can when there's a dispute.
And one of the things that have come to rise
out of this are the rules of evidence, the Federal

(01:11:10):
Rules of Evidence, a sort of the written down version
of what we've learned over the last eight hundred to
one thousand years about what can constitute reliable evidence and
unreliable evidence. And at a trial, the person making the claim,
just like in logic, the person asserting, the plaintiff or
the state who is making the claim, i e. I'm
guilty of murder, or you stole the potato chips, or

(01:11:33):
you put your driveway on my land and you need
to move it. That person has the burden of proof.
They are the ones who must present evidence to convince
the finder of fact who is the judge or the jury,
as to the veracity of their claims. And if they
fail to do that, the verdict is for the defendant.
The default position of somebody becoming un or remaining unconvinced

(01:11:58):
that the plaintiff is right. That is the world we
live in. The reason that the courts do this is
it is the absolute best system we have to make
sure that we don't make conclusions that are false. We
don't start with the presupposition that the defendant is guilty
and then work backwards and have somebody prove the otherwise. So,

(01:12:20):
if you are not going to actually produce evidence for
your claim and then try to walk away like you
claim to victory, you do not understand logic, You do
not understand history, and you do not understand how humanity
works to make the best systems in the world that
we can for coming to these sorts of conclusions. So,

(01:12:42):
given all that, do you have any evidence for your God?

Speaker 5 (01:12:45):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:12:46):
I do.

Speaker 3 (01:12:46):
Okay, let's hear it.

Speaker 5 (01:12:48):
Yes, And remember the premise of this conversation from the
very beginning was that you said you were going to
accept answering my questions, and that by answering my questions
I did not it was going to show that God
does exist.

Speaker 1 (01:12:59):
Yes, say, I.

Speaker 3 (01:13:00):
Would accept answering your questions. Did you say that, Kelly, No, No,
we did not say we would accept answering your questions.
So stoppening words in our mouth, I.

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
Had a feeling that maybe we might not give the
answers you want. So, but let's go ahead.

Speaker 5 (01:13:13):
Just Dan, You guys want to look to drop me
because you're not going to be able to answer these
questions because they will prove that God exists. So you're
looking for an excuse to run away.

Speaker 3 (01:13:21):
So where's where's your where's your Nobel Prize in philosophy? Yeah,
so it's a tactic that here's your where's your chair?
Where's your chair? At a university for logic, reason, math, religion,
because if you've got.

Speaker 1 (01:13:36):
To any smarter than anybody else.

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
If you've got a fool proof proof of God, then
you either have to believe a conspiracy theorist to say, yep,
this is some sort of proof of God. I'm about
to give on this call in show from the atheist
community of Austin. That should convince anybody that God exists
and prove in fact that God exists. But there's a
conspiracy in the world to suppress and deny it. So

(01:13:59):
that's the one position or you're full of shit. There's
a flaw on the argument, one or the other. So
instead of beating your chest and claiming repression and censorship
and trying to claim a win without even having an argument,
when you know that we're going to actually be skeptical
of your claims, why don't you tell me why you
are calling this show and not writing up a paper

(01:14:21):
and proving to the world that you have irrefutable proof
that God exists.

Speaker 1 (01:14:26):
You've spent ten minutes arguing and not giving your argument
at all. I don't know, and then you're saying it's
our fault, but you haven't and we've asked you to
get start questions like three times.

Speaker 5 (01:14:38):
Yeah. I was told by the call prompter that you
would agree to answer my questions.

Speaker 1 (01:14:43):
I am not the call prompter.

Speaker 3 (01:14:47):
You're not going to address anything. I just said I.

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
Would agree to hear your questions. But you're not even
asking the questions. All you're doing is complaining about other shit.
Just answer the just to ask the fucking questions. There,
I think he hung up on us.

Speaker 5 (01:15:01):
Yeah, I'm still here.

Speaker 1 (01:15:02):
Oh there we are here. Okay, Well, what's what's question
number one?

Speaker 3 (01:15:07):
Yeah, let's just cut to the chase.

Speaker 5 (01:15:08):
We will know that my questions been from the beginning.

Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
You know I'm getting ready. I am getting ready to
cut you off because we have been from the beginning.
I asked you three times to start your questions.

Speaker 3 (01:15:20):
I have a question. I have an honest question again
for you, cet. Do you think that the way you're
behaving I e trying to get your debate let's call
it a debate partner to accept some sort of weird
sentence like you accept that you will answer my questions
up front at the beginning of some sort of argument.

(01:15:41):
Is a is a representation of what it's like to
have an honest conversation. Why are you being so evasive
about that call?

Speaker 5 (01:15:49):
Yeah, that's what the call prompter. When I had the
conversation with this individual, he said.

Speaker 3 (01:15:54):
That you're not on the call right now, and we're
not in. We are not h him, We're not him.
And the phrasing is what I'm asking about. You're asking
if we accept to answer questions, will I answer your questions?

Speaker 2 (01:16:09):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:16:10):
Is that all you want from me is to say yes,
I will answer your questions as I have been all along.
Or is this weird wording of accept that I will
answer my questions. Is your argument rely on that? If not,
then what the fuck are you doing? Can you just
please be an honest person, get off some sort of script,
and just have a conversation about what evidence you have

(01:16:31):
of God.

Speaker 5 (01:16:31):
Now, guys, if you're going to go ahead and keep
putting me on mute and then taking me off from you,
you got to tell me when you take me over.

Speaker 1 (01:16:37):
I haven't muted you once. You have been muting me.

Speaker 5 (01:16:41):
I know for a fact, you guys have been muting me.

Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
No, have not muted you once. You know what, you
know what. I'm done with this call because you did
not call to hand a conversation. You called the wine
when you called to wine and complain, and I'm not
going to sit.

Speaker 2 (01:16:57):
Time.

Speaker 3 (01:16:58):
It's been eleven minutes and forty eight seconds in the
second call I dropped him. It's eleven minutes and forty
eight seconds without like wanting to get us to agree
to some sort of weird thing.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
No, it was eleven minutes of him complaining that we
didn't want to hear the questions that I asked him
four times to ask. Yep, that's what then, that's why
I dropped his call because I asked him four times
to ask his questions. All you could do was complain,
and we weren't asking him to ask his questions.

Speaker 3 (01:17:23):
I will go back to what I asked about before.
If you're going to call in a small internet talk
show out of Austin, Texas with absolute proof that God exists,
why why are you not writing it up as a
professional paper and winning all sorts of philosophy, religion, science awards,

(01:17:45):
Like if you could prove that God exists, go do it.
If you're going to call in here and play word
games for eleven minutes about whether or not we agree
to it or we accept that, we will answer questions
to try to put us into some sort of word
trap about presuppositionalism, I mean, quite frankly, you're just a

(01:18:07):
drain on society.

Speaker 1 (01:18:08):
Man.

Speaker 3 (01:18:09):
I don't know what you're doing on a Friday night
doing that. I'm here for honest conversations, not people trying
to do some sort of you know, it's kind of
like those people who do magic tricks by saying think
of a number and multiply to this and haha, I
got what your number is. It's like I set up
the entire thing so you will say yes to some
weird verbiage, and then later I'm going to try to

(01:18:29):
call you on something. Rather than saying, okay, let's go
back and amend my answer, let's go back and redefine things.
And when you run into that, it's shocking that he
would not just engage with us. Yeah, and you know
what the purpose was at the end, right.

Speaker 1 (01:18:42):
I yeah, you know what, he had a script and
we weren't paying. We weren't on his script, so that
it was blown his whole thing. That was obviously what
the problem was. We weren't getting near the end of
the show anyway, so I'm not too sorry for cutting
them off. I don't think we would have gotten all
the way through his questions before we ran out of time.

(01:19:02):
For the most part. Anyway, I would like to do
something real quick though, before we do anything else, and
that's I'd like to bring John back up if we
absolutely Yeah, Hi, John, how you.

Speaker 3 (01:19:13):
Doing that was like a pot was?

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
Yeah? That was that was difficult. Like the meta of
that call.

Speaker 4 (01:19:22):
It was nothing but meta, by the way, just constant
complaining just about you know, the interaction, instead of like
the actual questions that he was wanted to ask. Which
if it was dwkins like script. I mean, everybody knows
what script team runs, and it was pretty much the
script that he ran. I mean, it's call in complain
about getting interrupted or silenced or something like that. And

(01:19:43):
I think the only difference is he couldn't threaten to
drop you like.

Speaker 5 (01:19:46):
That was.

Speaker 1 (01:19:49):
What got me was that he kept saying we weren't
let letting him talk, and I was like, kept asking him.
He just wouldn't. I mean, why even should We had
thirty minutes of dead air waiting for him to ask.

Speaker 3 (01:19:59):
Yeah. My advice to people who want to engage in
this sort of stuff on either side, when you're asked
to present your evidence, when you're asked to ask your
questions or make a statement, do it right. This is
to put on your big boy and big girl pants
and do it. If you were in a court and
a judge says all right, your witness, and you get

(01:20:20):
up and say, judge, I really don't think it's fair
that the sun is this, and the judge will be like,
excuse me, are you going to ask questions or not? No, okay,
that's it, case over. You didn't ask any questions. That's
what you're dealing with Okay, we don't have unlimited time.
It is our show. We will accept the calls we want,
whether you believe it or not. I have a board

(01:20:40):
up here that I can see calls. You were never muted.
So if you just want to call in and be
a victim, realize that you are a child trying to
play it in an adult's game. An adult comes in
who has a prepared argument and is an open mind
and willing to explore the contours of their argument in
in an intellectually honest way. I have friends where I

(01:21:00):
could go. You know, here's the presuppruisitionalist argument. Let's explore it.
I'll take the pro side, and you can play with
the idea and figure out where the flaws are and
what the pros are and the cons are. I love that.
If you want to call in and do that, let's
do it. But if you're just going to call in
and say I'm going to complain until they just have
had enough of me and then walk away like I won,
you don't understand the difference. As Forrest VALKEI said, with

(01:21:23):
I think you godless when you were talking to somebody.
You don't understand the difference between can't and won't. It's
not that I can't put up with your shit, it's
I won't put up with your shit.

Speaker 1 (01:21:33):
So did you have any other thoughts about the show? John?

Speaker 4 (01:21:37):
Yeah? Okay, so like I really thought that the conversation
on the press prepose prepos yeah, the funny.

Speaker 1 (01:21:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:21:49):
So now my question is, and if anybody feel free
to answer this, Okay, in like Dark Souls and everything
like that, like you have like things that you can wear, right,
they give you certain special abilities. And I'm thinking, like
the preface, right, what what if it's like a ring
and you know you you wear it. What kind of
magical abilities could you get from wearing Jesus' foreskin? I mean,

(01:22:14):
I think I think that would be interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:22:18):
Would it work like a ring of viagra?

Speaker 3 (01:22:20):
Oh, that's a good one. Like in Dark Souls, it
would definitely.

Speaker 2 (01:22:24):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:22:25):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:22:26):
There's some levels where you could walk on harmful stuff,
like you know, spike spots, so maybe the walking on
water thing you could not get wounded there. Or maybe
it's more like you know how in the Gospels or
some rules. No, it's it's exodus or levit because it's
Old Testament stuff where they say, men who have had
their genitals crushed are not allowed to go to church.

(01:22:47):
So maybe this exempts you from that if you've got
if you've gotten crushed genitals, but you've got the foreskin
of power, you can still go to church. Maybe that's it,
the for skin of power.

Speaker 1 (01:22:56):
I love that relic.

Speaker 3 (01:23:00):
By the way, Tier one, that was great.

Speaker 1 (01:23:03):
That was great. So before we leave, though, John, can
you remind us what the prompt is for next week?

Speaker 2 (01:23:08):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (01:23:08):
Yeah, yes, I definitely can hold. I'm so sorry I
put that down for a second. So the problem for
this week that you'll be answering for next week is
what is a job that you could get in heaven?

Speaker 1 (01:23:22):
We all want to know. I'm probably a chair. Remember
to put your comments below in the COI were your
suggestions below in the comments, not in the chat, So
we'll see them and we'll read out the top three
next week. So I think Dan, I'll be back to
do that for you. What was I going to say?

(01:23:44):
Oh yeah, I was going to ask you for any
words of wisdom?

Speaker 4 (01:23:48):
Me words of wisdom?

Speaker 3 (01:23:49):
You know what?

Speaker 1 (01:23:49):
How about either one of you? Let's get words of.

Speaker 3 (01:23:51):
Wisdom first, and John can think of things. Since we
have the seqel To Spinal Tap coming out, which may
or may not be good the reviews yet. I will
quote their keyboardist at the end of the first movie
and he said, have a good time, all the time.
Words of wisdom to live by John.

Speaker 4 (01:24:09):
Uh don't don't step on a cracker you might break
your mother's back.

Speaker 1 (01:24:17):
That was something I always paid attention to you for
a good chunk an early part of my life. So
and uh, my words of wisdom is don't uh, don't
take anything for granted, and always always keep wanting the truth.

(01:24:54):
Watch the nonprofits and join the hosts in the life shot.
Visit tiny dot cisy slash YTNP

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Truth Wanted 08.37 09-12-2025 with Kelley Laughlin and The Cross Examiner

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

Truth Wanted 08.37 09-12-2025 with Kelley Laughlin and The Cross Examiner

Stuff You Should Know