Aired 2 months ago 4:57
Pete Shelley Discussed on Pop Culture Continuum
Pop Culture Continuum
From the news
Aired 2 weeks ago 60:08
138: Podcast #138: Buzzcocks, Dr Dre & Jimmy Iovine, Mercury Rev on Bobbie Gentry and more
...deathofPete Shelley Calling all podcasters musicians bloggers and reporters and everyone else who wants crystal clear recording that super portable the sure...
Aired 3 months ago 21:13
The ancient Greeks warned us about AI: Chips with Everything podcast
The the guardian. Look of future Sebastian with physical. I think Sebastian therefore, I am. If you haven't seen the film blade runner that was one of its characters press quoting seventeenth century, French philosopher, Ren Descartes. Chris is an Android or replicant initially created as basic pleasure model who ends up involved with the group of renegades, the famous, quote, I think therefore I am sometimes cooled the Colorado, the Latin Corbetta go some was the result of day cots attempt to figure out which of the things he thought he knew where impervious to doubt. Despite all the philosophical skepticism. He was putting himself through which made him doubt. Whether he could trust his senses or whether he had a physical body. He could be sure that he was thinking which meant that he had to at least exist press used the line to emphasize more than just her existence. She thought the Tara -bility to think like a human should give her the same rights as one. Humans have been telling stories about oughta fischel beings and thinking about what defines humanity since long before Bladerunner and even before Descartes a new book out this month explores the history of robots from as far back as ancient Greece. An Oscar did ancient myths like the story of Pandora and famous box of misery end up influencing the finest technological minds of the twentieth and twenty first century. I was surprised to find out that the first Sam missiles the service to air missiles that patrolled the seas where named Talos rockets and even now DARPA at Pentagon, the military scientists at the Pentagon recently named they're a enhanced automated soldier uniform with an acronym. Talos very deliberate hearkening back to the Tello Smith. And considering we hope that the future. These technologists are leading us into his free of robot rebellion, should we take heed the examples of mythological Automata that ended up breaking as of first lore of robotics that a robot may not injure a human being. In her story. Frankenstein had hoped to use technology to create an artificial Android of great beauty and grace, but the tragedy is that the result was a hideous creature that resented being brought to life, and I think your story remains fresh to us because it spins on that age old tale that warns against playing God or tempting to create life without really understanding or having foresight about the consequences. I'm Jordan Erika Weber and this week. I try to figure out if the stories of the ancient Greeks can help us prepare for a future that now seems inevitable. This is chips with everything the full title of my new book is God's and robots myths machines and ancient dreams of technology. Would you mind just for us just so that we've got some audio of you sang it reading out the first quite that you mentioned in the book from the right about tick talk. Sometimes I imagined that robots were invented to answer philosophers questions. It seems like Adrienne mayor is a reset scholar in classics and the history and philosophy of science at Stanford University. She specializes in the study of folk science and has written several books on ancient history. And how we can interpret ancient myths and folklore to help us better understand today's scientific weld. Well, since two thousand six I've been living and working in Silicon Valley in California, just surrounded by advanced innovations in technology, and I'm very aware of all the modern desires to create artificial life from robots to a I and improving nature. Augmenting enhancing human powers, even striving toward immortality. So as historian of ancient science, it seemed natural to try and see how deep the roots of those desires, ideas, really could be and it turns out there. Ancient indeed. Ray about seemed like the quintessential science fiction future technology, one of the biggest technological changes that we can expect in on. If you My original question was who I imagined the concepts of robots and artificial intelligence historians of science trace the first working automatons to the middle ages. But I was wondering is it possible that these ideas these concepts about self moving devices automatons, and could they have been imagined long before the technology made them possible. And in fact, technology did follow the myths in antiquity, the ancient Greeks actually did began making catapults geared devices like the Antica thrim mechanism self propelled machines lifelike animated statue those things happened as early as the fifth century BC. When you look at these myths that feature Automata some form of autoshow life. What do you think tended to be the purpose of these stories? Well, I think the myths allowed people to let their magic nations sore described sort of wonders and marvels that the God of invention. Festus could make but they were using the same familiar tools materials that ordinary blacksmiths and artisans were using on earth. But in the myths, they achieve astounding result as befitting gods and her roic figures. So the myths allowed people in antiquity to think about how one might be able to fabricate a self moving device if only one possessed the divine powers and ingenuity of God Adrian writes about dozens of characters for maintenance legends and each is fascinating in its own way. We possibly discuss them all here. But it seems right to start with one of the first a character from ancient Greek mythology coal Talos, a giant bronze figure of a man made by Festus with the mission of defending king mean OSE and his kingdom of Crete. So Talos was self moving automaton. He he was said. To March around the island of Crete three times a day, and he was kind of programmed or given the task to spot strange ships, and he could then pick up Volgas and hurl them at invaders. Tell us could also heat his bronze body to red hot, and then crush enemies to roast them alive and Jason and the Argonauts encounter Talos on their quest for the golden fleece, drop the gun you are under arrest. Basically tallow is like the ancient Greek equivalent to robo-call. Cooperation good. How did tell us work than in the story? Tell us had a single artery or vein a tube going from his head to toe, but instead of blood he was powered by Eichor. And I corps is the mysterious fluid of the gods his entire vivid system was sealed with a bronze nail or a bolt at his ankle. So I think the ancients imagine tell us is kind of cyborg hybrid human and machine we seem very keen to anthropomorphized mechanical beings like Talos to see them as human like unto empathize with them. Why do you think that is? Well, you know, there are a lot of modern studies that try to determine why it is that we humans tend to anthropomorphized robots and other nonsense things the best. We can say is that we seem to be somehow hard wired to bestow human light characteristics on things that seem to us somehow. How alive that react to us or that? We imagine are somehow lifelike people still disagree over the definition of a right Baugh as you mentioned Elia. But you all you that the talisman embodies these kind of age-old questions about what it is to be a human. Why is that? Well, it's interesting that in the original myth Madisha convinces Talos that she could make him immortal. But only if he allowed her to remove that bronze bolt on his ankle and Talos was persuaded by this and they unsealed the bolt. So that his Corp blood out in the myth. He desires to be immortal, a humid he can be persuaded in fooled. I mean, his his not totally a machine he can be tricked. So the human qualities are what make his destruction feel so tragic both in antiquated and to us today. We feel sympathy for a robot that was fooled and killed while simply going about his job. And it's interesting. There's an. Ancient vase painting of two thousand five hundred years ago, and the dying Talos is depicted as a metallic man, he's falling backwards. As Jason is using a tool to remove the bolt on his ankle and the artist painted, what looks like a teardrop on the cheek falling from the robots. I. In the book Adrian talks about how the golds in these myths create strong oughta fischel beings by taking the betta more powerful traits associated with beasts and using them to offset the inherent weaknesses of mortals, even today. Invent his want to make robots that a stronger than humans what to use technology to enhance humans like soldiers with AIX. Oh, skeletons given the opera -hension around some of these ideas is there a sense in which we fail to learn from the ancient Greeks who created these myths while there are also myriad tales about the quest to turn back the clock of Annetjie and becoming immortal making death optional today, but in the myths tales like that about getting rid of aging and becoming immortal every one of those tales backfires somehow the message from entity seems to be that the there's something very crucially human about the fact that we die that were mortal. Another warning about creating artificial life that I found in the myths and and historical times is to look carefully. At who? Is it that's deploying automatons? And what what are the purposes I found that in both the mythic tales and in real life in antiquity. It was autocratic tyrants who usually commissioned automatons from Zeus to the king of Sparta and use them as weapons to torture or kill their subjects. It's often said that tyranny favors technology. So I think the one of the messages from the miss is that we need to pay attention to who is pushing to develop a and who is so keen to create killer robots. After the break will compare the kinds of robots imagined by ancient Greeks who locked the technology to substantiate that legends and the real life. Oughta fischel intelligences that theoretically walk and talk among us today Pandora was essentially an evil fem Bhatt sent to earth with a single mission. Her mission was to release eagles on humankind for eternity. The miss seemed to say that artificial life is good to think with it's good to imagine in a sort of abstract way. But they give a strong caution that such things could wreak havoc. 'cause a lot of chaos a lot of harm in the real world, especially if they're accepted without foresight more on that after this show break. Amazon prime videos. The Romanoff's is a new original series from the creator of madman eight globe spanning stories about one shared Royal bloodline. The Romanoff stars Diane lane, Christina Hendricks, Narran Eckhardt. John slattery. Amanda, Pete and Paul Reiser with a new episode every Friday premiering, October twelve only on Amazon prime video. Today. Focuses in new guardian podcasts that brings you closer to all journalism by getting behind the news every weekday. You'll join me an issue Donna talking to people at the center of the big stories impacting our world will use personal perspectives and expert analysis put you at the heart of what matters listen to today in focus on subscribed on apple podcast Spotify or whatever you choose to listen. Welcome back to chips with everything I'm Jordan, Erika Weber. This week. We're looking at robots and gods, and how the ancient Greeks were able to imagine a world where humans and machines live side by side. To better understand the myths that contained the very first blueprints for what offficial intelligence might one day. Look like we're talking to Adrian mayo a research scholar in classics and the history and philosophy of science at Stanford University. In her book. Golsen robots myths machines and ancient dreams of technology. Adrienne explores what the technologists of today can learn from ancient legends that feeling of all sort of mixed with dread and fear. So wonder plus fear was described by Homer in the Iliad and the odyssey and then by classical Greek playwrights, so that uncanny valley effect occurred in mythology, but also in real life in antiquated because artists and sculptors were learning new technological ways of painting extremely realistic pictures that could fool birds into pecking at a painting of of grapes sculptors were able to to cast extraordinarily true-to-life statues that seemed to breathe and move and just encountering those for the first time people in antiquity did feel that uncanny valley effect. Adrian's book is hardly trying to suggest that all the great scientific minds of the last few centuries, stole their ideas from Greek mythology, but it does show that even outside if the scientific realm people have long been fascinated by these stories take Mary Shelley the famous nineteenth century writer behind Frankenstein or the modern premium. I think Mary Shelley's horror story of Frankenstein. It's a really engaging sort of meditation on the idea of trying to surpass human limits and play God, and sort of the dangers of overreaching by scientists before they really know what the doing and in her story Frankenstein had hoped to use technology to create an artificial Android of great beauty and grace, but the tragedy is that the result was a hideous creature the monster that resented being brought to life that we know that Mary Shelley was influenced by ancient Greek myths about atomic Johns and people which is and sorceress trying to imitate nature, and I think her story remains fresh to us because it spins on that age old tale that warns against playing God or a tempting to create life without really understanding. Or having foresight about the consequences? Do you think that scientists and science fiction writers today are inspired or influenced by these classical myths? Well, you know, it's intriguing that when genuine automatons self moving devices began to be actually designed and built in the ancient world in the Hellenistic era. Almost all of those self moving devices in Taba, tons alluded in in some way to classical mythology. So I think even an antiquated the myth influenced ancient inventors, and I think modern technicians and robotics engineers might be willing to admit that they have mythic influences to military. Scientists were certainly familiar with the Talos story. I was surprised find out that the first Sam missiles that service to air missiles that patrol the seas were named Talos rockets, and even now just in the last few years DARPA at Pentagon, the military. Scientists at the Pentagon recently named their AI enhanced automated soldier uniform with an acronym. Talos very deliberate hearkening back to the Talos myth. So I think there's a lot of influence today. From these myths in nineteen forty two the science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov, first introduced his famous laws of robotics, the festive wit a robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. We seem to have always generally believed that robots should be built to benefit humans and not to harm them. But as we see with Talos, which we mentioned earlier some of these mythical characters develop human, emotions and do try to call home, say two myths like these off any suggestions for how to prevent this kind of thing from happening in real life. Or is it inevitable that are creations will rise against us. I think it's notable that when the self-driving devices are not Thomas tons made by. Defenses are confined to the divine heavily world of modeled abyss used only by Heff ESTES and the other gods goddesses in that realm, they are beneficial and benign, they don't really cause harm. But it's when the androids like Talos and pen Dora appear on earth, and they interact on the human plane. That's when things go badly in the myths and as of rules, get broken Pandora was essentially an evil fem bot sent to earth with a single mission heard mission was to release eagles on humankind for eternity. The miss seemed to say that artificial life is good to think with it's good to imagine in a sort of abstract way. But they give a strong caution that such things could wreak havoc. 'cause a lot of chaos lot of harm in the real world. Especially if they're accepted. Without foresight. So the classical myth seemed to express both hope and fear about creating artificial life and those mixed feelings do seem to -ticipant our own ambivalence. Our own sense of practical and ethical dilemmas about robotics and AI, and whether we should accept them. So readily. From the look of these ancient myths, it seems we've had the same ideas and anxieties around Automata or artificial intelligence for a long time the difference. Of course, is that we are much closer to having the technology to realize those dreams say what lessons should we take from these ancient legends as we move into this future. Many people may think it's kind of ironic to be looking back to the distant past. I'm asking people to time travel more than two millennia to look at what are essentially some of the first ever science fiction stories, but we're science fiction. Leads technology often follows an I think the sophistication of the relevance of these ancient dreams of technology and artificial life might constitute a kind of mythology for our age of AI. So I'm hoping that these ancient tales and their messages might enrich. Our understanding of what's really a timeless link between. Imagination and science. I'd like to find Adrian Matha joining me for this week's episode special. Thanks, also to rob. And Ryan at Stanford University who helped us out with studios if you want to know more you'll be able to purchase golsen robots Smith's machines and ancient dreams of technology via link on this week's episode description on the guardian website. Chips with everything is produced by Danielle Stevens. I'm Jordan Erika Weber. Thanks for listening. For more great podcasts from the guardian. Just go to the guardian dot com slash put costs.
Chips with Everything
Aired Last week 99:36
Atheist Experience 23.06 2019-02-10 with Matt Dillahunty & Don Baker
Now is the chance to use reliable energy to grow your money with the dominion energy reliability investment. Our new investment product offers competitive returns, no maintenance fees and flexible online access to your money. Make the reliable investment in reliable energy, the dominion energy reliability investment to find out more. Go online to reliability investment dot com. That's reliability investment dot com. The glass experience. We are live today is Sunday February tenth two thousand nineteen. I'm your host met Donnie joining me this week dome. Baker. Hey, good to be here. And thank you for filling in. We realized that on this Jen was suppose beyond their, unfortunately, she's ill. And so today, we're going to get a failure. Yes. Oh, hurry. Couple announcements to get out of the way. I yeah. So here we are. It's it's live TV it's, you know, something we do over the internet just 'cause you know show that we do people call in tell us what they believe in. Why we either agree with them or disagree with them? And then talk about it. And you know, that's that's kind of. Yeah. Not now. Simple thing. Yeah. No big deal, except it's the best thing ever. It's my favorite thing to do. And I have a lot of things that I would near the top of the favorite thing. But coming in here and actually doing this is a big deal on that. We're the kind of longest running show doing that scary. Tony some odd years and and next month will be fifteen years. I think that I've done this. Okay. We're getting all Matt. It's all right. I'm fine with that. So announcements wise, you know, the this is sponsored by the community of Austin. We are here at the free thought library fifteen or seven west Canaan, glean, any Theus to Raytheon friendly persons. Welcome to come down to join us. So if you're in Austin, Texas, for whatever reason, you can always come down watch the show and not just this show the shows because the now produces nine different programs including talkie than which was on just a couple of hours ago. We are constantly building a bigger brighter stronger community here in the Austin area. This building is full. It's open seven days a week from ten to nine it is a proper library. But there's also other stuff going on. It's a it's a real community center. And as such there are number of Vince, we like to do one of the shows that we've been producing his called secular sexuality, which is it's on Thursdays. If I'm correct, or at least it's on this Thursday for sure they had me on his guest. I have no idea why? But you know, who knows maybe I'll come back and talk more sexy stuff at a later point. But this. Thursday is Valentine's Day, and as such we wanted to do something a little special. So there's going to be a live episode of secular sexuality any theater venue. Where before the show starts? We're going to have Shelly Siegel down who you just heard her wonderful intro music. But she's gonna come down do a live performance before that. So it's a two for one of that you get you get to go to Shelley Siegel concert, and then you get up. So to secular sexuality that is this Thursday, which is Valentine's Day. And I know some people are like wait a minute already had plans for Valentine's Day, change him. It's Valentine's as your date. Yeah. Look if you've got somebody that you care about that you love what more could you do for them. Other than to bring them out for a good double billing show a music concert Anna show on sex. If you come to sexual sexuality and want to get laid by your significant other and don't that's on you you. We've we've laid all the groundwork. Everything's gonna be there. There's going to be drinks available and other stuff, but what we're gonna do is this show is on from four thirty to six PM and that central time. Normally we go over, but we're now monitoring ticket sales for Thursday nights event. And I'm going to add one minute to the episode for each ticket sold during the time that we're on the air. So if you've been procrastinating haven't actually got your ticket yet you need to do it you need to do it quickly. Because who knows when they're gonna run out, but will extend the show and go a little longer based on what we sell, and if we sell no tickets, if you guys if you guys fail to help me make this event and success, Don, and I are leaving right at six we're gonna have food screw guy jet. Wait, a whole nother week before you get an episode with us on there. So there we go they're gonna keep you posted on ticket sales. But how how would people get those tickets? That's the interesting thing at the bottom of your screen right now, if you're. Looking at it. It's bit dot Li slash secular. Sexuality the link is also in the description for the video the monitors the super chatter going to be posting in there on occasion. You can also go to vent right into Google or do a search on event. Bright for secular sexuality. There's countless ways to find this at don't took me a couple of seconds. But there's a link there right at the bottom of the screen. Okay. Get your tickets come on down. If you don't have a significant other. You don't have to buy tickets, but you could. I will be there. I have no significant other that you know, is coming with me to this thing. So. I'll be there. Single. If if that makes you not wanna buy ticket. If you buy enough tickets, I'll stay home. Buy enough tickets Matt won't even show up. But anyway, we're really looking forward to the event. Either way it's a win. Yeah. How do? Do whatever I need to do to sell out the show, including stay home. All right, but no, we're we're excited about this in all the other things the AC is doing and most of it is because of the viewers and listeners who tune in every week those who support on patriots those who come down to the studio and cheer raucously from the other side of the glass. Honest guest on this show. Yes. Oh, so is actually coming down staying with me, and we're gonna practice some guitar stuff. Because I don't play off enough to for to matter. Then Thursday night will be the show Friday night. Some of us are going to ten o'clock Esther's follies show, which always I'm sure people have heard me talk about how it's my favorite thing in Austin. That's not this. And then Sunday all the on the show with Shelley. And we're there's talk about possibly doing. The intro song live. We can't guarantee that yet. Because there's you know, I suck. And there's some technical issues to solve but yes, so we're. For a really fun weekend for Valentine's Day. So if you've got somebody, and you don't have something to do come do this. If you already have something to cancel it and come to this. If you don't have somebody come do this. It's it's a win win for everybody on that note before you get to callers, Don here filling in and we have a failure to thallium. Awesome. Well, over the years, we we've talked about various Christian celebrities. I'll put that in air quotes and their impact on the world. And this is today, I've got just got ten ten folks I'm gonna hit each one, very briefly and talk about where are they? Now, what's happened to them? And these are all folks that we've talked about on the show over the years and has the continued wonder working power of religion improve. These folks you you'll be the if I know where they are. Now my supposed to say where they are. Now, if you have any comments or insights into them that feel free to chime in sweet, okay? Peter popoff. Yes. Pete. Poff is back and almost as big as ever shocking laid off. Yes. So in the eighties. He ran a faith healing scam. That was exposed by James, Randi on national television as kind of help help make James, Randi famous. I think and got Johnny Carson to curse on live on air, live and. Yeah. They were they were getting messages from the Holy Spirit supposedly and and calling on individual people and James, Randi figured out. They were they had earpieces and Mike's and the and the wife was actually reading from cards that people signed when they came in and anyway, okay, PD, if you're not ready, you're in real trouble. Go watch the clip it's on YouTube, but watch it after this show. Yes. Now, he's he's got a late night TV scam. He's marketing blessed water to the gullible. And and what he's really wanting is people to call in and give their telephone numbers to them for for people who are desperate and need a boost from God of some sort I presume he's going to, you know, squeeze them for money if I had to guess, but yes, if there's if they're giving you something for free or cheap be prepared for the upsell, right? Which is. You can afford this blessed water, which will help you. But we've got a bucket of blessed goop that we sell for one hundred and fifty dollars an ounce and it's invisible. And it's. It will make you live as long as God wants you to live. So he's still scamming. Okay. Pat robertson. There's a lot story about him. He is took over the Christian broadcast network and became a very visible televangelist. He had an unsuccessful run for presidency in one thousand nine hundred nineteen Eighty-eight he is flamed famous in my mind for blaming the victims of weather related disaster. I think we should coined that as a new word flame flame. Yeah. He got flames for being a flaming asshole. He's had various fun and interesting business deals involving blood diamonds and wasteful weight loss shakes or protein shakes, and he has five failed prophecies at least at least. Right. And where's he now? While he's still crazy after all these years. He's he's he's fading out. I don't think he'll be with us that much longer. One of his quotes is feminists. Feminism is a socialist anti-family political movement. That encourages women to leave their husbands kill their children practice, rich craft and destroy capitalism and become lesbians as if those were bad things. Too too funny, not remotely true and not necessarily a bad thing. And recently us in the news for yes. Blaming blaming victim for for her her cancer, whatever whatever illness. She had. Okay. Great guy, Ken ham. I can tell you exactly where he is. Right now. The American atheist national convention is on Easter weekend. And it's going to be in Columbus, Ohio. I believe Cincinnati, Ohio. You don't quote me just goes, eight Theus dot org. Look it up yourself. I'll be there. But at the same time that the American atheists are having their convention why can ham in Ray comfort decided that they should put on a convention not too far away to kind of compete now. He's on my list to the whole the whole reason that the American atheist convention is on Easter or one of the many reasons is not just that it's kind of an amusement that we're doing this on a holiday the Christian stole from pagans. But also because it's not a holiday we would celebrate or care about. And yet people tend to have that weekend off you get cheaper cheaper. Exactly some things because Christians by large will go to church and then hot Easter eggs, and that's it that's their day. So I think they've made a mistake trying to book a convention alongside that on Easter weekend because that's for normal Christian families. That's where they spend with their families. I go to church and then they do the fan rating. We'll see there aren't conventions on Christmas, by the way. That would be a big mistake. Yeah. Okay. Well, he's a hardcore young earth creationist. He's pumped out a lot of Christmas drivel over the years. He had a debate with Bill Nye in two thousand fourteen that he and where he argued the past is unknowable to science and therefore his holy book should fill that gap. And the event brought a lot of media attention to his creationist museum. Even though folks think that Bill Nye won the debate everybody except for Ken ham believes the Bill Nye won that debate. Yeah, right lately. He's been scamming Kentucky out of tax incentives for his failing arc park. Noah's ark park, and it's been losing money and not coming through with the promise job creation embroiled in scandal after another I think there's maybe twenty scandals associated with at this point, by the way, I put out a challenge. The other day if Ken ham. And Ray comfort would like to have me speak at their convention. I would be happy to do. So. Okay. I'll be in the area. I won't charge. You a penny. You can plot me on stage and have people ask me questions until you're tired of me. But I think I'll take one for the team and do that what an offer somehow. I don't think they'll take you up on. Yeah. Which is which is going to be a little bit of hypocrisy because reconvert was asked allowed to speak at an American atheist convention one time there you go. Your move creationist. Speaking of creationist can't Hoven I know he's out of prison. Now, he's at a prison that's going to the punchline he's goofy younger creationist. He offered. I know Dr Dino ran dinosaur adventure land head a fake twenty five thousand dollar prize for anyone who could prove of Lucien. Yeah. He got his PHD mail order. And he's been criticized by answers in Genesis is using bad and outdated. I think his PHD was from something like patriot university or something sounds, right? It was a trailer out in the middle of nowhere. That's not accredited there's pictures of it. And you can find his thesis as well. If you do krill laugh it's worth doing. Yeah. So as as Matt said he's recently out of jail for his tax, Texas Asian. Yeah. And I don't want to beat him up too much for that stuff because it's it's not relevant to his ministry apart from the fact that he seemed to think that because of his relationship with God. And and the work that he was doing that. He was not on the same playing field as everybody else. So. Meanwhile, he's he's now. I believe their own stuff. Right. He's had a falling out with his son, divorced his wife and married his mistress. So, you know, hey, maintained that moral high ground there can. Yeah. He's probably one of the slimy. Est wins on my list here. Michael be he's next just published a new book. No did. Yeah. Like within the last week or so people have been ripping into strength. Oh, no. Well, he's a scientist, author and intelligent design. Proponent? He promoted the idea of irreducible complexity and gave several examples and challenges all of which have been refuted by now, including inkling refuted by other Christians in the Dover gets Miller draft. Yep trial. Yeah. He he that famous case he was kind of a big player in the kilts Miller versus Dover case. And where ide- was found to be a repackaging of creationism Kurdistan proponents. So. Yeah. So he's also been shunned by his fellow professors at Lehigh university. So he's a little bit of a pariah there. So, but he has a new book. Yes title. I don't know the title of my. In my head at something about. The new DNA evidence disproves evolution or something along those lines. Okay. It's the same the reviews. I never haven't read the book, but the reviews I've read of basically said that he's going through and cherry picking essentially things that are problematic and ignoring the responses from proper scientists, I think Jerry Coyne how to blog post about it the other day. Okay. All right. Pope benedict. The sixteenth Ratzinger. Yeah. So he was he had an ambitious rise to power within the Catholic hierarchy despite being Hitler youth as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of faith. Formerly known as the Roman include cuisine. He had inside knowledge of that one. You should expect. Yeah. He had inside knowledge of all pre scandals and very likely covered up a few. He was sued and tried to some folks tried to bring him to trial in the US in two thousand. And five, but he claimed diplomatic immunity and later step down as pope, which is very very unusual, you they they die. I think that hasn't happened in six hundred years and now lives in Vatican under under a rock or whatever with all the other folks that are hiding out there from from legal legal legal authorities and Tim Minchin wrote a song about him. So, and that's probably the best thing that happened during Ratzinger's rain was ten mentioned the pope song, which you should also watch after the show's over lots of good stuff. Ted haggard another heterosexual. Right. He he's spider. Roy Zimmerman classic. Yes. He do highly recommend you watch. He's a he was a Colorado Springs minister, he still is he was president of the national association of Evangelo Kohl's was considered one of the most influential venue Jellicoe ministers, but he liked math in rent, boys. Yes. Beth and rent boys. So his his policy was exposed because he's been speaking out against same sex marriage, and that sort of thing and after a high profile prayer intervention among his peers, he's back ministering again in Colorado Springs. I think these folks really don't have any other job skills, which is kinda sad. Yeah. I feel I feel more sad for the for the individuals who have signed up on our part of the clergy project because a lot of them are stuck in jobs that they they really can't get out because they don't have any of this base been preaching for twenty twenty. Five thirty years. And it makes me wonder how many of these that, you know, get busted for some crime or some, you know, moral dilemma, and they're back in the pulpit is it because that they don't have any. They don't know how to do anything else. They don't have any other options, or is it because they actually sincerely believe. And I think it's going to depend on the individual. It's six of one half dozen the other. Yeah. Yep. Reconvert we mentioned him briefly. He's an evangelist minister, he's founded the living waters ministry and the way of the master organization. He's published tracks look like money and got taken away. Yeah. Try to anyway, he's teamed up with actor Kirk Cameron various media pose a misogynist piece of shit. Oh, yeah. He's he's kind of bad news. He had a failed bananas are atheists nightmare argument, which is now part of my traveling magic skepticism show is good. It's the first thing he had failed. Are you a good person apologetic? He. Wait. So to say that Ray comfort had a failed. Are you a good person? Apologetic is kind of like, I mean, that's one of twenty thousand failed. Apologetic. Why did you pick that one? I don't know. I just find it very annoying. It's it's amusing he was exposed for that years ago on the hell bound alley show because he'd say, you know, well, you know, all you a good person. I'm not going to get the accent. Right. Right. Have you ever told a lie? Well was to make you makes you a liar. And they they said Ray of you ever told the truth and he's like, oh, good one. How is it? You can do this apologize. Have you ever told a lot for years and never think about the possibility that I've also told the truth? Yep. So that's that's a bad. One also issued a reissued the origin of the species claiming that was modified, but had many chapters missing dead it because I thought that all that happened was published it in its entirety with his. That's what he claimed thing on the front. Okay. Yeah. I didn't go through it. Because I didn't need to read his introduction to the origin of species. Yeah. So lately, he he did a new video called the atheist. Delusion wonder where that title came from. I'm sure Richards, not gonna him. He argues that DNA is like a book books can't copy themselves. Gee whiz. DNA is amazing there forgot exists yet except that one of the areas in which DNA is not like a book is that DNA can copy itself throw. So you're now JI falls apart at the very first sentence. That's right DNA's like book except that it can copy itself. And it's not made of words. Right or paper. So thank reproduction and cell division. Okay. Herald camping I know where he is. He's dead. He's dead. So he was a small time wackadoo to minister predicting the end of the world twice for beat Italy repeatedly is so he's he was a proven fraud demonstrating via has follows the followers that a fool in his money are soon parted full in his money. We're lucky to get together. First place to go with the Harry in two thousand thirteen and the world is still going just fine. It's funny because the nice thing about Harold camping. Is that? He the last rapture that he'd had which was made fifth twenty eleven twenty twelve something like that. We he was out in the Oakland, California area. So I flew out to the Americas put on what was called the Oakland rapture ram and ram LA's regional atheist meet up, and so it was like a mini convention there in Oakland. And I was there with a great many awesome people, Greta Christina. And I pulled out the blow dryer into D baptisms wearing robes Keith little Jensen was there. That's where he and I first met mister deity was there as well. And the funny thing is is that in the evening in one of the later talks. I think it was right in the middle of of Brian, Mr. talk. There was an earthquake. So here we are in rapture day. And. We're gathered here and there's an earthquake. And it was one that you could actually feel that you know, it wasn't. It wasn't like a hey was that an earthquake? It was like. Oh, wow. That was an artist quake, not terrifying. Nothing, you know, fell down broke. But it was it was enough. And I'm not going to Keith joke because I don't still jokes. And it's funny. You should listen to talk about it. But people are got quiet this looking around. And that's when I yelled is that the best guy, and then we went on with the convention and Harold camping died. So. Yeah. Good story. Good story. Then there was as Jesus character. He he was a raving about the end of the world and delusions of grandeur, maybe and said he'd return and make and make predictions about the timing. But those predictions are failure they didn't happen. And he still dead end. He's been a frost profit for two thousand plus years if he ever existed his as far as we can tell he's not alive. Yeah. Yeah. So many of these famous Christians are just as oily as the ever were even when they're frauds frauds are exposed they keep going like the energizer bunny, and there's no real power within Christianity clean up the themselves or these fraud, so they persist and ultimately the belief is a fraud. And the in many of the people that promoted are working a scam. And these people are not going to lead you to attornal sell vacation. But they're just or turn bliss. Just playing preying on your ignorance, and that's another failure of Christianity. It's an interesting take on all of this. Because you know, there's other names you could've picked out. Yeah. There's a much larger list. But the thing that I find interesting is in, you know, here's Peter Popoff. Who's exposed as a fraud on live TV in a in a shocking way and ends up. I think bankrupt at least temporarily and is now back making millions of dollars a year with yet another scam. The same thing happened with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker with Jimmy Swaggart. And his oh, let me cry until you house out. I was to have sex with those women. And and yeah, you you weren't sad to have sex. Sorry. That's a big fat lie. And yet he you know, he's back. It's they're like cockroaches. In the sense that they're really really difficult to get rid of. But it's not for lack of trying. It's the fact that. A huge portion of population. Evidently loves a cockroach that they think can still benefit them in some way, tell them something. They don't know. And you know, if if it's all about forgiveness, then you should forgive these people for the scams that they did in the past. So that they can scam. You again. Yeah. It's it's an embarrassment embarrassing kind of. Sad. Look at the world that you know, fool me once fool me twice foamy three times foamy every Sunday at midnight. As I buy your little bits of oil. I can't even hardly blame these guys that they have found an audience that is so gullible that much like another figure that I won't mention they seem to be able to get away with pretty much anything and maintain their position of power authority over others that doesn't happen so much and in other venues, at least for the most part, the secular humanists community has been really good about making sure that you know. Hey, if this person's terrible and doing bad things star community. They're not going to be welcome at our events anymore. Let alone hold a position leadership. Not always true. But sometimes. There we go every let's take some fail. Yes. We got calls and. Well, we haven't done this in a bit, but we have Nikolai and ice land. How are you? Elo. I it's on here that you believe in Thor. I don't know exactly what you mean. So if you can tell us what it is that you believe in. Why are first of all I think will for you take my call on the big fan of the show. Okay. So basically on pretty sure that on might have found the conclusion that Thors real. Okay. Okay. So if you think about it, we've all observed hammers in real life. We have all observed really strong men with beards and long hair. Just to make sure world agreeing here we have right? I've seen a hammer, and I've seen really strong men with long hair, we absurd lightning. We've seen movies and calm exploded documentation the way he has promised to deal with. So he's not a perfect superstorm supernatural. God. Most people cannot easily lift big hammers says something most people with hammers dangerous when angry people can fly in this day and age airplanes and elevators are like the modern day portal. If you think about it. Really know how you could not believe in it. I'm so. Sure, thanks for calling picked to this fast. But all right. I don't remotely think serious. So I just played along. Oh, I am too. You're series. You think the because there are hammers and strongmen that therefore there's Thor. When you put it like that, it seems very stupid. You bet. Well, okay. I mean, I've seen robotic suits does that mean there's iron man too. Will know K. But, but you know, I mean, I r- man Batman these are just like in a self made dudes and not gods. But there couldn't we couldn't though I I've seen I've seen crosses. Does that mean Jesus Israel and God? No. Of course. Not. Yeah. So the fact that there's a hammer and there are heavy hammers. And it takes a strong person lift heavy hammer doesn't mean that. There's a Thor. Will I still disagree because I feel everyday in my heart. I apologize. I don't believe you I and so we'll move on. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah. I think that's an obvious bullshit call because I'm not aware of anything in the mythos where you would feel him in your heart until he drives storm bringer directly into it. And you happen to be and then you would kind of maybe feel Thors acts in your heart. But I think the comic books have polluted the original Mitha. Let's yeah. I, you know. It's like, oh, I almost comment on the fact that you know, we've seen men with long hair. Yeah. Up until ragnarok. And then all of a sudden he had short hair. So, you know. Some wrong there. You know, pretty soon thorough. Look like me and be very unimpressive. I've got a hammer a few years, I've got a hamster. I have very very very short hair. I'm for in twenty years. Yeah. We've got Andrew in twins. Berg wants to talk about the historical reliability of the gospels. Doing matt. How're you doing pretty good? Last time we talked. We talked about the ending Mark. Mark sixteen nine hundred twenty. That was added. I don't remember what? Yeah. Okay. Well, we're in agreement then that that was added. Yeah. Because it's there's twelve words in that that weren't included in the Mark's gospel. Well, the in the oldest. Yeah. From versus nine through twenty don't exist in the oldest manuscripts for the Ospel. Mark. Here's the thing. It's in the bible. It's in pretty much every published bible that you're going to find some of them will add a little note saying, I think I think the V ads that the following verses do not exist in the oldest and best manuscript, Mark. But are included here for completeness tradition or something along those lines. But what's included in those nine through twenty is some really outlandish stuff. Like, not just, you know, a version of the great commission all that. Yeah. They you can drink poison and you can handle venomous, snakes and all that stuff. So that's in pretty much pick pick any Christian and open their bible. You will find those verses there. Correct. But there's always a footnote that says, this is probably added. Well, there's not always footnote K. I didn't everybody has three. And it always says it a mind. Okay. Well, I I should have brought my King James that I grew up with at home because it doesn't say that. And it's got a concordance and everything but. Why would we include such ridiculous passages that even Christian scholars acknowledge don't exist in the oldest manuscripts? So there's not good reason to think that this is an instruction from God, doesn't that only serve to confuse doesn't that also violate other scriptures about not adding to taking away and yet I don't know that I've ever heard or heard of any Christian preacher giving a Sunday on some sermon on Sunday morning that starts with. Hey, Mark sixteen open your bibles every verse from nine through twenty just ignore those because that stuff that was added in his not scripture. I've never heard that. That's that's why we have so many manuscripts. So we could see which was that. It was not. 'cause there's also a phrase in one John five seven that's called a comedy, you hahnium. Yeah. And that one's that once controversial as well. Yes. And so the thing is as we go through these. So the common Johann Eum is essentially where this is where the trinity is the only spot where the trainer d is kind of expressly presented in the father son, and Holy Spirit in that sense. That may not be accurate, but they trinity was invented basically and three twenty five CE. But so now, we've got at least two things in two gospels that are at best dubious. How many other things are in the bible that people take as the word of God that aren't? And how can you tell? Well, there's another one too. Yeah. The woman adultery. Yep. But an early church father quotes that I think round one hundred eighty so I think they just put it in the wrong place or something. That's what I was taught might be the case. Here's the thing. If all of those things were supposed to be in there, if if even the ending of Mark existed in an original manage group that doesn't change whether or not it's true or believable or anything else. But what we find is that as we begin to investigate we find more and more problems. And so this becomes an issue for anybody who wants to say that the bible is the inspired word of God. And all scripture scriptures useful for instruction. If in fact, there are passages in the bible that shouldn't be there. What if there are also passages that should be there? Like, the Shepard of Hermes or the apocalypse of Peter which were both considered inspired scripture. They just didn't make it into the canon. So when we start talking about the bible, and how reliable it is. It's not, and I don't know how you could ever get to the point where you have. We have no original manuscripts. We don't know who wrote a good chunk of it. There's disputed authorship for other things and God hasn't come out with the the here's the twenty nineteen edition of the New Testament with corrections and addendum, and it would seem to me that if I was God. And I had inspired a message for all of humanity. That was the most important message ever. And they clearly got some of it wrong. I I have a responsibility to correct that. So the fact that the correction hasn't come either means that it's not wrong. God doesn't care or God doesn't exist. Well, the America is called the Merritt torn fragment, and we just more than one eighty and that's got twenty to the twenty seven books. Sure. Well, I know in the book Jew Timothy, and I think one of the business of Peter they talk about false teaching the church. Yeah. Yeah. It's funny. Because one of the things that's attributed to ball is going to be a forgery. And it's funny because the passages in in those books talk about you know, I Paul write to you by my own hand. So that you will know that it has me, which is basically there's people run around. Forging my stuff this is not a forgery. Which by the way is exactly what afford would right? Well, when we look at the book of Hebrews, we still have no idea wrote that, but I think it was probably Barnabus and Paul wrote that together. Okay. And the thing is. When I was a Christian. I didn't spend that much time worrying about who wrote it because it was inspired by God. It didn't matter to me that Matthew Mark, Luke and John were written by anybody named Matthew. Mark, Luke, John what mattered was that? This is what God inspired as the gospel story, and I was supposed to garner from it the elements that were relevant to to my walk and not be in concerned at all about who wrote. It it's only after I started finding my way out that I discovered that the people I assumed wrote it hadn't and that the things that I assumed were I witness testimony weren't and also that even if they were I witness testimony, and we're written by the people that I thought wrote them that still doesn't tell me whether or not what they wrote as accurate. So I'm really looking I'm really looking for a way that we can figure out exactly which parts of the bible are accurate and how we can tell. Low. I think mar the last supper was at Mark's house. Do you want to do you want me to explain I don't care whose house it is? I don't know. How's it relevant whose house? It is. Because he Mark put himself into the gospel. So what I'm saying? That wrote Mark John, Mark. Okay. Whoever wrote Mark insert himself in there. And you think that the last supper happened at his place. Cool. Yes. What? Because in acts twelve Peter goes to that house after prison. Yeah. What difference? Does it make whose house? It was that. Well, if Mark and Barnabus or cousins, and if he wrote Hebrews, and we're putting all this stuff together. Okay. I think what Mance getting at is. Is you you gotta take a step back and ask. He did this happen yet. Did this happen? You know, is there anything of value here? It makes no difference to me where the last supper was or it really doesn't matter to me too much if lasts up recur occurred. I could I could say, okay, I'm going to grant you that Jesus was a real person. Yes, you have been Joseph and some people who don't really know that much about wrote some things about his life. Some of them kind of almost tried to look like I witnesses even though the evidence is against them being written by witnesses. But let's say that everything about those was accurate in the sense that. Yep. There was the last supper, and we have a pretty good recording of what was actually said there. None of that gets us in any way closer to whether or not Jesus was in fact, God in Kearney. And whether or not he died and was resurrected and whether or not that applies for this allegation of sins and whether or not. We know at all what we need to do. To fill our our role. What God wants our role to be. So. We're we're sitting here talking about acknowledging that there are problems with the books, and that goes down to authorship and reliability and what's in there. And the first question that needs to happen is. How do we come to the conclusion that there's some truth to be found within this? Because I don't know that it's necessarily the case that there is any truth to be found within it or that it's possible for us to figure out what's true and separate that from what's not true. Well, there's a lot of evidence we could start with the massacre the innocence. You don't believe that happened? Is it reported anywhere? Other than the bible law, the Roman emperor gusts has said that is better to be here. It's pig than haired, son. How does that how does that attest to the slaughter the innocence because only was less than twenty that were slaughtered 'cause Bethlehem was small city? And that that doesn't okay? What does God need with the starship? That's a quote from captain James t Kirk confirm me he killed his wife and a couple of kids. Okay. That wow. You're you're awfully close to this material. And I think I think it would benefit you to take a step or two back. Well, when we look I've believe the gospel of Matthew was written first while you're you're you are now in direct opposition with the overwhelming majority of scholars including Christian scholars who spent their lives studying this. Well, when you look at the gospel of Mark he doesn't include Jesus Dan Joseph, correct? Or I think I'm going to go with correct because they don't have in front of me now, and and don't have every bit of this all memorize anymore, but the vast you would at least acknowledge the vast majority of scholars including Christian scholars studied, their New Testament, almost universally note that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke either borrowed from Mark or borrowed from a shared source cue or something else because they include the same elements in in the same cases, the same language and order. What makes you think that Matthew? Was written. I. Because we have more just like the sermon amount, you compl- compare that to the sermon on the plane that Luke it's very descriptive. Because Matthew was attack collector, and it was probably writing this stuff down. And you probably didn't read it in Greek for some sure he wrote either in Hebrew in air make for so now you've assumed that Matthew was real Matthew was tax collector Matthew is the author. Matthew was literate Matthew accurately wrote stuff down. I that's a lot of assumptions how do you demonstrate any of that? Well, a tax collector would have to be fluent in Hebrew were making Latin or green. Okay. Devon be fluent in Greek. But as it's known, we don't know who the authors are right. So so book for whom we don't know the author you've now concluded who the author was. Based on a bunch of and that it was written. They were getting killed who was getting killed. Niro, we know thirty years after Jesus death that there were being killed in Rome who who. The christians. Okay. What does that tell us about whether or not Christianity is true? That it spread that far from the the Middle East to Rome in that quicker. That doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it's true that tells us about whether or not it was popular and whether or not it was persecuted that's not about whether or not it was true. Well, that would mean access true then 'cause it's spreading. Okay. The whole of the book of acts the whole. So like if I list ten things right now just off the top of my head. The sky is blue. I'm the best person on the planet. I'm magical and can change water to wine. Four is greater than to their give to things that are clearly demonstrable be true. Does that tell you anything about whether or not my other statements are true? It's not my job to your math. A lotta methodological naturalists. Okay. First of all, I stop methodological naturalism has absolutely nothing to do with the question. I asked not one thing. I said if I listed a bunch of things in the fact that one or two of them were correct. That doesn't tell you whether or not the others are, correct. That's that's just trying to say that the miracles were. Correct. In the bible. I'm trying to get you to believe in miracles your methodological naturalists. Wow. So this this gentleman is exactly what it talk about. When I when I talk about religious ideas, putting up roadblocks to discussion because I have made no statement at all in this about whether or not miracles were possible or not you said that because they were persecuted. That means axe is correct. But acts has a lot of claims and one claim from a book does not mean other claims from a book or true. That's all I was trying to get to. All right. I'm sorry about that. So the fact that a claim in a book is true tells you nothing about whether. Other claims in the book a true, right? But we got a lot of books that we got six bucks confirming. But we don't actually have to go through them all and there doesn't matter if you had sixty six six hundred sixty six books are one book the fact that there's a true statement in a book does not tell you about whether or not the other statements are true. Correct. Correct. Okay. So you don't get to say that axes true. Just because axe includes a true statement. Each statement in acts that you would like to use to make your case would need to be supported by evidence. Correct. Do do we want to go back to why think nasty was written? I does it matter which was written. I. Like, well, they're the threes enough. It's written before seventy AD because Jesus predicted the temple. Well, that's not necessarily true. As a matter of fact, the bulk scholarship places them after seventy AD in part because of the temple now. Yes. They don't believe. Jesus was hypo- Saddik union dry truly man that could predict that. Right. They they don't necessarily believe that. It was a prediction, but there's also not evidence that they were written prior to that you the only only reason that you want to place them prior to that is because now it looks like a prediction about the temple. You have no evidence. So here I meet make this as easy as possible. I'm magician like onstage including mind reading including the ability to make predictions. I can have sealed prediction on stage and people in the audience can make seemingly random decisions, and I will have predicted this. Now, it's nice that my prediction is in place beforehand. But we're talking about a short show here. And as far as you know, there's a prediction that's in place from the beginning of the show, the show's what somebody's going to say, I've successfully predicted it. I do it every show. Does that tell you does that mean that I actually knew ahead of time? What was going to happen? How do we know? I didn't change things. How do we know that I didn't manipulate things in certain ways? So the mere fact that something appears to be a prediction does not mean that it's not actually a post diction. And when we don't have copies, and when we don't have evidence that that these things were written prior to that you don't get just get to assume that oh, well, this was a prediction and it happened afterwards. Was means it must have been written before. Because that's how magicians fool you. What in the book of acts. Paul death is not mentioned in. Peter's death is not mentioned. But James, the apostles death is mentioned, and that's confirmed by Josephus. I'm not sure what point you're trying to get to. Because once again, we can confirm others things that are happening in the bible. Right. And as you just acknowledged not five minutes ago. The fact that some things in a book may be true doesn't tell you whether or not other things in the book are true. And the thing that we're trying to get to is that Jesus was God incarnate. How do you prove that? He rose from the dead. And we you know that I've been how do you know, the Jesus rose from the dead? And by the way, how do you know that the only way for somebody to rise from the dead is if they are got in Karnik. We have the computer he says, we do not we do not follow cleverly devised tales when we known suppose card Matt coming of his majesty. Yeah. That's basically saying I'm not being foolish. I actually believe this that doesn't tell you. Whether it's true either. So what evidence would you be looking for? I don't know. What what what let's say that the claim is someone was killed and then resurrected three days later, which by the way, the math doesn't work out on that. Anyway, what evidence whether that I think that that was in barroom. It's Booker something I read, but there are to pass over they celebrated or I okay. But all right. I'm going to say that's bullshit. But it doesn't matter because the question is what evidence would convince me that someone died and was resurrected well, first of all we would need really good evidence that the person existed. Then we would need good evidence that they were killed and that they were in fact, dead and examined by the best medical experts and had a trail of that. And then we would need evidence that they were actually no longer dead at a later time. Now. You can you can sit here and say, okay. Well, they didn't have video cameras back then well, whose fault is that why did God decide to come down and take human form and sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole for rules that he invented only to be resurrected during a time when it is impossible for people to reliably chronicle the facts such that people in the future have good reason to believe that this person was raised from the dead. It's not the fault of reason or science that God decided to it's like it's like the the alien abduction claims where they seem to just go out in the middle of nowhere and pick Jim Bob in his trailer in the woods with no video camera. No ability to record anything, and he's the one who gets the anal probe in his cows molested. And then he has to look at the rest of his and go, well, why don't you believe because while you may have evidence firsthand that you may or may not view as rely. Able nobody else does all this is claim and a story. There's no physical evidence to support even Jesus's existence. Let alone death in resurrection. And even if we granted all of that Jesus existed died and was resurrected we're still if the with the question, how did you get resurrected? And the eight you can't make a case that the only explanation is that he was God, are you? You're calling Tacitus mentions. The crucifixion was Tacitus there. No. But he's a story gonna get his sources you're saying he's a bad story. I guess I was if Tacitus recorded this without sufficient evidence than he was a bad restoring. But that's not what Tacitus did what Tacitus essentially did as report what people believed to have happened. He didn't report that it happened. He reported there are Christians, and they believe this. I understand your Grandy recorded it a generation later. It would be like somebody today saying, hey, Elvis died and was resurrected I heard this from all the people who saw Elvis alive and reported to tabloids over the last thirty years is that a good foundation to start the religion of Elvis. Again, we can harmonize the gospels. I know you can't Arman is the gospels that that is the challenge. It's been sitting there for ages. The gospels cannot be harmonized who was at the tomb when they got there. Depends on which version. The angel that that's easily explained the two angels. There's one at Matthew. And then there to John was at a different time of day. Oh, so different time of day. So even though they report that, you know, who who arrived at the tomb and was the stone already rolled away or did it roll away when they get there. And was the tomb completely was I'm not done done. I'm not even fucking close to done with. Where was the stone was rolled away to roll away when they get there who was in the tomb was the tomb empty is one gospel reports or was there an angel in the tomb who who talked about it who went and told and there is no harmonization for this. I polish is that I'm going to beat you up over this. But it's like this is the one puzzle for which there has been a massive sticking point within Christianity. And you cannot harmonize Easter accounts there are too many inconsistencies, and what a lot of apologised will do is say, well, of course, they're inconsistencies. They are different people relating different stories. And it's only the key elements that we care. About and the key elements. Are that Mary went to the tomb cheeses? Wasn't there cheeses matter outside, and she went and told people that other details the same as if you know four people saw car accident and they're going to get minor details wrong. That's how it apologised have done because they have to acknowledge if they actually try that you cannot harmonize account. So it's it's just a mistake on your part to say that you can. It would be much better to just say. Yeah. Okay. There's things we don't understand. But there's uniform either all telling the same story that Jesus was dead. He was resurrected and that gets us back to the question that I had I have pictures from the National Enquirer of Elvis walking around supermarkets after he was dead. Is that sufficient evidence? No, do we have any photos of Jesus walking around anywhere after he was supposedly dead. No, we have people who claim that they've seen Elvis. Lots of them is that sufficient evidence. Before he died or after he died. That's a tabloid magazine. Okay. You're reading tabloid holy book. According to European you. Yes. And you know, what if you had actual evidence that was better than what we have for Elvis. You would present the evidence and not just well acts was right about this or well, the gospels can be harmonized when they can't you don't have evidence. And you your knowledge ING, I would say that there is vastly superior evidence for the resurrection of Elvis than there is for the resurrection of Jesus if you think you have better resurrection for for Jesus than you do for Elvis presented. We have we have. Can we just say about go back to mass you in? Which book do you think was first written in the new test? Mark. And and then James the pistols. No, I'm not talking about the epistles. Even James certain. I I don't know. And you know, what I don't care because which was written. I doesn't get you to which one has the truth. And by the way, the fact that you're trying to find one that you can say was written. I is a way to try to massage the truth. If a book was written. I does that mean, it's true. If all twenty seven books described Jesus I'd say, yeah. I I don't agree that might be. I'm not I'm not here to have dishonest arguments. I asked really simply if a because written I does that mean, it's true. And you did some really strange left turn there where if the books all mentioned Jesus then. Yes. Okay. You you are factually fundamentally logically wrong because the fact that book was written. I tells you nothing at all about whether it's true. Well, James is calling the sermon on the mount and his pistol. When he says, let your yes, PSA know, me know. All right. My no is no. Next. I really wanted to jump in on that. But we kept going down my field. A minefield of my field. Yeah. I mean, he's he's just so in love with material. He needs to step back and say, you know. All mean is there anything of value here? Yeah. I if you begin by assuming that the book is true or the book is relating information. Then you're going to find things that you believe just like yesterday somebody began a conversation with me by assuming that I was a misogynistic, man. Trying to argue with a woman because women were too stupid or wouldn't reply. That was literally her first response to me disagreeing. None of that is true. She's she was like, oh, I see that. You've only responded to women in this red. Well, no, actually, I only responded to you in this thread, and I haven't made any assumptions at all about whether or not your woman or anything at all about whether or not either of our genders matter at all you just said an answer. And I said you were wrong. And then you came out me as if as if I was a misogynist out to real steamroll over a woman, that's not relevant that same thing happens when you get so close to something that you color, everything you read with your own bias. And if you begin with, oh, it's gotta be true. Then you're gonna find that. And if you begin with, oh, anybody who comes in? And just says I'm wrong is clearly a man looking to push woman around in. That's what you're gonna see to this. Yeah. Hey, let's chicken are Shelly Siegel challenge. I will actually Jason from Alabama just bought tickets in the show and Email them there to be donated to. Who ever done, and I wish so thank you. Jason. I think we've been doing it already. And there's there's three total. There's three three tickets old so far. So we'll end the show at six. Oh, three. Okay. Say how this is going. Okay. We do we do appreciate the support and the interest and everything else, and we'll keep you posted throughout the show. And thank you so much to Jason and Alabama. Yes. Very much who tried to go to next we have nothing, but the on the on the one, that's awesome. How about number two? All right Davis in Toronto. Thanks for waiting. You're looking to defend against atheist claims about slavery in the bible for the record the claims about slavery in the bible, aren't atheist. Yeah. Fan. There seems to be some kind of garbling with your mic or your cell phone or whatever. So just please be patient. It may be hard understand you on occasion. Certainly no problem is better now. Yes. Okay. Good. So what I wanted to do was talk or defend against. Claims that the bible is in favor of slavery, or at least in some kind of credential interpretation of that. So yes, there's gotta buy handy. Because I do. Atlantan? Yeah. I I actually had a bible right here. So I mean, we could maybe go through it together. Because when I did my video and slavery. That's all I did was point out with the bible actually says. So let's no, I I completely agree with you. And I agreed that slavery is wrong, politically, politically exist. It exists metaphysically. And what I mean by that is you can be sleeve in today. Even today's western society talking about a metaphor slavery. I'm talking about actually owning peoples property, which is what the bible advocates. Enough. Regardless of what the politics of the day are okay, like, you can exist as wage slavery. Just as your own good Davis. None of that. Okay. None of this is remotely relevant does the bible in exodus twenty one and other places advocate for the permissibility of owning people's property and beating them as long as they don't die within a couple of days. Yes. Yes. Then then what difference? Does it make if in the modern world, you might be a metaphorical wage slave that is a completely irrelevant thing when we are talking about what the bible supports. No, it doesn't because what the bible recognize is that no matter what the political reality is no matter if you outlaw slavery or not it's going to exist bullshit, and you need to let bullshit this is this is the most embarrassing apologetic. I've ever heard on this. Okay. Does the bible allow people to own slaves as property pass them onto their kids beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days. And it doesn't have special rules for what you do with Bruce Lee's versus non Hebrew slaves. Yes. Or no. Yes. Have we not outlawed that form of slavery? Oh, yes. Yeah. So when you say that it always be around and can't be outlawed. That's not true. Would you like what you start over? There's. Well, what I'm trying to get at Matt is that you will always have servitude or slavery or indentured. Don't give a shit. If you were God. Would you ever include a process that says it's okay to own peoples property? Well, it depends on if I'm appealing to politics or of something deeper than that. Wait, wait. He was apparently God God, God is appealing to politics. God isn't making proclamations about morality. Being PC. Yeah. You have a week ask God, I'm moving on. God can be trumped by Trump. You have a week Aska. Next not worth worshiping use it. Yeah. Oh, well, the bible. Yes. It's advocates for slavery. Which means the Bible's advocating for some that you think's moral, and you think God thinks is immoral and your excuses that God needed to kowtow to political perceptions at the time and get it was okay for God's tell you not to eat shrimp and not to wear fabrics of mix clothing. And that if a man lies with another man, who is the woman they've committed abomination. Wow, you've got a God that selectively strong against homosexuals and shellfish. But his fine with people being owned as property for thousands of years before he bothers to. Oh, wait. No, no. He didn't bother to correct it. When Jesus comes down and takes over Jesus didn't say, hey, you know, that stuff you guys said about slavery that was wrong. You shouldn't have done that. You got something wrong in your bible that never happened. Where's bible part three? Where's the newest update? That says, you know, what not only was the Old Testament wrong about slavery. But Jesus and Paul were wrong about so for two. We don't know how we screwed that up. But we did we'd like to fix that. Now. Hasn't even been corrected in the in the Koran or the book of Mormon has it. No, your devotion, your devotion to your religion. I am sorry to say makes you look stupid. When you bend over backwards to try to make excuses for immorality. You are sacrificing your humanity. You are putting yourself in a morally inferior position, and you're doing it primarily because you cannot acknowledge that your holy book. Got something wrong. Even win the last caller acknowledged that the holy book got something wrong. Where did we go? We went on a Jordan Peterson extravaganza about metaphor, slavery and wage slaves. Well, that's bullshit. The question is is the bible a good book to inform people about the morality of certain issues, including slavery, and the answer is no it's the one and only correct answer. And as long as you keep trying to make excuses for it. Keep batting you around like a cat. Toy and sending you on your way. So the next apologised can call in and somebody someday might actually be honest about this and say, yeah, I think the bible is wrong as Ray comfort. Did when he said that he didn't believe everything that was in the bible because Ray while many people consider him to be an idiot was at least smart enough. Not to go down. The I'm gonna make excuses for slavery. Route one of the easiest things to avoid doing. I don't know. It's it's sad. Yep. And and think that for the bulk of my life. I was in that mindset. Yeah. Yeah. The problem or the difference? I suppose is when I came up and realized that here's a passage where the Bible's absolutely advocating for something that is clearly immoral then anyone with any sense can see moral instead of saying, oh, well, God is mysterious or got maybe God had to talk to those people that way, and he was trying to soften slavery and make it nicer. So that eventually it would get better because you know, you can't ever really I I don't think I ever went down that. I I am to honest in the sense that I went. Wow, that's clearly wrong. If that's wrong. And it's in the bible what else is wrong, which gets us back to the first caller. I I had a friend who just who just rationalized by saying. I don't understand. Yeah. Shut off her brain. Which is just sad. Yeah. And the thing is it's fine to say, you don't understand. It's just that. Once you've knowledge you don't understand. You don't have an answer. Don't pretend that you do. Don't try to start may. Excuses for something. I don't know. But maybe I don't know. But maybe okay. But maybe does not a solid foundation for religious beliefs. Make. Mike and San Jose, California. Thanks for waiting. No problem. Hey, what's up guys? I just talking about stuff. Who? So the reason I called in was I called him before talk to Matt and Tracy got hung up on like the most of that the on here. But hopefully that won't happen to me. So soon I'll let this Don answer and decide when to hang fair. Affair. They're nice power. So really what I want to talk about is. I wanna set forth an argument that atheism is ally. How can how can something that doesn't make a positive claim be ally? Sorry, I was gonna let Don it. That's fine. Let me explain. I wanna do realize that we define atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Yes. I'm not convinced to God exists. Just like, I'm not convinced ferries exist until you can come up with a way that both of those things are lies. I because I I'm sitting here. And I honestly don't believe God exists, and I honestly don't believe ferries exist. And yet you're saying, I'm lying. So we presume that we're experts about this the state of our minds, right and. Yeah. So are you are you saying I don't under? I can't fathom my own beliefs and and express them. Let me explain it this way this way. So I we have to both agree on our definitions. So atheism is the lack of belief in God. And or the disbelief of God. And these is the belief of having faith in God, right? Basically if you if you're convinced God exists, your theorist if not your atheist. But you're finishes are fine. Head faith is something where you're accepting. The position is true without evidence. Correct. I'm fine with that definition of faith, I tended to define it as faith is the reason people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason. Okay. It's more or less kinda the same thing. It's. Yeah. Valley a valid form of evidence. I would say sound, but okay. Whereas this belief is the assumption or the rejection of claim or the some of the of the claim being wrong. No. It's not disbelief is not assuming you're wrong. It's not being convinced that you're right. It's essentially the difference between a jury not being convinced of guilt and Jerry being convinced of innocence. Those are two different things. Yet. The jury is not convinced with with or without evidence. They. The default. So you're a theorists are saying God is guilty of existing. Hello. Really know if God exists. Okay. Then if nobody can really know if God exists, then this conversation is useless. Right. Because you can't know, and I can't know. And all I'm saying is I'm not convinced that you're correct, which means of the two of us. I'm the only one that's close to being possibly right because you can't demonstrate your case. And all my position is that you can't demonstrate your case, which means not only my not lying. I'm completely correct. Sorry. Don was going to answer. We lost him. We lost him. He he ran away. Oh or just got connected. That's that's the way things go. Well, he's welcome to call back, and we can continue. I'll let you go with Gavin in Vancouver. Thanks for waiting. You're on with Don. Hi. I've been struck by is. Dozens. Christianity. And it is in not letting because. I. This guy. I have come to sanity by come. Because for twenty years, I was raised. Famer. But. You came to Christianity is no dulled. Okay. And. Imaginative? In a lot of ways like. I don't know if you have the sense, but I. I. Tama have strong dreams that meaningful to you. Like, maybe. Her but I put them in the category of dreams, right? And so and I don't. You don't okay? Okay. I don't know how it works. I just I don't hardly ever. Remember my dreams? I don't have dreams that have any particular significance for me. I was just answering the question you were like do you ever dreams? That were you know, sort of seemed like they were trying to tell me a message. And and you know, I view that as sort of my own psyche. Confabulation things that maybe can rage to the conscious level consciousness, and and be noticed at that level. I mean when I was a kid, I remember having dreams that terrified me that I would do is getting a message even from God. But I was a believer. Then what I'm saying is that in my entire adult life and going back to probably at the age of fourteen I cannot recall, an instance, where I ever had a dream that I remembered and thought was significant in any way in part because I put them in the context of dreams, but also in part because I just don't tend to remember when I wake up. I've been different contexts. My I in is like I believe that Natura like you don't eat any 'cause everything in the world. That happens is just natural. But my personal isn't is it. Organizes this sort of dream stuff. And it's very important. I feel like this is different types of people some people that don't have this. But for me, I point my life was just completely lust. And is like news starting to come into my breaking experience. When read the bible organized everything and as that is. And. It's been trying to understand that. And. And t make anything if that or. Well, you know, I think you could have picked up all sorts of different books, and and been lead in that state to another place and maybe read more significance into than maybe it deserves. Clearly, clearly the bible resonates with people on our stories within it that. Many people find meaning in and. You know, it's sort of stood the test of time. I think in many respects, not all of it. And and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It just may mean that, you know, as a as a work from humans, it it captures some of the some of the aspects of being human. So there are people who now identifies jet is because Star Wars resonated, particularly strong with them. There are people who spent a great deal time figuring out whether they're Griffin daugher awful puff because every Potter resonated with him. The thing about books, whether it's a fiction book or a religious text fiction books are intentionally designed to impact people to relate stories in a way that is entertaining. And and may have. Difference for them for a collection of books like the bible. You have a mix of history and a mix of poetry and song. And it's completely unsurprising to me that someone could read parts of or all of the bible from a position where they are confused in floundering, not quite sure about, you know, life, and and maybe these things are playing themselves out and dreams. And then once it gives you this apparent answer. I can understand that can be impactful for people because it's really uncomfortable to not know things and one of the things that the bible and other books do is make you think, you know, things when you don't why is there something rather than because that's what God wanted. Why is this moral in? This is immoral because that's what God wanted. Feels like an answer that makes it easier to deal with the fact that you didn't have an answer before. But like Don was saying that's independent whether or not a book impacted you enough to ease your nightmares and make you feel more confident and comfortable is independent from whether or not what the book says is true. Studied to call young a bit. And I haven't I know of him. But I I haven't studied his his work. And my comes from. He was really onto something and a highly recommended, but this is the idea of the collective unconscious. He studied a lot of. That I think all young have this idea that. People. I dreaming. All the time. And when you're reality. Is stronger in some way, and this kind of resonates with me because. Like when I have to in Christianity when you study these things start to engage he can kind of. Feel have they changed the way you see the world. And it's really interesting to go through. But I think that Christianity is not special in that way. I think you could find that experience in in lots of places, even if it was even if the Christian bible had a of a more impactful effect on more people that's about how people relate to these stories. That's not about how whether the stories are telling us something true. The fact that you find meaning value and something doesn't mean that you've discovered some truth. Yes. So we're we're pretty big on, you know, empiricism. And and you know, what is what is reality, and these sorts of things, and I think you can come come at what is meaningful to you. What what gives you comfort these sorts of questions, and we may not be, you know, be the reality that we are embrace may or may not be as pretty as as as we might like or as as warm and fuzzy, but you know, I would rather be sort of in touch with reality than than. Give too much credence to fantasy. Okay. I think that's. Really? Okay. Why don't they? Okay. Sorry. Sorry. We didn't didn't sort of connect that well with this conversation. So. Yeah. Thanks. Mike who is on disconnected in his back. So there we go there. My. I'm on still here. Thanks for having me back on. We didn't hang up on you. Yeah. I realize is probably my reception in one sentence recap where we were. So we can pick up again. Oh, I wanna make the argument that if he is is a lie just to run through the definitions. Again, we went through theism we went through ABM we went through belief and disbelief we went through faith, and we were just about to go through knowing I think there's something that we should find. Yes ally. Because to me if somebody if I want to say that's a lie than it needs to be as a declared of statement, and in particular in needs to be not just declared a statement, which is falls, but which is knowingly false there needs to be some intent to save. Okay. It has to be knowingly false. There's an intention to be deceptive pretending acting hypocrisy. How hypocrisy fall into that? I think there are ways to intent is difficult because we're talking about what's in somebody's mind. I think there are ways to demonstrate intent through the things that you talked about like poxy. But what is the declared of statement that you're saying is a lie. I'm saying that atheism in and of itself as an ideology is a lie. Okay. It's not stop atheism is not a declarative statement. So it cannot be ally. So we need to know what the declared his statement is that you think is a lie. Did you say is is not a declarative statement around? You you're saying you're saying that it's more of a a label or a term that we've put used to categorize that what you're saying. No, even if you went to what is the eighth ius position. My position is an atheist is that theism has not met his burden of proof. And therefore, I am unconvinced. That's it. So you could go a number of places from here is like, okay. Well, you're you're doing evidence K willfully ignoring evidence that might be away or you secretly go in the closet at night and believe in God. And during the day, you're presenting another case, which of those two am I am I getting close to where you're coming from? It's a little bit different. So my idea is that if we accept the premise that no one has evidence if got exist or not, and we accept the premise who'd never flew the ATM ally. Because if you this is what I was knowledge ING when you got disconnected if your position is that no one can demonstrate with evidence whether or not God exists, then there's no way for anyone to come down on either side of that, which means you couldn't possibly demonstrate that it's one either of them is a lie. Except that we had in practice that believers by the definition of their name. They don't actually assert to know if God exists. I don't you may don't care. This isn't about knowledge. It's a question about belief and reasonableness, so theorists. Believe there's a God. I don't care if they claim to know it atheist do not believe in a God. They don't claim to know that there is no God. What still believers have faith in God? Which is the assumption that there's no evidence to begin with. So they're not asserting knowledge. They believe something without good reason, we've established that that's faith. Whereas the other hand we have issues to claim they just believe you're gonna exist. But their disbelief is actually based on the assumption that they understand valid evidence for God would be. Yeah. Assert that this there's a lack of this style of evidence. Or that there's even contradictory valid evidence to establish their belief or knows believe rather. No. So this this gets to the question of when people ask me what we convince you that God exists. I have a stock answer that that is that I've used for years now. But it's changed because I have no idea. I am not pretending to know what it would take to demonstrate that God exists just that it hasn't happened. I don't need to know what evidence would prove. String theory just that it hasn't happened. I don't need to know what evidence would prove a God exists. But if there is a God that God, absolutely. Should know what evidence should convince people and has not presented it, and therefore either that God does not exist or that. God does not want people to know exists yet. This is not about I'm not an any way assuming I know what evidence would prove a God. And that evidence hasn't shown up I'm saying, I have no idea what evidence would prove God. But if it shows up it will be recognizable as evidence for it. Just like, I don't know what evidence would prove that fairies are real. But as soon as that evidence is presented in in sufficiently reliable context to which it would warrant belief in fairies, then I'm gonna believe in varies. But I don't know what that evidence would be and in a godsend. It would be monumentally arrogant for me to assume that I know what that evidence would be the real problem here is that there are countless people running around saying. Hey, we've got evidence for God. And then people like me are saying, oh, really what is it? And when they present the evidence, it's not. This is the problem with with that position. Even though I agree with you probably ninety five percent of the way. Well, good. I'm the problem with that in the end is that we agree that no one has evidence for God. No one can really know if God exists everybody in the end has believe or disbelieve. So in this kind of dichotomy where knowledge is really an option, then then you're you're faced with a little bit of a different proposition because yes, you either plainly, you have good reason to believe something or you exercise faith. Exactly. And if it's. You said is true the ladder about God is true. Which said was that God doesn't want everyone to know that he exists which that's true. If it's true, then every believer every believer is by definition unwarranted in their belief because if God doesn't want people to know he exists, then they cannot possibly have a justified position. Well, they well if God doesn't want everyone to know that's true. But if he wants select few people to know, not everybody just a few agree. But if there's a God that's going around selectively revealing himself to people those people are the only ones that could possibly have evidently warrant that cannot demonstrate it to anybody else, and it doesn't make shit spit. A difference to me because in tell I'm presented with that evidence. I am holding the only rational position that I can hold and it's not a lie. I understand your position. I do understand that. But how am I lying then? Well, the idea of ageism being disbelief based on valid evidence or lack of evidence assuming that you know, that there is evidence for God or anybody has evidence that so is a lie. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You don't care in television show for twenty years begging people to give evidence please give us some evidence. So you don't get to just call something a lot. I mean, you can we'll let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. What's what what's better to aggregate or be ignorant arrogant, you had to choose one arrogant would be better than ignorant. That's the thing like the feast would choose ignorance, very well aware of that voluntarily using it through an exercise of faith, and then calling into say that API are lying and having no demonstration that we're lying. Is it argon say that we don't know? But also, by the way, arrogance versus ignorance is a false dichotomy because there's monumentally fuck tons of people who are incredibly ignorant and very arrogant about it. The difference is. They can't they cannot have not met their burden of proof. It's not it's not alive for me to say, you have not convinced me, it's not alive for me to say, I've valuated all of the arguments for the existence of God that have been presented that I've found in explored and also found them wanting. It's not alive for me to say that if in fact, there was a sound argument supported by evidence for the existence of God, it'd be on the front page of every newspaper. It'd be the only thing people were talking about on TV, it'd be a Nobel prize. It would have every organization giving that the fact that that hasn't happened is the demonstration that theism has not met its burn proof and under no circumstance is a rejection of a bald assertion rooted in faith with a declaration from you that nobody can have evidence for this in no way is that ever a lie to say, I don't believe you. Okay. I guess from your perspective. I do understand your position or your money. You don't perspective that that ATM is a response. To this is to clean, not a response to God's existence itself. But. That the the clean that. Invented twenty thousand gods are I'm not quite sure. Which one you're talking about? Well, I'm particularly on probably I'm Christian. So I'm talking about the Christian guy in general. Okay. You. Which is how is the Christian God for which we don't have evidence for distinguishable from a Hindu. God that we don't have evidence for. This is the thing just as somebody who does who has had his own little bit of evidence to give me enough face to believe in God. This is the thing you cannot get that evidence. Without starting to believe for. Yeah. That's called yourself exception, or and it in no way answers the question that I just asked to say that you need to believe I in order to get the evidence is exactly the recipe for self-defence self-deception. That's a con game. What I asked was how is the Christian? God for what you think. There is no evidence distinguishable from a Hindu. God that you have no evidence for. That's kind of a loaded question. You bet. You can't. I can't really I can't really answer that because the Hindu God and the Christian God might be the same. It depends on who that Hindu. No, no, they're not the same. How what what kind of fucking Christian could possibly claim that the Christian got in the Hindu? God might be the same. What do you know this? This is the most bizarre version of Christianity. I've ever heard to say my God might be the same as the Hindu. God really all the Chris Christian. God is the creator of the universe and everything in it. So therefore, the Christian God is really the God of everyone is whether or not that individual person acknowledges that or not it's not really the Hindu God or the Christian guy. So you're basically saying Jesus could be the same. In the holy. I'm saying I can't I can't speak as far as into good. I all I understand that there's one God and one God that monotheism kind of how do you know that all religions? Well, it's kind of a the idea that that life comes from a singular cause or that everything. Sorry, not just like. But I thought you said we couldn't have in. This was a faith thing. Why are you talking about life? Now. We can have evidence. I'm used to could have evidence for or against this. Okay. What I meant was if it is valid evidence. So as to okay, first of all evidence, knowledge stop. He's in the word, valid it has very particular usage in logic. And what you're talking about as evidence, which was is what makes premise sound or not valid goes to the structure of the argument. Not that you would know technical term lady of evidence not not in logical. Locally the village to the evidence. So now, you think that there is evidence good evidence for God. When before there wasn't. Not this initiative. So there's the difference between case and knowledge. Right. Not only on a no, no, no. No. No. No. No. No, no, no, no fucking note. We want this evident already set aside the notion of knowledge, it's relevant belief is either warranted or it is not. And if you think that there is evidence for when you say not definitive evidence to me that sounds like you're saying not sufficient evidence to warrant belief. No, I'm saying not sufficient evidence to warrant knowledge. But they're, you know, believe you don't have to have you know, this knowledge just has to be beyond having a conversation. We have the conversation and give us give us the damn evidence. There we go. You're going with beyond a reasonable doubt. Right. Sure. So let's let's set up a courtroom where God is accused of existing and you need to demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt. Go I produce the defendant. I needed them to myself, right? You need to Dennis. It'd be a starting point. So reasonableness is not just a personal fucking opinion reasonableness is demonstrated. Now, you're everybody's gonna have a slightly different standard about how much evidence is required for various things extraordinary evidence or extrordinary claims are going to require stored Inari evidence. If Don tells me that he just got a new pet poodle. I'm going to take him at his word for a number of reasons one because I know that poodles exist and people have them as pets I trust dawn because his new reason ally about it. I understand I live in a world where this sort of thing happens. And if it turns out that dawn is lying to me. Then I will change my mind. And then I know something new about dawn in that. He will lie about having a pet but having a pet poodle is in a completely different category. From there is a being that exist inside and outside of space time who is the creator of the universe who came down and took human form in order to sacrifice himself to himself. So that we can have so. From what he was going to do to us if we don't accept this. And is completely obsessed about your sex life. Yes. Now, they evidence the evidence for that claim would need to be vastly stronger than hey, somebody told me a story. Hey, somebody wrote something down at a book or hey, I had a field. Do you have any physical evidence for anybody ever rising from the dead apart from in a hospital where their hardest often they're resuscitate because death is a process. Find somebody that's been dead for a day and a half. And they rise again. That's kind of thing if we have evidence that's demonstratable to everybody else. Then that kind of goes against the whole idea that God does not want everyone to know. He just wants to like few to. No, okay. Then the dick. I gotta go. We are. We are two minutes over where I said it was going to end the show time. Yeah. If you're God is selectively revealing himself to people first of all, he's a dick, you know? But if it's basically you're calling to say that I'm a liar because you think that your God either has revealed itself to me such that I'm being dishonest or you'll say that God has revealed himself to me yet. Which means I'm not a liar. But at the end of the day, if you're making a claim that God exists that is a claim that could be true or not true. And you may be lying or not lying. But to say, I don't believe you. That's not a statement that I mean, it is true or not true. But you don't have any way to get my head to say, you really do believe me and don't me wrong. I don't think Mark is actually doing that. But it has something that have done. I remember site and burden Kate basically and every presupposition list claiming that oh not only does Matt believe that God exists. Matt knows it got exists. Everybody knows it. You're without excuse will now. Congratulations insulting. You you've done. A really good job of telling me that you think you're right. And you think you cannot be wrong. That is a conversation to hinder because I'm not convinced that you're right. And I'm acknowledging that I might be wrong. And whether you categorize that is arrogant or not it's not ignorant. I don't think so, but it can be I don't mind if people wanna think I'm arrogant fine. I tell you what they're like oh on Stein believed in God. Well, Einstein evidently believed in Dowsing to am. I smart of the non sign on God and dousing. Yes. On other subjects perhaps not well Isaac Newton believing. God. Yeah. He tried to turn lead into gold. So there's clearly some front where I'm smarter than I knew how sad would it be if we weren't smarter than people from the past, but I'm smarter than your God. I don't care what religion you are pick out your God, grab your holy book. I'm smarter than that motherfucker guaranteed. There's no bit of wisdom of knowledge that is improved the world that is come solely from a religion. It would all need to be verified, scientifically, it's a useless proposition. And when it look at all these gods, and they're petty little concerns over who's doing what with who's genitalia, and whether or not, you subscribe, become subservient bow down, and whether or not we slaughter animals and burn them. So that the smoke in the blood filters up to his nose and makes him makes him happy a collection of four skins all these other. Oh, but God moves in mysterious ways. No, he doesn't he doesn't do anything in any ways. As far as any of us are concerned. And you don't just get to say that we're lying. You gotta actually come with something. And if you come with nobody has evidence, it's all just faith, and then you flip too. But I think I've got evidence that could be beyond a reasonable doubt. You already lost. Let's say next time. Thanks, everybody. There's a crew. Cameron today. People do not forget this Thursday. Shelly Siegel in concert along with secular, sexuality and go to Billy slash secular, sexuality and a few other ways to find those lines as well. Thanks for everybody who bought tickets, and we're out of here. The styling lounge presents an evening with progressive box. That's you go tickling the ivories. He just saved. By bundling home and auto progressive gonna finally by ring for that. Gal of your Hugo send Dolan's is. I oh this next ones. There's. In. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts on available in all states or situations. No from dad. All right. Save money on car insurance when you bundle home and auto with progressive. Gotta take these right? What is this good? Wow. Where did you get this? I'm talking to you with the hair. Yeah. Where did you get this? Good stuff. Solid. That's not the near that solid stuff. Progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto. Progressive casualty insurance company affiliates and other insurance discounts not available in all states or situations.
The Atheist Experience