Speaker 1: I am going to die. At some point, I will
Speaker 1: take my last drink, I will eat my last food,
Speaker 1: I will stare at my last sunset. In twenty years,
Speaker 1: very few people will remember me. In fifty years, I
Speaker 1: will probably be a distant memory. There are human beings
Speaker 1: who've been alive. I have no knowledge of whatsoever. The
Speaker 1: vast majority of humanity who is to come will have
Speaker 1: no knowledge of me. Do you know what. I'm absolutely
Speaker 1: fine with that. I have no fear about it, I
Speaker 1: have no existential dread about it. I accept it. But
Speaker 1: I'm really interested in those people who don't. I'm interested
Speaker 1: in those people who believe that there is an eternal afterlife.
Speaker 1: I'm interested in those people who think they'll be going
Speaker 1: to heaven to kiss God's toes and make him a
Speaker 1: very happy man. I'm interested in those people who think
Speaker 1: that they will be reborn again and again and again
Speaker 1: in some endless cycle until enlightenment is eventually achieved in
Speaker 1: a release from that rebirth comes. If you are one
Speaker 1: of these people who thinks that there is utility in
Speaker 1: believing in an eternal you, please give us a call,
Speaker 1: because the show is about to begin. Welcome, Welcome, Hello, everybody,
Speaker 1: Today is November the seventeenth, twenty twenty four. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Richard Gilliver. I'm joining me today. It's a very very
Speaker 1: wonderful Godless engineer. How are you, Godless Engineer.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm doing great. I'm excited to be here, excited
Speaker 2: to take calls today, and just in general just doing great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm looking forward to this one. I've just done
Speaker 1: the pre show TikTok, and I was encouraging people to
Speaker 1: call from there, and it's very rare that we get
Speaker 1: two people on the show who were kind of soting
Speaker 1: to the scholarship of religion. So, and we're coming from
Speaker 1: different angles. You know, my background's in Buddies, I hav
Speaker 1: at a little Christianity a little bit, and Islam a
Speaker 1: little bit. John, you're more in the Christian end of things.
Speaker 1: But it really gives people a great perspective if you
Speaker 1: are a believer in the afterlife, or if you're a
Speaker 1: religious person from any tradition and you really are convinced
Speaker 1: and you think the scholarship is convincing for your position,
Speaker 1: today is the day you need to call and give
Speaker 1: us a call, because you know you are talking to
Speaker 1: the two people here who are really really on the
Speaker 1: same wave length as you. So are are you excited
Speaker 1: about this.
Speaker 2: John, Oh, definitely. I'm always excited to interact with people
Speaker 2: like you know about the stuff I think about, I guess,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to like religious scholarship and scholarship
Speaker 2: on like Christian origins and things of that nature. I know,
Speaker 2: the chat pol is actually on slavery, which is another
Speaker 2: interesting aspect because that plays a lot into the scholarship
Speaker 2: concerning Christianity and like how we interpret it, like the
Speaker 2: scriptures and all this other stuff, and so like there's
Speaker 2: a lot of different I guess avenues that we could
Speaker 2: go down on that particular topic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's going to be a very interesting one, I think.
Speaker 1: And we've already got calls queuing up, which is always exciting.
Speaker 1: It's great to have those calls coming early so we
Speaker 1: can give those callers the time they deserve when they're
Speaker 1: calling into the show. But let's get let's get the
Speaker 1: legal stuff out of the way first. TOKI then, is
Speaker 1: a product of the Earthist Community of Austin, a five
Speaker 1: h one c three nonprofit organization which is dedicated to
Speaker 1: the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism and the
Speaker 1: separation the separation of religion and government at Tolkiden is
Speaker 1: a live calling show and we have open lines, so
Speaker 1: get your calls in at five one two nine nine
Speaker 1: two four to two or from your computer at tiny
Speaker 1: dot c c slash call th and as I said,
Speaker 1: those phone lines are filling up. So if you do
Speaker 1: want to talk to us, if you want to get
Speaker 1: in on this show where you've got myself and John
Speaker 1: hosting together, really now is the time to do it.
Speaker 1: Get your call in quickly so we can give you
Speaker 1: the time that you deserve. Before we take calls. We
Speaker 1: do our weekly segment talk Heathen to me which and
Speaker 1: last week we asked you it was a petty move
Speaker 1: when God blank And here are our top three answers.
Speaker 1: Number three, Colin Mattz, it was a petty move when
Speaker 1: God psyched Abraham. John, what do you think of that one?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's honestly an interesting story and has a funny
Speaker 2: little mirror, you know, in the Newer Testament. So that's
Speaker 2: definitely a funny prank right there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, this is a strong prank. I think maybe
Speaker 1: a strong word for that really bad abuse. Maybe another
Speaker 1: way of phrasing it. Miranda Rensburg says, creating an entire
Speaker 1: universe just because you want to be worshiped is pete
Speaker 1: as fuck. I absolutely agree, John.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I've got an insulin pod problem that's happening to
Speaker 2: me right now. It's causing a loud beep. But yes,
Speaker 2: I think the creating entire universe just because you want
Speaker 2: to be worshiped is pretty petty.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Number one is x million who says it was
Speaker 1: pretty It was pete for God to demand for skin
Speaker 1: sacrifice the things that Christians have done around that, John,
Speaker 1: from your perspective, because I've got some call stuff to
Speaker 1: talk about on there, but for skin sacrifice, yeah only, I.
Speaker 2: Definitely do not vote for that particular thing at all.
Speaker 1: Nope, there were some if you have a look at
Speaker 1: particularly medieval history, there were lots of stories of Jesus
Speaker 1: foreskins in history. And I say for skins because there
Speaker 1: would be numerous ones claimed to be the fal skins
Speaker 1: throughout history. There was one particularly one particular lady saint
Speaker 1: in the Christian tradition whose name I forget off the
Speaker 1: top of my head, but she had a penchant for
Speaker 1: sucking on these foreskins. I don't know whether she thought
Speaker 1: it would give her some kind of magical Jesus power
Speaker 1: or what they Go and look them. Go and look
Speaker 1: the four skins stories over. You might want to be
Speaker 1: careful how you phrase it when you're doing the Google
Speaker 1: search for that, but go and look up those four
Speaker 1: skins stories from the Middle Ages. There were some huntingers
Speaker 1: out there. There really really are.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I was just going to say, there are some
Speaker 2: really crazy foreskin stories, like going up through history, you know,
Speaker 2: to the point where people actually thought that they had
Speaker 2: that they had the foreskin of Jesus that they used
Speaker 2: as a ring, if I remember correctly. When my wife
Speaker 2: and I took a trip out to Italy last year,
Speaker 2: she looked up some interesting history and there was actually
Speaker 2: a rumor of one person actually using Jesus's four skin
Speaker 2: as a ring. So that was quite interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: As I said, though, there are many many of Jesus'
Speaker 1: four skins throughout history. I don't know whether maybe there
Speaker 1: were just three. Maybe he's got three raving the Trinity.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't know. Go and have it. We'll come
Speaker 1: talking shit now. The front for next week is without
Speaker 1: lying market the Bible to drive sales and see your
Speaker 1: best answer below the video in the comments, and next
Speaker 1: week we will reveal the top three answers. But of
Speaker 1: course we don't let the guest get off scot free
Speaker 1: as usual, So I'm going to ask the co host,
Speaker 1: without lying market the Bible to drive sales, do you
Speaker 1: have an answer for that one?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 2: Actually I wrote it down, so one second. Okay, so
Speaker 2: without lying market the Bible. So listen, do you want
Speaker 2: a DIY morality handbook? I'm sure that you do. I
Speaker 2: know that I do, And so you can pick and
Speaker 2: choose your ethics as long as you get this magical
Speaker 2: book called the Bible. You can love your neighbor or
Speaker 2: you can stone them to death for like, literally no
Speaker 2: reason at all. It's all in there. You can customize
Speaker 2: your values based on your mood or your political affiliation.
Speaker 2: Either one. Get the Bible today.
Speaker 1: That's great that you know what I think? After that,
Speaker 1: we should have a Bible in every classroom.
Speaker 2: Jokes jokes storm right, Ryan Walters here in Oklahoma is
Speaker 2: not taking that lightly. Okay, He's going to force you
Speaker 2: to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was great, Thanks for that. So we do
Speaker 1: we don't do this on our own. Of course, we
Speaker 1: have a great team behind us, so wonderful, wonderful, wonderful
Speaker 1: people mostly not mentioning any names.
Speaker 3: Greg.
Speaker 1: So there we go. Look at those lovely, lovely people.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who make it happen that we just
Speaker 1: turn up here and talk shit. I'm gonna lie, that's
Speaker 1: all we do. We have. I'm looking forward to the
Speaker 1: calls today. I'm looking forward to working with Godless Engineer.
Speaker 1: I am pumped. And I also got to meet Jamie
Speaker 1: the Blind Limey in real life last week. He came
Speaker 1: over and we had a few drinks and a meal together.
Speaker 1: So you know, I'm on a talk Keith and high
Speaker 1: I really really am. I love this show. I loved
Speaker 1: doing this show, and you know, I think it's time
Speaker 1: we got in to those calls. We have Matt from
Speaker 1: Illinois who is a church organist and wants to know
Speaker 1: how to talk to a pastor about their response to
Speaker 1: the threat of Christian nationalism. Matt, Hello, thanks for calling
Speaker 1: the show.
Speaker 5: Hi Richard, nice to talk to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Hy. Let's let's get into it. You want
Speaker 1: to know how to talk to your pastor about their
Speaker 1: response to the threat of Christian nationalism. Give us an
Speaker 1: outline of kind of what you're thinking. I'm going to
Speaker 1: let godless engineer jump because I'm sure he's got more
Speaker 1: of a ball in this game than I have been
Speaker 1: over there with you, and let's let's see where it goes.
Speaker 5: Excellent.
Speaker 4: So, yes, I have been a lifelong atheist basically, and
Speaker 4: I've been a church organist sort of just due to
Speaker 4: a set of circumstances where I took a job a
Speaker 4: couple of years ago, about two years ago, and I
Speaker 4: can tell you guys that that I have been offsetting
Speaker 4: the sort of mixed feelings I have about doing the
Speaker 4: job to begin with, by listening to talk Ethan on
Speaker 4: my trips to and from work when I do that.
Speaker 4: So I've appreciated that, but I've I've just felt that lately,
Speaker 4: especially in the last couple of weeks, as I pay
Speaker 4: attention to sermons, I feel like there's just this is
Speaker 4: a Lutheran e LCA Lutheran church, and they're very nice people.
Speaker 5: I really really adore them.
Speaker 4: And it's it's more of a sort of a community
Speaker 4: thing then it is a hyper religious organization. But in
Speaker 4: light of events of the last year or so, it
Speaker 4: just seems like this very very nice pastor has to
Speaker 4: play this sort of oh, there's good people on both
Speaker 4: sides type of an argument when world events are going
Speaker 4: on and I think I've calmed down since since a
Speaker 4: week ago, but you know, in these last couple of
Speaker 4: weeks or just things I see in the in the
Speaker 4: sermons today was talking about a apocalyptic preaching and had
Speaker 4: a similar kind of vent to it of speaking like, hey,
Speaker 4: this is all a bunch of nonsense that people have.
Speaker 4: Some people think this, people have thought this for years,
Speaker 4: kind of debunking it, and then at the same time
Speaker 4: using that as a springboard to then talk about how
Speaker 4: much God loves us. So that's kind of where I'm at.
Speaker 4: It's not the biggest emergency. You know, I'm not going
Speaker 4: to quit tomorrow. I do like these people quite a bit,
Speaker 4: but at the same time, I feel like it weighs
Speaker 4: on me. I kinn't want to just ambush anybody out
Speaker 4: of nowhere if I were to have a conversation.
Speaker 2: Right, so what are you are you specifically asking like,
Speaker 2: how do you how do you talk about like the
Speaker 2: Christian nationalists feel that you have without like causing some
Speaker 2: kind of like massive emotional reaction from anybody that you're
Speaker 2: talking to, is that is that what you're asking?
Speaker 4: Yeah, or myself included. I don't want to go into
Speaker 4: I don't want to just come out to people in
Speaker 4: this in this community and put and and kind of
Speaker 4: put them in that position. I'm not that confrontational a person,
Speaker 4: but I kind of am concerned that if I broach
Speaker 4: the subject at all and kind of say, hey, live
Speaker 4: you know, where do I Where would I start? You know,
Speaker 4: because I could easily start with just any number of
Speaker 4: things that really irked me about Christianity to begin with.
Speaker 4: But I don't accept and I don't want to. I
Speaker 4: don't want to put anyone in a position where they
Speaker 4: feel like they need to legitimately convert me either, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, it's kind of context dependent, like
Speaker 2: whatever is being talked about, Like if somebody's saying, oh, well,
Speaker 2: there's you know, good people on both sides or whatnot,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, typically how I address it is like, yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe that can be true. But I mean the two
Speaker 2: sides that we're talking about here are like, you know,
Speaker 2: one is you know, seeking to make sure that you know,
Speaker 2: everybody has equal treatment under the law. They're seeking to
Speaker 2: make sure that people are taking care of you know
Speaker 2: when they can't necessarily do it for themselves, you know,
Speaker 2: and alleviating a lot of the financial ills of the
Speaker 2: lower middle class. And then the other side just wants
Speaker 2: to milk the working class and the lower class for
Speaker 2: all that their work. They're wanting to destroy the economy
Speaker 2: and all this other stuff. And that's even on top
Speaker 2: of all the social issues that this side has and
Speaker 2: you know, persecuting minorities and all this stuff. So I mean, like, sure,
Speaker 2: maybe there's good people on both sides, but the topics
Speaker 2: that we're actually talking about here are not like a
Speaker 2: both sides kind of issue. Like it's it's a very
Speaker 2: clear decision between both sides. And I would think that
Speaker 2: if you're truly wanting to embody what most people think
Speaker 2: of as the Christian ethics I guess, or the Christian
Speaker 2: way of life, I feel like you would want to
Speaker 2: err on the side of the non conservatives. I mean,
Speaker 2: there are several different passages you could think of in
Speaker 2: the Gospels alone that portray Jesus as this woke person
Speaker 2: that doesn't care about like monetary value of things in
Speaker 2: their life, and they care Jesus cares way more about
Speaker 2: providing you know, social safety nets for the lower and
Speaker 2: middle class people, while at the same time not like
Speaker 2: bucking your responsibilities to like pay your taxes and stuff.
Speaker 2: I feel like it's it's Christian nationalism at its heart,
Speaker 2: seeks to twist what people have become to associate as
Speaker 2: the Christian narrative. They're twisting it into this whole conservative
Speaker 2: type of mindset, thereby weaponizing their religion and against them
Speaker 2: to make them understand like that kind of rhetoric as
Speaker 2: being purely like basically being a conservative Jesus when in reality, uh,
Speaker 2: you could easily portray Jesus as being like one of
Speaker 2: those woke leftists. It's just it's really kind of weird,
Speaker 2: and it's very contextually sensitive as far as like what
Speaker 2: you're wanting to talk about, So like, uh, I don't know,
Speaker 2: maybe if you could give me like one or two
Speaker 2: more topics that you feel like you want to talk
Speaker 2: about with you know, people in your congregation or people
Speaker 2: in your life in general, and I can tell you
Speaker 2: how I might tackle it, but that would purely just
Speaker 2: be like how I would handle those conversations.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think the thing that keeps coming back to
Speaker 4: me in my head when I envisioned this conversation happening.
Speaker 4: Is just that it that that that I would start
Speaker 4: a sentence with how do I reconcile and then length,
Speaker 4: you know, and that if that these are almost fantasy
Speaker 4: conversations that I that I have because I guess and
Speaker 4: this is the the maybe the thing I'm realizing as
Speaker 4: we're talking is that, you know, it's there is a
Speaker 4: fear of sort of uttering myself, and I feel like
Speaker 4: there's like I I increasingly I'm the one who is
Speaker 4: very acutely aware that that I see myself as sort
Speaker 4: of apart from a congregation. And and I guess that
Speaker 4: that makes me feel shy about asking any questions about
Speaker 4: theology because I'm going to expose myself in some way too.
Speaker 5: So yeah, yeah, that.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I'm sorry. You go ahead, Richard.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was just going to say that that can
Speaker 1: be quite difficult a position to be in. You know,
Speaker 1: I've been in the position where I've been a guest
Speaker 1: at mosques, at churches, Buddhist monasteries, and and you have this,
Speaker 1: you know, I host this show, and I've been doing
Speaker 1: this ship for decades and decades, and I have always
Speaker 1: this kind of urge to go out and challenge these
Speaker 1: people head on and might really grab them and you know,
Speaker 1: shape them by the collar and say, you know, let's
Speaker 1: have this conversation. You can't always do that. It's not
Speaker 1: always appropriate to do that. And I think if you're
Speaker 1: friends with these people, you take it, as John said,
Speaker 1: on an individual basis, how these conversations run. And I
Speaker 1: think making yourself available is a really good way to
Speaker 1: do that, you know, to say, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: necessarily agree with you on all this stuff. If you
Speaker 1: ever want to have that discussion, my door is open,
Speaker 1: you know, come to me, and you know, I'm more
Speaker 1: than happy to talk about that with you. I think
Speaker 1: one thing we should avoid doing, and you know this
Speaker 1: is me speaking from experience in those kinds of situation
Speaker 1: is putting yourself forward as kind of not necessarily aggressive,
Speaker 1: but as being pushy to try and say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: why do you believe this, why do you believe that,
Speaker 1: Let's talk about it. Let's you know, that's not necessarily
Speaker 1: the best way of going about having these conversations. When
Speaker 1: you're doing it with your friends, you're doing it with
Speaker 1: your peers, you're doing it in an environment that you
Speaker 1: enjoy being in. You know, you want to keep those relationships,
Speaker 1: you know, open. I've just read literally and I have.
Speaker 1: I'm not making this up. I was just saying before
Speaker 1: the show to Kelly, who's back up host and Godless engineer.
Speaker 1: I'm in a band. I'm in a jazz band, Jets,
Speaker 1: and the drummer in that band I've found out this week. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I found out this week that the drummer for that
Speaker 1: band is a very new band. We've only met a
Speaker 1: couple of times, and it transpires that the drummer actually
Speaker 1: trains priests to be priests. And we had a brief
Speaker 1: conversation about you know, you know, just different aspects of things.
Speaker 1: Nothing too heavy, you know, just saying, you know, our
Speaker 1: talk we're talking mostly about religious scholarship. And you know
Speaker 1: that has opened the door now for any future con
Speaker 1: sas that guy wants to have. He knows I'm interested
Speaker 1: in the subject. He knows that if he raises it,
Speaker 1: I'm happy to talk about it. And where that goes
Speaker 1: in the future, we don't know it will be. You know,
Speaker 1: what transpires will transpire from that. But the door is open,
Speaker 1: and it you know, I didn't approach him. I was,
Speaker 1: you know, I was just saying that I had not
Speaker 1: learned I've been lazy. I've not learned a couple of
Speaker 1: songs because i'd actually been writing a paper about religious scholarship.
Speaker 1: And I just said, off the cuff, you know, I've
Speaker 1: not learned this song because I've been writing this paper.
Speaker 1: He said, Oh, that's very interesting. My job is training priests.
Speaker 1: It was as simple as that. But it has opened
Speaker 1: the door for kind of future dialogue. And I think
Speaker 1: that's the way for me. That's the way. That's always
Speaker 1: been the best approach. Just be open, not force it
Speaker 1: on anyone. Let people understand that you are there and
Speaker 1: you are interested if they want to have those conversations.
Speaker 1: But don't don't jump down the throats because inevitably, if
Speaker 1: you jump down someone's throat with it, they're going to
Speaker 1: back off and the not going to want to talk
Speaker 1: to you, especially and in that environment when you're there
Speaker 1: week after week and you're talking to them consistently, it
Speaker 1: can cause problems for really wider relationships as well. So
Speaker 1: i'd be very cautious about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree, I think this, Uh, you know, this
Speaker 4: is coming from a lot of a lot of time
Speaker 4: lately being out feeling outnumbered, and uh, and I think
Speaker 4: I needed to to call some atheists and and talk
Speaker 4: about to not just have the the turning wheels of
Speaker 4: my of my brain going about it, because I do.
Speaker 4: I do feel like I've been pure enough in my
Speaker 4: atheism for long enough that it actually, aside from the
Speaker 4: many ways that I that it makes me angry in
Speaker 4: reality in real one on one conversations, it's it's not
Speaker 4: something that I can't whether if it's if it's you know,
Speaker 4: launched at me. And also I don't need to be
Speaker 4: aggressive with it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't suggest being aggressive with it. And I
Speaker 2: think that, you know, there's also the fact that, you know,
Speaker 2: when we started the show, I had to provide you
Speaker 2: know that that that sort of selling the Bible without
Speaker 2: lying about it. And I mean I was genuine when
Speaker 2: I said that you could do like a di y
Speaker 2: sort of ethics, you know foundation you know, using the Bible.
Speaker 2: You can literally justify any position that you want to
Speaker 2: using the Bible in various ways. So like if you
Speaker 2: wanted to ease into the conversation, like for instance, if
Speaker 2: somebody's talking about, you know, being pro choice or or
Speaker 2: being pro life or whatnot, and you wanted to bring
Speaker 2: up scriptures in the Bible. There's actually more scriptures in
Speaker 2: the Bible that support life beginning at first breath rather
Speaker 2: than at conception. And you actually have to sort of
Speaker 2: priss the Bible's words about, you know, certain verses about
Speaker 2: you know, God knowing somebody at the moment of conception
Speaker 2: and all this other stuff, when in actuality, at every point,
Speaker 2: life is not acknowledged until the breath of life has
Speaker 2: entered into you, and that is something that's given by God.
Speaker 2: And so like, you could go that route talking about
Speaker 2: those particular topics with the social safety nets topics. You
Speaker 2: could also go the route, you know, using the Gospels
Speaker 2: and the social safety nets. You could talk about how,
Speaker 2: you know, Jesus was there to provide for the lower
Speaker 2: middle income families and he regularly spoke against the richest
Speaker 2: one percent, and you know how they valued money and
Speaker 2: all this other stuff. You could bring up that whole
Speaker 2: camel through the or I cameled through the eye of
Speaker 2: a needle sort of thing. There's that on like on
Speaker 2: the diversity of genders that we understand now about human sexuality.
Speaker 2: There's this one verse I believe it's maybe Matthew nineteen
Speaker 2: or something. It's in one of the gospels where Jesus
Speaker 2: and his burros are compared to eunuchs, and Jesus speaks
Speaker 2: favorably about unix and like, you know, speaks favorably about
Speaker 2: abstinence and all this other stuff. And you know, you
Speaker 2: could definitely use that as an argument for the LGBTQ
Speaker 2: plus community because of how unis were treated at that time.
Speaker 2: They were, you know, well regarded at that point in time,
Speaker 2: and they were also not as gender binary, like they
Speaker 2: didn't strictly adhere to a gender binary and Jesus seemed
Speaker 2: to be pretty fine with them. So, like, for a
Speaker 2: lot of these social issues that you're talking about, you
Speaker 2: can definitely find scriptural verses that you can bring to
Speaker 2: the table and at least get them to think along
Speaker 2: the lines that they are willing to accept as opposed
Speaker 2: to like directly coming out and challenging like why should
Speaker 2: we believe in this you know, nearly two thousand year
Speaker 2: old book that you know has chattel slavery and sexual
Speaker 2: slavery and all these other different things that it endorses
Speaker 2: and has God endorsing, and that we shouldn't necessarily you know,
Speaker 2: take as good moral a good world foundation to build upon.
Speaker 2: So I mean, like you, there's definitely ways in which
Speaker 2: you can attack it without directly offending their sensibilities.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that makes sense. I think I think I have
Speaker 4: I certainly have things to h to offer, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of conversationally without without ever even even going there.
Speaker 4: I think I'm I think I'm just really acutely aware of.
Speaker 5: My inner monologue.
Speaker 4: Uh, and I you know, feel feel that that that
Speaker 4: little fear of being exposed, even though that's not much
Speaker 4: of a threat.
Speaker 5: They're very good.
Speaker 1: That's really there's there's not not nothing wrong with having
Speaker 1: in a monologue. I defy anybody who listens to these calls.
Speaker 1: And I know this because I've done this before I
Speaker 1: was a host, and then I've been hosting these things forever.
Speaker 1: But before I was a host, I used to do
Speaker 1: this as well. You listen to the shows and you
Speaker 1: sit there and you say, you know, you answer the questions.
Speaker 1: And Kelly's doing it right now as a backup host.
Speaker 1: I can guarantee you he's listening to these conversations and
Speaker 1: he he's answering the questions in his mind as though
Speaker 1: he's actually having the conversation saying this is how I
Speaker 1: would respond to this. And you know, I read the
Speaker 1: comments every week because I'm sad. I read the YouTube
Speaker 1: comments every week, and every week we get people saying, well,
Speaker 1: the host should have said this, the host should have
Speaker 1: said that, and like, you know, when you're a fucking host,
Speaker 1: you can say what you want. Mate. But at the minute,
Speaker 1: I'm in this chair and John's in this chair, so
Speaker 1: we're going to say what we're saying. And you know,
Speaker 1: you know, Foisier displeasure with it in the cap and
Speaker 1: the fucking comments, so I can just ignore you anyway.
Speaker 6: Anyway.
Speaker 1: I think just one last quick thing I would also
Speaker 1: maybe consider doing is when these you know, if they're
Speaker 1: having conversations and they're touching on subjects that you think
Speaker 1: might not necessarily you might not necessarily be comfortable to
Speaker 1: talking about, it might be worth just having a look
Speaker 1: and seeing what other Christians think about this and saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, there are other Christians who disagree with you
Speaker 1: on this subject. May I recommend you look at such
Speaker 1: and such and because they have a different opinion to
Speaker 1: you on this, and that might give them, you know,
Speaker 1: open their eyes that this isn't a Christian versus atheist
Speaker 1: kind of discussion. This is a wider discussion where people
Speaker 1: you know, even within their own faith, have different opinions
Speaker 1: to them. So it might open their eyes that, you know,
Speaker 1: it might not be you don't have to be a
Speaker 1: Christian and be conservative or an atheist and be liberal.
Speaker 1: Thinks the world isn't simply that black and white. There
Speaker 1: are lots of different spectrums on both sides of the argument.
Speaker 1: So maybe point them in the direction of people on
Speaker 1: their own side of the wall who disagree with them,
Speaker 1: and kind of say and go and have a look
Speaker 1: at what this person thinks, you know, have a think
Speaker 1: about it, and come back and let's have a conversation
Speaker 1: about that about the differences of opinion within Christianity.
Speaker 4: Sorry, go on, please, Yeah, I would say overwhelming that
Speaker 4: my my read of of everyone seems to be something
Speaker 4: of of Wow, these are people who are all still
Speaker 4: learning quite a bit about you know that, and that
Speaker 4: maybe that's some some of where my in trepidation comes, right,
Speaker 4: because I can overhear conversations and and certain things that
Speaker 4: people say where I'm likeing and and and there, and
Speaker 4: then my judgment comes in where I'm like, oh, if
Speaker 4: I know that, if I know who wrote the Gospels
Speaker 4: or didn't write the Gospels, then you know. But but
Speaker 4: I can I can accept that for being something that's
Speaker 4: that it could be far worse. There could be far
Speaker 4: more dogmatic views that I'm that I'm hearing. These are
Speaker 4: just things that people are really intrigued. Then they they
Speaker 4: they have a faith and they have an understanding of it.
Speaker 4: But that's that does seem to be open and and
Speaker 4: there there are those discussions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Ma, I'm gonna let you go shortly because we
Speaker 1: do have calls lining up. Thank you for colling, and
Speaker 1: thank you for your kind words about the show. I'm
Speaker 1: glad that you know, with with being able to get
Speaker 1: you to think about these things and think about what
Speaker 1: you would say, and that you know that makes me happy.
Speaker 1: It really does give me the warm smile is inside
Speaker 1: to know that people are thinking about the show positively
Speaker 1: like that. But I do appreciate your call. Please call
Speaker 1: back and let us know how these conversations go if
Speaker 1: you do end up having them. I would love to
Speaker 1: follow your journey on this and you know, especially if
Speaker 1: you're talking to a range of different people and on
Speaker 1: a range of different subjects. I would love to follow
Speaker 1: your story on this, so please Matt give us a callback.
Speaker 1: I do appreciate your calling us, John. That was a
Speaker 1: great call to start off.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, and I do have to hear howse
Speaker 2: conversations go so totally interest in that.
Speaker 1: Yes, stay tuned for more exciting calls. As many of
Speaker 1: you know, we haven't not going to do that accident again.
Speaker 1: I apologize to all Americans, Canadians, or anyone who sounds
Speaker 1: vaguely like that, because it's all you all sound the
Speaker 1: same to me. As many of you know, we have
Speaker 1: initiated phrase two of our brick fundraiser. We want to
Speaker 1: highlight some of the standout orders we've received. This week's
Speaker 1: featured brick goes out to Joseph. They are always saying
Speaker 1: God loves us. If that's love, I'd rather have a
Speaker 1: bit of kindness. Thank you for your purchase, Joseph, and
Speaker 1: you too can get your brick at tiny dot cc
Speaker 1: slash Acea Bricks. I'm not going to lie. I've had
Speaker 1: an idea for a brick for a long time and
Speaker 1: I don't know whether they'd let me do it, so
Speaker 1: I've not put it forward because it is a bit naughty.
Speaker 1: So anyway, brushing swiftly moving on. If we get ten dollars,
Speaker 1: that's real US dollars plus worth of superchats, godless Engineer
Speaker 1: will channel the spirit of Jesus Christ into a puppet
Speaker 1: for the world to enjoy. That's ten ten dollars plus superchats.
Speaker 1: So if we get one hundred dollars in superchats, we
Speaker 1: are going to get John channeling uh and I almost
Speaker 1: came over came over himself then, because I'm and of
Speaker 1: course available on tiny dot cc slash ACA, flyers are
Speaker 1: principal calling flyers post these with permission. Of course, we
Speaker 1: don't want anybody getting into trouble, so community bulletin boards
Speaker 1: so people know they should call our show and defend
Speaker 1: their faith. If you do post any flyers, make sure
Speaker 1: to snap a picture of it and place it of
Speaker 1: it in place and send it to TV at Atheist
Speaker 1: Hyphencommunity dot org, and we may feature your photo on
Speaker 1: an upcoming show. And as always we have merch you
Speaker 1: can get your talk he then merch at tiny dot
Speaker 1: cc slash slash merch aca, where you can get teas, hoodies,
Speaker 1: crop tops, hats, tumblers, mugs, all sorts of things. If
Speaker 1: you like one of our hosts, Sophia, who has just
Speaker 1: had a brand new little baby, you can get little
Speaker 1: baby clothes on there and everything. So you get yourself
Speaker 1: over there and proudly represent and I will be very
Speaker 1: very happy if I see see In fact, I will
Speaker 1: make this pledge now if I see any person in
Speaker 1: real life, if I bump into any of you in
Speaker 1: real life. This largely applied to British fans of the show.
Speaker 1: But if I bump into you in any of you
Speaker 1: in real life wearing Talk Heathen merch I will personally
Speaker 1: buy you a second item of merchandise. I promise you.
Speaker 1: I will have a selfie with you, we will post
Speaker 1: it on the Talk Heathen Facebook page, and I will
Speaker 1: personally buy you a second item of merchandise and send
Speaker 1: it to you. So get representing people, especially if you're
Speaker 1: over on my side of the pond. Like the video
Speaker 1: and subscribe to the channel. Enable notifications and comment below
Speaker 1: on your favorite caller. We have calls lining up. I
Speaker 1: am going to take. I'm going to take because I
Speaker 1: asked Dee to call in on this subject and we
Speaker 1: love d on this show. Anyway, But I kind of
Speaker 1: I challenged a little bit something I heard D say
Speaker 1: to another couple of hosts a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to just bring that D. Hello, how
Speaker 1: are you.
Speaker 2: Hi, Richard.
Speaker 7: Nice to talk to you again.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to no, don't worry.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to say, John, I'm really glad to
Speaker 7: finally talk to you as well.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I'm glad that you called in today. So
Speaker 2: what question did you have?
Speaker 7: So I had a discussion with Sophia and objectively Dan
Speaker 7: two or three weeks ago, Mike uh and Richard let
Speaker 7: me know that he kind of wanted to have a
Speaker 7: further discussion on that. So tell me what you want.
Speaker 7: You want to know, Richard.
Speaker 1: So I actually wanted to such on two aspects of
Speaker 1: something you brought up in that call. Firstly, that you
Speaker 1: were a secular Buddhist and Buddhism is my it's my bag, baby,
Speaker 1: So I wanted to kind of go into that a
Speaker 1: little bit with you. But also, you know, we had this,
Speaker 1: you had this conversation with Sophia and Dan, and you
Speaker 1: were talking about people who were coming out of religion.
Speaker 1: And tell me if I'm misrepresenting you at any point year.
Speaker 1: This is how I understood it, and you know, you
Speaker 1: were kind of saying you shouldn't, we shouldn't kind of
Speaker 1: challenge them so hard because they're in a transitional phase.
Speaker 1: So they might have come out of an orthodox religion
Speaker 1: and be going through some kind of spiritual phase, still
Speaker 1: holding on to supernatural beliefs, and when they're in that stage,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't challenge people as hard. Am I on the
Speaker 1: right lines there generally yes, right, So this is this
Speaker 1: is this is kind of what my objection was to that,
Speaker 1: And I'd love to hear your response to this. I
Speaker 1: don't know when I'm talking to somebody whether you know,
Speaker 1: unless they specifically state I have come out of a
Speaker 1: religion and I now believe this, And even then, I
Speaker 1: do not know for certain that that is a transitional phase.
Speaker 1: Somebody could have left mainstream religion, somebody might have always
Speaker 1: held onto this supernatural belief and I think making the
Speaker 1: assumption that's a transitional stages is quite dangerous thing to do.
Speaker 1: And to say, then, well, I'm not going to challenge
Speaker 1: this person as hard as I would if they were
Speaker 1: within religion. I think that's doing the disservice to kind
Speaker 1: of educating and education using critical thinking and skepticism and things.
Speaker 1: You know. I want to I want people to have
Speaker 1: a better toolbox, regardless of whether they're in a transitional
Speaker 1: phase or what their beliefs are. You know, if they
Speaker 1: don't believe in a god, but they believe in some
Speaker 1: kind of expirit ghosts, things like that, I think those
Speaker 1: people still should be challenged on those beliefs. And in fact,
Speaker 1: in my experience, and I can only talk from my
Speaker 1: own experience here, I've found much more pushback from people
Speaker 1: who hold those kind of vague supernatural beliefs than I
Speaker 1: have from people who hold on to kind of orthodox
Speaker 1: religious beliefs. I've found people with orthodox religious beliefs are
Speaker 1: much more open to talk about it, whereas people with
Speaker 1: kind of vague supernatural beliefs tend to really really kind
Speaker 1: of not want to have the conversation. They kind of
Speaker 1: really reluctant to have the conversation. And I don't know
Speaker 1: whether that is because, you know, the kind of inner
Speaker 1: head space where they kind of maybe know that it's
Speaker 1: all bullshit, that they don't really want to acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to ask you as a person who
Speaker 1: is you know, self identified being in that space. Is
Speaker 1: it possible the reason you think that we should not
Speaker 1: be as hard on people in this transitional stage or
Speaker 1: hold these beliefs because you think within yourself that you
Speaker 1: might have to acknowledge that they are irrational.
Speaker 7: You know what, Richard, You're absolutely right. I was speaking
Speaker 7: out of personal experience on several occasions, and having said that,
Speaker 7: I want to mention that I challenge myself almost daily,
Speaker 7: you know, when I come up or whenever those thoughts
Speaker 7: or feelings come up, I challenge myself. And number one,
Speaker 7: you know how important is it to how important is
Speaker 7: it to me to believe it? And I shed a
Speaker 7: little bit every time I do that. I want I
Speaker 7: mainly wanted to talk about some of the things I've heard.
Speaker 7: I'm talking about people who aren't interested in educating so
Speaker 7: much as they are in having gotcha moments.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I've got.
Speaker 7: It wasn't very clear about that, I don't think.
Speaker 4: No, I.
Speaker 1: Really appreciate the clarification. I really really do, because you know, I,
Speaker 1: you know, it's very I'm probably one of the most
Speaker 1: vocal people on this in this space that I know of,
Speaker 1: But I have as many arguments with atheists as I
Speaker 1: do with theists in these social media spaces, because you know,
Speaker 1: I'm all about kind of giving people better, better frameworks
Speaker 1: to think by, you know, better ways to assess what
Speaker 1: they believe. That's that's really what my bag is. And
Speaker 1: you know, atheists are as guilty of needing that as
Speaker 1: many theists are in a lot of respects. And you know,
Speaker 1: so I appreciate that clarification from you, I really really do,
Speaker 1: because a lot of atheists are out there to give
Speaker 1: gotcha moments to people, So I completely understand where you're
Speaker 1: coming from that. On that, Having said that, I want
Speaker 1: to hear from John because this isn't the Richard Gilliver Show.
Speaker 1: It's the Talk Ethen and we have two horse on here,
Speaker 1: so I'm gonna let John kind of take over for
Speaker 1: a while give his opinion on the matter. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, I generally am perceived to be like
Speaker 2: a pretty strong personality, and and and I generally come
Speaker 2: out strong. I usually try. I don't I don't try
Speaker 2: to give any quarter I guess to somebody in a conversation,
Speaker 2: but that that's real, that really is depending on the
Speaker 2: topic that's being discussed, you know, because if it's if
Speaker 2: it's a conversation over like whether or not women should
Speaker 2: have bodily autonomy, and they're basing their whole argument on God,
Speaker 2: I'm less likely to you know, give somebody an e
Speaker 2: time on that particular topic as opposed to like a
Speaker 2: topic about Christian origins. Yeah, and so like, it is
Speaker 2: very context sensitive for me as to when I'm more
Speaker 2: understanding and more accepting of people going through a transitional phase,
Speaker 2: either coming out of religion or whether they're still in
Speaker 2: religion and they're just questioning their beliefs. It really kind
Speaker 2: of depends, like general conversation about God. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna be a lot easier on people. But if we're
Speaker 2: talking about God in a moral aspect or like why
Speaker 2: or like you know, how you have to be a
Speaker 2: Christian or some kind of religious person in order to
Speaker 2: really be able to ground your morality. You know, in reality,
Speaker 2: I feel like I'm less likely in those situations to
Speaker 2: be understanding of those things because like my mind immediately
Speaker 2: goes to how immoral the Bible is and how that
Speaker 2: causes people on a number of different topics to just
Speaker 2: say horrible things and they think that it's just normal,
Speaker 2: like it's because it's normalized to them, so they don't
Speaker 2: understand the depravity of what they're saying. And so I
Speaker 2: guess I feel like, in the conversation, my goal is
Speaker 2: to really highlight the depravity of their statements. And if
Speaker 2: I have to be a little forceful or a little
Speaker 2: maybe bombastic or you know, harsh, if you will, in
Speaker 2: that conversation in order to get them to understand the
Speaker 2: depravity of their statements, then I don't have a problem
Speaker 2: with doing that. I know, on a call in show recently,
Speaker 2: we were talking about sexual slavery in the Old Testament,
Speaker 2: how God commanded it and everything like that, and I
Speaker 2: phrased it in a very uncomfortable way because I, you know,
Speaker 2: I was talking about how God commanded Israelite men to
Speaker 2: fluck children, because that's what it was. It was a
Speaker 2: grown ass man that we're you know, having sex with children,
Speaker 2: and so I phrased it in a very uncomfortable way
Speaker 2: for the caller, and so the caller was like, can
Speaker 2: we not talk about it in this kind of way?
Speaker 2: And so I just asked them, I was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: in what way can we talk about fucking children? That
Speaker 2: would placate your sensibilities because I feel like there's no
Speaker 2: way that we can talk about that particular subject and
Speaker 2: how that subject exists in the Bible in a way
Speaker 2: that's nice, in a way that makes them not feel
Speaker 2: icky about it, because it should make you feel icky.
Speaker 2: You know, it should be a disgusting conversation to have.
Speaker 2: But the fact that somebody wants to make the conversation
Speaker 2: easier to have, I feel like it just shows how
Speaker 2: they don't actually want to talk about the harsh realities
Speaker 2: of the Bible. They just you know, they're used to
Speaker 2: the Bible giving them comfort and everything like that. And
Speaker 2: I totally agree. I totally understand that, not trying to
Speaker 2: take that away from anybody, but at the same time,
Speaker 2: you have to acknowledge these harsh realities that are portrayed
Speaker 2: in the Bible. And so I guess all to bring
Speaker 2: this all back together and so I can stop talking,
Speaker 2: is that, you know, it depends on the context, and
Speaker 2: it depends on what topic is being discussed as to
Speaker 2: whether or not I'm harsh or if I'm more understanding.
Speaker 2: And so I think having a good gauge of that
Speaker 2: in the conversation you're having is key.
Speaker 7: And I absolutely agree. I want to make it clear
Speaker 7: that my opinion was never that we shouldn't push back
Speaker 7: on the horrible ship that people say to defend their religion.
Speaker 7: That was never my position.
Speaker 1: I think I think for me it's that clear in
Speaker 1: previous calls as well. The quite halfit's a push back
Speaker 1: on her things, you know, and we appreciate that from
Speaker 1: you on this show.
Speaker 7: Thank you, thank you well, thank you for allowing me
Speaker 7: to clarify and for giving me your thoughts. I really
Speaker 7: do agree with both of you, and I probably could
Speaker 7: have phrased it all a little better, So thank you.
Speaker 8: I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: The more conversations we have, the better we have a
Speaker 1: you know, get at having them. And you know, I'm
Speaker 1: aware that you're new to this space of having these conversations,
Speaker 1: and you know, and you've always been a welcome caller.
Speaker 1: Before you go, I'm not letting you go, leting you're
Speaker 1: off the hook that easily. I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you a little bit about secular Buddhism and what it
Speaker 1: means to you, because I never get a chance to
Speaker 1: talk about Buddhism on this show. So I'm going to
Speaker 1: gosh darn it, grab it with both hands while I
Speaker 1: do have the opportunity. What what what does secular Buddhism
Speaker 1: mean to you? And how do you view Buddhism on
Speaker 1: the whole. Do you think secular Buddhism is a good
Speaker 1: representation of Buddhism on the whole.
Speaker 7: Well, I think it is because good Talma never claimed
Speaker 7: to be a supernatural being. He was just someone who
Speaker 7: will had some really insightful I don't know Tiffany's or
Speaker 7: whatever about.
Speaker 1: How I just feel any to intrupt you at this point.
Speaker 1: Have you ever read the Buddhist scriptures?
Speaker 7: I've read some, not.
Speaker 1: Not a lot, having a hard copy of the Tipy Tarka,
Speaker 1: which is the you know, the Buddhist equivalent of the Bible,
Speaker 1: if we want simplify things to that extent, which is
Speaker 1: eleven times longer than the Christian Bible. Roughly give a take.
Speaker 1: There is plenty of supernatural stuff, both claimed by the
Speaker 1: Buddha and performed by the Buddha. He you know, it
Speaker 1: says that a monk who has achieved such a level
Speaker 1: of kind of insight, of power, of meditative powers can
Speaker 1: transport themselves through walls. It says that they you know,
Speaker 1: he himself claims to and have outstretched his arms and
Speaker 1: traveled to one of the Brahma heavens to talk to God.
Speaker 1: He claims to have the psychic powers of being able
Speaker 1: to read them people's minds and see the future. You know,
Speaker 1: he has all these mystical powers, all these supernatural powers
Speaker 1: that many people who kind of come to Buddhism from
Speaker 1: the Western or secular perspective. And I'm certainly not criticizing that,
Speaker 1: by the way, because you know, the secular perspective of
Speaker 1: looking at Buddhism is a legitimate way of looking at it.
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying that, you know, you are not
Speaker 1: a true Buddhist by any stretch of the imagination. What
Speaker 1: I'm saying is there is a wider perspective. And you know,
Speaker 1: in religious studies, and I was talking about this before
Speaker 1: the show with the other guys. You know, when you've
Speaker 1: got a religion, whether you've got Christianity or Islam or Buddhism,
Speaker 1: what we say is that there are Buddhisms or Christianities
Speaker 1: because you don't have the whole scope of a religion
Speaker 1: is so wide that you don't have a one size
Speaker 1: fits all kind of thing. And whereas secular Buddhism is
Speaker 1: perfectly legitimate to practice and not accept those supernatural beliefs.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't accept the supernatural beliefs of Buddhism,
Speaker 1: and I've been practicing Buddhist meditation for over twenty years,
Speaker 1: so I certainly get it, as I certainly do get it.
Speaker 1: But that is not to say that Buddhism or Buddhisms
Speaker 1: are devoid of those beliefs. And certainly, if you're coming
Speaker 1: from a scriptural point of view, whether that's the terra Vada,
Speaker 1: which is the kind of oldest school of Buddhism we have,
Speaker 1: or the Mahayana, which is the other major school of Buddhism,
Speaker 1: and Vadriana, which is sometimes classed as a separate school,
Speaker 1: but it's a subset of Mahaiana. All of those traditions
Speaker 1: contain significant supernatural elements. When you're looking at the scripture,
Speaker 1: and the scripture, you know, the tippy Taka, especially the
Speaker 1: you know, the section of it that deals with the
Speaker 1: Buddha's direct teachings and the teachings of his disciples, they
Speaker 1: contain lots and lots and lots of examples of the supernatural.
Speaker 1: So I would really really encourage you to kind of
Speaker 1: go out and look at those scriptural references, to have
Speaker 1: a look at the wider perspective of Buddhism and kind
Speaker 1: of just have a look and like educate yourself. I
Speaker 1: guess a little bit more on the religion as a whole,
Speaker 1: because I think you'll find some of the stuff in
Speaker 1: there very very interesting.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Mostly what I have been reading are the Dalai Lama's books.
Speaker 7: Right now, I'm trying to work my way through some
Speaker 7: teaching he's written on the four Noble Truths.
Speaker 1: The dala Alama comes from from the high on the school.
Speaker 1: Tibetan Buddhism is a subset of them are high on
Speaker 1: the school, and you know, just to give you an example,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's a communicator. The Dalilong is a
Speaker 1: communicator for Buddhism to a largely Western audience. The West
Speaker 1: has been very good to him in Tibet's exile, you know,
Speaker 1: Tibetan Buddhism's exile from Tibet into India and other places.
Speaker 1: And you know, he's you know, from being very very young,
Speaker 1: he has developed a good relationship with the West and
Speaker 1: communicating Buddhist ideas to the West. What it doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: do very clearly is put forward these, you know, the
Speaker 1: more supernatural claims. I mean, in Tibetan Buddhism, for example,
Speaker 1: you have you have stupas which they burn. I can't
Speaker 1: remember what planet is, but it sends he's fragrant, you know,
Speaker 1: plumes of smoke into the skies. And you know, from
Speaker 1: the religion perspective, they are there to help people who
Speaker 1: have died and are going to be reborn to kind
Speaker 1: of climb up into the heavens and achieve a good
Speaker 1: rebirth and the like. And you know the Dalai Lama
Speaker 1: talks himself about you know, the dial Lama is supposed
Speaker 1: to be a reborn figure himself, a body satva, reborn
Speaker 1: from a figure called Avalog Savara and or kwan Yin
Speaker 1: if you want the simpler name. That's another aspect of
Speaker 1: that figure is supposed to have been born from. And yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and when when it is better, monkey is reborn. In fact,
Speaker 1: there's a there's a film out from then. I think
Speaker 1: it's from the nineties with starring Keanu Reeves. Now I
Speaker 1: will warn you because this is not it's very unacceptable.
Speaker 1: This Reeves does do blackface in the film, so you know,
Speaker 1: it's something to be aware of before watching it. But
Speaker 1: in that that film actually talks about this reincarnation pro
Speaker 1: that all the alarmers go through, that all significantly high
Speaker 1: ranked larmers go through of demonstrating that they have been reborn,
Speaker 1: that they are the reincarnation of a particular figure. So
Speaker 1: when this current Diali Lama dies, his successor will be
Speaker 1: chosen because they believe it is his. It's not a soul,
Speaker 1: because there is no soul in Buddhism, but the five candors,
Speaker 1: which are the things that are reborn in Buddhism, goes
Speaker 1: on into a new body. And when that body it
Speaker 1: comes to fruition, and that that child is born, they
Speaker 1: will put them to a test and give personal items
Speaker 1: of the current ally Lama so that child to see
Speaker 1: if he can pick out his items, and if he
Speaker 1: can't do so, it will be called the you know,
Speaker 1: it will be announced as the reincarnation of the fourteenth
Speaker 1: current Ali Lama and be announced the fifteenth dial Lama.
Speaker 1: So even though the Dalai Lama is a spokesperson for Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we go on.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I saw that in a movie
Speaker 7: about the Darling law Man. I thought I didn't. I
Speaker 7: thought that was just Hollywood, but that really will know that.
Speaker 1: Is that is the actual process that they go through
Speaker 1: of choosing, you know, the red next reincarnated Lama. But
Speaker 1: I'm going to leave you with that because we have
Speaker 1: lots of callers and I will talk for it. He
Speaker 1: buddies and if I get chance to do so, which
Speaker 1: probably not monologue, so you know, hit us up again.
Speaker 1: They let us know how you get on. But I
Speaker 1: do appreciate the call. I always enjoy it when people
Speaker 1: call up and want to talk to me directly about,
Speaker 1: you know, either something I've said or something I'm challenging
Speaker 1: them on personally. So I really really do appreciate that.
Speaker 1: And we'll see you again soon.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: That was John. I know I kind of left you
Speaker 1: out a.
Speaker 2: Bit that, but no, no, that's perfectly fine. I was
Speaker 2: actually thinking the way that you were describing that reminds
Speaker 2: me of Avatar the Last Airbender. How the aer Nomads
Speaker 2: were able to identify who the reincarnated Avatar was is
Speaker 2: the exact same way that you were describing them pitching
Speaker 2: out the I guess it's the next Darli Lama is
Speaker 2: that who you ye?
Speaker 1: Any any high ranking dark larmas in Tibetan Buddhism tend
Speaker 1: to go through this same process we have. We have
Speaker 1: some superchats. We're also I'm going to do some super chats.
Speaker 1: Then we're going to read the patrons out the top
Speaker 1: five patrons, and let's look at the superchats.
Speaker 5: First. We have do do.
Speaker 1: Miranda Rensburger, who has posted this twice, very kindly. Miranda,
Speaker 1: you could have said something else, you know as well,
Speaker 1: ten dollars saying November twentieth it's transgender Date of Remembrance
Speaker 1: data honor trans people who have lost their lives to
Speaker 1: violence or self arm. Let's work against people using religion
Speaker 1: as an excuse for their hate. Absolutely, Miranda, I'm totally
Speaker 1: behind that, and in fact, not just religious people, because
Speaker 1: there are many many non religious people will have this weird,
Speaker 1: fucking I thing against trans people which I don't get
Speaker 1: or to go out and read the fucking science. So
Speaker 1: onic people, please, Daniel show a shower. I'm going to
Speaker 1: get this wrong because I always do with pronunciation. So
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety nine, thank you for that who said
Speaker 1: I want to hear from puppet Jesus. Well, maybe you
Speaker 1: will get to hear from puppet Jesus. We just needed
Speaker 1: a few more people to throw us some ten dollars
Speaker 1: super chats and le's let's go down that route. We
Speaker 1: have the patrons, John, can you see those? Do you
Speaker 1: want to read those out?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Sure I can so. Top five patrons are Oops, all Singularity, Klevey,
Speaker 2: Hell very sorry. I'm terrible pronouncing names on occasion except
Speaker 2: for this next one. Dingle Berry Jackson left in the leaves.
Speaker 2: Brian zoup Key honorable mentioned number six and Paul Sherman.
Speaker 1: Absolutely thank you for that. If you want to become
Speaker 1: a Patreon you can is you can go to our
Speaker 1: patreon at tiny dot c set slash patreon th And
Speaker 1: on that note, we have started recording the Tokienen Discord
Speaker 1: after show for all levels of paid patrons. I'm going
Speaker 1: to be there today, John's going to be there today,
Speaker 1: and Kelly, our backup host, will also be there today.
Speaker 1: So you're going to get a lot of content out
Speaker 1: of that. So if you can't join us live, join
Speaker 1: the patreon and you can get all of those recorded
Speaker 1: after shows and sometimes we get some great insights We
Speaker 1: get to see a little bit more into the host's
Speaker 1: kind of personal lives, and it's all there for you
Speaker 1: on that Patreon for you to get. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to jump into another call. We have calls up on
Speaker 1: calls on calls, and we're to take Stephen from Florida,
Speaker 1: who wondering why is lamotophobia it is called is lamophobia.
Speaker 1: Steven took us through it. Well, ye're asking us.
Speaker 3: Right, Like, I'm just wondering, like, Islam is the religion
Speaker 3: for the Muslim people, and so when people say transphobia
Speaker 3: or homophobe, they're talking about you know, those groups of people.
Speaker 3: And so I don't understand why we call it Islamic phobia,
Speaker 3: because anybody who basically believes in separation of church and
Speaker 3: state would be an Islamic phobe just the way they
Speaker 3: would be a Christian, you know, nianity phobe.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Well, so as far as Islamophobia goes, Islamophobia is more
Speaker 2: about making generalized statements or conclusions about someone simply because
Speaker 2: they are Muslim or they or you perceive them to
Speaker 2: be Muslim. So like if you automatically think that they're
Speaker 2: you know, a terrorist or something like that just because
Speaker 2: they are Muslim that would be a case of islam
Speaker 2: a phobia. Simply being for the separation of church and
Speaker 2: state is not any kind of phobia because we're I mean,
Speaker 2: while we are afraid of, you know, what would happen
Speaker 2: if religion takes over our government, that's not the main
Speaker 2: driving force behind it. And it's also we're not also
Speaker 2: making these statements because of like vast generalizations about you know,
Speaker 2: religious people in general. It's about the mixture of state
Speaker 2: and religion that we're fighting against because we already know
Speaker 2: what the problems are there. So there's a number of
Speaker 2: different nuances that we're talking about here when we're speaking
Speaker 2: about those things. I do think that just assuming somebody,
Speaker 2: you know, if you do perceive them to be a Christian,
Speaker 2: assuming that they're homophobic or transphobic or racist or something
Speaker 2: like that is not warranted. So I would similarly speak
Speaker 2: out against that. But at the same time, I feel
Speaker 2: like if you dig down deep enough, either the person,
Speaker 2: if they're not transphobic, homophobic, and racist as part of
Speaker 2: their uh uh, as part of Christianity, then they're they're
Speaker 2: better than their own religion. Because there you can definitely
Speaker 2: uh you know, use Christianity, the Christian scriptures in order
Speaker 2: to justify all of those things, and they have been
Speaker 2: done in the past to justify those things. And so
Speaker 2: I feel like that just highlights how the person is
Speaker 2: way better than the religion that they claim to practice.
Speaker 2: And so, yeah, So to answer your question, Islamophobias called
Speaker 2: Islamophobia because of the vast generalizations people make just because
Speaker 2: they perceive someone to be a Muslim or they know
Speaker 2: about somebody being a Muslim, and so they automatically think, uh,
Speaker 2: some prejudicial things about.
Speaker 8: Them, right, And that's what I'm saying. It kind of
Speaker 8: makes no sense to say that.
Speaker 3: It would be like saying like, I'm an atheist.
Speaker 5: Does that mean that you don't believe in Zeus?
Speaker 3: And then be like, yeah, I don't believe in Zeus,
Speaker 3: but you're a Zeus phobiast, and you know, meaning you're
Speaker 3: like wow.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, no, no no no, no,
Speaker 2: hold on, hold on, Sorry, sorry to interrupt you, Stephen,
Speaker 2: But no, that that that is not anything that I
Speaker 2: just said. So what I said was making vast prejudicial
Speaker 2: generalizations about a person and that and uh, and that
Speaker 2: affects how you treat that person and how you see
Speaker 2: that person. If I just simply say I don't believe
Speaker 2: in Zeus, that doesn't mean that I'm afraid of somebody
Speaker 2: that practices the ways of the Greek or Roman pantheon,
Speaker 2: which I believe in the Roman pantheon Zeus is actually Jupiter.
Speaker 2: But in any case, however you want to portray that,
Speaker 2: it's not that I'm afraid of somebody that practices the
Speaker 2: Greek pantheon. I just don't believe in those gods. So
Speaker 2: there's a vast difference in in our terminology here and
Speaker 2: how we're using these words.
Speaker 3: Right, And that's what I was trying to say, is
Speaker 3: like I just don't understand like Islamic phobia when when
Speaker 3: they're talking about like you said that, like Muslim people,
Speaker 3: wouldn't it be like Muslim phobia and not and not
Speaker 3: Islamic phobia.
Speaker 8: Because Islam is a religion.
Speaker 3: It's not a group of people, but it's it's a
Speaker 3: word that like Christian nationalists and Republicans.
Speaker 2: Views like you said, Stephen, Stephen, what religion do Muslims practice?
Speaker 8: Islam?
Speaker 2: Okay, if you are irrationally afraid of Muslims and you
Speaker 2: project your prejudices upon a person without actually knowing the
Speaker 2: content of their character or how they implement their understanding
Speaker 2: of Islam. Uh, does it really matter whether or not
Speaker 2: we call it Islamophobia or muslimophobia Muslamophobia?
Speaker 1: Maybe?
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't really think the wording matters or
Speaker 2: what words we use. We're still using Islamophobia to describe
Speaker 2: it when somebody irrationally has a hatred or a fear
Speaker 2: of somebody that practices Islam. And I don't don't think
Speaker 2: that there's like, I feel like you're pulling nut hairs
Speaker 2: off of a fly at this point.
Speaker 3: I mean, I just I just wonder, you know, the
Speaker 3: terminology really and how it makes sense if if you
Speaker 3: use a religion to uh, you know, codify a.
Speaker 8: Group of people.
Speaker 3: I believe you know, anybody, you know, everybody has a
Speaker 3: right to their their own religion as long as it
Speaker 3: doesn't affect anybody else. Once it starts affecting other people,
Speaker 3: that's when it becomes a problem.
Speaker 8: So I just didn't understand why we uh call it.
Speaker 3: That when when that is the religion that Muslims practice.
Speaker 2: That's right, I get Stephen, can can you can you
Speaker 2: attempt to steal man how I've explained Islamophobia? So far
Speaker 2: in this call, can I what do you know what
Speaker 2: the term steel man is. Steel Man basically is where
Speaker 2: you try to present my argument to the best of
Speaker 2: your abilities as as you understand it.
Speaker 8: Oh, I wasn't presenting your arguments.
Speaker 3: I was asking a question.
Speaker 8: I don't I don't know how you think.
Speaker 2: I understand out of a question. No, no, no, So
Speaker 2: I was asking you to try to steal man what
Speaker 2: I've told you in this particular conversation. So, like, as
Speaker 2: far as you understand what I've told you in this conversation,
Speaker 2: can you repeat back to me what I've clarified about Islamophobia.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that it's basically a fear of of of of
Speaker 3: of Islam, of of a group of people who would
Speaker 3: be associated with Islam.
Speaker 2: Well, so a few key adjectives I guess maybe you're
Speaker 2: missing here. That would be an irrational fear of and
Speaker 2: a prejudicial generalizing of the of this group of people
Speaker 2: to where you think that anybody that practices Islam would
Speaker 2: match like your worst ideas about them, so you automatically
Speaker 2: assume the worst ideas about them. That is a start
Speaker 2: contrast for I'm just you know, not wanting a religion
Speaker 2: to infect our government or our way of life. Somebody
Speaker 2: can practice their religion as long as it doesn't negatively
Speaker 2: affect other people. That is not the same thing as
Speaker 2: like prejudicially generalizing somebody in a particular kind of mindset
Speaker 2: just because they practice a certain kind of religion.
Speaker 3: So I mean that would since America is like eighty
Speaker 3: percent Christian, are we not Americans anymore?
Speaker 8: Where Christians? Where the Christians?
Speaker 2: I don't understand the non secutor here that this is
Speaker 2: a non secutor because I don't understand how we got
Speaker 2: from talking about islamophobia to now how people aren't American
Speaker 2: and it.
Speaker 3: Goes back, because it goes back into the same thing.
Speaker 3: It's more like special pleading. One case, it's like saying,
Speaker 3: if you don't believe in any.
Speaker 8: Gods, you could pick one of the five thousand.
Speaker 3: That have been created and been like, so you don't
Speaker 3: believe in this god, and it would it would only
Speaker 3: go that you don't believe in that god.
Speaker 1: Stephen, Look, let's let's let's cut to the chase. What
Speaker 1: why does it matter whether we call it muslimophobia or islamophobia.
Speaker 1: The point is, and the important point is, is that
Speaker 1: the phobia is in there. So there were a group
Speaker 1: of people being you know, unfairly called out or treated
Speaker 1: or dismissed or whatever whatever way he wants phrase it,
Speaker 1: because of the way they identify being a set of
Speaker 1: people who practice a certain religion, and Muslim is someone
Speaker 1: who practices Islam. So it doesn't what what.
Speaker 3: Kind of like kind of like Christians believe in that
Speaker 3: there was a global flood.
Speaker 8: It's it is comical and it is funny.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what we believe. It doesn't believe, It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what they believe. It doesn't matter what they believe.
Speaker 1: It's irrelevant what they believe. Right, Why does what we
Speaker 1: call what we call the term of them having you know,
Speaker 1: unfair prejudice shoved their way? Why does that term itself?
Speaker 1: Why is that the important aspect to not the fact
Speaker 1: that they're having this prejudice thrown their way? Why is
Speaker 1: that not the important part of this rather than what
Speaker 1: we call it? Is it not? What? What?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 3: What? Are you as?
Speaker 2: The unfair prejudice, The unfair prejudice against a group of
Speaker 2: people based solely on one aspect of their life. That's
Speaker 2: what we're talking about here, The unfair prejudice against a
Speaker 2: group of people.
Speaker 3: And that's what I'm asking exactly when when when we
Speaker 3: call it Islamic phobia and we're associating that with a
Speaker 3: group of Muslim people, we are associating them with the
Speaker 3: religion that they practice and not the group of people
Speaker 3: that they are. So that's why, that's why I'm saying
Speaker 3: that Islamic phobia is already kind of a racist term.
Speaker 1: What the difference if we call it Muslim phobia? Because
Speaker 1: the thing that is the active ingredients, if you like,
Speaker 1: of what is happening is the same regardless of what
Speaker 1: we call it. Islamic phobia, Muslim phobia, people who wear
Speaker 1: things on the head phobia, people who wear sandals in
Speaker 1: the desert phobia, people who choose not to drink alcohol
Speaker 1: because some big bad God says it phobia. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what we call it. The important part is that
Speaker 1: there is this phobia taking place. That is the important
Speaker 1: part of it. And this is what I think you're
Speaker 1: kind of missing. You're brushing this very very important part
Speaker 1: aside to say, well, why are we calling it this
Speaker 1: instead of this? Well, who fucking cares what we call it.
Speaker 1: Let's address the actual issue. The actual issue at hand
Speaker 1: is that these people have been treated unfairly because of
Speaker 1: you know, and you know this isn't defender Muslim This
Speaker 1: is talk key then, but you know, when we get
Speaker 1: calls like this, I feel is very very important to say,
Speaker 1: you know, we shouldn't be, you know, mistreating people unfairly,
Speaker 1: being unfairly prejudiced against people because of an aspect of
Speaker 1: their lives in which they choose to identify. And it
Speaker 1: can go across the board. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: a religious person. We can pluck any any person out
Speaker 1: of any minority group and say, well, this person is
Speaker 1: being unfairly treated because of this aspect of their life.
Speaker 1: What we call it is largely irrelevant that we address that.
Speaker 1: Unfairness is the important part. It's what John's trying to
Speaker 1: get across to you. It's what I'm trying to get
Speaker 1: across to you, and you've seem hung up on what
Speaker 1: it's called rather than the action of this unfair treatment.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know, Stephen, I feel like you're trying to play
Speaker 2: an Uno reverse cord and it's just not working out
Speaker 2: for you here because I feel like what you're trying
Speaker 2: to do is trying to be like, oh, people that
Speaker 2: claim that others are islamophobic, are being racist themselves, and
Speaker 2: that just doesn't make a whole hell of a lot
Speaker 2: of sense to me. I feel like you're getting lost,
Speaker 2: like like Richard was saying, I feel like you're kind
Speaker 2: of getting lost in terminology here, and you're not really
Speaker 2: focusing on the irrational generalizations that occur. Because like if you,
Speaker 2: let's say, if we can run through this real quick there, Steven,
Speaker 2: if you meet a person who says that they are
Speaker 2: a Muslim and their name is Mohammad, do you automatically
Speaker 2: think that they have like a bomb or something like?
Speaker 2: Is that something that you would naturally think?
Speaker 3: No, I don't think that, And I think you're irrationally
Speaker 3: group No.
Speaker 2: No, awesome, So you you do not adhere to islamophobic tendencies.
Speaker 2: I commend you for that. It would be islamophobic for
Speaker 2: you to automatically think that that person is on the
Speaker 2: way to commit a jihad or something. That would be islamophobia.
Speaker 2: But if you meet a person who is a Muslim
Speaker 2: and be like, oh, okay, well, I don't believe in
Speaker 2: you know, your particular religion. I'm not part of your
Speaker 2: particular religion. Just don't believe in that do you understand
Speaker 2: the stark contrast that I've kind of highlighted here in
Speaker 2: in in you know, one way is islamophobic, the other
Speaker 2: way is not. Do you understand the difference.
Speaker 3: I think you're a fo.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't seed insult people because you have ship arguments.
Speaker 2: Hey, listen, my name is fat fuck. Now okay, that's
Speaker 2: my name.
Speaker 1: I apologize for that godless engineer a welcome guest on
Speaker 1: our show. I do not calm doone anyone calling any
Speaker 1: of the guests on this show such names, you pee
Speaker 1: self shades. Please, don't have a.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 2: You know, you know, you know you've always gotten the
Speaker 2: upper hand in the conversation when they have to break
Speaker 2: down and be like, I think you're a fat fuck. Okay,
Speaker 2: that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Speaker 2: But by.
Speaker 1: Moving on, I'm going to take Oh shall I take?
Speaker 1: Shall I do it? Shall I do it? Shall I
Speaker 1: do it?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: They can wait. I'm going to take comma from Ken Tuke.
Speaker 1: What's the point of debating free zopes? Asks Conna Comma.
Speaker 6: So yeah, I'm there, Yeah, Oh yeah, I'm here. I
Speaker 6: guess I wanted to ask why hmm, okay, sorry, let
Speaker 6: me figure out how to phrase this. I've watched a
Speaker 6: lot of videos from various sorts of like talk, even
Speaker 6: a experience, you know, the whole shebang. And the thing
Speaker 6: I always get is, you know, we get people on
Speaker 6: here who have the presuppositionalist you can't have without God.
Speaker 6: And it always strikes me as odd to even continue
Speaker 6: the conversation past like three minutes because and I'm sorry,
Speaker 6: I'm autistic. So maybe I'm just like missing a social
Speaker 6: cu somewhere. But is it not just axiology? Is it
Speaker 6: not just you have all the same axioms as me,
Speaker 6: but I have one more, which is God must exist.
Speaker 6: Like at that point, like you can't debate someone out
Speaker 6: of an axiom, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to I'm going to let let the
Speaker 1: folk take this, John, please take it away.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, So I mean I actuld totally agree with
Speaker 2: that that, you know, if if you don't want to
Speaker 2: have conversations with preeze ups as soon as you identify
Speaker 2: them as a preeze up. I mean, I don't hold
Speaker 2: it against anybody to just throw their hands up and
Speaker 2: be like, okay, there's no point to have a conversation
Speaker 2: with you at all. But I typically like to have
Speaker 2: these kinds of conversations, and that's primarily just because I'm
Speaker 2: hoping to sort of pull them out of the precept
Speaker 2: mindset is what I generally want to try to do,
Speaker 2: and that's just by highlighting like the disconnection, you know,
Speaker 2: between you know, what they're hoping to prove and what's
Speaker 2: actually being proved in the conversation. Because you're right, they
Speaker 2: just have to tack on one more axiom. But I mean,
Speaker 2: as we understand from like Oukham's razor, the more ad
Speaker 2: hoc stuff that you have to tag tap onto or
Speaker 2: ta tack onto your argument, the weaker your argument becomes.
Speaker 2: And so I feel like highlighting that to them and
Speaker 2: being like, oh, well, that's just ad hoc stating that
Speaker 2: God is necessary for logic, or that's just ad hoc
Speaker 2: stating one thing or another and trying to get them
Speaker 2: to justify it. That either highlights that you know, they're
Speaker 2: they're dogmatically adhering to their position, or if they're actually
Speaker 2: trying to figure things out, and if they're actually trying
Speaker 2: to figure things out and they're just so happen to
Speaker 2: be convinced by this argument, maybe you can highlight the
Speaker 2: problems with the argument, and you know, maybe they can
Speaker 2: be become better for it, for the conversation that you
Speaker 2: have with them. But at the same time, I don't
Speaker 2: think that you should really stress yourself out over presuppositionalist
Speaker 2: because you can basically run the same script on them,
Speaker 2: because they always have the exact same script. And so
Speaker 2: like anytime you encounter one it, you know, you just
Speaker 2: run through the basic talking points and if they're still
Speaker 2: not you know, listening to you, or they're still adhering
Speaker 2: to it, then I mean I would say, just get
Speaker 2: out of the conversation, stop talking to them.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so I guess when I when I say that,
Speaker 6: like I personally myself take it a point to not
Speaker 6: talk to preseports for that exact reason. But I'll watch
Speaker 6: the show and I'll and I'll see and I'm not
Speaker 6: I've actually watched a little bit of you godless engineer.
Speaker 6: I don't think i've watched the other host. I'm not
Speaker 6: sure their name. I'm sorry, but I you know, I'll
Speaker 6: watch them and the videos will be like thirty minutes
Speaker 6: long or longer. And I guess I understand, like if
Speaker 6: someone's coming in and they feel like they've been partially convinced.
Speaker 6: But I guess like frequent callers, I can't think of
Speaker 6: any names on top of my head or whether that
Speaker 6: would be okay to name them. But just like you know,
Speaker 6: you get frequent callers like uh oh, like Darth Dawkins, you.
Speaker 1: Know, calls in.
Speaker 6: It's the saying of every single time, and.
Speaker 5: You know you're not You're not.
Speaker 6: You're not going to change your fucking mind. Yeah, look money,
Speaker 6: and I am.
Speaker 1: I think this now, I'm kidding. I have heard of him, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: and I'm Richard. By the way, I think it's important,
Speaker 1: you know, on on the one hand, when when we're
Speaker 1: on a call and show, which is essentially what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, or on the platform where you've got
Speaker 1: other people witnessing the conversation, I think it's very important
Speaker 1: to try and have those conversations if we can, if
Speaker 1: we're able to, because it highlights as godless engineers pointing
Speaker 1: out the flaws in their argument. And it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: because whether I disagree with you someone, it matters what
Speaker 1: other people who are you know, we were talking to
Speaker 1: an earlier caller about, you know, people from their own
Speaker 1: religion or from you know, when your people from a
Speaker 1: religious perspective have different opinion to other people within that
Speaker 1: same religion. And that's really important to bear in mind
Speaker 1: when we're doing these shows, is that when we get
Speaker 1: these callers that are throwing out really bad arguments, and
Speaker 1: we have a regular one on here who does it
Speaker 1: quite often, when we have callers who were throwing out
Speaker 1: these bad arguments, that there are other people from their
Speaker 1: religious background who are watching these shows and who are
Speaker 1: listening to them, and when we challenge them, they get
Speaker 1: to listen to both sides of the story. And very often,
Speaker 1: and I know this for a fact because I have
Speaker 1: had these people contact me and tell me this. I
Speaker 1: you know, we get religious people saying thank you for
Speaker 1: breaking it down because that's actually given me a different perspective.
Speaker 1: You know, I would have been in the same shoes
Speaker 1: as this, you know, as that call and making these
Speaker 1: bad arguments, but having listened to both sides of the conversation,
Speaker 1: I've now got a different viewpoint to it. So I
Speaker 1: think it's important to bear that in mind that we
Speaker 1: have an audience when we're doing it. Talking to freezeups
Speaker 1: in general, I think is difficult. It really really is,
Speaker 1: and I totally get where you're coming from, and it
Speaker 1: can seem pointless. If you come from the perspective of, well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to start with my worldview and you've got
Speaker 1: your worldview, these conversations can be non starters and you
Speaker 1: cannot be having a conversation for half an hour and
Speaker 1: get nowhere because you're constantly trying to say, well, these
Speaker 1: worldview against your worldview. And it's why these people always
Speaker 1: lead with worldview comparisons. You will notice that they always
Speaker 1: lead with worldview comparisons. And it's why when I have
Speaker 1: a conversation with them, what I try and do is
Speaker 1: break that down. And what I talk about is reality.
Speaker 1: What is real reality? What is a reality that we
Speaker 1: can agree on? Now, let's take that shared reality? Please,
Speaker 1: so and so.
Speaker 6: I feel but like the thing that always gets me
Speaker 6: and this is like that that right there is like
Speaker 6: That's often the approach that posts tend to take is like, well,
Speaker 6: what is real?
Speaker 3: What is not?
Speaker 6: And as far as I've noticed, uh, preshoppers always basically
Speaker 6: like if if they can't defend the reality, it always
Speaker 6: just goes back to the hard solipsism, like can you
Speaker 6: prove you're not a brain in a vat? And it's
Speaker 6: like like, well, no I can't, but like that doesn't
Speaker 6: mean that I suddenly have to assume this thing. And
Speaker 6: I did want to go back to one thing that
Speaker 6: uh a godless engineer mentioned was like, oh, Aukham's razor,
Speaker 6: you know the simplest thing. Well, Auckham's razor is a
Speaker 6: part of logic.
Speaker 4: And how do you know that?
Speaker 6: You know that, like auction, you can't use Aucaham's razor
Speaker 6: without God? Who is the thing that gives us Aucham's razor?
Speaker 6: And it's always like and the thing I notice is
Speaker 6: or at least the thing I never noticed, I never
Speaker 6: noticed to point out that, like, you know you are like, hey,
Speaker 6: you person who is the pre supper, you have all
Speaker 6: the same axioms as I do. You've just tacked on
Speaker 6: an axiom.
Speaker 9: You're not.
Speaker 5: It's not This.
Speaker 6: Axiom doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't give you
Speaker 6: any explanatory value.
Speaker 1: That is exactly what I was to go down the
Speaker 1: reality connor. That is exactly what I was going to say.
Speaker 1: When we talk about shared reality, I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: like when we do this, I'm trying to avoid this
Speaker 1: very thing of saying I have this axiomic belief and
Speaker 1: you have this axiomic belief in their different worldview comparisons.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the things that we agree on. This
Speaker 1: is what I mean by shared reality. So we start
Speaker 1: with the shared reality. We start with the things we
Speaker 1: do agree on, we do have axiomic beliefs on that
Speaker 1: we agree exist in or as reality. And from there
Speaker 1: what we do is we then look at what John
Speaker 1: was saying, those extra suppositions, so those extra layers, So
Speaker 1: we agree on all of these things that exist that
Speaker 1: are real. This is our starting point. Now let's look
Speaker 1: at additional claims. Let's look at those additional claims, because
Speaker 1: what that does is it avoids falling back to this
Speaker 1: pre supposition, well God gives you this. Well, if we're
Speaker 1: going if you're just going to insist God gives you that,
Speaker 1: then we don't need to have this conversation at all.
Speaker 1: That it's pointless because we're going to be talking about
Speaker 1: nothing for half an hour. Goodbye. But let's talk about
Speaker 1: the things we do agree on. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: things we do agree are real and build from there.
Speaker 1: That is, it's a really really important method and and
Speaker 1: I maybe condenting it too much to be like really
Speaker 1: understandable here because it's you know, I've I've really wrote
Speaker 1: a lot on this subject before, about subject to reality
Speaker 1: and all that kind of stuff. It's really really interesting,
Speaker 1: but it takes a lot to get through. But yeah,
Speaker 1: what we need to do in J Mike does it
Speaker 1: in a really really good way as well. J Mike says, Look,
Speaker 1: you're saying that this is our starting point, that God
Speaker 1: is our starting point, but how are you getting to God?
Speaker 1: And that's essentially what I'm saying. It's the same thing,
Speaker 1: it's just phrased in a different way. We have a
Speaker 1: shared reality, we agree with, we agree on, we agree
Speaker 1: all these things in reality real Let's look at those
Speaker 1: additional claims. And because what pre supposition that is do
Speaker 1: by definition is they pre suppose something exists, and they
Speaker 1: never ever show they're working out. They take it as axiomic.
Speaker 1: Now you need to show the working out, show your work.
Speaker 1: If you don't show your work, then there's no point
Speaker 1: in having the conversation. And it is so important to
Speaker 1: get that across. And it's why people like like dark
Speaker 1: Talkings or you mentioned earlier. I won't even entertain him.
Speaker 1: I have no interest in talking to that person. Whatsoever,
Speaker 1: because and he has tried to talk to me, but
Speaker 1: I'll just simply won't talk to him because he doesn't
Speaker 1: want a conversation. What he wants to do is throw
Speaker 1: verbal garbage out and try and prove himself right. That's
Speaker 1: all he wants to do. I'm right, I'm right, I'm right,
Speaker 1: I'm right. Well, that's fantastic, Go and fucking suck on
Speaker 1: an orange. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in
Speaker 1: people who want genuine conversations, who want to explore these
Speaker 1: subjects genuinely. And you know, I've had great conversations. I've
Speaker 1: had conversations with people who have degrees in philosophy, you know,
Speaker 1: both online and my peers who are into this stuff,
Speaker 1: who are religious, and I've had fantastic, fantastic conversations because
Speaker 1: we're both interested in having an honest conversation. And if
Speaker 1: you want an honest conversation, whether you're a preet up
Speaker 1: or not, then we can talk about we can find
Speaker 1: common ground. But when you're talking to kind of online
Speaker 1: internet personality prease ups, you know, don't even bother, that's
Speaker 1: not even worth having that conversation. From my mind, Please respond,
Speaker 1: and then I'll John jump in, and I say, I.
Speaker 6: Suppose that's kind of the heart of what I was
Speaker 6: getting at, is like Dark Dawkins is the most obvious example.
Speaker 6: But it feels like, especially with like the talk shows
Speaker 6: and earlier you said like talk shows are mostly about
Speaker 6: the audience, which I of one hundred percent agree, It's
Speaker 6: just I guess I look at it as like, you know,
Speaker 6: like you said, you want to you want to take
Speaker 6: them down this path of let's let's see what we
Speaker 6: can hash out and what's real and like, what can
Speaker 6: we agree on. Let's not talk about the axiology bit
Speaker 6: of it because it's just whatever, Let's talk about what
Speaker 6: we agree on. But I feel like, at least for me,
Speaker 6: at the point where someone's calling into one of these
Speaker 6: shows with presuppositional apologetics instead of some other thing, they
Speaker 6: don't want to have a conversation about that. They they
Speaker 6: want to have the Dark Dawkins. I'm right, I'm right,
Speaker 6: I'm right. And I feel like like instead of taking
Speaker 6: thirty minutes to try to go down this lane of well,
Speaker 6: what do we agree on? What you know and then
Speaker 6: they're just like, oh, well, could you prove hard solidsism? No,
Speaker 6: we'll go suck an egg like why, Like, I guess
Speaker 6: it just feels like that thirty minute segment could be
Speaker 6: cut down to like a ten or even five minute
Speaker 6: segment of Okay, So like you have these actiums, I
Speaker 6: have these axioms. You just have an unproven axiom that
Speaker 6: you are saying is essential to all thought. And any
Speaker 6: time I bring up any of the other axioms, you
Speaker 6: just say, you can't have that axiom without this axiom.
Speaker 6: I disagree, you disagree. We're not going to get anywhere.
Speaker 1: For the difficulty is connor. The difficulty is that we
Speaker 1: all out we all start from axioms, all of us.
Speaker 1: Everybody starts from axioms, and it's very difficult just to
Speaker 1: You can't just kind of out of hand I don't
Speaker 1: think anyway dismiss out of hand and an axiom without
Speaker 1: challenging it. You can't just get kind of do that.
Speaker 1: You know, if someone's going to the hard solib sism thing,
Speaker 1: which they have to do if they are in the
Speaker 1: you know these kinds of people were talking about. You know,
Speaker 1: they'll say, well, how do you know you're not a
Speaker 1: brain in a A I don't but but and this
Speaker 1: is vitally important you share your opinion. That opinion with me.
Speaker 1: You don't think we're a braining avt either. And I
Speaker 1: know this for a fact because if you genuinely believed
Speaker 1: you were a braining of art, you wouldn't spend time
Speaker 1: eating or drinking or having stupid philosophical conversations with an
Speaker 1: aspect of yourself on a made up internet that is
Speaker 1: an aspect of yourself. So just fucking throw that out
Speaker 1: of the ballpark altogether. We don't need to talk about
Speaker 1: brain in vats because we're starting from a position, both
Speaker 1: of us that we exist. So let's talk about the
Speaker 1: reality that appears to be the case in which we exist.
Speaker 1: That is where we're starting from. And if you're going
Speaker 1: to come with, well what about you know, if we're
Speaker 1: all brains in vats, cooled, wonderful, You know you're contradicting
Speaker 1: your own belief if you genuinely believe that by having
Speaker 1: a conversation with an aspect of yourself, you know, what's
Speaker 1: the point You're wasting your time. I don't exist, so
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter to me, John, Do you want to
Speaker 1: jump in?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So whenever I'm having a conversation like I typically
Speaker 2: won't have a conversation with a pre's up like on
Speaker 2: a private, you know, one on one kind of level.
Speaker 2: The only time that I would actually have a conversation
Speaker 2: with a pre sub is if it were like for
Speaker 2: some kind of content, either like a Collin Show or
Speaker 2: like on like a TikTok Live or something like that.
Speaker 2: But but that's because I know, I really value people
Speaker 2: that engage those types of arguments, and because then I
Speaker 2: can understand, you know, how to respond to those arguments
Speaker 2: or like why those arguments don't make sense or why
Speaker 2: they shouldn't make sense, and so like that just gives
Speaker 2: me the ability to actually understand, you know, why I'm
Speaker 2: not convinced by those arguments or why I should be
Speaker 2: convinced by those arguments. So, I mean, that's where the
Speaker 2: value that I see it coming in at is the
Speaker 2: diving deep into the conversations, even with pre suppositionalists that
Speaker 2: might get you into a certain area of argumentation that
Speaker 2: a lot of people either are encountering and they need
Speaker 2: to know how to respond to it, or they haven't
Speaker 2: encountered it yet and they may need to know about
Speaker 2: it in the future. I just feel like it's it's
Speaker 2: a great way to arm people that are watching your
Speaker 2: content because they genuinely want to understand, like why theists
Speaker 2: are wrong about these things, or why one side is
Speaker 2: wrong and the other side is right. So that's where
Speaker 2: I kind of focus my conversation, or at least the
Speaker 2: value of the conversation at And I do want.
Speaker 6: To say I'm not like, I'm not dismissing their axiom.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying like your axiom is just wrong or
Speaker 6: saying like you can't have that axiom, because that's basically
Speaker 6: what they're saying, you can't have the non axiom of
Speaker 6: my god. I'm not I don't want to say that
Speaker 6: I'm like dismissing their axiom. It's more so it feels
Speaker 6: like not enough focus is not enough of the spotlight
Speaker 6: is put on the fact that that is what the
Speaker 6: argument is. It is I have an extra axiom that
Speaker 6: you do not have. You have to have that axiom,
Speaker 6: And it's it's like I feel like, like, I agree,
Speaker 6: like learning to combat these people is sorry combat that
Speaker 6: liked that idea is important, But I feel like the
Speaker 6: I guess, for me, uh, the way I look at it,
Speaker 6: the best way to go about that would be, like,
Speaker 6: you know, you know, you shine the spotlight on what
Speaker 6: it is. It is just an extra axiom. It is
Speaker 6: playing tag. But you are always it. I'm never it.
Speaker 6: If you touch me, I touched you back, you didn't
Speaker 6: feel it, but you're it. It's like, I'm not saying
Speaker 6: that that axiom is wrong.
Speaker 8: It's not wrong.
Speaker 6: Necessarily to say all this stuff, but that they're saying.
Speaker 6: And it makes sense in.
Speaker 5: A way, not really, but in a way, but it's not.
Speaker 6: I guess the the the the lesson to the people
Speaker 6: who watch it.
Speaker 8: As far as I'm considered.
Speaker 6: Barely reason those videos are thirty but it's longer as
Speaker 6: a war to anybody else, that's fair.
Speaker 1: That's fair enough. And look, I think I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to let you go in a miniges. We do have
Speaker 1: more calls we have to get to, and we are
Speaker 1: already over time.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: The thing is this. Look, if in all honesty, if
Speaker 1: I didn't do this as something that I do in
Speaker 1: day to day life, I probably wouldn't talk to pres
Speaker 1: ups either. And you know, sometimes you have to grab
Speaker 1: the bull by the horns. And I think up so
Speaker 1: those sets of people that they thrive on being in
Speaker 1: control of the call and if you're going to talk
Speaker 1: to them, don't let them control the call, don't let
Speaker 1: them control the conversation. Say to them, look, we're going
Speaker 1: we're going to put this aside, and we're going to
Speaker 1: put this aside, and we're going to put this aside,
Speaker 1: so there's no point even going there. If we're going
Speaker 1: to have the conversation, we're going to have it honestly,
Speaker 1: and we're going to have it in on an even keel.
Speaker 1: And I think most genuine pre so genuine like academic presups,
Speaker 1: the people I tend to talk to one this stuff,
Speaker 1: are absolutely fine with that. It's like I say, it's
Speaker 1: the internet celebrity ones that want to make a name
Speaker 1: for themselves by you know, taking down the atheists that
Speaker 1: on and fuck those guys anyway. Who cares what they
Speaker 1: think because I don't. And on that note, thanks Connor
Speaker 1: for your call. I am going to let you go.
Speaker 1: We do have other callers I'm going to take, but
Speaker 1: we do have another super chat. Did you do where
Speaker 1: our we? Oh? We are getting there through six six six,
Speaker 1: A member for one year sent ten dollars and says,
Speaker 1: when does a human life logically begin at conception or
Speaker 1: at first breathing interesting question. Give the show a call
Speaker 1: next week and let's have the conversation. Jimmie Julia member
Speaker 1: six months, four ninety nine. Thank you, Jimmy says, Hey
Speaker 1: Richard and hey fat fuck with a pH. I apologize
Speaker 1: godless engineer. If people start calling you a do it
Speaker 1: please it says, please spell it with a pH. If
Speaker 1: you do, in fact change your name, that would be sick. Heyl,
Speaker 1: Satan and Nero sent ten dollars and says Boltzmann Brain's
Speaker 1: total solidism or just part trick hypotheticals of their respective fields,
Speaker 1: the conclusions necessity that the logical foundations they are built
Speaker 1: upon are assumed and worthless. We are five out of
Speaker 1: ten for the superchat challenge people. If you want to
Speaker 1: see John challenge Jesus through his puppet, we need five
Speaker 1: more ten dollars superchats, just saying let's have a look
Speaker 1: we have. I'm going to take Troy next. We do
Speaker 1: have two calls left. I'm going to try and get
Speaker 1: to both of them. So stay on the line, and
Speaker 1: Troy wants to know if the hello, to tell us
Speaker 1: what you want to talk about.
Speaker 5: Hi, I was just wanting to talk about the end
Speaker 5: times prophecies. I grew up a Presbyterian, and I knew
Speaker 5: some JW's and some Pentecostals. But I've met my first
Speaker 5: real life Seventh Day Adventist not very long ago, and
Speaker 5: I understand, like Jehovah's witnesses eschatology, but the Seventh Day
Speaker 5: Adventist guys seem to think that they're just like the
Speaker 5: world's going to end, like later this week or maybe
Speaker 5: before dinner. And I just wanted to know where. I mean,
Speaker 5: I understand what JW's. It's the governing body. They tell
Speaker 5: you what it is, and that's what it is. But
Speaker 5: where the Seventh day Adventists are technically a Protestant thing,
Speaker 5: and they're like the twelfth biggest Protestant faction in America.
Speaker 5: So where do they get the eschatology that, like, you know,
Speaker 5: me reading the Bible as a Protestant, I'm thinking Jesus
Speaker 5: never came into the apostles lifetimes that he said was
Speaker 5: going to so two thousand years later, I'm not really
Speaker 5: holding my breath. Well, yeah, so it's this, It's going
Speaker 5: to be over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not exactly sure where they're getting this from.
Speaker 2: The only thing that I can think of is that, like,
Speaker 2: you know, they're really hanging up on the whole we
Speaker 2: don't know the time, the day, or the hour in
Speaker 2: which you know it's going to come, or you know
Speaker 2: it's going to come like a thief in the night
Speaker 2: and all this other stuff. So I don't know if
Speaker 2: it's just preparing or just like preparing them to think, oh,
Speaker 2: it could be anytime, it could be later this week,
Speaker 2: just like it's definitely portrayed as an immediate thing like
Speaker 2: in the Bible, And so I think that for their purposes,
Speaker 2: like always acting like it is upon them, like it
Speaker 2: could happen directly after dinner, it could happen later this week,
Speaker 2: it could happen next year. Like it just throws a
Speaker 2: bit of uncertainty into the mix. And I feel like
Speaker 2: that's part of the whole fear mongering thing, trying to
Speaker 2: get people to fear it so that they you know,
Speaker 2: clean and hold on to the faith.
Speaker 5: Better terror management theory.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it sounds right.
Speaker 5: It's really interesting to me because I know Forrest talks
Speaker 5: about that all the time, where people read about this
Speaker 5: stuff in the book and then they have to figure
Speaker 5: out how to score that circle with the life of
Speaker 5: living today. But I mean, how many generations are going
Speaker 5: to go by where it's like, stay alive till sixty
Speaker 5: five before everyone's like, you know what if Jesus comes back,
Speaker 5: that it'd be great. But I'm not holding their breath anymore.
Speaker 1: How many people have predicted it to zoo of commen,
Speaker 1: the time has been and gone, nothing's happened. Eschatology literally
Speaker 1: means the study of the last that's got the kind
Speaker 1: of the literal translation from the Greek. And it's amazing
Speaker 1: how many of these people who profess the end times
Speaker 1: don't actually seems to have done any study whatsoever. One
Speaker 1: thing I see and challenge a lot, especially on that
Speaker 1: wonderful social media platform called TikTok is this which if
Speaker 1: you want, if it is like a kind of a
Speaker 1: shitty ladder rung above X, is you get this kind
Speaker 1: of this idea that you get all these videos made
Speaker 1: saying Jesus is coming and this is important part, Jesus
Speaker 1: is coming back soon. And I always ask the same
Speaker 1: question when I see that, what do you mean by soon?
Speaker 1: Because when you're saying the word soon, you are talking
Speaker 1: as if you have a quantified period in mind and
Speaker 1: without exception when I have asked this question without exception.
Speaker 1: If I do get an answer, the answer is, well,
Speaker 1: we don't know the exact day and the time. We're
Speaker 1: told that we're not to know. So why the fuck
Speaker 1: are you using soon? Then? Why why are you using
Speaker 1: that word? Because that gives soon's very indication of a quantity,
Speaker 1: So we go on, please.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, soon just seems very disingenuous. I'm currently sitting
Speaker 5: here with a copy of the New World Translation Jehovah's
Speaker 5: Witness Bible, right, and was tell me all about what
Speaker 5: was going on in uh Mesopotamia in two thousand years ago.
Speaker 5: I've got a whole Hebrew calendar here, and Jesus is
Speaker 5: still right around the corner. And I just don't get it, Like,
Speaker 5: is there really? I mean, you have Seven day Adventists,
Speaker 5: you have Jova's Witnesses, you have some flavors of Pentecostal
Speaker 5: and some flavors of like these new charismatic uh you know,
Speaker 5: prophecy churches. Like how many times can you count the
Speaker 5: hits and not the missus? I mean, like how many times?
Speaker 5: I just don't understand. I wonder, I wonder if there
Speaker 5: was a Bible a verse in a chapter and verse
Speaker 5: it's like, Yep, this is when it's gonna happen. Other
Speaker 5: than the whole I'll be back before you're dead thing
Speaker 5: that you said, Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, you know it's everything there has has uh pretty
Speaker 2: much just been like very you know, we don't know
Speaker 2: when it's going to happen, like it not even not
Speaker 2: even Jesus knows the day, and even he's supposed to be,
Speaker 2: you know, all knowing and everything about it.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 2: But yeah, the Bible doesn't give specific dates. But I
Speaker 2: mean I feel like that's probably why they're continuously like
Speaker 2: the end is coming. They also identify common events in uh,
Speaker 2: the sociopolitical environment to adhere to the coming signs of it.
Speaker 2: I mean, you've got who is it like Pastor Haggy
Speaker 2: I think maybe who was spouting a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: like end time stuff whenever the uh that red moon
Speaker 2: was with the blood moon, I think it is, uh
Speaker 2: when that was going to be showing up and talking
Speaker 2: about end time. So I mean it's literally like fear
Speaker 2: mongering this very religious base, trying to convince them that,
Speaker 2: you know, they are going to be experiencing the end
Speaker 2: times and they either are grifting or they're just totally
Speaker 2: believing it, so like they truly believe in this, They
Speaker 2: truly believe that the end times are coming, and so
Speaker 2: they're doing their best to like warn people. But at
Speaker 2: the same time, like I get what you're saying, like
Speaker 2: how many times can you actually expect them to buy
Speaker 2: this whole end times or coming thing? And I think
Speaker 2: that it's as long as people are holding on to
Speaker 2: this idea of the end times coming or the end
Speaker 2: of the world coming, which seems to have been forever
Speaker 2: that people have held onto these kinds of things, I
Speaker 2: think they will continue to hold onto those things.
Speaker 5: It's improbable like every single time they have said it
Speaker 5: was going to end, it hasn't ended yet. So currently
Speaker 5: we're bat and zero here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I totally agree.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's that thing that.
Speaker 5: Content and uh, he's he deals with all these crazy
Speaker 5: profits that are talking about like the Great Controversy, and
Speaker 5: and I just I didn't realize how far deep that
Speaker 5: rabbit hole in an actual sect like Seventh Day Adventists
Speaker 5: that are really technically like uh, pretty popular Protestant group
Speaker 5: around America. You know, I live in the Midwest, and
Speaker 5: I didn't realize how hardcore. They were into how bad
Speaker 5: it's going to end, and I'm like, damn, dude, that
Speaker 5: must that must just stress you out all day long.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's important as well just to kind
Speaker 1: of switch on what cardless engineers said with the science thing.
Speaker 1: You know that all signs is in the same kind
Speaker 1: of category of veguess as the words soon and then well,
Speaker 1: you know, one one thing they mentioned specifically was the
Speaker 1: blood moon, the moon turn into blood. And you see
Speaker 1: these kind of and for the Christians who believe this
Speaker 1: who are watching now and need to spell this out
Speaker 1: for you, you know, you see these posts put upen
Speaker 1: these you know, these sinks said that the moon is
Speaker 1: turning to blood exactly as it was prophecied in the Bible.
Speaker 1: Let me spell out to you what is actually happening. Okay,
Speaker 1: so the moon isn't turning to blood in small areas
Speaker 1: of the moon. They have found that oxydization takes place
Speaker 1: in very very small areas, So it appears that small
Speaker 1: areas on the moon are turning red. That's it. That's
Speaker 1: what the scientists have actually found. So if you see
Speaker 1: anybody saying that scientists have confirmed that the moon is
Speaker 1: turning to blood. Please dismiss them out of hand. Sorry, Troy,
Speaker 1: go on.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, like firs oxide, like.
Speaker 1: Rest apparently so yes, apparently it has been detected on
Speaker 1: the moon in very very small amounts. But on that note,
Speaker 1: we are going to have to let you go. I'm
Speaker 1: going to I'm going to ask my geology friend who
Speaker 1: is not a million miles away about that very very
Speaker 1: short late. Thank you for your call, Troy. We lost
Speaker 1: out other caller. It isn't a fucking shame because it
Speaker 1: was Jackie, so nobody's going to be disappointed. And I'll
Speaker 1: be honest with you. Thank you for those calls. We
Speaker 1: have had some great calls. I think we've got some
Speaker 1: more superchats and the superchat progress it's ten out of ten.
Speaker 1: So I will be waiting for Godless engineer while while
Speaker 1: he prepares himself to channel Jesus through his puppet. I'm
Speaker 1: going to read out the rest of these superchats some
Speaker 1: kind of Dickay a member for two months and one
Speaker 1: of our wonderful hosts no less tender dollars, saying Hayley
Speaker 1: Mary Annette, bring on puppet Jesus king off strings. David
Speaker 1: Hackso member for six months has sent us fourteen or
Speaker 1: nine dollars. What CA mean? I don't know what that means.
Speaker 1: It's a CAA fourteen or nine. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's a normal Canadian. I've got it. See this brain's
Speaker 1: not as slow as it first appears. Canadian dollars fourteen
Speaker 1: or nine, Thank you very much. I don't know the
Speaker 1: difference between them and American money, so it's all the
Speaker 1: same to me. We need three more superchats people, and
Speaker 1: David Axo, helping himself out no less a member of
Speaker 1: six months, sends another Canadian dollars fourteen oh nine, saying
Speaker 1: could you imagine being a lifelong Christian and then die
Speaker 1: suddenly without asking for forgiveness and spending eternity in hell
Speaker 1: while Jeffrey Doma is in heaven? And another super chat
Speaker 1: from David Hackso, Thank you very much. David Hackso sent
Speaker 1: another fourteen or nine Canadian and say Jesus gonna lick
Speaker 1: you with his sword tongue. Revelations nineteen fifteen. I'm sold
Speaker 1: Miranda Nsburger member for six months and twenty dollars, and
Speaker 1: says every time someone calculates the date of the rapture,
Speaker 1: God says me. Damn it, those little shits keep figuring
Speaker 1: out the day and the hour. I'm going to have
Speaker 1: to reschedule the rapture again, and I already booked the trumpeters.
Speaker 1: Thank you all for your superchats. I am going to
Speaker 1: pass it over to Godless engineer who is going to
Speaker 1: channel Jesus Sus poppet.
Speaker 10: Yes, I would really appreciate it if people didn't figure
Speaker 10: out when I'm going to be coming back, because you know,
Speaker 10: I've got to reschedule that shit every single time.
Speaker 2: Okay, And yes I do have a sword tone.
Speaker 10: See.
Speaker 2: I mean it doesn't look like a sword now, but
Speaker 2: it's a lot like the Eucharist. It turns into a
Speaker 2: sword as soon as I lick you, so it's just
Speaker 2: it's sharp like a.
Speaker 9: Cat, you know.
Speaker 10: Anyways, God, bless all you, and I guess I'll be
Speaker 10: taking the next call or something until they tell me
Speaker 10: to get away from them or so.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Bless all of you, and I hope Christ will be
Speaker 2: upon you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that disarmingly scary display. Jamiks in the comments,
Speaker 1: by the way, making reference to you having a puppet
Speaker 1: of him. I don't know if it's some kind of
Speaker 1: weird sexual fetish. You've got amke he is there and
Speaker 1: with the receding Helline know Less.
Speaker 2: I don't know this Jmike character, but he sounds lovely.
Speaker 1: I'll stop telling lies now, only kidding. We all love
Speaker 1: Jamike here and his weird pizza fetishes. Right, So the
Speaker 1: prompt for this week is without lying, market the Bible
Speaker 1: to drive sales, replying the comments and tune in and
Speaker 1: the beginning of next week's episode to hear the top
Speaker 1: three answers. And we want to thank Kelly for helping
Speaker 1: us out today. Let's bring Kelly op here. Kelly, come
Speaker 1: the moon rushed canoxidization? Yes, yes, thank you.
Speaker 9: Yes, there there is iron on the moon, and there
Speaker 9: is also oxygen on the moon, so you're not going
Speaker 9: to get vast amounts of rust happening, but yeah, it
Speaker 9: can happen in isolated places.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 2: I have to disagree. We all know that the moon
Speaker 2: is a light and the source is me. Okay, I
Speaker 2: wrote it in my book. The source is alight. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying right now, Okay, nobody, nobody accept this. Harlan
Speaker 2: over here is being a day kind of truth.
Speaker 1: I expect you to think I was expect Kelly, what
Speaker 1: did you think of the show?
Speaker 9: I was going to make a joke about cheese, but
Speaker 9: I didn't want to make it around a fat fuck.
Speaker 2: You know what, Kelly, I'm gonna I'm gonna smite you
Speaker 2: for that. Smiting you right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Kelly, what did you think of the show? Let's
Speaker 1: bring it back in line.
Speaker 6: Oh it was.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed the show. I really did.
Speaker 9: I really did. And and you know, Steven, if you're
Speaker 9: going to designate a group of people as being first
Speaker 9: followers of Islam and that's the reason why you're hating them,
Speaker 9: then yeah, it's okay to call it islamophobia.
Speaker 2: Cool Jesus agree.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have an ACD discorde which all three of
Speaker 1: us people will be attending shortly after the show after
Speaker 1: our debriefs, So head on over to tiny dot cc
Speaker 1: slash ACD Discode. If you don't believe this is your community,
Speaker 1: and we really really do appreciate you being here. We've
Speaker 1: had some great calls from the community today and I
Speaker 1: very much appreciate those people who want to ask questions,
Speaker 1: who are appreciative of what we do. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm really do enjoy when you guys call in, when
Speaker 1: you listen to the show week after week, and you
Speaker 1: know you take on board the conversations that we're having
Speaker 1: and you put them into practice in your own lives
Speaker 1: and you give us a call to tell us how
Speaker 1: that's going. I love that shit, so please please do it.
Speaker 1: Don't feel put off by calling. Don't think arm an atheist.
Speaker 1: I haven't really got anything to say. If you have
Speaker 1: gained something from watching the show, please do feel free
Speaker 1: to give us a call and let us know. Do
Speaker 1: appreciate those calls. If you do believe, if you're Muslims,
Speaker 1: if it is Lamists, you know we weren't defending you earlier.
Speaker 1: You are wrong. God doesn't exist. However, nobody has the
Speaker 1: right to be abusive towards you, to denigrate you just
Speaker 1: because of that aspect of your personality. You know you
Speaker 1: are welcome here too. Religious people are welcome in this community.
Speaker 1: Let's have good conversations. We are here for everybody. And
Speaker 1: on that note, we don't hate you. We're just not convinced.
Speaker 1: We want the truth. So watch Truth Wanted live Friday
Speaker 1: at seven pm Central. Visit tiny dot cc slash y
Speaker 1: t tw and call into the show at five one
Speaker 1: two four two, or connect to the show online at
Speaker 1: tiny dot cc slash call tw