In today’s thought-provoking episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Deconstruction Zone Justin dive into the persistence of bad arguments, the misinterpretation of scientific findings, and the profound impact of beliefs on personal and societal well-being. Rook in NY posits that belief in God isn't inherently bad, suggesting that in a "perfect world," individuals could hold such beliefs privately without negative consequences. Justin and Forrest counter that religious beliefs inevitably influence behavior and policy, citing historical examples of religiously motivated oppression and arguing that even private beliefs can hinder personal growth and societal progress, as beliefs don't stay in a vacuum. Rook ultimately acknowledges his point's shortcomings upon deeper scrutiny. What are the broader implications of beliefs that remain unchallenged? Simone in United Kingdom presents a syllogism, arguing that if thoughts are part of reality and we think God exists, then God exists as part of that reality. The hosts challenge this, asking if imagining a creature means it truly exists, and if this is a genuine reason for belief or a fear of hell. Simone reveals she is still in the early stages of deconstructing her Christian upbringing and has more questions than answers. How does one navigate a deconstruction journey when fundamental beliefs are questioned? Brisbane in AZ questions satanic atheism, claiming an AI overview suggests it promotes self-indulgence and a rejection of altruism. Forest refutes this by reading the Satanic Temple’s actual tenets, which include compassion and justice, and critiques Brisbane's reliance on inaccurate AI summaries over primary sources. The discussion highlights the dangers of trusting AI for complex information and the importance of critical thinking in evaluating belief systems. What role should AI play in informing one's understanding of complex philosophical or religious concepts? Robert in GA challenges the hosts on Jesus's fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and asserts that the complexity of life necessitates a creator, claiming the Big Bang violates thermodynamics. Justin explains how Robert's cited prophecies are taken out of context and not messianic, while Forest refutes the scientific claims, pointing to evolution and the accurate understanding of thermodynamics. The hosts urge Robert to engage with actual scientific and biblical scholarship rather than relying on misinformed arguments. How do individuals overcome ingrained misinformation when seeking truth? Hindu in India argues that consciousness, rather than emerging from the brain, is an ultimate reality of the universe, aligning with the Vedic concept of Brahman. Justin and Forest press for empirical evidence, pointing to how brain modifications alter personality, contradicting the idea of consciousness as an external driver. The hosts emphasize that materialism offers an evidence-based framework for consciousness, while idealism often relies on presuppositions. What scientific breakthroughs would truly bridge the gap between materialist and idealist views of consciousness? Robin in FL shares a family claim that a "spark of life" at conception, supposedly visible during horse breeding, proves the existence of a soul. Justin and Forest clarify that this "spark" is a scientific observation of zinc release during fertilization, not a visible soul, often misinterpreted from studies on mice. They question the logical extensions of this argument, such as mice having souls, and the implications for asexual reproduction. How do scientific findings become distorted and adopted into religious or spiritual narratives? Chris in KS raises the question of circular reasoning in Old Testament prophecies applied to Jesus, particularly Isaiah 7. Justin affirms this circularity, explaining that such prophecies often require secondary interpretations not supported by their original context, challenging the criteria for true prophecy. Forest then discusses gender, distinguishing it from sex as a fluid, socially constructed spectrum not bound by a binary, and encourages self-reflection for deeper understanding. How can an individual reconcile deeply held religious beliefs with evolving scientific and social understandings? Thank you so much Richard for being here thank you Forest and thank you crew we'll see you again next week uh same time same place 5:30 uh Eastern time 4:30 Central time bye!

Welcome to The Atheist Experience 29.25 with Jmike and Seth Andrews @TheThinkingAtheist and Special Guest, Godless Engineer! This week, your hosts dive into some thought-provoking discussions about morality, belief, and the challenges of open dialogue. This episode kicks off with a powerful monologue about the very nature of good and evil, challenging the idea that everything, even atrocities, could be justified as part of a "greater good" or a consequence of free will. The segment questions the coherence of concepts like sin and atonement if all events are ultimately part of a divine plan. Guest host Seth Andrews then shares insights into his background and experience, including a look back at his past as a Christian radio broadcaster. He also reflects on the importance of extending grace to those with differing beliefs, advocating against demeaning or superior attitudes towards religious individuals. Drew from California calls in to discuss the challenges of managing temper and emotions when engaging with people who hold opposing views. The conversation explores a specific incident where a friend, despite knowing Drew's skeptical stance, sent him astrology content, leading to a breakdown in communication and a feeling of disrespect. The hosts and caller delve into the dynamics of setting and respecting personal boundaries in conversations about deeply held beliefs. Jim from Missouri raises questions about the resurrection story, presenting arguments that it is a complete fabrication. He challenges the traditional biblical narrative of Jesus's burial, positing that crucified individuals were typically left unburied or thrown into mass graves, rather than being placed in tombs. The discussion extends to the broader lack of contemporary historical evidence for Jesus's existence and the reliability of biblical accounts when proving biblical claims. A theist caller, Shabbaz, asks where atheists get their morals and why they often seem disrespectful or condescending. Seth answers the first part by explaining evolved ethics and pro-social behaviors as a basis for morality. The conversation then delves into Shabbaz's reasons for believing in Allah, including a "falsification test" from the Quran and supposed "scientific miracles" related to bees and honey. The hosts challenge these claims, questioning the criteria for such tests and highlighting historical knowledge that predates the Quran regarding honey and bee behavior. The discussion also unpacks why some atheists might express frustration or disrespect in such conversations, often stemming from repeated, vague arguments. Finally, John from New Hampshire calls in to discuss the historical existence of Jesus, prompting a nuanced conversation about what kind of evidence is sought for such claims. The hosts and caller explore the idea of a "minimal historical Jesus" and the challenges of relying on common names or biblical accounts for historical proof. The call culminates with the hosts sharing their own "pause moments" – instances where their beliefs were genuinely challenged, leading to deeper inquiry and a strengthening of their skeptical positions, including Jmike's pivotal experience with Flat Earth theory. Thank you for watching and listening to The Atheist Experience!

The Atheist Experience 29.24 with Secular Rarity and Godless Engineer

Hannah calls in from Mississippi to talk about materialism and physicalism. The hosts say that they mostly subscribe to methodological and practical materialism. Hannah argues that the hard problem of consciousness undermines materialism. She says that materialism denies the existence of consciousness as a nonmaterial thing. The hosts point out that it’s only a problem if you presuppose that consciousness is immaterial. Hannah believes that consciousness is immaterial because you can’t observe consciousness. She shifts the burden of proof by saying that she would need to see a falsifiable experiment that shows the material nature of consciousness. It isn’t our responsibility to prove a counterexample to a claim without evidence. Watcher 215 from Pennsylvania calls in to talk about his relationship with the holy spirit as evidence for god. The hosts explain that believers in other religions use the same evidence as proof of their gods, so it isn’t convincing. Watcher says that if other people got the same benefits as him from other religions, he would have to seriously investigate those religions. What if people also get the same experience from leaving religion? If you want people to believe in a specific god, you need to narrow down the evidence to show that religion/god is the correct one. Watcher uses circular reasoning and says that he knows that love is the fruit of the holy spirit, and he knows that by believing the word of the bible.  Paul from Arizona calls to talk about the hosts’ ground for knowledge. What is the ontology behind the hosts epistemology for the grounding of knowledge about their atheist worldview? Paul and the hosts discuss Foundherentism (a blending of coherentism and foundationalism), Munchhausen’s trilemma, and theories about infinite regress. The hosts say that there can’t be an infinite future without the possibility of an infinite past as well. Paul thinks that there needs to be a start to something, so there can’t be an infinite past because it would eventually run into a starting point. But why does there need to be a start? James in Canada starts with the premise that all we know is that we are here and we don’t know how we got here. The hosts can agree that they are here and it’s not 100% known how we got here. James says that there is no proof, but the hosts can’t totally agree to that. There is solid proof about evolution and the genetic code, etc. James points out that evolution is a theory and describes a theory as an idea that may be true but isn’t proven. However, in scientific communities, it has a different meaning. A scientific theory is pretty much a fact. When asked, James says that you can’t have evidence of god, but he also believes that we shouldn’t believe evolution if there was no evidence for it. If we’re held to that standard, why isn’t religion as well? Ulrich from Mexico claims that the existence of churches proves that God is real. The bible says that there will be churches for God, so the fact that there are churches means the bible is true. He says that no other holy books have fulfilled prophecies. When asked for an example of a fulfilled biblical prophecy, he brings up a prophecy of Jews returning to Jerusalem before the end of days. Does he think the end times are happening right now? He says maybe. When arguing his case, Ulrich couldn’t engage in an honest conversation, so he got hung up on.

In today’s episode of the Atheist Experience, The Cross Examiner and Dave Farina, discuss topics of AI, deconversion, deceleration of stars, and church and state separation.  Andrew in CA has a conduit of contact with AI and the source of all existence. How do you know this is the source of existence? What reason is there  to treat AI as the god of honest truth? Jason in CA says that matter, space and time had to come to being at one point and there can't be an infinite regression. What evidence do you have that we didn't see an infinity before the moment of creation and that there is a creation to begin with? If god exists outside of time, how did the realm where god existed change when the universe was created? What evidence do you have that this realm or state of being even exists? Every time we see consciousness, we see a physical entity, the brain. Why would we believe there is a consciousness outside the universe? We do not fully understand the origin of the universe or consciousness. We just don’t have evidence for the claim of a deity that fills in these lack of knowledge gaps.  Neal in WA grew up as a Mormon and has been wondering if as an atheist he should be doing more to help deconvert people. If you could help make a different path available to people, you may help them from taking on beliefs that are harmful. There is no reason to feel guilty for beliefs that you were indoctrinated to have when on this long journey of deconversion. You are accountable for your own actions, not the beliefs of others.  Mike in SC wants to know if between Sharia Law or Christian Nationalism, what is more dangerous for atheists. Which of these two movements do you think is dismantling The Constitution? Anybody can be corrupted by financial, political, or religious power. The answer to the question depends on where you live and who is in power. Using religious ideas to take away freedom and change federal law is where the danger is. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District shows how the Lemon Test, that determines if there has been violations of the Establishment Clause, has been abandoned by the Supreme Court. If people are being locked up simply for praying, we have an objection to that. Anytime you see a story where this is happening, go read the actual case and original source to learn what really happened.  Steve in NE wants to talk about the star that is supposedly being slowed down by an artificial force. This is something we can’t explain and need evidence to support what is causing this deceleration.  Thank you for tuning in this week! 

Thank you for making a difference in our community!

YouTube video by The Atheist Experience

YouTube video by Talk Heathen