Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 6, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:53:57

3224 The Invisible Spider On My Head - Call In Show - March 4th, 2016

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, hello everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	God, atheism, parenting, peace, anarchy, the whole mishmash and mess, and clarity of the show is kind of ground down into one finely compacted show tonight.
	And the first question was really good, basic, detailed metaphysics and epistemology, that which exists and how we know it, or doesn't exist and how we would know it doesn't.
	With regards to a God and a really, really pleasant conversation with a very intelligent Christian and I really, really enjoyed that chat.
	And the second caller was kind of curious how it was possible to disprove a theoretical entity or a non-sensual entity like a deity.
	And, you know, you hear this, well, agree to disagree.
	You can't prove God exists.
	You can't prove God doesn't exist and so on.
	So we dove in A little bit more into that kind of detail.
	And the third caller was raised in a spare the rod, spoil the child kind of authoritarian household.
	And he's the parent of a five-year-old.
	And he's got some concerns about peaceful parenting.
	And we had a really, really great...
	Chat about that stuff.
	How to negotiate with a five-year-old.
	How to get a five-year-old to do something productive that's outside their window of preference.
	You know, brushing teeth and so on.
	And how to get all of that to work.
	And it's a great father who listened well and had some really, really great feedback.
	So thanks everyone, of course, for making all these conversations possible.
	You can, of course, help out the show at freedomainradio.com slash donate or fdrurl.com slash amazon to use the affiliate link.
	So let's get it down and on and forward.
	All right, well, up first today we have Zach.
	Zach wrote in and said, assuming a god slash gods exist, what evidence slash proof would he use to prove the claim that this proclaimed being is in fact god or a god?
	In other words, how do you prove one's claim of being a god?
	And that's from Zach.
	Hello, Zach.
	How are you doing?
	Good.
	How are you?
	I'm well, thanks.
	I'm not sure what show you think you're calling into, but I'm an atheist.
	Yeah, I was assuming that.
	I think my question had more to do with kind of a response to one of your...
	One of your videos where it was labeled a Christian's proof or burden of proof.
	Right.
	And yeah, that was sort of my just roundabout question to maybe touch on some of the other questions that you had asked that individual that even though I felt like they tried to answer some of your questions, I didn't feel like it really Answer them, at least in the way that you were kind of looking for.
	Oh, so what proof would I, sorry, you mean what proof would I accept for the existence of a deity?
	Sure, yeah, yeah.
	I was mostly curious.
	Sure.
	Well, I don't know what exactly a deity would mean, because it's a fairly subjective term.
	But if, you know, if I said to you, hey man, I'm In contact with omniscient intelligence, how would you check that?
	Yeah, you're exactly right.
	Well, there would be no way to...
	Well, yeah, I suppose if there was a God, first of all, there wouldn't be a way to really prove that either way, given our Well, sorry, this was actually supposed to be a sort of actual conversation.
	The way that I would...
	If somebody said to me, Steph, I'm in contact with this omniscient intelligence, well, the first thing that I would do is I would start asking that person for information that only I had and the other person couldn't possibly have, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	What did I dream about last night?
	Right now assuming I didn't tell anyone and I still remember it, right?
	Then that would be a piece of information that I would have and nobody else would have, right?
	And so I would ask a series of questions that would just contain information that I would possess that nobody else would possess or it would be extremely unlikely for anyone else to possess.
	And that would be my first test.
	Does that make sense?
	Sure, yes it does.
	Now, if the person were able to answer those questions correctly, that would be pretty remarkable.
	And then what I would do is I would move on to things which would be virtually impossible to know, but which would be easy to verify.
	So for instance, I'd go pick up my copy of Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, which is this giant Russian novel, like Atlas Shrugged, but without any action.
	And I would say, okay, if you're in contact with an all-knowing being, why don't you do the following?
	Tell me what the 73rd word is on page 216, Of my copy.
	There's lots of different copies.
	And I would obviously want that answer back right away.
	Other things.
	You know, like I had a guy in here months ago about remote viewing.
	It was last summer, I think.
	And I picked up a bottle of bloodworms and I said, what am I looking at?
	It doesn't work that way, right?
	And then the third thing that I would do is I would ask for answers which nobody had as yet, but which could be verified.
	Mm-hmm.
	And I don't exactly have a list of those off the top of my head, but there are obviously scientific questions which remain open but unanswered.
	Of course, the origins of the universe would be a pretty important one.
	Not just magic, but something which could be verified.
	And so this would be a way of establishing That there was some kind of truly remarkable, unprecedented intelligence.
	And there would be a whole sequence of things that you could continue to ask.
	And of course, this person would know the future as well, right?
	Sure.
	So then I would do something.
	I would say, what am I about to pick up in five seconds?
	Tell me now.
	I guess that would be kind of tough because maybe I'd change it or whatever, right?
	But if the person...
	If I were to say...
	I'm going to pick up something in 10 seconds.
	Tell me what it is right now.
	And then if every single time that happened, I ended up picking up exactly what they said, well, that would be a consciousness independent of time.
	In other words, something that could see the future.
	And that would be, I think, pretty close to omniscient to me.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, sure.
	Yeah, it makes a lot of sense.
	Now, as for all-powerful, Well, I don't know.
	I mean, and the thing is, too, is that what does omniscience really mean?
	I mean, it means you know everything.
	But of course, since I, as a mere piddling little mortal brain, can't know very much at all, what would it mean for me to grasp that something knows everything?
	Like, it's not something I could even really comprehend.
	And what does it mean to be all-powerful?
	But I'd certainly need to see some examples of some pretty remarkable power.
	You know, can you keep a...
	Windows computer running at the same speed that it starts when you first buy it for at least three days after you install updates.
	No, you can't.
	It's impossible.
	So, whatever it is that would be, you know, there would be a series of tests and they would escalate and so on, but at some point you'd say, well, it's either omniscient or as close to omniscient that it doesn't really make any difference.
	I mean, if human beings ask this Intelligence, 10 billion questions, and it got them all right, and then 10 billion and one it got wrong, I'll take it, you know, as close to omniscient as possible, and as close to omnipotent as possible, and that would be some example.
	The other thing that I would say is, explain to me the mechanism by which you are communicating to this person who's in touch with you, right?
	Explain to me the physics by which that occurs, and, oh, and give me the cure for cancer.
	So I can give it to everyone for free.
	But yeah, something like that.
	Okay.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	Yeah, I guess assuming it knows everything, I guess the assumption is if it does know everything, its claim of what it is is true.
	Because it could be lying, right?
	Well, yeah, so even if we establish omnipotence and omniscience, we still would then have to establish infinite virtue.
	Yes.
	Which would be impossible, because given the amount of evil that goes on in the world, a being of infinite knowledge and infinite power would be easily able to stop evils in the world and wouldn't.
	So the more powerful the being is, the more sociopathically indifferent it is to suffering.
	So you can escalate God's power, but all you do is downgrade his morality.
	Okay.
	Yeah, no, that makes sense.
	And you understand none of this will ever, ever happen?
	Well, yeah, I mean, it's, yeah.
	If there were a God, the possibility of proving any of this would be, well, I would assume, like you said, if the mortal, imperfect, limited beings is probably beyond our grasp.
	Well, beyond our grasp, I mean, it just...
	You understand that the definitions of God are not positive definitions.
	They're mere negative definitions.
	Basically, all the definitions of a deity involve complete and total incomprehensibility.
	I mean, I felt that when I said, okay, if I were to say to someone who was in contact with God, Tell me what I'm going to pick up in 10 seconds.
	And if they said your coffee cup, well, actually, they'd probably be right about that.
	But if they said a light bulb, then I would immediately want to pick up a coffee cup to disprove the omniscience thing, right?
	So then would I weirdly end up with a light bulb in my hand?
	You know what I mean?
	None of these things.
	Omniscience is so incomprehensible to human beings.
	Unless you're on the left and into central planning, in which case it just seems to be what you have on your cornflakes every morning.
	But omniscience is so incomprehensible to human beings that it is the opposite of everything we are.
	All-powerful.
	As organic mammals, we are severely curtailed in our powers.
	And All-powerful, it's just, well, what is a human being, and what can a human being understand and comprehend and process?
	Let's just make up a word that means the opposite of everything that that is and call it a deity.
	A deity is a cloak for utter incomprehensibility, but we don't want to say incomprehensibility because that's too obvious, so we create all these hymns and emotionally stirring evocative things Holy Fathers, and it's just, it's all incomprehensible.
	Like, some concepts are great, right?
	I mean, length, right?
	Something is long, and you get the concept of length, which is spread from end to end.
	We can vaguely think of something like infinite length and so on.
	But we can't possibly imagine all knowledge.
	Which is to say...
	Knowledge of the movement of every scrap of matter and energy from the beginning of time until the end of the time all across the universe and every single force affecting it for all time.
	It's utterly incomprehensible.
	Sure.
	I'm kind of segwaying and I know you mentioned this with With Democrats, Socialists, whatever.
	How would you describe the human sort of propensity to, I would say, create their own gods?
	Like you could say this fanaticism for creating governments or these systems which function like gods and tell people what rights they have, what rights they don't have.
	You know, how we should live, how we should not live.
	I mean, what would be your natural explanation of that?
	Well, human beings don't create gods and they don't create governments.
	What they do is they create obedience, and these are just the labels for those.
	Right?
	If I said to you, do what I say, You'd be like, I don't think so, right?
	Now, if I said, do what I say, or I'll punch you, I mean, you may obey or not, but you'd be trying to get away, and I'd have no moral authority over you, right?
	You might have fear, but there'd be no moral authority that I would have over you.
	Is that fair to say?
	Sure.
	Right.
	Now, if I say, obey God...
	And God is all good.
	And if you don't like what God says, don't blame me.
	I'm just the messenger.
	Now, if I can get you to believe that God is all good, well, you're not obeying me anymore, are you?
	See, this way I get your obedience without your natural mammalian resistance to being ordered around by assholes.
	Right?
	I can create some Perfect glowing goodness that you are in fact obeying.
	I am merely the messenger.
	And so it's not me.
	Like if I said, obey me or I'll set fire to you and your family.
	Holy God, right?
	I mean, again, you might obey, but you wouldn't worship.
	Sure.
	But if I say, well, you have to obey what God says, and I'm going to tell you what God says, or he's going to send you and your family to hell forever and you'll burn forever, well, who am I going to get mad at?
	Who are you going to get mad at?
	You can't get mad at me.
	I'm just the messenger.
	Don't blame me for what God says.
	Can you get mad at God?
	Well, good luck with that, right?
	All-knowing, all-powerful, all-virtuous, can't do it, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	In the same way, the most potent illnesses in mankind to disable the defense system, to disable your immunological responses, well, people have a natural resistance to authority.
	I mean, anybody who's had kids knows that.
	I was chatting with...
	A friend of mine today, she's got two daughters, great kids, and she was telling me a story that when her daughter was two, she said, now I'm tired of picking up after you all the time.
	I'm tired of doing it all the time.
	Her two-year-old looked up at her and said, well, mom, I'm tired of hearing about it all the time.
	And That natural resistance we have to authority is what's supposed to limit the growth of totalitarianism.
	And if you want to rule over people, you have the significant problem or resistance that they don't like being ruled over.
	People will do a lot that you ask them to.
	They'll do almost nothing that you order them to.
	I mean, just one-on-one without pomp and circumstance.
	And that's the big limit.
	Now, the fact that we don't like being ordered about is supposed to limit the predation upon us of others.
	Because it's time-consuming and expensive and risky to order people about, right?
	Sure.
	But if you can invent some abstract concept that they obey instead of you, but you're the only voice of that abstract concept, Well, then you're all set.
	You can argue a priest.
	You can't argue God.
	You know, I... Yeah, go ahead.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Yeah, I just...
	So I... Just to give you just a quick sidebar, I work in the IT field.
	And I'm fairly young.
	I work with a lot of younger people.
	But I can tell you this much.
	When I... I'm more of a...
	I'm an individualist type of constitutional type person.
	I love history and that sort of thing.
	And I can tell you, a majority of the people that I run into that are younger, you know, 20s, 30s, 40s, a vast majority of them, they claim to be socialists, a few claim to be Marxists.
	And it's very much like, I would say, a religious type of dogma whenever I speak to them.
	It really blows me away.
	Many of them claim to be atheists, but yet it's sort of like this, you must obey government, and you must give up your rights, and you must do what it says, and sacrifice for everyone else.
	So anyway.
	Well, and there's this abstract idea, whether it's class, the poor, the oppressed, the exploited, the workers, The common good, the collective, all women, all men, this race, that race, this nation, it doesn't matter fundamentally what the abstraction is that you're supposed to obey.
	It only needs two characteristics.
	Number one, it has to be morally unquestionable.
	Like God, You can't morally question God and the poor.
	You can't morally question caring for the poor through government programs.
	You can't morally question that, right?
	Because if you do, you hate the poor.
	You can't morally question Planned Parenthood because if you do, then you want women to die for lack of health care.
	You can't morally question socialized medicine.
	You can't morally question whatever it is.
	So as long as the abstract...
	The concept is beyond moral questioning.
	The same thing's true of climate change these days.
	There's a great interview with Dr.
	Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, which we'll release, I'm sure, next week, but you've really got to check it out.
	His argument is that global warming is healing the planet, saving plants who are starving of CO2 and also pushing back the next ice age.
	It's fantastic.
	But global warming, too.
	If...
	You are skeptical towards catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
	Well, you hate the planet, you hate the young, you're greedy, you're mean, whatever, right?
	So it has to be elevated to moral unquestionability, is number one.
	And number two, it must require an interpreter of what to do.
	It must require an interpretive of what to do.
	In other words, it must be morally beyond reproach, number one, and number two, it cannot have a voice of its own.
	You think of God, right?
	Morally beyond reproach has no voice of his own.
	Sure.
	The poor, morally beyond reproach, you've got to help them, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	But they have no voice of their own.
	In other words, if somebody says, we should help the poor, you could say, okay, who, which one?
	I'll go talk to them.
	No, no, no.
	It's not supposed to work that way, right?
	It's the poor is a big abstract concept.
	Can't speak for itself.
	I speak for women.
	Really?
	All of them.
	All of them at once.
	Because sometimes they're a little tough to interrupt.
	So how do you...
	Sorry to interrupt again, but how...
	That's one of my biggest, my largest frustrations.
	Because when I speak to people and I... To me, it's kind of like, well, yes, it's one thing to help people, but really, from my perspective, it should be really your choice.
	It shouldn't be forced on you.
	And people tend to not see this as theft, as stealing.
	It's just kind of like, well, we're making you be kind.
	And I guess my question for that is, how do you...
	How do you argue in such a way where you influence people's minds to sort of realize, oh yeah, this is sort of fraud?
	Well, and I'm sorry, there's a third one, which is of course the point of it, which is it has to involve a resource transfer.
	Okay.
	Right, so, I mean, just to take the example of the poor, we should help the poor.
	Maybe, maybe.
	I don't know.
	But even if we say we should help the poor, what is it to help the poor?
	I don't know.
	Have you ever tried helping someone who's poor directly, personally, in your life?
	No.
	You selfish bastard.
	Just kidding.
	Why do you think that is?
	Do you not know any poor people?
	That may be just an excuse, but no.
	I've always found it to be...
	There's some people who are...
	Given their personalities, they would go out and help people directly, whereas someone like me, my strengths are in other areas.
	I know that's my justification.
	Well, I had a friend when I was younger.
	A lot younger.
	And his mom...
	It's so depressing.
	Single moms, in general, have no clue how to raise boys.
	I mean, if they knew anything about men, they wouldn't have been abandoned by the fathers of their children or driven them off.
	Having single moms raise boys is kind of like having racist blacks raise white kids or racist whites raise black kids or whatever.
	Already proven an inability to get along.
	And his mom, you know, like a lot of single moms do, she turned him into a kind of substitute husband to fend off loneliness.
	She always cooked for him.
	She always wanted to come over.
	And then she would always, when he got older, she'd nag him that he wasn't getting married.
	And I remember saying to him, hey, there are women in the world, but trust me, they're not over at your mom's house on Tuesday night for murder she wrote and hamburger helper.
	And, you know, he didn't dress that well.
	You know, the standard bowl haircut.
	I knew him once.
	He cut his bangs with a knife.
	Seriously.
	And anyway, I had some help with style.
	And I had a kind of makeover in the way that I describe in my novel, The God of Atheists.
	And I decided to help him out.
	I went...
	We went downtown and went to some funky clothing stores and got him to pry open his dusty wallet and out-fluttered moths and long-expired coupons.
	And, you know, he laid down some cash for some decent wear.
	You know, I got him to go to the gym I went to and we started.
	I got him to join me and my workouts and got him a decent haircut and All that kind of stuff.
	To make a long story short, I didn't do a damn thing.
	And I've gone into this a bunch of times before, but I've really tried to help people.
	And the reality is That I've actually ended up helping the most people by pursuing my passions.
	Not by focusing on what I think is good for them.
	If that makes sense.
	When I pursued my passions to write great software and then I ended up co-founding a company and we grew it and hired a lot of people.
	So in pursuing my passions I helped a lot of people.
	A lot of these People were young kids coming out of college.
	They had a lot of debt.
	We paid well.
	I was, you know, happy to mentor them if they were interested.
	And, you know, helped them sort of get out of, get into the middle class and all that.
	In doing this show, helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world by pursuing my passion for philosophy.
	And so whenever I tried to Help other people by trying to figure out what I thought would be good for them and providing it or cajoling it or encouraging it in them.
	It never went anywhere and it just turned out to be a really frustrating waste of resources.
	On both, I mean, this guy might as well have saved his money buying cool clothes and getting a cool haircut.
	It wasn't going to make any difference to his reproductive success over time as it turned out.
	And I have done the good that I have done in the world, I have done by pursuing my dreams.
	And then it sweeps people up and provides resources to other people.
	You know, we've helped countless people through this show.
	And When it comes to helping the poor, I mean, I don't know what poor people need.
	I don't even know if them being poor is a problem.
	You know, there's not a lot of charities, which is like Lamborghinis for monks.
	Those poor monks.
	They have to walk or ride burrows everywhere.
	Let's get them some Lamborghinis.
	No, they're monks.
	They vow poverty, right?
	Unless they're British pop groups.
	So, I don't know whether being poor is a problem.
	If being poor is a problem, I don't know whether money should be given directly to the poor.
	I don't know whether money should be left in the hands of the most productive so they can create jobs, which benefits the poor, either because they hire the poor people, or with more people in the workforce, more goods are produced, which means the price of things go down, which means the poor people's fixed income goes further.
	I don't know any of these things.
	And that's the basic humility that is necessary to advocate for freedom.
	In this, occasionally, it feels like God-forsaken planet.
	It's the basic humility.
	I don't know.
	I don't know how to help the poor.
	And that's not because I lack knowledge.
	It's because I lack vanity.
	And I'm willing to admit, Socrates style, that I don't know what the price of kumquats should be in Argentina next week.
	I don't know what the interest rates should be in New York six months from now, or tomorrow, or five minutes from now, or five seconds from now.
	I don't know how many loaves of bread Should be baked by the bakers in Albuquerque, starting at 4 a.m.
	tomorrow morning.
	I don't know whether all smartwatches should have Bluetooth that turns off or not.
	I don't know.
	I have no idea.
	I have no idea.
	And because I have no idea, and because I'm a moral philosopher, I follow the non-aggression principle, which is do what thou wilt, But do not use force of fraud against others.
	And that basic humility, so if the poor are a problem, then how do we solve that problem?
	We solve that problem by letting everyone pursue their dreams and desires with as much freedom as humanly possible.
	And some of those people will go start companies Either hire the poor directly.
	I helped lots of poor people, even just through my business, because not only did I pay wages to poor people, but also that drove up the wages for everyone else in the industry.
	By taking people off the market, it drove up the wages for everyone else.
	I don't know.
	And anybody who says, well, the solution is taxation and the...
	I mean, it's exactly the same as saying that the universe is here because God made it so.
	There is no one who knows that answer because that answer cannot be known.
	In the same way that nobody can know what the price of something is unless there's a free market.
	You know, that price calculation problem that can't be solved by central planning.
	Well, I can tell you this much.
	I had a conversation with one of our executives at the company I work at, and it just blows me away because many of these people are very smart, but we were talking about the market and this and that, and We were talking about central planning, and his feeling was it was sort of like the George Bush claim of, well, we have to save it from itself.
	Whereas my point was, well, in my opinion, the market is always right, not some person saying, well, it should be this.
	Right.
	But, yeah, it just seems as though most people that I run into that are very intelligent want Want someone to have those answers, I guess.
	Right.
	And people do want to be able to outsource.
	See, when it comes to the government, people don't actually want to take care of the poor.
	They want to stop thinking about the poor.
	And that's a very different thing.
	Right?
	Like, when people say the universe is here because God made it, they don't want an answer to As to why the universe is here, because it's not an answer.
	Magic is not an answer.
	So, they don't want an answer.
	What they want is to stop thinking about the question.
	Because there's a tension.
	When you know that the problem needs to be solved, but you haven't solved it yet, there's a sort of unease.
	This is actually fairly well documented neurobiologically.
	If you're K-selected, if you are selected, whatever.
	But if you're case-elected, when you know you've got to get something done or you know there's a problem that needs to be solved, that's important, and it's not solved, you feel this kind of unease.
	I don't know if you've ever had it where you're driving someplace and...
	Before GPSs, I don't know if you're that young, but you're driving someplace and you just, did I pass the street yet?
	I don't know.
	I thought I would have passed.
	You get that uneasy feeling, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's a healthy feeling.
	But it's uncomfortable.
	Yeah.
	And so, people like government programs not because they want to help the poor, but they want to stop thinking about the poor.
	They want to stop feeling uneasy about the poor.
	But the problem is, of course, it doesn't work because you give the government this power and people just keep nagging you about the poor so you pay them off again.
	They keep nagging you about the poor.
	You pay them off again and the poor keep getting worse and more trapped in cycles of poverty and the welfare cliff gets higher and worse and worse and worse.
	Eventually the system collapses and then there are a few more poor people, probably yourself included.
	This is the battle that Socrates was fighting 2,500 years ago.
	Is to pull people away from the pretense of an answer.
	Lots of problems in the world.
	And people say, ah, well, you know, if we have some sort of central planning, those problems will go away.
	If we have communism, these problems will go away.
	If we have Marxist robot utopia cities, these problems will go away.
	Magic.
	Surrender your power, these problems will go away.
	And I don't know what it's going to take for people to have the maturity to say, I don't know.
	And you don't know.
	And we shouldn't initiate force to try and solve this problem.
	Freedom requires that people live with uneasiness.
	Because in freedom, some people are going to fail.
	And fail badly.
	In freedom, some people...
	Are not going to take out health insurance and then they're going to get some ungodly illness that's very expensive to treat and they won't be able to come up with the money and they'll die.
	That really sucks.
	I mean, that's a flippant way of putting it.
	That's a genuine tragedy.
	It's a self-inflicted tragedy.
	It's a genuine tragedy.
	In freedom, women will become secret...
	Shopaholics and gambling addicts.
	And run their families into so much debt that they get thrown out on the street.
	That's terrible.
	Well, we can't have that.
	And that makes, to be honest, men can handle it.
	In general.
	Because we're not bubble wrapped and coddled from, you know.
	You know, a boy cries in the playground.
	He's told to toughen up, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Walk it off, son.
	There was this, like a character out of The Simpsons, that ripped janitor.
	There was this Scottish wrestling coach I had when I was a kid.
	You know, some kid pile drives into my front teeth and my lips swollen up like I've just had a kiss with Bill Clinton.
	And...
	I can remember this guy, like, breathing these acrid fumes of, like, old sailor's armpit tobacco breath or something.
	And he's like, walk it off.
	Walk it off.
	It's like, it's my lip.
	I don't walk on my lip.
	Anyway, so...
	But, you know, the girl cries and, oh, hugs, are you okay?
	And so, you know, we're a bit leathery men in general.
	I don't know about that.
	This new generation doesn't seem to be quite that way inclined.
	But, um...
	You know, we're a bit leathery, or at least my generation.
	We're a bit toughened up.
	But I think women have a tougher time.
	And it's a beautiful part about women.
	It's not a complaint.
	It's just that if you take the natural sentimentality of women and unite it with the awesome power of the state, then women find a way to assuage their feelings of discomfort at looking at failure.
	And they use the state to Prop up the people who have failed, and that makes them feel better in the short run, but like any addiction, it has significantly negative effects in the long run.
	Yeah, I think you had said something at some other point in other discussions, something about women finding loser men and then having children to them and sort of the state picking up for their poor decision making.
	Yeah, I mean that's the huge risk that women take.
	As I've said before, there used to be massive amounts of art produced to help women with the most fundamental decision of civilization, which is, who gets to hunt my eggs?
	Civilization just comes down to how women answer that question.
	Who gets to hunt my eggs?
	Who gets to impregnate me?
	And if a woman makes a good decision and gets a stable man who's productive and loving and caring and a good provider and so on, then civilization can continue.
	And if women choose bad men, then civilization cannot continue.
	When there's a government.
	Because the women will run to the government to save them from the bad men who ran away and they'll cry victim and they'll cry helplessness and the natural white knighting of men will take over and women will get everything they want and Society grinds to a pathetic halt and collapses.
	Sorry, this is why marriage is so important.
	And of course, what happens is, as women get more and more resources from the state, tax bills go up, quality of education goes down, down, down, down.
	Therefore, the smarter people look at it and say, well, it's really becoming a pretty bad deal to have children.
	And then, there aren't enough children, particularly productive, intelligent children who grow up to be productive, intelligent adults.
	And so, what happens then?
	Well, incoming third world tsunami of imaginary replacements.
	I think that was addressed in the movie Idiocracy.
	Yes, but without the race element, but that's understandable.
	All right, is that okay?
	As you can hear, my voice is just getting over a mild cold, so I'm going to try and spare my throat from too much tonight.
	So do you mind if I move on to the next caller?
	Yeah, great.
	It was very nice speaking with you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	A pleasure.
	I mean, a pleasure for me.
	No, it was.
	Alright, well up next is Parker.
	Parker wrote it and said, I recently began reading Everyday Anarchy and quickly realized that you hold atheism not just as a belief, but as an absolute truth.
	Why is it that you view atheism this way as opposed to a belief system that requires some level of faith?
	That's from Parker.
	Hello, Parker.
	How are you doing?
	Doing well.
	How are you, Stefan?
	I'm doing well and doing good, I hope.
	Alright, so tell me what your definition is of atheism, and that may be what can solve our dilemma.
	Well, as I understand it, atheism is the belief that there is no God on a fundamental level.
	Okay.
	So there is no God, right.
	Okay.
	So I think that's...
	I mean, I've got a whole book called Against the Gods?
	And people can check that out.
	It's one of my favorite books that I ever wrote.
	And it's relatively short, shockingly, but I think it's very good.
	But I should say I'm very proud of that book.
	And so do you believe that it's an act of faith or an act of irrational assumption to believe that there is no deity?
	I don't believe that it's irrational, no, but I think that it does require some level of faith.
	Because Just as you cannot prove that there is a god, you can't prove that there isn't.
	Oh no, I can.
	You can prove that there isn't?
	Yes.
	I've read some of your book Against the Gods, and so I'm interested to see exactly how you would respond to that.
	Well, all you have to do is give me a definition of a god.
	There's an omnipotent, omniscient being who, in my understanding, I'm a Christian specifically, so I would argue that God also created the universe.
	That's an important thing to understand.
	Excellent.
	Okay.
	Now your assertion, first of all, as you know, is in the category of false until proven true.
	As is the case with all propositions.
	I'm sorry, I don't think I understand.
	Do you mind saying that again?
	Sure, no problem at all.
	The burden of proof lies on the person making the assumption.
	Sure.
	Sorry, making the assertion, right?
	And the more...
	So if I say there's a pebble in the Ganges River, okay, do I have to go and...
	I mean, of course there is, right?
	There's a crab in the Pacific.
	Okay, yeah.
	So there are things that Of course, we kind of understand that they're true just because they're not exactly an extraordinary claim, right?
	Sure.
	If I say I have a pet dog, okay, well, maybe I don't, but it's not an extraordinary claim, right?
	If I say I have a pet dragon, assuming it's not Komodo, or if I have a pet unicorn or a pet leprechaun, well, that's an extraordinary claim, right?
	Of course.
	Of course.
	If I say not, there's a pebble in the Ganges, but there is a giant sea serpent 300 feet long in the Ganges, right?
	So the more outlandish or surprising or confusing or seemingly contradictory the claim is, the higher the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
	Now, if I say, I have a pet leprechaun, And then, is it incumbent upon you to disprove me?
	No.
	Okay.
	Would you accept that as a true statement?
	That you have a pet leprechaun?
	Yes.
	No.
	Okay.
	And if I say, well, you can't disprove that I have a pet leprechaun, does that mean it's possible?
	That you do?
	Yes, it's possible that you do.
	It is possible that I do.
	I mean, I don't believe you, but it's not completely out of the question.
	I mean, just because I've never seen one, and no one has ever seen one, doesn't mean that there isn't.
	I don't believe you, and I don't think that it makes a whole lot of sense to believe you, but I cannot disprove definitively that you don't.
	Alright, I'm going to assume you have some Irish heritage in you.
	Is there any imaginary being that you've ever heard of that you accept does not exist?
	Yes.
	And what would that being be?
	Well, I mean, there's all kinds of mythical creatures that I don't believe exist.
	Okay, give me an example.
	Because leprechaun you've got in the maybe category, but give me one that is not.
	Well, I don't believe that leprechauns exist.
	I may have misphrased what I was saying.
	No, but you said it's possible that they do.
	I see where you're going with this, right?
	Because if it's...
	I can make it easier.
	Because I get...
	Okay, so maybe there's tiny space aliens who call themselves leprechauns or whatever.
	Okay.
	If I say to you, hey man, check it out.
	Do you know this morning I drew a square circle?
	And...
	I mean, that's a contradictory concept, right?
	Of course.
	Something cannot be both a square and a circle.
	And don't give me any of this cylinder crap, people, in YouTube comments.
	Right?
	Squares are two-dimensional.
	Circles are two-dimensional.
	So, if I say to you I have drawn something which is both a square and a circle simultaneously, what would you say?
	I would say that that's impossible.
	Okay.
	Impossible, right?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, not implausible.
	Leprechauns, apparently, you've got implausibility.
	I mean, if you're a taxi driver, if you specifically were a taxi driver, someone called up and said, I'm a leprechaun and I need a ride to the end of the rainbow, you'd say, oh, okay, only if it's really slow.
	I'm just kidding.
	Okay, so square circle, and you would say, that's not true, right?
	Well, this, I mean, yes, of course, it fundamentally violates logic, is the definition of a square and the definition of a circle are not compatible.
	Yeah, it's called a self-detonating statement.
	Like, I don't have to run around and, you know, Check your drawers, right, to find out if it's somewhere in the house, right?
	It's false by definition, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, so when you posit the existence of something, then you must provide proof of that thing's existence, right?
	If someone is to believe you definitively, yes.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	So, for instance, I mean, take a prosaic example.
	Let's say that I'm selling I don't know.
	What was a good year for a Gremlin car?
	79?
	82?
	I have no idea.
	But let's just say it's going to drive some car aficionados nuts.
	I say, listen, I have a classic premium 1982 Gremlin for sale.
	Only 15,000 bitcoins.
	Right?
	And you come...
	To my garage, and there's no car there.
	You're not giving me the bitcoins, right?
	Of course not, no.
	Right.
	Because I have claimed that I have something.
	I have claimed that I have this gremlin, but when you come, there's nothing there, right?
	Yes.
	So making the claim that something exists is not the same as it existing.
	And so if you claim that a deity exists...
	Then it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof for that existence.
	Now, if I say there's a 1982 gremlin in the garage, you open the garage, there's nothing there, is the question unresolved, or is it resolved, of the gremlin's existence in the garage?
	No, it's definitely resolved, yes.
	Okay, okay.
	So, if you are saying to me that a deity exists, It is incumbent upon you to show me the empirical evidence of its objective existence.
	Yeah, so if I'm to expect you to believe definitively that it exists, then I would have to provide evidence.
	Proof, rather.
	Correct.
	And if you cannot, then it does not exist.
	See, there's a fundamental difference between the gremlin and a deity of some kind.
	Because the existence of the gremlin is...
	Interesting, but it doesn't solve problems like how the universe came into being and how...
	No, no, no.
	Let's go back in the question.
	The deity only solves the question of where the universe came from if you accept the deity exists already.
	If the deity doesn't exist, it doesn't do anything to solve that question.
	Fair enough.
	The utility of the existence of something.
	Like if I say, I really, really need a getaway car because I just robbed a bank.
	Okay, I really...
	Like, it would be incredibly useful for me to have that getaway car, but that doesn't summit it into existence, right?
	The utility of the existence of something has no bearing on its actual existence or not, right?
	Yes.
	And I look...
	First of all, let me just pause for a second as well, Parker, and say, you are a man of faith.
	That's correct.
	And I fully get...
	That it is not diplomatic of me to compare God to a gremlin.
	I just want to pause to acknowledge that.
	And I really don't mean it as any kind of slight against your faith.
	Don't believe me, I understand.
	This isn't...
	Okay, and I'm not trying to make it silly or goofy or anything like that.
	It could be a Maserati.
	But, you know, for the people listening, right, it is philosophically there is no difference between the diamond and the pebble in terms of how you establish the existence of one versus the other, right?
	I mean, the methodology for determining the existence of something is irrespective of the content, right?
	I mean, I would say that By the nature of a god.
	I mean, I wouldn't come on your show without even making an attempt to understand what you believe.
	And so I did read some of your book, Against the Gods, and you do pretty much rule out that there could be a god that exists in this universe.
	That's just not possible because it violates physics and time and all this.
	Well, hang on.
	We just sprinted through a pretty dense chapter there, and that's going to cause a lot of people to short-circuit.
	We don't have to review the whole argument.
	But basically, if God exists within the universe, then the existence of God can be empirically measured, right?
	Yes, of course.
	And if the existence of a deity can be objectively and empirically measured and is bound within space and time and subject to all the limitations contained therein, I think that most atheists and theists would accept that that really can't be the same as a god, right?
	Right.
	I used to call him super dude.
	You know, like some astoundingly intelligent...
	Being with powers that seem as supernatural to us as a supersonic airplane would seem to a Neanderthal, right?
	Sounds about right, actually, yeah.
	Yeah, so, I mean, a hugely advanced...
	Biological intelligence of some kind, even if it had transferred itself to some giant crystal computer that could roam about the galaxy on the smug pugs of Leonardo DiCaprio's smugness about global warming.
	Actually, that would probably be faster than light.
	However advanced An intelligence would be that had evolved and been part of the universe, we would not put that in the category of a deity, right?
	Yes.
	So the deity has to be outside of the universe, and certainly in order to create the universe we would expect that.
	I mean, the mother doesn't end up inside her baby, right?
	The baby's got to be contained within the mother.
	The mother has to be bigger than the baby to produce the baby.
	So the deity has to exist outside the universe.
	The problem is, of course, that outside the universe has exactly the same characteristics as non-existence.
	Like when we say something doesn't exist, and we say that something is outside the universe, they have exactly the same epistemological or metaphysical even reality definition.
	In other words, how would I know the difference between something which doesn't exist?
	Okay, something doesn't exist.
	We can't measure it.
	We can't locate it.
	We can't find either any tangible evidence of it or its effects.
	We can't do anything with it.
	It's exactly the same as it not being there.
	I would say...
	That's non-existent.
	And outside the universe, it's the same.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I was going to say that the evidence, if there is any, of Aditya is the universe itself.
	I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please?
	The evidence, I mean, obviously, if a data exists outside the universe, then it cannot be observed, right?
	But the evidence of its existence, if there is any, I would say, is...
	You'd be remiss to leave out the existence of the universe and life itself.
	I think that the existence of the universe, and particularly life, as life specifically is evidence of the existence of a data.
	Maybe not proof, of course.
	I wouldn't try to say that that's proof of anything, but it is evidence.
	Well, I don't know that.
	I don't know that.
	And, I mean, I just had a conversation a show or two ago about a guy.
	We talked about this idea that the universe is evidence of a deity, that, you know, things which come into being must have been caused to come into being and so on.
	And I don't want to sort of repeat all the arguments that From that show, but I don't think that we can get a deity from the universe.
	Certainly not in any conclusive way, and certainly not in any way that would lead to any kind of religion.
	Are you saying that the universe is not definitive proof?
	Well, I don't know.
	Since we don't know exactly where the universe came from, any speculation is futile.
	I mean, what we should continue to do is continue to push back the boundaries of physics until we can get closer to the beginning of the universe and try and figure out what's going on and so on.
	But where we don't know, we should simply accept that we don't know.
	It's this old idea that if you're in a house, there's a locked door.
	You've never been to the house before, right?
	There's a locked door.
	What's on the other side of that door?
	Well, you can speculate if you want.
	But until you open the door and go through, maybe it's just a wall, right?
	Maybe it's a secret famous five-style tunnel.
	But you simply can't.
	I mean, what was before the universe?
	Was the universe caused to come into existence?
	I mean, they're simply unanswerable questions because we don't know.
	And the urge that we have, and I just talked about this with The Last Caller, of course, The urge that we have, not knowing is uncomfortable.
	And there's two ways of solving that discomfort, right?
	I guess three.
	One is try and train yourself to not be bothered by things you don't know.
	I guess that's important.
	And number two is work with reason and evidence and science to try and uncover as many answers as possible.
	Or three, make up an answer.
	And, um, I think one is important.
	I mean, I honestly tell you, I mean, I know this is supposed to be some big philosophical question.
	I can't even remember any time in my life where I've been troubled by not knowing where the universe came from.
	I mean, honestly, maybe I'm just this blank, squalid, fossilized, massive, uncurious blob of biosphere or something, but I honestly, I've never...
	I mean, there are so many troubles in the world to focus on in the here and now.
	That, you know, peaceful parenting, national debts, war, ethnic conflicts, like all the stuff that's going on in the world right now, these are things I think that demand the attention of good people, and I know that they get your attention as well, so I'm not trying to put us on opposite sides of the wall as far as that goes.
	But Honestly, I've never...
	I mean, I think at times, because I'm interested in physics, and, you know, it's pretty cool to think, you know, where did it...
	You know, but I don't think I've ever been, like, troubled.
	And I've certainly never felt that knowing the origins of the universe, you know, the backstory of the matter, I don't know that that would...
	I'm not sure fundamentally what that would change in me.
	I'm just telling you sort of my...
	There's not any kind of philosophical argument, just so you know.
	But I do know, of course, that there are people to whom the origins of the universe are very important.
	It's just, you know, 14 and a half billion years ago, whatever it is, that's a long time.
	And I don't think that knowing the origins of the universe would change one piece of matter in the current universe because the physical laws are the physical laws.
	And I don't think it would change any of the moral That would be important to both of us, you know, working to eliminate violence and corruption and deception and fraud and aggression and manipulation and abuse.
	I mean, all the things that we would, you know, honest, good-hearted atheist Christians, you name it, would be interested.
	I don't know that the origin story of the universe would affect any of that in practical terms.
	I would agree with you that it does not.
	I think it's just...
	Something to look to.
	If whatever your belief system is doesn't somehow explain that, then I would say that it calls into question the validity of your belief system.
	Right.
	So I think that's why.
	It doesn't particularly trouble me either.
	It's more bothersome questions like what happens after death, given that death is one of the more common fears.
	I don't really think that It doesn't bother a lot of people how the universe ends up being, but it's particularly interesting because of the mystery of it.
	Well, but it is tough for religious people.
	Because science, of course, has answered a lot of questions that were formerly the province of religion, right?
	And I certainly don't mean by this specifically Christianity, but I mean, you know, there used to be stories about why there were volcanoes erupting.
	There used to be stories about why the lightning flashed and the thunder rumbled.
	And there used to be, you know, the origins of life or at least how life came to be in its current form and so on.
	And what is disease?
	And so on.
	And epilepsy was considered possession by some in the past.
	And so now, science has answered a good deal of these.
	And, you know, God seems to be moving further and further back, right?
	Just over the horizon of where we don't know stuff yet.
	That's where God goes.
	And now he's kind of retreated back to the very origin part of the universe.
	And that's where a lot of people are Still hoping that there could be room.
	And that's why I think that for people of faith, people who believe in a deity, it's the origins of the universe that become more important than for others.
	Sure.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	So, yeah, so I mean this idea that it's sort of a stalemate between those who say there is a God and those who say there isn't, Isn't that it's like we just have to agree to disagree or throw up our hands and that there remains philosophically room for ambiguity?
	I don't think is valid because this is not how we explain things.
	To kids, right?
	I mean, if my daughter, if she hasn't, but if she would have come into my room at night, screaming and crying, Daddy, Daddy, there's a monster under my bed, right?
	You know, most dads, they poke under the bed with a broomstick, they lift up the bed, see, there's nothing there, right?
	There's no monster under your bed.
	And I don't think it would be healthy or right to say to your daughter, well, I can't see one.
	I can't feel one.
	I can't smell one.
	But there might be.
	There might be a monster under your bed.
	So try and get some sleep, okay?
	No, we would do the empirical test, right?
	Well, I mean, yes, that's what we're comfortable with, right?
	This is why the concept of faith is so uncomfortable, is because your empirical observations of the world are irrelevant.
	So, right.
	Well, no, no, no, they're not irrelevant.
	They're countered.
	I'm sorry, you cut out?
	It's not that they're irrelevant.
	You cut out their first thing, you say they're counter-relevant?
	Well, they're countered, right?
	It's not that they're not applicable.
	It's that the opposite is applicable.
	See, this is that for which there is no sense, evidence, or rational consistency is that which is both incorrect and non-existent, according to every bit of rational epistemology that there is.
	So if it is logically self-contradictory, then it is invalid, right?
	And false as a proposition.
	And if it is...
	So if existence is claimed for which there is no empirical evidence, then the existence is unconfirmed.
	If existence is claimed for which empirical evidence can never be ascertained, then existence can never be achieved.
	It can never exist.
	I mean, it's the old trick where I say I have an invisible spider on my head and you say, well, I'll just touch it then.
	And I say, well, not only is it invisible, you can't even touch it.
	Okay, well, I'll try infrared, you know, whatever test you come up with.
	I say, you can't detect it until there's no conceivable test by which this invisible spider can be detected.
	At which point you can reasonably say to me, well, Steph, what is the difference?
	Between this invisible spider and there not being a spider.
	And I say there's no difference, but you must still believe in the invisible spider.
	This is, right, it makes no sense.
	It's not just that your sense data doesn't apply.
	It's directly countered because in every other circumstance you would say, well, that's non-existence.
	But with a deity you have to create a special category, an exception, which counteracts everything else that your sense data has told you.
	So it's in opposition to sense data and empirical rationality.
	Fair enough.
	Yeah, that's a fair point.
	It's just...
	I'm just not convinced by it, right?
	I just can't be convinced because I can't prove definitively that something exists.
	It does not exist.
	Well, now you see, but now you're restructuring.
	He's restating the argument in emotional terms.
	Because it proved affinity that something exists?
	Because, okay, they're trying to find a tenth planet or something out there now, right?
	A ninth planet.
	Pluto got downgraded to a dwarf planet.
	But they've found evidence of some ninth planet out there.
	Now, have they conclusively proved that it exists?
	No.
	Does that mean it doesn't exist?
	Of course not.
	So what's the difference?
	Well, the difference is the planet is not a square circle.
	Right?
	The planet is not a self-contradictory entity.
	How is a deity self-contradictory?
	Lord, how is a deity not self-contradictory?
	So God is all-powerful?
	Yes.
	And God is all-knowing?
	Yes.
	I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt, but I should mention that it is bound within his nature.
	He cannot, for example, sin.
	So, not all-powerful?
	Not entirely all-powerful, yeah.
	Well, that's kind of binary, right?
	All-powerful is, you know...
	A binary.
	So God doesn't have free will because God cannot choose to sin.
	Now if God cannot sin, can we actually call God virtuous if he's never tempted?
	Those are more ethical questions.
	So God knows everything that's going to happen in the future, right?
	Yes.
	And is God capable of changing what happens in the future?
	I suppose.
	Okay, but then God can't know what's going to happen in the future.
	Why is that?
	Because I cannot know for certain that I'm going to climb to the top of the CN Tower tomorrow and also choose whether I want to climb up the CN Tower tomorrow or do something else.
	Both those conditions can't be true.
	If I know 100% for sure that I'm going to climb to the top of the CN Tower tomorrow, I cannot change what I'm going to do tomorrow without invalidating my certain knowledge of the future.
	The problem is that you, being a person, are bound by time.
	I understand that you have an argument for this, and I expect I'll be hearing it, but God cannot be inside of time.
	Well, time is a force of this world, right?
	So if we can agree that if there is a God, I understand that you don't believe that, but if we can agree that there is, for the sake of debate, Then he cannot be subjected to time because time is a construct of this universe in which we live.
	It's a force of physics, right?
	Okay, fine.
	That's fine.
	So does God know what I'm going to do tomorrow?
	Yes.
	Can God change what I'm going to do tomorrow?
	He could, but he does not.
	What do you mean he could, but he does not?
	God allows us free will, right?
	This is Well, no.
	If he knows what I'm going to do tomorrow, how can I have free will?
	Well, knowing is not the same thing as controlling.
	No, no.
	Come on.
	If God knows exactly what I'm going to do tomorrow, how can I have free will?
	How does his knowing something impede your free will?
	Because...
	He already knows what my choice is going to be.
	So how can it really be a choice?
	Because you...
	I mean, if what I'm doing tomorrow is foreordained in the mind of God, how can the choice be mine?
	Well, I mean, the understanding that he knows what you're going to choose, right?
	You're still choosing.
	Him knowing what you're going to choose is not the same thing as him deciding for you.
	No, I don't think there's any decision.
	If he knows with 100% certainty what I'm going to do tomorrow, then claiming that I have choice in the matter, I'm just curious if you find any...
	Can you understand why that question might be challenging for people?
	Because you seem very glib, like, well, no, no, no.
	But, I mean, if you take sort of the religious background out of it, it is a troublesome question, right?
	Like if I said to someone, because it's determinism, right?
	If I said to someone, well, you have no...
	Choices, because you're just atoms moving according to the laws of physics, right?
	Your brain is not magically excluded from the laws of physics, and therefore what you do tomorrow is completely foreordained just by the laws of physics.
	But you are morally responsible for what you do.
	That would be a challenge, right?
	Because I'd be saying, there's no such thing as choice, but you have a choice.
	And you're accountable for it, sure.
	Something of a paradox there.
	Yeah.
	And I believe in free will.
	I mean, this is one thing I love about Christians in particular.
	Maybe it's just affinity to the religion that I was raised in, but...
	The nihilism involved in...
	I would rather be a Christian and accept free will than an atheist if it meant determinism.
	I'd be like, flocking to you guys, thundering from the pulpit, you name it.
	So, you know, I will sacrifice physics to save God if by saving God is the only way to save free will.
	Not that I believe that's a necessary choice, but I'm just telling you where my investment is.
	I've got a three-part series on free will I did some years ago.
	Which people can check out if they want at youtube.com slash freedomainradio.
	But yeah, if God knows everything I'm going to do tomorrow, first of all, free will is a bit of a challenge.
	And secondly, If he is capable of changing what I'm going to do tomorrow, then he can't be 100% certain.
	Now, if he's not capable of changing what I'm going to do tomorrow, first of all, free will becomes a problem, and secondly, he's not all-powerful.
	See, knowledge and power cannot both be at 100%.
	The higher up one goes, the lower the other one goes.
	And now you said God's outside of time, sure, but I'm not.
	Outside of time?
	I'm not out of time.
	Right.
	And so even if we just say God's knowledge of me within the time continuum that I exist in, well, it still doesn't solve.
	You can say God's outside of time, but I'm not.
	And so If he knows what I'm going to do tomorrow, he can't change it.
	And this is why omniscience is just one of many problems.
	But this is why omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory characteristics.
	Or properties.
	First of all, I'd say that it's kind of difficult to say that...
	I mean, you can't even really conceptualize being outside of time.
	Because we just don't even know what that's like.
	But I'm...
	And so I think that they kind of...
	It makes it sound as though God first understands you tomorrow and then afterwards.
	But if God's outside of time, then there is no afterwards.
	And so I don't even, as a person who's never experienced being outside of time, I can't even understand how that works.
	How can you have before and after outside of time?
	But I would actually, I'm not sure I understand what contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience is.
	Well, of course, if you remove...
	The restriction of time, then the question, as you say, becomes somewhat meaningless, right?
	What question?
	But that's like saying, existence, if I remove the concept of tangibility, but retain the concept of existence versus non-existence, well, the whole point of existence versus non-existence is tangibility.
	Can it be measured in some objective empirical fashion, right?
	And so, if I say I want to remove the concept of tangibility from the question of existence versus non-existence, okay, you can say, well, the question becomes moot, but you've just rendered the whole thing incomprehensible by taking away the one central part that makes sense of anything, right?
	With regards to all of this, right?
	And so, if you say, well, omniscience and omnipotence have problems in terms of future...
	Knowledge and future choice, but I'm going to remove the element of time.
	Okay, but once you remove the element of time, all you've done is taken away a standard of proof.
	You haven't disproven anything.
	Like, so if I say to you, the gremlin, 82 gremlin in my garage, you say, well, I can't touch it.
	I can't find it.
	It doesn't exist.
	And I say, well, Let's say that the tangibility, if I remove the equation of tangibility, if I remove the requirement for tangibility, can you say that it does or doesn't exist?
	No.
	It becomes incomprehensible, right?
	The whole standard is tangibility, right?
	So if I say, well, let's decide on the gremlin's existence or non-existence with no reference to tangibility.
	All I'm doing is I'm removing a standard of proof.
	I'm not, right, do you know what I mean?
	Like, I'm just taking stuff away.
	I'm not adding anything.
	Right, which is why theism requires faith.
	Because if you were going to choose, in this analogy, that the gremlin does exist and is intangible, then that's a leap of faith, right?
	Because you cannot prove that.
	Well, it's not that...
	No, you can prove that the gremlin doesn't exist.
	Right?
	I mean, if you bring in every single conceivable recording capacity that whatever, right?
	I mean, just walk through the damn thing, right?
	You can't walk through a gremlin, right?
	Right?
	So you can prove that the gremlin doesn't exist in the garage.
	That's easy, right?
	We do that all the time, right?
	I mean, I don't sit there groping at a grocery shelf when there's no bread.
	Oh, maybe there's invisible bread.
	I've got to go get my infrared camera.
	Maybe I'll get my night vision goggles, you know?
	I need a tachyon scanner, right?
	I mean, maybe there's Elf bread.
	You know what I mean?
	Like I just, oh there's no bread.
	We do this all the time.
	I don't go into a parking spot in my car and find an invisible gremlin there, right?
	I know where the parking spot is because there's a gap, right?
	We know what non-existence is very easily.
	I mean at least in tangible stuff, right?
	Yes.
	And so it's not, well, you know, I can't quite prove that the gremlin doesn't exist, so maybe it kind of exists, I'll have faith in it.
	According to every method of proven non-proof existence or non-existence, there's no gremlin there if you can walk through it and whatever, right?
	If you can't see it, you can't feel it, it doesn't show up, it's not there, right?
	It's not there and not there, it's not ambiguous, it's not maybe, maybe not, it's not there.
	And you can create a separate category For a deity where you say, I'm going to remove all the standards, but then you can't use things like proof or disproof or anything like that.
	Like, if I take away tangibility as evidence for or against the existence of something, I can throw away tangibility, but then I also have to throw away the concept of existence of that thing, right?
	But what theists do is they say, well, I want to get rid of time, I want to get rid of cause and effect, I want there to be Some bound within itself entity, so they're throwing away standards, but then they still use terms like proof or disproof.
	It's like, no, you've just taken away all the standards of proof or disproof, so you can't use those words anymore.
	Why would not?
	And that's closer to faith, as far as I understand it, right?
	I wouldn't use words for disproof to describe a God, because obviously it cannot be proved or disproved.
	No, so you just did it again.
	If you've taken away all standards of proof or disproof, it's outside the universe, it's outside of time, it requires faith, then saying proof or disproof, it can't be proved or disproved, you can't even say that.
	I see what you're saying.
	Because you've taken away all the language that is involved in proof or disproof, so you can't use the proof or disproof anymore.
	It then just, you have to retreat to, and you will, sooner or later, because what happens is in rational debates with theists, they try the rational arguments, They're disproven, and you know what comes next, right?
	I'll be honest.
	It's faith.
	Yeah, right, yeah.
	It's faith, and that's perfectly, it's not philosophically understand, it's not my thing, to put it mildly, but that's where it has to go to.
	It has to be, I believe, because there's no reason.
	There's no reasons, there's no rationality, there's no empiricism, there's no cause and effect that I believe.
	It's a standalone thing.
	I don't mean standalone.
	There's no prop in reality by which you can plant the base of that thing.
	I've heard this argument before, and it's just never been described in such depth that I could actually understand it.
	So that's certainly interesting.
	I am the epistemology whisperer.
	I am.
	I mean, the number of messages I get where it's like, A, I thought philosophy was totally boring until I realized I could get the shit kicked out of me for saying the wrong thing in public.
	I thought philosophy was boring until I got fired.
	Until my friends all hated me.
	Whatever, right?
	But yeah, I mean, I have a pretty good ability to try and...
	And this is the job, you know?
	This is the job to me.
	Is...
	Get people to understand the arguments.
	Look, I mean, first of all, hugely respect you for having this conversation.
	I wish more atheists would speak as reasonably about the state as you do about atheism.
	And that total props to you.
	I mean, I've enjoyed the conversation.
	It has been helpful to you.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I've very much enjoyed it.
	Anytime I hear another perspective.
	It's been killer.
	Yeah, kick ass.
	It's been killer.
	And it's been civil, right?
	I mean, we're not yelling at each other.
	I mean, I don't think I could with my voice right now, but even if I wanted to, right?
	It's been an enjoyable conversation.
	I've learned something.
	I've learned a new way to approach it, and I've had some challenges in the conversation.
	I've had to think on my feet.
	You're a good person to debate these ideas with.
	It's been positive, productive, and we've at least understood each other's position, which is the first step towards Any kind of rapprochement?
	And, man, you try going to talk to atheists about feminism or the state, do you think it goes like this?
	I've never tried, so I can't say that I know.
	Well, I tell you what.
	Go look up Gamergate.
	Gamergate.
	Yeah, Gamergate.
	G-A-M-E-R? G-A-T-E? Will do.
	And see how.
	It's not all about atheism or anything like that, but yeah, they're not just social justice warriors.
	A lot of them are atheists, right?
	But anyway.
	There's one more thing that I would like to ask you, just out of pure curiosity, because of all the things, I think there's one particular thing that I find very difficult to...
	I've tried myself, and I can't really answer it without an understanding in Christianity, and that is, what do you think happened Three days after Jesus of Nazareth was killed.
	Well, I think that somebody robbed the tomb.
	And who do you think that was?
	Oh boy, you're trying to Harry Bosch me on this 2,000-year-old murder mystery.
	Well, I mean, there's two theories that I've heard, and the first one is the Romans.
	You are much better of an expert than I am at this, so go.
	Yes, so there's two people who I've heard explanations of who robbed the tomb, or at least people suggest.
	The first one's the Romans, and the second one is the original Christians.
	I'm just going to rule the Romans out, because that would have...
	I mean, it's kind of ridiculous to say that they had the body the whole time, they have this thorn in their side of the Christian church, and they couldn't...
	I mean, they could have easily just presented the body to them and said, you idiots, here's your dead God, right?
	And so I'd say that the Romans could not have conceivably been the robbers if there were robbers.
	And so then the only other people that I can think were the original Christians.
	And then they lied about how they saw Jesus again.
	They're certainly some of the best orators.
	I mean, whatever happened, I think we can agree.
	Because I can't think of any explanation of what happened that is not the most profound thing in human history of some kind.
	Obviously, if he's the Son of God, then that's the most profound thing in human history.
	But even if the original Christian is wrong, that's one of the best robberies ever.
	And there's some of the best orators ever for convincing so many people that, in fact, Jesus was alive when he was dead.
	And there's some of the best con artists.
	And so, you know, I think it's interesting, even if you don't...
	Believe that Jesus is the son of God or that he rose from the dead or any of that just simply because something very very profound happened and Yeah, I think that it's kind of hard to say that even the original Christians robbed the tomb because They they would have had to first of all hide at the body somewhere where no one would have found it but then they also had to Convince or very,
	very well fake documents suggesting that hundreds of people saw Jesus after he definitely killed, right?
	And how they robbed the tomb in the first place is another matter of debate.
	Right.
	Well, I can tell you what I think, and please understand this is Total idiot armchair theology for me, so take it with all a complete grain of salt, but I can tell you, Parker, what I think one of the emotional drivers was behind the origins of Christianity and why it was so astoundingly powerful and remains so throughout the world to this day, is that polytheism is moral relativism.
	And The avenues of the gods that infested the increasingly secular Roman world back in the day.
	You know, it was a buffet, right?
	You could go and pick whatever gods you wanted and they all had different rules and so on.
	But that is the theological equivalent of radical moral relativism.
	None of these religions Claimed to be the absolute, true, and universal truth.
	That was the Christians who came along and said, these are the false gods.
	These are leading you astray.
	There is one true God, and Jesus is his son.
	And right now, it is the same motivation, I think, that motivated the early Christians.
	It's the same motivation that motivates me.
	Which is...
	I am literally and viscerally repulsed by relativism.
	Relative truth, you mean?
	Yeah.
	There's no such thing as right and wrong.
	There's no such thing as good and bad.
	It makes me cringe.
	Morality is just a cultural opinion and who are you to say who's right and who's wrong and who's good and who's bad and you've got to chillax and, you know, just let things hang out and don't be such a square and, you know, Like all of this, vile, vile.
	It's like antifreeze in the blood.
	It tastes good on the tongue and kills you in the inner.
	Indeed.
	And moral relativism is the natural result of expanding state power.
	Expanding state power must produce moral relativism, which in turn produces expanding state power.
	Because it divides human beings into the makers and the takers, as I've talked about before, the people who produce stuff and then the people who use the power of the state to take stuff from them.
	And in order to avoid the bad conscience that they have for being violent, aorta-sucking parasites, they have to pretend that there's no such thing as right and wrong.
	I mean, people who do good are not afraid of objective standards of right and wrong.
	Evil people are terrified of objective standards of right and wrong, which is why when a philosopher comes along who dares to espouse objective morality, all but the good attack that person.
	Let's continue all throughout history.
	And it is so repulsive, moral relativism, that people feel That it unravels the very physics of civilization itself.
	It's like the soft ash that covers Pompeii.
	It's like the gentle tremors that eventually bring down a building, though it can be years as the rot and creaking spreads through its foundation.
	Moral relativism is the sinkhole that sucks down the entire cathedral of civilization.
	And it's cowards and lazy people and greedy people and parasitical people of every class, rich, middle, poor, every gender, people who want to slimily avoid the consequences of their own mistakes, people who want to force other people to pay for their own bad decisions and then pretend there's no such thing as right and wrong.
	Moral relativism rots everything because it's so hypocritical.
	I mean, I think it's fair to say that we live in an age of moral relativism right now, and yet, if you go against the leftist, fascist, social justice warriors, they'll scream that you're racist, sexist, phobic this, misogynist that.
	So they say there's no such thing as right and wrong, but if you cross them, they have temper tantrums about how bad you are.
	Sure.
	And so there's such hypocrisy and it just dissolves and disintegrates everything.
	Until I think this may be something that's happening to Europe at the moment.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I honestly don't know whether Europe should be saved or not.
	I don't know.
	I'm torn.
	That's a topic for another time.
	It's a big topic.
	But I honestly don't know whether it deserves saving.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	It's like that old line from Fight Club.
	I hate the panda bears that won't even fuck to save their own species.
	And I think in late Rome, the welfare state, the warfare state, the imperialism, you know, all of the characteristics that many people have talked about as being in common with the late United States imperial empire.
	It's so fragmented and so gross and so hypocritical and so hysterical, all this moral relativism.
	Because moral relativists should be anarchists, right?
	Logically.
	If you're an extreme moral relativist, then there's no such thing as any rules, so there should be no laws, no governments, no infliction of any rules upon anyone else.
	But they're not.
	Moral relativists are so totalitarian.
	It's insane.
	But that's because they want to sell sex, drugs, and rock and roll to our selected people in exchange for economic freedoms, which our selected people are very, very keen to make that trade.
	Well, sure.
	You have to have some kind of paradox in order to convince someone that that's a good idea.
	And so I think that there was a deep instinct late in the Roman Empire that moral relativism Was causing the end of civilization as it stood.
	And they weren't wrong.
	They weren't wrong.
	And I think there was not anyone there who could create and permalgate a system of philosophy that could replace moral relativism, that could challenge and attack moral relativism, which is why I worked so hard on universally preferable behavior and why I still take calls on it now,
	years after the book's out, and I'm idly working on a, or in spare moments, working on a sequel or an update, but there was a desperate need to fight back against moral relativism.
	And if you've got to play Weekend at Bernie's with the Jewish zombie, prop it up and pretend it's still preaching in order to save civilization by giving people something to rally around.
	That wasn't cynical, snarling, empty-headed relativism.
	There's such a hunger for that in people.
	I think there's a hunger for it now, which is one of the reasons behind someone like Donald Trump.
	I mean, people are just sick and tired of all this moral relativism, which is fascism in disguise.
	And not even that much disguise anymore if you look at campuses.
	So I think that the fact that the Christians said, to hell with this moral relativism.
	This avenue of temples, this buffet, this pick what you want, this choose, forget it.
	This is the demons.
	This is wrong.
	There is one truth, one virtue, one morality, one son of God.
	And people's revulsion at moral relativism And desperate and civilization-protecting thirst for a universal moral truth, I believe, was the driving force.
	They weren't trying to resurrect Jesus.
	They were trying to resurrect Rome.
	And Jesus was the vehicle.
	And they, I think, extended the life of the empire another couple hundred years.
	Interesting.
	Utterly unprovable, I'm sure, but it's just my thought.
	Yeah, sure.
	It's the first time I've ever heard that one before.
	Alright, I've got to move on to the next caller, but I really appreciate your call.
	You're welcome back anytime, and thank you so much.
	Yeah, thanks so much for having me, Stefan.
	Thanks, Mark.
	Best wishes.
	Take care.
	Alright, well up next is Ben.
	Ben wrote in and said, I was raised in a spare the rod, spoil the child kind of household.
	Now I'm a parent of a five-year-old and was wondering about how to avoid the pitfalls that many perceive in the type of parenting that your show is discussing.
	How do you apply a doctrine of a lack of classical discipline for children while still giving them the tools necessary to survive in our flawed society?
	That's from Ben.
	Hello, Ben.
	How are you doing?
	I'm well, sir.
	How are you?
	Well, thank you.
	Do you have any particular circumstances in mind or situations?
	Well, I mean, I guess I should say, you know, foundationally, my biggest fear is somehow screwing up my child by not, you know, Kind of properly equipping her to deal with a world that is decidedly imperfect.
	And, you know, I mentioned spoiler rod, or excuse me, spare the rod, spoil the child, you know, pretty intentionally.
	And that was the kind of household that I was raised in.
	And so I sort of just, you know, the other, I guess the best way is to give you an example.
	You know, the other day, We told her to go brush her teeth, and she wasn't a fan of her toothpaste.
	We tried a couple different flavors to kind of get her into it, and it just wasn't happening.
	She didn't want to do it, and we told her, well, we're sorry, we have to anyway.
	It's sort of a really pretty minor thing, escalated pretty quickly into her screaming and shouting.
	I guess I just wonder how you deal with that.
	If you eliminate spanking as the big gun, how do you deal with that?
	That's a fine example of the larger problem in my mind, which is that at some point she's going to be told no and there's going to be hard knocks of life coming.
	I just worry about You know, how to equip or to deal with that while also being conscious of the fact that, you know, I don't think spanking has been the last resort for me.
	It's only happened a few times and I've never felt good about it.
	Right.
	Give me more details about how it Okay.
	She, you know, she kind of began, you know, crying over, you know, the fact that we were going to make her brush her teeth and she, you know, she's a very sweet kid.
	She's a very gentle soul and she gets upset, you know, pretty easily.
	And so she quickly started crying and efforts to console her were We're futile, you know, and it was getting well on past bedtime and it sort of came to a point where, you know, I just kind of had to tell her, I'm sorry you don't like this, sweetie, but you just have to do it, you know, and she went from mildly upset to extremely upset and, you know, pretty much screamed no.
	And so, you know, I explained to her that, you know, this is I'm sorry, honey, this just has to happen.
	You know, you have to brush your teeth.
	And she was just not calming down.
	So, you know, I told her, well, honey, why don't you, you know, why don't you go in your room and sit and relax for a few minutes while you calm down?
	And, you know, she again screamed no.
	And, you know, she didn't want to do that either.
	And it just kind of, it turned into a shit show pretty quickly.
	Right, right.
	Is she five going on six?
	Right.
	How well does she understand why she needs to brush her teeth?
	I think pretty well.
	I make a pretty concerted effort in all things to try to, you know, use reason with her and try to help her understand cause and effect and things like that.
	So, you know, I'm quite certain that we've explicitly told her, you know, You know, you have to brush your teeth, otherwise you're going to get cavities and, you know, it's going to be bad.
	It's going to be painful and, you know, that kind of thing.
	Yeah.
	I mean, cavities is pretty abstract.
	I don't know if you've, like, if you've drawn it out, has she seen any videos, like the bugs that sit in your teeth and eat your enamel?
	Well, you know, the Does she viscerally get why it's important?
	And also, the way that you know if a child has viscerally got something is that they agree that it's necessary.
	Because if you can't get a child's agreement, Ahead of time, then you're left with these kinds of situations.
	Now, getting a child's agreement doesn't mean it's always going to go perfectly.
	But, you know, has she accepted and said, you know, I understand why and I will.
	I promise to brush my teeth, you know, twice a day or whatever, right?
	You know what?
	No, I think you may have a point there.
	Perhaps I need to get a little more visceral in my explanation to her of why that stuff's important.
	Yeah, because if she understands, then you're not imposing your will on her.
	Right.
	Right.
	Like, I mean, you know, you could say if, you know, if you were standing at the bottom of a hill and there was a rock coming down the hill and it was going to bump you and I grabbed you out of the way, At first, she'd be like, what would you be?
	And she'd be like, I'd be mad, you grabbed me, right?
	But then if I pointed out the rock, you'd say, well, thank you, right?
	Sure.
	So it's all about her understanding of the cause and effect.
	I think my guess would be that if she's saying, I don't want to brush my teeth, what she's saying is, I don't want to do something just because you're telling me to.
	Sure.
	Which is actually something you want in your child, for the most part, you know, if you want to raise them to be successful.
	No, absolutely.
	In a world where, you know, independent thinking and resistance to blind, anyone can raise children to be obedient.
	That's like, you just yell at them and threaten them and punish them and just keep escalating until they comply.
	That's easy as pie.
	Yeah, I guess there's a bit of...
	But raising them too, right?
	Go ahead.
	You're right.
	I guess there's a bit of a double standard in my mind because I want her to question authority except for where it's my authority because I guess I just want her to trust that I always have her best interest in mind.
	But you don't want her to do anything just because you're you.
	Right.
	I mean, I've told this to my daughter repeatedly, like, don't Don't do something just because I'm telling you to.
	Right?
	I mean, always ask, right?
	Sure.
	And, you know, but the thing is that, you know, and that's the funny thing is that I'm guessing, like you, like most dads, You're busy as hell, right?
	Yeah.
	And so you say, a lot of times we say, I don't have time to sit down and for 20 minutes go over exactly what happens when bacteria gets into teeth and gums and all that kind of stuff, right?
	I don't want to show her where the nerve is and where it goes, and I don't want to show her pictures of British smiles or whatever, right?
	Right.
	And so the funny thing is, I don't have 20 minutes for that, but somehow we have time for an hour meltdown later, you know what I mean?
	Right.
	And so, to me, the parenting stuff, it's all about prevention.
	It's all about...
	Now, once you have agreement, and it's in the realm of promise, and of course, you know, I know if you're listening to this show, you're working hard to keep your promises, explaining if you can.
	Oh, that's been a long theme throughout her childhood, is I always, you know, always keep my word with her.
	Always.
	Always.
	Good.
	Well, that's perfect.
	So then you need to find a way to get her to commit out of knowledge to brushing her teeth.
	Sure.
	And once she does that, then you do, you know, she can resist and all that, and you can say, but you promised.
	Right.
	We had a promise.
	And I always say to my daughter, look, you can change things.
	Your commitment to me.
	Like if you've promised to do something to me, you can change your commitment to me.
	But we have to talk about it beforehand.
	You can't just change it in the moment.
	Especially you can't change it without reference to the fact that you've promised.
	And so if she wants to change the deal, we say, okay, well we'll talk about it tomorrow.
	We can't change the deal right now.
	Because we can't change it just before you go to bed.
	We'll talk about it tomorrow, whatever.
	So that's, yeah, number one is it's all about the preparation.
	You know, spend...
	So much of parenting, it becomes a vicious circle because you spend so much time playing catch-up to a lack of preparation that you then never have any time to prepare for the next one.
	Do you know what I mean?
	I don't mean you, I just mean parents in general.
	I'm sure this is...
	The preparation is key and just laboriously going through and explaining it until they understand.
	And to be honest, I say to my daughter, I don't like brushing my teeth.
	Okay, well, occasionally if I've had food with an aftertaste, it's nice getting that shiny feeling.
	But it's like going to the dentist who looks forward to it, but it's just something you've got to do.
	And so if you're like, I don't like Brushing my teeth either, if sympathize, because, you know, who does, right?
	I've definitely had that.
	And this is something we, you know.
	And I also say to her that she never has to brush her teeth if she never eats any sugar.
	Right.
	And, you know, there's kind of truth in that.
	It's not a perfect equation, right?
	Because, you know, there's some stuff that gets kind of sugar in your mouth and all certain kinds of carbs.
	But I say, you know, this is, you know, in life there's things that we like and then there's things that we have to do.
	And if you like a little piece of sugar once in a while, I know I do, then, you know, you have to brush your teeth because that's a pleasure and then you have to do a little bit of work afterwards, right?
	And so once she sort of understands that brushing her teeth is a choice that she makes when she has anything sweet, okay, well then she's choosing to brush her teeth by what she eats, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And the last thing that I would say, and then I'll shut up and tell me what you think, but the last thing that I'll say is this.
	It doesn't matter if she doesn't brush her teeth once.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	Because you're sitting there, she's getting really upset.
	It's perfectly fine to say, you know what?
	Just give me a rinse.
	Switch it around.
	Give me a rinse.
	We'll talk in the morning.
	I find myself getting into this train track.
	I've got to jump the tracks all the time because the way I was raised and you too.
	Someone says jump, you say how high, that kind of stuff.
	I have to constantly jump the tracks.
	And just say, okay, I'm heading towards a pitched battle with my daughter.
	Is this worth it?
	Right.
	Right?
	Okay.
	If she's doing the proverbial running into traffic, sure, it's worth it, right?
	If she goes to bed one night having not brushed her teeth, her teeth will be fine.
	Does that mean, because we have this thing like, okay, well, if I let this standard go, she'll never brush her teeth again, or, you know, it's going to be a huge battle every night and so on, right?
	But I don't think that's the case.
	I think because you left a bruise in your relationship and it wasn't worth it from a keeping her teeth clean standpoint, if that makes sense.
	So to me, if my daughter really doesn't want to do something and it's not that big a deal, even if she agreed to beforehand, it's like, yeah, okay, we'll talk about it tomorrow.
	Sure.
	And I think that gives you some flexibility.
	Sure.
	And it doesn't mean that, and I say to, you know, the next day I'll say, okay, you still have to brush your teeth, but I need to explain why better so that, you know, because the important thing is that you know why you're brushing your teeth, not that you do what I say, right?
	Obviously you know that.
	But you don't surrender the principle if you back down from an instance, but you maintain positivity in the relationship so that she's more receptive to your next message, if that makes sense.
	Well, and the teeth brushing thing was just kind of the latest example.
	I mean, we've had the same kind of, you know, we've had the same kind of meltdowns over, you know, hey, it's, you know, we need to stop watching TV now because we've had enough TV for the day, you know, that kind of thing.
	Well, and that's a bit, you know, when you say we've had enough TV for the day, if she wants to keep watching, that's not a true statement, because we includes her, right?
	You could say that I would really like to have a conversation instead, or I'd like to play cards instead.
	I'd like to do something where we're not just staring at the TV, but we're interacting with each other, like something like that.
	Yeah, I think that's a different approach I can try.
	I'll put that into practice.
	Kids are very good at knowing when something you're saying is not true.
	Right.
	Right, because if it's just you and her in the room and you say, I think we've had enough TV for the day, you're telling her what she's experiencing and it's not true because she wants to keep watching.
	Sure.
	And that's going to annoy her.
	You know, just as Like, if you're right in the middle of watching an exciting film, and your wife walks in and said, I think we've had enough of that, turns it off, what she's really saying is, I've had enough of that.
	But she's including you in that, which is kind of annoying, right?
	Yeah.
	And this is why the relentless honesty and not, you can't even use colloquialism sometimes, like figures of speech or whatever, because kids are very good at knowing when there's clear, understandable honesty coming out of you and when there's not.
	Sorry, you were going to say?
	Oh, no, I was going to say that actually represents a fundamental paradigm shift in the way I view my daughter, really.
	It's interesting because I guess I She is a child, but she's also a little person.
	I don't know.
	It's kind of a different view.
	Oh, it's a completely different view.
	Because this is not the unparenting, which I've sometimes railed against, where the kids can do whatever they want and they'll figure it out for them.
	I don't believe in that.
	If that's the case, let's let them go and get jobs and contribute to the economy, right?
	And, um, so this, you know, guidance without authority, it doesn't give you the easy out of the unparenting, but it also doesn't give you the easy out of just being a bully.
	It's a challenge.
	Well, I'll put it into practice.
	I think, um, I think there's some good advice there.
	And I, I, I may or may not have mentioned in the email, I, um, I sort of viewed this as kind of a microcosm in the issue of the non-aggression principle in that at a certain point, the people who have the power are not going to relinquish that power.
	And I was wondering, maybe sort of tangentially related, what your feeling is about How the non-aggression principle sort of works when you're trying to live in a really free society when those that have power over you will not cede that power willingly.
	Yeah, I mean, they won't cede that power, for sure.
	And, I mean, the only thing, as I've said for a long time, is that We have to continue to talk about the non-aggression principle and objective ethics, and we have to bring the maximum application of those principles in the spheres of life that we have influence over, our friends, our family, our children, our relationships.
	I can't guarantee that that's going to win, but I can guarantee you that it's the best shot we've got.
	And the more people who do it, the more we will win.
	And every person who changes their mind about that is just one more crack in the ceiling.
	Well, I can respect that.
	Well, I really appreciate your time.
	While we're on, I wanted to mention to you that I found your podcast really helpful.
	Sort of helping me apply more thought to everyday life and just really appreciate the work you're doing.
	Well, I appreciate you telling me that and I hugely appreciate the work that you're putting into with your kids.
	I mean, that's what it's all about for me and I really appreciate you letting me know about that.
	And so, yeah, a little bit of a short show tonight, just to save my voice.
	And I look forward to, of course, your support.
	FreedomMainRadio.com slash donate to help us out.
	FDRURL.com slash Amazon to use our affiliate link.
	I look forward to chatting with you again soon and did a really good interview with a very brave lady.
	You can check it out on the channel if you're just listening.
	You probably heard it in the feed, but it's worth having a look.
	It's called The Hidden Rape of Europe.
	Myself with Tony Bugle, T-O-N-I Bugle, which is well worth checking out.
	She's a very brave lady.
	We have a very good chat about what's going on in Europe at the moment.
	Thanks everyone so much for all of your very, very kind support.
	Have a wonderful, wonderful weekend.

▲