Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 8, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:37:03

THE CULT OF ATHEISM!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning everybody welcome to your Sunday morning live and we are alive in the hive and let's get on with your questions.
	Thank you for the tip and we say What's the philosophy behind men driving to really bad rap music with the bass crank to the max?
	Is it safe to assume that these people are total a-holes?
	Well, no, I mean, it's a mating display, right?
	It's a mating display that says, you will be untroubled by classical music if you date me.
	But apparently I'll punch you in the head if you touch my radio.
	So, yeah, it's just a mating display.
	Don't you ever have this?
	So, I bought a car many years ago.
	They called it a sunroof, then they called it a moonroof.
	I just call it the open-air concert.
	Cavity.
	The open-air concert window.
	Because, you know, you're singing along and, you know, sometimes when you're singing along, you don't just want to keep it for yourself, but you want people within a nine-block radio to say, what glorious sound is coming from the red Volvo?
	And so, you know, people who do this kind of stuff, they're putting forward a mating display, saying, it doesn't matter what you say, because I'm not going to have any hearing in three years anyway, so.
	The mating displays are everywhere.
	I don't see people so much, especially young people, I don't see people so much.
	I just see these birds strutting around with their throats puffed out or frogs croaking.
	It's just mating displays everywhere.
	And because people are mating a lot more now than they used to be with a lot more different people, so there's constant mating displays.
	All right.
	Over Easter, my son and I listened to two of your podcast episodes about the Easter story.
	The earlier episode presented a very anti-religious, atheistic point of view, with a negative portrayal of Jesus as a bit of a wimp.
	The latter podcast, on the other hand, presented a moving and deeply metaphysical commentary on the crucifixion story.
	Would you mind giving a brief explanation of your current mindset regarding such matters?
	What is the one word in that question that no mortal would believe?
	What is the one word that nobody would ever believe?
	I will read it again.
	Over Easter my son and I listened to two of your podcast episodes about the Easter story.
	The earlier episode presented a very inter-religious atheistic point of view with a negative portrayal of Jesus as a bit of a wimp.
	Brief!
	Tom's got it.
	Yes!
	A brief explanation of my current mindset regarding Jesus, God, metaphysics, resurrection, virtue, Easter.
	Brief.
	Just, you know.
	There was a masterful telegram that explained Einstein's theory of relativity in 250 words, but no.
	So, is this of interest to people?
	Is this of interest where I stand regarding atheism, God, Jesus?
	I don't know if that's of interest to people or whether we can talk about other topics.
	I could do it on a show that would be, no, not alive, Experience, but something you could consume if you wanted to.
	We can do this or not.
	It's absolutely up to you.
	Everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey.
	I await your feedback.
	You can let me know.
	Is the mic clipping for anybody else?
	I don't think so.
	No, it's not necessarily a rant.
	Not necessarily.
	Not necessarily a rant.
	It could be a rant.
	All right.
	Well, I can tell you a tale of... I can tell a tale of woe.
	Not woe, but woe.
	The tale of woe.
	When I was younger, when I was younger, I believed that scientists and atheists were rational.
	Did you ever go through that phase?
	My phase was fairly lengthy.
	My phase was fairly lengthy of thinking that atheists and scientists were rational.
	But atheism and science is an escape hatch for morality, not an exploration of the universe.
	Atheism and science are ways that people can escape virtue, not ways that people can explore the truth.
	Atheism and science, as it is currently practiced, I'm not talking about the theory of science,
	I'm talking about how science is currently practiced, is fundamentally demonic, satanic,
	and nihilistic.
	And I would rather have the right medicine with the wrong prescription than the wrong
	medicine with the right prescription, so to speak.
	I'm not sure how deep or wide to go into this, because it's not the briefest of conversations, but my awakening as to the perils of science.
	So I read a book many years ago, I actually reviewed it.
	I did a book review for a university in university, Voltaire's Bastards, which shows how reason had harmed and undermined the virtues of the West.
	And of course, I viewed this as ridiculous, as foolish, as wild, as crazy.
	It didn't make any sense at all.
	How could this be?
	How could this be?
	Nonetheless, it remains a true and valid statement to say that science and atheism is fundamentally demonic.
	What did Satan offer the most moral man in human history?
	Jesus wanted Satan.
	He said, I will give you power over the world.
	I will give you power over the world.
	All that you see that exists in the material realm shall be yours to command.
	You shall receive everything.
	Yeah, as Ralston saw, you shall receive everything.
	All you have to do is worship me or bow down before me and I will give you control Over the world, its energies, and all its contents.
	Now, what does science promise us?
	Science promises us power over nature.
	But it denies us authority over ourselves.
	Which is the demonic offering.
	You shall rule the world But lose all authority with yourself.
	All Jesus had to do was to give up morality and he could own and control all the material substances and energies in the universe.
	When he said, when Satan said, all that you see you shall own, Jesus saw the earth.
	The moon, the stars, which are the suns.
	He saw not the world, like you can command and control people.
	Jesus saw all the material and energy in the universe.
	You can have control over nature, but you must demand a control over your own human nature.
	If you evacuate and expel from yourself the angels of morality, in return you shall gain mastery over the world.
	I will give you power over the world in exchange for the power of morality.
	Give me your virtues, I give you power.
	And power corrupts and science and atheism has given us unparalleled power over the material world at the expense of what?
	At the expense of what?
	We now can control nature.
	But we cannot control ourselves.
	There is no restraint to our power over the material.
	But we have no capacity to restrain ourselves because we have no morals to limit our actions.
	And what does the devil offer you?
	Power in exchange for your soul.
	We've lost our souls and we've gained Power over the universe.
	Can you describe how modern science violates self-control?
	Yes, I can.
	To gain power over the universe, we must scrub it of consciousness.
	To gain power over the universe, we must look at it as matter and energy, unblighted by extra-universal concerns, or powers, or thoughts, or impressions.
	We must take God out of the universe to study the universe as material causality.
	To understand the universe, if the universe is encapsulated within the mind of God, to understand the universe, we study the mind of God.
	And of course, as I mentioned before, a lot of early scientists felt that they were studying the mind of God by
	studying the properties and principles of the universe.
	So, to strip mind out of matter is foundational to science.
	Now, I'm not going to talk about the metaphysics or the epistemology.
	I'm simply going to talk about the process of what has happened.
	So we have stripped the mind of God from the material of the universe, and that has given us unprecedented power over the material world.
	And I'm not complaining about that.
	I'll get to the good and bad.
	I just want to talk about the process.
	And hit me with a why if what I'm saying, not necessarily that you agree with every syllable, but does it make sense what I'm saying so far?
	Because we're going to go on a journey today that is going to blow your freaking mind.
	But I want to make sure I'm not over-explaining or under-explaining as much as possible, or as much as I can hit that moving target.
	Does it make sense what I'm saying so far?
	Yes, okay.
	So, when we say to the universe, there's no mind in the matter, There's no soul in the matter.
	There are no morals in the atoms.
	When we say to the universe, there are no morals in the material.
	You cannot get an ought from an is.
	This is Hume's famous statement.
	There is no virtue in the nature of matter.
	We look at the universe and we say, there are no morals in the material.
	And then we say, our brain is composed of what?
	What is our brain composed of?
	I know the material.
	If there are no morals in the material, this is basic syllogism 101.
	If there are no morals in the material, And our brain is material.
	There are no morals in the mind.
	By taking God out of the universe, we took the morals out of our mind.
	Do you follow?
	Nothing exists but atoms and space.
	Things and the void are all that exist.
	And there are no morals in the material of the universe.
	And we are composed of the material of the universe.
	There's no morals in matter.
	We are composed only of matter.
	Therefore there are no morals in us.
	You're confused?
	All right.
	I'm happy to pause.
	I'm happy to make sure that we're not leaving those behind who wish to stay with us.
	So what is confusing? If morality is is not part of the material universe, say, the Christians,
	and morality is not part of the material universe, then morality must enter or be part of the material
	universe by non-material sources.
	If morality is intangible and the only thing that exists is matter and void,
	then morality does not exist.
	.
	Basically that we just meet computers, right?
	Well, science doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of free will, but science tends to view free will as Chaos or non-existent?
	Right?
	So you've heard this like there's random elements and so on in the quantum physics and therefore maybe free will is just randomness.
	But free will is not randomness because there's the word will involved.
	Does free will exist in a material universe?
	Well, no.
	No.
	The immaterial, by definition, does not exist when all that exists is matter.
	The immaterial by definition does not exist in the world view that all that exists is the material.
	When you talk of science, do you include all science, like geologists who study things other than people?
	Well, I'm talking about the scientific method which says all that exists is matter and void.
	Or, as the famous astronomer said to the Pope when he created a model, the astronomer created a model of the solar system, and the Pope said to the astronomer, but where is God in this machine?
	And the astronomer said, I have found no need for God.
	Now, please understand, I'm not arguing that immaterial things have no validity.
	I'm just saying this is the worldview.
	So what about emergent properties?
	Absolutely, no question.
	No question there are emergent properties.
	We know that because we're alive, yet none of our cells are alive.
	There's no such thing as a living carbon atom, yet we are alive.
	So there is emergent property.
	I get all of that, but I'm talking about the reductionist view of science, which is nothing exists But matter and energy.
	That we are indistinguishable at the atomic level from an asteroid, or a machine, or an ant, or a chimpanzee.
	All is composed of matter and void.
	So we are A different shaped rock in a pile of rocks.
	We are not fundamentally different from all the other rocks, we're just a different shaped rock.
	We are a bald, upright, big, neofrontal cortex rock.
	Somebody says, unless God is part of the material universe and exists as yet to be measured part of it.
	it.
	But, no.
	That is not allowed in the realm of science.
	For two reasons.
	Number one, if God is a self-contradictory entity, then God by definition cannot exist in the way that a square circle cannot exist.
	If you have a material that has both the properties of a liquid and a vapor and a solid all at the same time, that's a contradiction, right?
	So, number one, if God is self-contradictory, Then God cannot exist by the material view of the universe, by science, number one.
	Number two, even if God is somehow not contradictory and could potentially exist, we cannot claim to have certain knowledge of the existence of something for which we have no evidence.
	So, is it possible that somewhere out there in the universe there is something that looks like a unicorn on some planet somewhere, something that's a quadruped, an ungulate or whatever, and it has a horn growing out of its head?
	Yeah, for sure.
	For sure.
	Can I claim with certainty that such a thing exists?
	No.
	I can't.
	I cannot create a cult of worshipping the Alpha Centauri unicorn and claim I have certain
	knowledge that the Alpha Centauri unicorn exists because I don't.
	What is the contradiction?
	Well, consciousness is an effective matter, because we never see consciousness without matter, and so having consciousness independent of matter would be a contradiction.
	It would be like saying that you have gravity without matter.
	That gravity exists independent of matter.
	No, gravity is an effective matter.
	It would be to say that you have heat without a heat source, gravity without matter, and consciousness without material substance would be a contradiction.
	Of course, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, these properties contradict each other, because if God is all-knowing, he knows what's going to happen in the future, but if he knows for certain what's going to happen in the future, he's powerless to change it.
	If he can change it, then He can't be all-knowing.
	Consciousness is something that evolves over time.
	Consciousness can't precede the universe because evolution within the universe is required to bring about consciousness.
	That which is complex takes longer to evolve and come.
	Consciousness is the most complex thing and so to say that consciousness exists independent of matter in a contradictory state without evolution would be to contradict logic and evolution and basic causality within science.
	So, is electricity solid, liquid, or gas?
	Well, electricity is not fundamentally material in that way, right?
	It's energy.
	So, somebody says, and a really, really great topic to talk about.
	I really appreciate this.
	Great question.
	I've heard from geneticists and other scientists that study behavior give the non-existent viewpoint of free will.
	Now I get why a little more clearly.
	I'm saying if God is part of matter, the reverse.
	But if God is part of matter, he would not be God.
	One of the most fundamental characteristics of God is that God is not physically material.
	He can choose to manifest as a material entity, but God is not physical.
	Because then God would be constrained by all of the properties of matter, and therefore God could not be all-powerful.
	God can't be everywhere at once if God is material, because matter can't be everywhere at once.
	A particular material thing can't be everywhere at once.
	Matter is subject to time, so there's always cause and then effect.
	You clap and then the sound goes out, so if God is restrained by time, then God does not exist outside of time.
	And, therefore, God's omniscience and all-powerful nature would be impossible.
	If God is all-powerful, then God can affect all matter at the same time, no matter what.
	But if God is constrained by material form, then God cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
	God can't achieve or affect all matter at the same time.
	I mean, we could sort of go on and on, but God is not material.
	Again, I want to make sure we're tracking this.
	Some of these arguments, of course, are very much accelerated, but I did want to talk about these things.
	Good morning to everyone out there in RumbleLand.
	We don't want to go.
	I think he is embedded in every person's mind.
	Okay, so you can make that statement, but That is not an argument.
	That is a description.
	God is like sunlight in the heart.
	That is not proof.
	In a scientific sense, that would not prove anything.
	I mean, Einstein's rebuttal to quantum theory was that God does not play dice.
	That's an analogy.
	It's not an argument.
	It's not a proof.
	This is all making sense?
	I mean, this is not going to be brief, so get comfy, but this will explain pretty much everything about the world.
	This will explain pretty much everything about the world.
	Thanks, David, for the donation.
	I appreciate that.
	All right.
	Sorry, one sec.
	Bye.
	All right.
	So, is science a desire to value the truth about the universe?
	Or is it the lust after power?
	Right?
	Is the goal of science truth or power over matter?
	And there's only one answer to this.
	Is science driven by a lust for power or a thirst for truth?
	Thank you.
	A power, yes, of course.
	I mean, we know this.
	for a number of both empirical and theoretical reasons.
	It is power of a matter.
	Now, one of the reasons we know that scientists are driven by a lust for power is because they're funded by the state.
	So the state gives money to scientists in return for scientists giving the physical principles that allow the engineers to create better and more destructive weapons.
	Right?
	Now of course there are private scientists, just as there are private philosophers and so on.
	But fundamentally, the science that we see is a lust for power.
	That is funded by those who wish to expand.
	And, of course, COVID.
	We saw the scientists all getting behind the COVID thing and all of that.
	So, we know.
	We know.
	We know.
	I'm just going to watch Oppenheimer, see who's funding, see what the scientists do, and see what the result is.
	It's desire for better violence.
	Scientists are, in general, funded to enhance and expand the ruler's capacity to threaten and enact violence over his subjects.
	They are slaves to the demons of power.
	You know, the climate science, environmental stuff, it's all about terrifying people and so on, right?
	I see a question.
	Thank you for the tip.
	I see a question about the morals, about the miracles of Jesus.
	I will get to that.
	I've made a note.
	Yeah, DARPA and Pentagon fund billions for weapons development.
	We get all of that, right?
	For sure, for sure.
	So, are we making sense so far?
	We're about 20% of the way through.
	So, again, get comfortable, but this is well worth examining and asking.
	Why don't we just make sure we're going at a reasonable speed, because this is big, big stuff to brain.
	Big stuff to brain.
	Perfect sense, right?
	Now, Another reason we know that scientists are tools and servants and slaves and masters of the lust for power is scientists say that free will does not exist, often.
	they will say that morality does not exist, but they will never say that the state does not exist.
	Right?
	They will never say, I have looked all throughout the atoms of the universe
	and I cannot find a government.
	You see what I'm saying?
	It's not an easy conversation.
	Not sure I'm educated enough, but trying.
	Yeah, you'll get there.
	You'll get there.
	We all know this stuff instinctively.
	We also know that scientists are not motivated by the love of truth because they say all that exists is atoms and void.
	And therefore the truth does not exist.
	So you can't be motivated by something you claim does not exist.
	I have examined all the atoms in the universe and I cannot find one called the truth.
	Right?
	So they can't be motivated by truth because in the materialistic philosophy truth does not exist.
	You can't get an ought from an is.
	Truth is an ought.
	Ought to be true.
	Ought to be accurate.
	Now, they can experiment with things and figure out what works and they can have theories that they then compare to reality for sure.
	But the theories are about power.
	The theories are about power.
	And science gives scientists power over the non-scientists.
	Because science is an excuse for governments to tax, enslave, and indebt people to pay the scientists.
	Now that's the truth.
	I mean, again, is there private science?
	Yes, there's private science.
	I get all of that.
	But we're talking about the vast majority of science.
	Jared, if you could just check what percentage of scientists are paid by the state, work for the state, or receive government funding or subsidies.
	Right?
	I mean, it's almost all of them.
	It's almost all of them.
	So science for sure is a mechanism used by nerds to enslave the taxpayers through the power of the state.
	This is not just a little bit true.
	This isn't a theory.
	This is praxeologically true.
	It's just, it is true.
	Now, if scientists value the truth, then they would openly accept and approve of the truth that scientists use the power of the state to get paid and get funding.
	Which leads to massive corruption, right?
	Massive corruption.
	I mean, if you want to see all of this corruption, again, just look at the last couple of years.
	Thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that.
	Now in this, scientists are...
	are are the newest manifestation of the oldest bargain between the theorists and the violent.
	So, in the old one, it would say, well, the ancient god of this land has given this guy, Bob, power over you.
	You must submit to him, and if you don't, you'll go to hell, or you'll be cursed, your offspring will hate you, and you will give birth to children with chicken heads, or something like that, right?
	So, you are given a curse if you don't follow all of the Concepts that justify the rule of the rulers.
	We look at that and the witch doctors and the warlords, right?
	The warlords can be beaten in combat so they need the witch doctors to put supernatural curses on people who challenge their authority because the warlords age out and they can be beaten when they're older, right?
	Even if they're big strong guys, they're not so big and strong when they're 70, right?
	So they need to hook into an eternal justification for their power, and in particular also because they want to hand their power to their children, and their children are not likely to have the strength of warlordism that they have, right?
	So Genghis Khan's kids weren't Genghis Khan, right?
	They probably were more violent than most, but they weren't Genghis Khan, right?
	So with regression to the mean, the rulers get overturned.
	How do you avoid the regression to the mean that overturns the rulers, and the aging out that overturns the rulers?
	You hook into a universal and eternal concept.
	which justifies the ruler's power over you and can't be escaped.
	So you can escape retribution from the ruler by killing him or banishing him or jailing him, so to speak, but you can't escape retribution from an all-powerful God that's on the side of the ruler, right?
	So you understand this is how it goes.
	Hey, hey man, you're not surrendering to me!
	You're not surrendering to me.
	You're surrendering to the eternal, all-powerful, goody, virtuous Vengeance God, right?
	Thank you.
	You said you just finished Just Poor and the Present a week ago.
	Going to send more dollars at the end of the month.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	You can let me know what you thought.
	Jesper and the Presenter, two of my favorite books.
	Trust the priests.
	The priests have rituals and costumes that means that questioning them is really, really, really bad.
	The priests have rituals and costumes that mean that you questioning them is really, really, really bad.
	How is that different from the ancient witch doctors with the bone through his nose
	and the modern asshole in a lab coat?
	Scientists are toadying slaves to political powers.
	The government pays them.
	They then parrot what the government wants them to parrot, with exceptions, blah, blah, blah, who cares?
	I don't care about the exceptions.
	Because the people who are exceptions, the people who rail against, I mean, it's not climate science, it's computer modelling.
	Computer modelling is not science.
	If computer modelling was science, then you could reach into your computer screen with Half-Life 2 and pull out that thing that grabbed and pushed everything, right?
	So they have their rituals and they have their cathedrals and their rituals are beakers and notes and cyclotrons and atom smashers.
	Those are the rituals and the costumes are, you know, the little fucking bow ties and pocket protectors and lab coats and all of this, right?
	And the whole purpose of this is to get you to shut the fuck up and submit.
	Trust the science.
	Thanks, Tom.
	Trust the science.
	Even though science is supposed to be based on skepticism, trust the science.
	We have our state-slaving, toadying assholes with their rituals and their costume which says, shut up and submit and obey.
	And if you question the priests, you are an evil, evil person.
	And if you question the science, you are killing grammar.
	Now, again, there's exceptions and don't get me wrong.
	Epistemologically, I think science is wonderful.
	It's just that everything that is corrupted by coercive power
	turns terrible, turns awful.
	So scientists will say there's no such thing as free will but that questioning science is immoral.
	You're anti-science, you're an anti-vaxxer, you're anti-reality, and that's bad, right?
	So where does the badness exist?
	It doesn't.
	But it exists as a useful tool for silencing dissent.
	Science is the new method of silencing dissent.
	And it's not real science, obviously, but that's what happens, right?
	I mean, they call it the welfare state.
	It's not welfare.
	It's commotion, right?
	Well, I mean, come on, right? I mean, Thank you.
	It's called science when it can't be reproduced.
	It's called science when the people won't release the source data for 75 years.
	It's called science when you make a claim but then you demand immunity from any negative outcomes.
	It's totally safe and effective, but you absolutely can't hold me accountable for any negative
	outcomes.
	Science is a big shut-up club, right?
	Shut up club!
	Shut up!
	We're going to club you, right?
	And people who can't think for themselves always need to put their faith in pretend experts.
	I mean, I've done environmental computer modeling.
	Literally done it.
	Not obviously climate science going out a hundred years, but I've done environmental modeling.
	And the idea that that's science It's like saying that a businessman's income projection
	spreadsheet is actual money.
	I mean, I was talking about this many, many years ago, about the replication crisis and how far more of scientific
	experiments can't be replicated.
	And a lot of scientists seem to be pretty reluctant to hand over their source data, right?
	So, engineers are a little different.
	There's a lot of engineers, but I'm talking about the sort of theoretical scientists.
	I used to catch your YouTube live streams religiously.
	Sometimes I miss how life was before.
	Well, we are progressing in terms of philosophy, which means that the world is more hostile.
	Alright, are you with me so far?
	We're about halfway through.
	The big stuff is yet to come, but I want to make sure that we're all together at least.
	And I'm not saying whether you agree, of course.
	100%.
	Thank you, SilverSpider.
	I will get your question and I will do it after.
	But I appreciate the tip.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	But are we Together in our progress in understanding the argument.
	Yes.
	Okay, good.
	Not sure where you're heading, but yes.
	No, that's good, because if you were sure where I was heading, there wouldn't be much point having the conversation, right?
	if you were sure where I was heading.
	Alright.
	Alright.
	Thank you.
	So, I performed my own experiment with atheists.
	I performed my own massive experiment with atheists.
	Now, if atheists are about truth, not power, then they would really respect something that is true, especially if it was essential.
	So atheists wield morality because they say truth is preferable to error, accuracy is preferable to falsehood, reason is preferable to superstition, and they make moral judgments all the time
	by calling Christians backwards or superstitious or anti-rational or foolish
	or you know because their world view is superior and other people are
	primitive and and ridiculous and and hokey and believe that people walk on water and they they they scorn
	and fedora style neckbeard look down upon those who they believe
	accept falsehoods and don't accept reality right
	so atheism
	carries within it an implicit morality the truth reason empiricism inaccuracy is preferable to
	superstition error and falsehood
	So, good luck.
	Truth is superior and people who believe false things out of some silly emotional needs from the perspective of the atheist are inferior.
	So, atheism has within it a morality.
	I mean, you prefer atheism because you prefer material truth and accuracy and science, and these things are universally preferable to other things.
	They don't say, well, science is superior to mysticism, except in Philadelphia.
	It's universal, right?
	It's universal, right?
	It's universal.
	Scientists are a good investment from the government, right?
	Because you pay a certain amount of money to the scientists that you take from the general population
	and it then gives you the legitimacy to increase taxes, like carbon taxes and so on, based upon CO2.
	So it's just an investment.
	You spend other people's money to make sure you can take even more of other people's money.
	So that's the reality.
	It's just an investment in power and the scientists are perfectly willing to do it, right?
	Or at least those scientists who aren't perfectly willing to do it don't succeed in science any more than I would have succeeded in academia.
	So, I performed my own experiments with atheists.
	So, atheists believe in the state, although The state has less impact and less reality than a God, right?
	Scientists are the new priests.
	They are the new priests insofar as they are there to crush dissent and expand state power, but they're not priests in the sense that priests would give you the primary text and give you a direct relationship with God and say, follow your own conscience.
	At least a lot of... I mean, obviously I grew up in the Protestant tradition, so that's the Protestant view.
	So, atheists accept the state, and praise the state.
	And atheists, in particular atheist scientists, accept government money, which means that they approve of taxation, they approve of the rule of law run by governments, and they approve of people being thrown in jail for not obeying the laws.
	So they approve and accept of morality, and they view it as the state and the laws, because that's what they make their money from, is the state taking money from people, usually the unborn, and giving it to them.
	So the atheist accepts morality, and in particular the atheist-scientist accepts morality, because the atheist-scientist is paid by state power, so they cannot reject morality, because then they would have to reject If you reject morality and laws are a manifestation of moral absolutes to the point where you're willing to use violence, shoot people, kill people, throw them in jail for disobedience, then you accept morality, right?
	You have to, because you can't get paid.
	If there's no such thing as morals, then laws are unjust.
	Laws would be to the amorality of the universe, like people imagining that God does intervene in material processes.
	Well, no.
	If morality doesn't exist, then you would have to oppose laws, because laws are moral impositions at the point of a gun on other people, right?
	This is all pretty basic stuff, right?
	So, they accept that the use of violence in pursuit of morality is good.
	And the number of atheists who are skeptical of the virtue of state power are so small as to be non-existent.
	I call them statheists, right?
	because they're atheists who have substituted the state for God.
	So atheists and scientists Accept morality in the form of coercive state power and the rules enforced in that way, right?
	As someone who was raised as a wolf who decided to be an atheist, I agree.
	Yeah, if people are willing to have other people thrown in jail for breaking
	social rules, they can't then not claim to believe in morality.
	That would be like an atheist promoting blasphemy laws.
	Well, if you don't believe in God, then there's nothing to blaspheme and therefore you should not have blasphemy laws.
	But, of course, modern atheists do have blasphemy laws.
	They're just called hate speech.
	Hate speech laws.
	Those are the modern blasphemy laws of the atheists.
	So, I ran an experiment.
	What was my experiment on the atheists?
	What was my experiment?
	And my experiment was pretty universal and was replicated almost every single time.
	Bye.
	It can't be every time because there's free will, but almost every single time.
	What was my experiment?
	on the atheists.
	Yeah, that's right.
	UPB.
	A rational proof of secular ethics.
	Right?
	Now, if they worship the state, then UPB would be blasphemy to them.
	And blasphemy laws are enacted because the argument can't be beaten, therefore it must be ignored or banned.
	Right?
	Because UPB is a moral proof that can never be used for political power.
	Right?
	UPB is a moral proof that can never be used in service of political power.
	You look at all of the other moral quote proofs, they can all be used and twisted in the service of political power.
	So atheists accept the value of truth, and they accept that morality should be enforced, even at the point of a gun.
	Now, if they valued truth and morality, they would embrace, as a thirsty man will drink deeply from a sudden well in the desert, they will embrace, accept, trumpet, and prefer a scientific, rational, empirical proof of secular ethics.
	Now, if they preferred power over truth and virtue, then they would ignore, reject, and attack UPP.
	Because UPP interferes with the expansion of political power, if it's accepted and praised, right?
	If they prefer power over truth and science and empiricism, then they would reject UPB.
	If they accept morality, which they do, being atheists, being superior to Christians and worshipping the state, they accept morality and the enforceability of morality.
	If they accept morality and reason and evidence is their guide and standard, then they would have rabidly embraced UPB and trumpeted it from the very rooftops.
	So, we all have vague suspicions.
	And it's rational, too, in some ways.
	We all have vague suspicions that an organization that makes a hundred million dollars a year fighting a particular disease may not be overly invested in ending that disease.
	The entire cancer treatment industry, and there's profits in it, and there's financial incentives, would they rabidly cheer a pill that cured cancer?
	Well, I mean, I'm sure that they'd be happy that it would be taken out of their equation, and there would be pluses if they have relatives who are sick, and you know, but financially it would be a complete disaster for them.
	So we all have concerns, and we should have concerns, about the corruptibility of all organizations with a particular goal.
	That if that goal is eliminated, what happens to that organization?
	If cancer is cured, hundreds of billions of dollars a year won't get spent on people who currently have mortgage payments and house payments and paying off their debt based upon the presence of that money.
	That doesn't mean that they're all horrible people who want cancer to continue,
	but we have to recognize that as an incentive.
	Right?
	I mean, I did a podcast 15 years ago or 16 years ago, a whole series on mental health.
	Now, if that had become more widely accepted, maybe people would take fewer pharmaceuticals, maybe they would, whatever, right?
	and that would be negative, right?
	We all understand that the welfare state is heavily rewarded for the continuance of poverty.
	Like, we understand that, right?
	If poverty were to end tomorrow, then the welfare state would collapse.
	I mean, and people like literally tens of millions of people the world over would have to go and get real jobs, which they don't want to do.
	Right?
	And this is, I mean, this is a natural problem.
	This is a natural problem.
	It's an inevitable problem.
	It's why coercion in the matter of human affairs, the initiation of force in the area of human affairs,
	always leads to corruption.
	Feminists, when they're funded by the state, want feminism to continue,
	so they go from solving legitimate problems of inequality to creating imaginary problems of inequality.
	Thank you.
	The food pyramid was funded by the agricultural lobbies and other special interest groups to some degree, and I think it's been fairly well established that the blame was shifted for obesity from sugar to fat, and that was largely funded by the sugar industry.
	So this level of corruption is very large.
	It's inevitable, right?
	It's inevitable.
	And of course, it's not just the individuals.
	Dealing with child abuse makes you a lot happier than dealing with child abuse means confronting your abusers.
	So your abusers probably want there to be a whole bunch of money spent on pharmaceuticals.
	They want a whole bunch of money to spend on pharmaceuticals.
	That way you take pills rather than confront your abusers, which they don't want to do.
	They don't want you to confront them.
	And they may in fact go to jail if you confront them and their abuse was bad enough.
	Cereal is now recommended by the food pyramid, yeah.
	And not just cereal, but this weird Count Chocula sugar bomb candy cereal.
	It's crazy.
	Yeah, I mean, bacon and eggs and butter and all of that was absolutely demonized when I was growing up, and now it's like, hey, you know what's really good for you?
	Some people say, right?
	I don't know, right?
	I'm not a nutritionist, but I just gave up many years ago on taking any food recommendations from anyone.
	I just assumed they were all bought and paid for and lying or vain or trying to sell me something.
	I don't believe.
	I don't believe any of it.
	I don't believe any of it.
	I mean, maybe I've gone too far on the cynical side, but I don't even, you know, my diet works for me.
	Okay, hit me with a why.
	Are we there?
	75%.
	We are 75% of the way there.
	Are you with me?
	In general, governments want you to eat foods that make you tired, because then you're too tired to protest.
	So are we there?
	We're there.
	So I've performed the experiment on The atheists, who absolutely believe in morality, absolutely believe and claim in the value of truth.
	And I provide them rational proof of secular morality.
	And what happens?
	What happens?
	I give a morality that reduces power.
	Now, if you're interested in truth, then you would want a morality that is true.
	If you are interested in power, you will reject a true morality that limits power.
	Now, why do people want power over others?
	Thank you.
	Because if you have power over others, You don't need self-restraint.
	In fact, a lack of self-restraint is foundational for power over others.
	I don't know if I need to break this out.
	But if you want to have power over others, you can't have power over yourself.
	You can't have self-restraint.
	Because if you want something for free, it's because you want it, you are unwilling to work for it yourself or go through the work of reducing your desire.
	So if you want a new tablet and you want to go and steal it, then you are not exercising any power or self-control.
	Power over yourself or self-control.
	Power over yourself would be, I'm going to go and work to earn the tablet or I'm going to manage my own desires and reduce them to the point where I don't want the tablet, at least not enough to steal from someone else.
	So, all corruption and immorality is self-indulgence.
	People want money, they don't want to work for it.
	So they feel a discomfort because they want something, and rather than work for it voluntarily, or reduce their expectations so they're not uncomfortable from the desire, right?
	If you want a million dollars, I guess you could work very hard to make a million dollars.
	Or you can reduce your discomfort from not having a million dollars by saying,
	I'm going to work on not being shallow and materialistic and wanting a million dollars.
	Morality is about self-restraint.
	you Right?
	Morality is about self-restraint.
	UPB is about self-restraint.
	Thou shalt not.
	Don't do this.
	as is Christian morality of course right?
	Having power of others is draining.
	Too much work.
	I'll pass.
	Well, having power over others is isolating.
	It's isolating because you can't connect with them as equals.
	You can't share in the human journey.
	they're just livestock and slaves to you.
	So if you can't have self-control to the point where you work for something or
	reduce your desires, right?
	Because if you have a discomfort because you want something, you can either achieve that thing or reduce your desire.
	That's the only two ways to deal with it, right?
	So scientists who claim...
	.
	To accept and believe in morality to the point where they're willing to use state violence, rape and murder to get their income, right?
	because people who don't pay the taxes to support the scientists
	get thrown in jail where they're sometimes raped and sometimes killed
	or if they resist they will be killed.
	So scientists accept coercion.
	you And they say they're motivated by truth.
	But if the truth is that the coercion that funds a scientist is immoral, and they choose the money, then they no longer care about the truth, and they no longer care about morality.
	They say they care about the truth.
	They say they care about morality.
	But who takes directly more money from you?
	The priest or the government scientist?
	I know, I know, there's a lot of religions that take a lot of money to resettle immigrants and so on, right?
	But, in general, at an individual level, does the government scientist or your local priest
	take more money through the state from you?
	And of course, if people have self-restraint, the government has less to sell people, right?
	So, I think that's a good question.
	Thank you.
	Have you heard of any scientific organization that is raising significant moral concerns over the taking of coerced taxpayer money from the general population for the pursuit of science?
	Is this troubling to them at all?
	Does this bother them at all?
	Is there a robust internal debate among scientists about the morality
	of taking money by force through the state to fund research, which is generally of a very questionable nature
	and half of which in some circumstances can't be reproduced at all?
	Do you know that in Christianity there is a very robust set of debates
	about taking money from the state in any form?
	That the relationship between the state and the church has been the subject of almost infinite debate since the founding of Christianity.
	Should we take government money?
	Should we take government subsidies?
	Should we X, Y, or Z?
	Right?
	There is a robust and tortured debate that is very important because at least it's a debate among Christian churches with regards to their relationship to the state.
	I mean, one of the ways that Christians talk about limitations of state power is the just war theory.
	How many scientists who work for the military-industrial complex
	have robustly debated just war theory?
	Because for Christianity, for a choice to be virtuous, it must be free.
	There must be not coerced, which is why in Christianity and in common law, a person who's coerced is not morally responsible for their choices.
	as if you're forced to rob a bank, you're not put in jail for robbing the bank, right?
	If you ever bring up the coercive nature of the state, you'll get the scientific equivalent,
	Sure, I get it.
	There won't be any science if the government doesn't fund it.
	Even though science came about to some degree as a result of not funding it.
	and in fact even oppositional hostility towards science.
	So...
	And during the foundation of the welfare state there were a lot of
	there was a lot of theology that said this is really bad because it's not
	based upon choice, it's not voluntary, it won't help people, it will only make them
	dependent upon the state and so on.
	So scientists have no problem using coercion for their income
	but Christians have at least pretty robust debates about it and there are lots of Christians who wouldn't do it in a million years.
	If the government were to come along to say to a church, we'll give you ten million dollars a year, the church would look upon that and the parishioners and the congregation and the priests would look upon that with great doubt and skepticism.
	Now they may succumb to it, I don't know, right?
	But they wouldn't be like, sounds great, right?
	Because they would be concerned that whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
	That if you take government money, that you lose your independence and your integrity.
	You become dependent upon the government money.
	Now, there's three institutions largely populated by atheists and secularists.
	There's three institutions that don't seem to have any friction in taking government money.
	The media, academia, The arts.
	I mean businesses to some degree.
	But there are significant institutions that have zero problems taking government money and have no doubts as to their own capacity to stay uncorrupted and objective despite being dependent upon state money for their income.
	Even though the evidence is very clear that it does, of course, corrupt people.
	and just about everyone.
	I've not seen any prominent atheist scientists say, well, we really do have to stop
	taking taxpayer money because we're not going to have any credibility with the
	taxpayers if we're taking money
	that they haven't chosen to give us.
	So we should rely upon products that we provide, selling documentaries, we should rely on donations.
	John says, during COVID churches were sure willing to take government money in exchange for closing their doors.
	I I wouldn't not put that in the same category as voluntarily taking government money.
	You don't have to.
	If you're forced to close your doors, you still have bills to pay.
	Maybe you're not getting any income and so on.
	So I would not put that, you know, I mean, it's in a sense like, oh, this guy who doesn't like me is totally happy to take my food.
	If I lock him in my basement, it's like, eh, I wouldn't put that.
	I wouldn't put that.
	There.
	Yeah, fundraising seminars, public outreach, lots of things they can do.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	I mean, you think of people like Dawkins and other prominent atheists, they have railed against just about everything except state power.
	So they're corrupted in my view by that.
	So is it more superstitious to say my life
	is guided and defined by that which exists Or is it more superstitious and irrational to say,
	my life is guided and defined and paid for and subsidized by that which
	I do not believe exists.
	You see, religious people, Christians, my good friends are Christians, they say,
	my life is guided by the morals I accept from God's existence.
	Scientists say my income and prestige is defined by the coercive redistribution of wealth by an entity that, according to my epistemology, does not exist and through a coercive morality that I claim has no validity.
	Who's more hypocritical?
	The Christian who believes in God and lives his life by that morality or the scientist who, according to the metaphysics and epistemology of science, the state doesn't exist and neither does morality, who uses the power of the state and the morality of taxation and laws for his actual income?
	If someone were to say, I live my life according to the dictates of Zeus, and the only thing that exists is atoms and space, then wouldn't you say, well, according to your philosophy then, Zeus does not exist.
	And he says, well, no, I accept that.
	Zeus does not exist, but I organize all of my life and my income and my status and my value and my purpose by that which I claim does not exist.
	That would be crazy, right?
	That would be crazy.
	So science attacks Christianity as the devil attacks Jesus.
	Thank you, I appreciate the tip.
	Does it make sense?
	Why does science attack Christianity but not, say, have skepticism about any enforced morality?
	I mean, Dawkins, of course, will rail against Islam and its aggressive morality.
	But he is perfectly happy to take government funding.
	Do you see what I mean?
	And it would never even cross his mind.
	I'm not trying to pick on Dickie D, but you know, he's fairly prominent.
	Christianity says, thou shalt not steal.
	Government scientists like to take from the general population through the power of the state all the time.
	So you see, they would attack Christianity as something that might provoke their conscience or interfere with their
	resources.
	I can't see any other general mindset that can explain anything that's happened over the past hundred years any
	better.
	Thank you.
	Do you see what I mean?
	How can you explain the last hundred years or even the last five or whatever?
	How can you explain this without reference to this mindset, these arguments?
	I mean, I'm simply gathering empirical evidence from a very unique view.
	I have a very unique view in the world.
	You know, I've talked to thousands of people about their deepest thoughts and fears, which is a very unusual situation to be in.
	Best livestream I've caught yet.
	I'm glad, I'm glad.
	And I've had, of course, contact with hundreds of atheists over the course of my life,
	and in particular pre-UPP and post-UPP.
	And I remember being on a listserv with some people who were really into
	science.
	Some scientists and people who were really into science.
	And they said, the state this, the state that.
	And I said, but the state does not exist.
	It's a state of mind, right?
	It's a state of mind.
	The state exists like religious faith exists.
	And then they sent me all these pictures of government buildings.
	And then I sent them pictures of churches and say, okay, does this mean that God exists?
	Well, no.
	The fact that there are churches doesn't mean God exists.
	Well, okay.
	How does government build?
	Anyway, so you understand, right?
	But they couldn't even process.
	They couldn't even process.
	Why couldn't they process?
	Because when a man is very well paid for not understanding something,
	it's almost impossible to get him to understand something.
	Christianity is very hesitant to use government funds.
	To fund Christianity, scientists are thrilled to do so.
	There's a debate in Christianity about this.
	There's no debate in scientific circles about this whatsoever.
	Even when scientists take government money to produce gain-of-function deadly diseases, even at that point scientists aren't saying, you know, this may be a problem.
	Taking money from the state to create deadly diseases might be a problem.
	No.
	They're such power junkies that even that can't get them to even pause in their thinking.
	Isn't that an addict?
	Isn't an addict kind of defined by, you know, this might kill you, I'm still going, don't care.
	Okay, so that's an addict.
	I mean, that's really the worst kind of addict.
	You know, you keep taking these drugs, man, you're gonna die.
	Hey man, I'm having a great time, I don't care.
	I don't care!
	Government funding of scientists is producing virulent pathogens that could do massive damage across the world.
	You can't question that.
	Do you see what I mean?
	Is that not the ultimate addiction?
	Is that not the ultimate addiction?
	That even if it could cause mass deaths, You can't question the value of government funding.
	This all makes a lot of sense, says John.
	But as far as the don't steal maxim, how do you reconcile that with give unto Caesar what is Caesar's?
	Well, it's the old question.
	If Jesus had told the truth about what he believed from the very beginning, there would be no historical Jesus because he would have been killed or executed or outlawed.
	So he had to find a way to get the truth across that he wanted.
	Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
	It doesn't tell you what that is.
	He says, render unto God what is God's.
	Well, that is obedience and respect and moral loyalty and worship of the all good.
	It's not, give God 25% of your income.
	I mean, I know there's tithes and all of that, but that's not what Jesus was saying.
	So Jesus said, render unto God what is God's, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
	These are moral judgments.
	Because God doesn't tax.
	So he's not talking about taxation because that would be a category error.
	I watched a clip from Gaber Maté, an interview recently, and he said he would live his life
	differently if he could do it over because he sacrificed spending time with his family
	to achieve an academic excellence in order to justify his existence.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Come on, we all know we have to make compromises with truth in order to speak maximum truth.
	The maximum truth means avoiding truth at times, right?
	And Jesus wanted to get the truth across and so he had to equivocate.
	Of course he did.
	I mean, he lived in a world of extraordinary levels of corruption.
	Yeah, I saw Gabba Mattei, I can't believe he's 80.
	But yeah, I mean, he's always been, I interviewed him a couple of times on this show, but a very admirable man in many ways.
	But yeah, he said that he didn't have much fun in his life at all because he was just a workaholic, and he was.
	And he's always, hasn't he just had a very haunted, tragic, sad face?
	I've done Philosophy is Laughter.
	I did a show that many, many years ago about that.
	You should check it out.
	So, If virtue does not exist in the material universe, how are resources allocated?
	Who benefits from the destruction of virtue in the material universe or in the social life?
	If there's no such thing as virtue, how are resources transferred or changed in the world?
	If no one can ever love each other, how does sex happen?
	Well, force, manipulation, lies, whatever, right?
	Lust.
	So, if virtue does not exist, if truth does not exist, then science in its state-funded capacity would not be a thing.
	Because the scientist would say, look, I wouldn't take money from the church, so why would I take money from the state?
	At least the church is largely voluntary, the state is not, right?
	So, that would be the case, right?
	So scientists are promoted for two reasons.
	One, to provide better weapons and justification to the extensions of state power.
	I guess three, right?
	One, two, Provide better weapons, two, to justify expansions of state power, and three, to destroy morality so that the will of power can take its place.
	If you can convince people that nothing exists but atoms in the void, they lose meaning, they lose purpose, they lose morality, and then you can walk all over them.
	It is to disarm the moral.
	The purpose of scientific funding is to disarm the moral by the pretence of disproving morality.
	To take away the source of morals is the purpose of science.
	The source of morals being God and Christian morality.
	That's the purpose of science.
	serve the rulers, destroy morality.
	And that's, to me, not only is that the theory that works, but that's what explains what has actually happened.
	Okay.
	What is the creation story of atheists?
	Says someone.
	The universe is just random and accidental occurrence?
	No.
	The creation story for atheists is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it is eternal.
	The Big Bang, I think it's still just a theory and so on, but no, the universe is perpetual.
	There is no creation story for atheists because matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred from matter to energy and back.
	But there's such a thing as a fake atheist just as much as a fake Christian.
	A fake atheist uses state as a replacement god.
	a real atheist, on the other hand, is no artificial parent god or state.
	Yes, string theory.
	I remember I dated an engineer, many, when I was in my early twenties, and I remember sitting with her reading all these articles about string theory and so on.
	What does it produce?
	I mean, not much has been produced from stem cells, and I don't know that anything's come out of string theory.
	Super string theory!
	I mean, it's just a money grab, right?
	The purpose of morality is to get you to resist temptation.
	The purpose of nutrition is to get you to eat well when you want to eat badly, as we all do.
	So the purpose of morality is to get you to resist temptation.
	Now, if scientists can't resist the temptation of government money, They have to destroy morality, because otherwise morality will say you have to resist the temptation of government money because it's going to corrupt you and it's coercive in its nature and so on, right?
	And according to your epistemology, the state does not have a tangible existence in the way that a tree or a rock does.
	So, what scientists resist temptation?
	How many scientists resist temptation?
	Well, how could they?
	Resisting temptation is the job of morality, and they have to deny and manipulate morality in order to be scientists.
	That's what I mean.
	It's satanic in that sense.
	You will have power over the world, but you will lose your soul.
	You will have power over the material world, as scientists do through getting money from the state.
	You have power over the material world, but you will lose power over yourself.
	Because you won't have any desire for self-restraint.
	You won't have any need of resisting temptation.
	And by denying the reality of morality, you clear the way to the will to power, control
	junkies to rule.
	Tell me if this, there's more but I don't want to do the whole show on this, but tell me if this as a whole is a
	reasonable way of interpreting modern society.
	I'm not saying you agree with everything, right?
	But does this make sense?
	That having been said, I do love the methodology and metaphysics and epistemology of science. It's beautiful.
	It's beautiful.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he showed him all the kingdoms of the world and claimed he would grant power over all of them if he just bowed down and worshipped him.
	Right.
	Right.
	You will gain power over material resources by worshipping the state.
	Well, isn't that what scientists do?
	They gain power over material resources.
	Power, prestige, status, money, income, job, security, tenure, they get all of this.
	They just have to worship the state.
	Thank you, I appreciate the tip.
	Lord knows I'm working for it today.
	I mean, I work for it every day, but in particular today.
	Because, I mean, isn't this the case that once you see this, you... I mean, so much makes sense and you can't ever see the world the same way again.
	I mean, this is a lift in the veil to what is actually going on in the world.
	And this is why the atheists and the scientists scorned, rejected and ignored UPP.
	Of course.
	That was the experiment.
	We believe in morality!
	because were you willing to use coercion to gather resources?
	Oh, okay.
	Good.
	Okay, here's your proof.
	Now, let me say to you this.
	If somebody believed that there was a great treasure in a shipwreck, and I provided them the exact location, wouldn't they thank me?
	If somebody desperately wanted to get their child back who'd been kidnapped, and I gave them the exact location of their child, would they not be enormously grateful?
	If people who believe in God, if I could provide proof for the existence of God, would they not be grateful?
	I know some people would prefer faith, but most people would be grateful.
	Right?
	Most people, if they believe in something but cannot prove it,
	they are and desperately need it, they are enormously grateful when you provide that proof,
	that evidence, that reality.
	Right?
	If somebody has lost a treasured item that they're desperate to get, you know, maybe it's their, I don't know, bitcoin wallet or something, and you give it back to them, they would be enormously grateful!
	Here's something I believe in, I can't prove, I'm desperate for confirmation.
	I believe in it, I can't prove it, I'm desperate for confirmation.
	Well, when it is proven, when the child is recovered, when the treasure is found, they are enormously grateful.
	So, atheists accept morality because they believe in the state, they can't prove it, and they're desperate for validation.
	So then, I give them the proof.
	And what happens?
	They're not interested.
	They don't care.
	They attack.
	They roll their eyes.
	They scorn.
	I don't think there was a single Christian who attacked me.
	Why?
	Why?
	I'm providing the greatest treasure that they claim to have always wanted and truly believe in.
	So, if somebody has spent his entire life in hot pursuit of UFOs and gains, I provide irrefutable proof of the existence of UFOs, would he not be enormously grateful?
	If somebody spent 30 years hunting Bigfoot and I provide irrefutable proof of Bigfoot, would he not be enormously grateful?
	Because his whole life journey would have been validated.
	He would have been proven right all along.
	Atheists accept morality, believe in the state, But can't prove it.
	Can't prove morality.
	I give them the proof of morality and they choose to stay.
	They reject and attack and avoid and denigrate that which they believe in but can't prove and claim to desperately want.
	I mean literally entire books by atheists have been written trying to prove morality.
	They'd be hugely popular.
	They failed.
	But they have tried to prove morality desperately.
	And I come up with the absolutely irrefutable proof, and they're like, oh fuck, we don't want that.
	Okay, so then it's nonsense.
	It's serving something else.
	It's not serving truth or virtue or facts or reality or anything like that.
	What?
	Tar Warwick is down?
	No.
	Sticks, Hex, and Hammer 666 is down?
	soon.
	Thank you.
	No.
	I am sure... I don't believe that.
	And, you know, I'm... Maybe you heard it or something like that.
	I don't see it.
	Anyway, uh... You think he... Somebody says he collapsed and... Maybe?
	Maybe?
	Let's just see here.
	No, that's older.
	Is that true?
	Can anybody, sorry, James and Jared, can you check on that?
	Somebody is making the claim.
	Sad news.
	Conservative YouTuber Stixhex and Hammer666 collapsed during a live stream and was removed on a stretcher.
	That would be quite tragic.
	But I don't know.
	Maybe you heard it?
	I'm not calling you a liar.
	Maybe you heard it and haven't checked it.
	All right.
	I'm going to get to the other questions.
	And then we'll do a few minutes of donor-only stuff, because I have a big question to ask people as a whole, but I think I'll keep it to donors only.
	All right.
	What have we got here?
	Hi, Steph.
	My son is 20 months old.
	I convince my wife to do peaceful parenting, but every once in a while he hits us.
	We tell him no, and this hurts us, and we don't hit any advice.
	Um...
	So, I mean, children are born somewhat aggressive, somewhat selfish.
	They need to be trained into some sort of civilized behavior, right?
	I mean, children are born greedy.
	They'll eat chocolate till they throw up and then you have to teach them some restraints.
	So, yeah, children are born aggressive.
	He's a kid.
	He's a son.
	But has he been exposed to any violence, any coercion, any aggression in this format?
	Is he in daycare?
	Does he have aggressive playmates?
	Does he have cousins or extended family?
	Has he seen aggression in terms of even just yelling and stuff like that?
	Has anything been modeled in his environment?
	That is aggressive.
	And if so, then you need to deal with that.
	But yeah, the fact that a kid hits is not shocking at all.
	Especially a boy, right?
	It's not terrible.
	Alright, so that was the Easter story.
	Why do Christians focus so much on the miracles of Jesus?
	Without the miracles, Jesus is still a moral man whose teachings are worth following.
	This is a sticking point.
	It's always held me back from fully embracing Christianity.
	I don't know, obviously, why Christians focus as much on the miracles of Jesus, but it's because Jesus was not a first principles philosopher.
	And so because the arguments that Jesus made can't be proven syllogistically.
	UPB is absolutely proven syllogistically.
	It cannot be overturned.
	It cannot be opposed.
	Unless you're willing to just oppose reason in all of its forms.
	Somebody says, Sticks uploaded four hours ago.
	Not sure if that means he's not dead.
	It seems like it.
	Yeah, I would be a little surprised if that was going on.
	And you know, just in general, do me a solid, do me a solid that don't spread rumors.
	Like, just don't do that.
	Don't spread rumors.
	The world is chaotic enough without falsehoods going in, right?
	There's a tweet of him from in the last hour, last live stream on YouTube is three days ago.
	I saw him hosting one hour ago.
	Okay, so again, maybe this is true, I don't think it is, but do me a favor, just don't spread salacious gossip without really verifying it.
	And we've all done it and so on, right?
	But just in general, the world is already confusing and chaotic enough without that happening.
	Let me have a look here.
	I'm just out of curiosity because I don't want to, you know, if you're right, you're right, right?
	But if you are making this claim, could you provide me a source?
	But yeah, I don't like to be skeptical.
	He says he's gradually stopped over time and gives us a hug after he hits us and appears to feel bad, but we just want to make sure we're nipping it in the bud.
	No violence around.
	He just gets frustrated.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, usually violence is a sign that your needs are not being met, right?
	If your needs are not being met, particularly if you're a toddler like he is, he's less than two, right?
	Then violence is usually because you're not being listened to, your needs aren't being met.
	So when he has needs that you can't meet, do you sympathize with his needs or do you just say, I can't meet them and basically deal with it?
	Not finding anything, on sticks collapsing.
	Okay, good.
	I'll leave this in just because it's important to be skeptical, but yeah, don't do that.
	Don't do that.
	Don't spread these kinds of rumors.
	It's not a good plan.
	Not a good plan.
	Again, if it is not true.
	And the other thing, too, is it's tough.
	You know, it's tough in the live stream because, you know, then I say stuff and people are like, oh, he's spreading misinformation.
	So I assume that, I mean, if it's not true, I assume this is just a troll trying to discredit me.
	But, you know, it's important to keep your wits about you, this kind of stuff.
	And maybe it is true, but I don't think so.
	It doesn't seem to be the case.
	There doesn't seem to be any evidence for it.
	So just be skeptical and don't spread gossip and salacious rumors without verifying that they're true.
	It's just a general principle as a whole.
	And again, nobody's perfect this way, but It's generally a good principle to have.
	So yeah, I mean, if something is proven to be true, Both according to reason and evidence.
	UPP is reason and evidence.
	If something is proven to be true, then miracles aren't needed to sell it.
	But if something is considered to be enormously important and valuable and true, but hasn't been proven, then miracles are a way of getting people to accept it.
	And so that would be my guess as to why that's happening.
	All right.
	Was there any other major questions about this?
	I think we got them.
	All right, so I will switch to the last couple of minutes here, last 20 minutes, whatever, and switch to supporters.
	So we'll go there in a minute.
	I will give you the link here.
	If you would like to join, you can pitch in.
	This is a free link.
	You can try out being a supporter for free for a month and see if that works for you.
	I'm pretty sure it will.
	All right.
	Parent and see you soon.
	There's the link over here.
	And I will give the link over here as well.
	And then we will continue on that way.
	Thank you for a great day today.
	I did a show this morning on women who are older who demand sex before marriage.
	That was pretty spicy.
	That might be donor only.
	But that was pretty spicy.
	So I hope you'll check that out as well.
	All right, so in 10 seconds we'll go downer only and then I will get your feedback on a question that is tormenting me.
	Be straight up, like I have all the answers.
	It is a question that is tormenting me.
	All right.
	Is this where you take the shirt off for some sweet, sweet clips?
	No, I don't think so.
	Okay, so this donor-only, and thank you, of course, for sticking by in this way.
	Now, actually, because I think it's remaining publishing to the other platforms, although it's donor-only here.
	I don't know if I can change that, but let me just see if I can.
	I don't think I can.
	All right, so what I'll have to do is I'll have to cancel this.
	I'll start up right again, just for Donor Only on here, because I don't think I can turn off the other ones.
	Where do we see the Donor Only podcasts?
	So you will see the link to those when you become a donor.
	All right, so I'm going to end this stream, and then I'll start up again, freedomain.locals.com, and I'll ask you the questions there, just because I don't think I can turn off the other streams dynamically.
	I don't think I can.
	Oh wait, can I?
	I don't think I can.
	No.
	But yeah, freedomain.locals.com.
	I'll start up again in just a sec, so I'll end this now.

▲