All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:27:44
Atheists vs Free Will! Twitter/X Space
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, hey, hey, good evening, everybody.
It's if I'm all new from Free Domain.
Freedomaine.com, Freedomain.com/slash Onette.
If you'd like to help out the show, it would be most gratefully and humbly appreciated to help spread philosophy in this benighted world of ours.
And I suppose I like to think of myself as an ambassador, an ambassador, not to Burma, but between Christian ethics and atheist rationality.
That is my latest ambassadorship, my latest ambassador role.
And I'm going to sort of reveal what the purpose was of my fairly infamous tweet from two or three days ago asking atheists why they don't lie.
Why they don't lie?
What are their reasons?
Not why they don't.
What are their reasons for not lying?
And sort of going to reveal the whole sort of experiment thing.
I'll do that tomorrow night.
We're going to do a live stream at 7 p.m. Eastern Mitt DeVideo.
So you get the bald ostrich egg of wisdom across your screen.
But there's a reason behind what it is that I'm doing.
And atheists have been on the offensive against Christianity.
And, you know, again, it's all fair play.
It's all fair play.
But I don't think atheists have really been held to account for their rabid leftist totalitarian viewpoint.
85% or so of atheists in America skew hard left.
A pro-Democrat Party, Democrat Party is hard left.
Particularly these days, they had close to twice the rates of compliance with the Jab.
And as you know, of course, the Democrats in America, massively supported by atheists.
You know, half of them wanted people who didn't take the jab locked in their homes.
A third of them wanted children taken away from parents.
A third of them wanted the government to fine or imprison people who even questioned the efficacy of the vaccine.
And these are all supported by the atheists.
Atheists are the most likely group to want to shout down and destroy the opportunity of people to speak on, say, college campuses.
And Christians are the most likely to be pro-free speech.
And atheists are the least likely to be pro-free speech.
Now, free speech is a pretty important thing for me, as it is for any rational thinking person.
And the fact that atheists are rabidly hostile compared to other groups to actual implemented free speech means that they're totalitarian a-holes, grimer, worm-tongue bootlickers of the existing power structures.
And the other thing it's hard to sort of miss is that atheists never get canceled for being atheists.
In other words, they're not posing any particular threat to the powers that be.
But let's get to you, you guys.
Let's get to your conversation.
Let's get to what's on your mind.
Jacob, I'm happy to take your thoughts.
What's in your mind?
You are not audible to me.
So if you're speaking, you're not doing any good.
Go on once, go in twice.
John, what's on your mind?
Don't forget to unmute.
John, I can't hear you if you're talking.
Hello.
Yes, go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, nice to meet you.
I've heard a lot about you, but I never actually investigated you myself.
I see your spaces a lot.
I often host spaces on X. I'm a Christian.
Sorry, I know you want to talk to atheists, but I've spent a lot of time the past, well, about half a year now debating atheists.
And most of them are philosophically ignorant.
You know, a lot of them are naive empiricists.
And I do agree that there's definitely a political bias and swing to the left.
I actually think that's because a lot of leftists promoted atheism.
You know, you look at the heads of atheism.
Maybe like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, you know, Matt Dillahunty, at least in modernity, and they definitely have a left-wing bias.
I don't think it should be that way.
I don't know if I was an atheist when I was an atheist.
I certainly wasn't liberal or leftist.
But anyways, I digress.
What is it that you mean by naive?
What is it?
Naive empiricist?
I can't remember the phrase you used.
Yeah.
Naive.
Yeah.
And what does that mean?
That sort of comes out of the Enlightenment.
But when I use it, I'm specifically referring to people who presuppose naturalism, but haven't actually investigated the arguments for naturalism and, you know, counter-arguments against naturalism, hence naivety.
Right.
So, for example, they'll say, you know, like transcendental concepts are really just, you know, in the brain.
It's like, well, now have you heard the counter arguments for that?
No.
Like, okay, what's your argument for that?
You're like, well, I just think so.
You know, have you spoken to neuroscientists?
No.
So you see where I'm kind of getting at?
I'm not quite sure I follow.
So they say that concepts exist in the mind and not in the world, so to speak.
Is that right?
Specifically, the physical brain, I should have clarified.
That's the empiricism sort of, you know, we can only know thing, know things a posteriori.
Can you break that down?
I just have to remind everyone that we're talking to a general audience.
So don't use tech.
Don't use lingo.
Yeah.
Don't use jargon.
I won't use the philosophical tradesman terms.
You know, sort of that, like, you know, things, concepts, you know, whether it be like ethics or whether it be like logic or, you know, any sort of concept that you can abstract is really just purely a product of the brain.
You know, there is no immaterial component to us.
You know, we don't have souls.
don't have minds.
Even if you're not necessarily Sorry.
Don't have souls and don't have minds.
That's not the same category.
A soul would be an eternal immaterial essence of personality or the self.
A mind would be something quite different because a soul would be immortal, but a mind would be mortal.
Sir, I'm not trying to like equivocate there.
I'm just.
All I'm Saying here is that I've spent a lot of time debating atheists that presuppose naturalism.
That's like presuppose that there is no immaterial ontology to things.
Nothing exists besides physicality, atoms, etc.
But they can't really give explanatory power to that.
They haven't really considered what philosophy is saying.
Okay, and I'm certainly happy to hear the case.
And what would your case be for things existing outside of, let's say, matter and energy?
Sure.
I mean, one approach would be an epistemological approach or how we know things, epistemology, the study of knowledge.
And that's like, okay, if we're going to make the claim that we can only know things through, you know, experience, through study of the empirical world, of the physical world, I think in order to even get to that starting point, you have to presuppose things which are not told to us.
You don't look out at nature and then nature tells you, look, you can only know things through nature, right?
That is something you bring to the table prior to the empirical conversation.
So I think we do have to start in order to justify that.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the argument.
If you could rephrase it or take another run at it.
My apologies if I'm missing something.
But yeah, just be patient.
I'm trying to sort of follow what you're saying.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll try to elucidate even more simply.
You know, I'm making a counter-argument against against physicalists, right?
Materialists.
No, I know what you're doing.
I understand what you're doing.
I just didn't follow the argument.
And in order to make the claim that the reality is just material, right?
You're assuming things that are immaterial, you know, i.e., you know, logic, reasoning, and other transcendental categories.
Okay, so by transcendental, do you mean they exist in a higher or different plane than material reality?
They exist in some way that isn't physical, yes.
Okay, so logic exists in a way that is not physical, or concepts exist in a way that is not physical.
Exactly, yes.
Okay.
And concepts exist within the brain, though.
We have particular configurations of concepts within the brain, right?
So if I think of a crowd of people, each individual person exists in reality, but the crowd is a concept in my brain, which exists as a particular sequence or connection of neurons.
Now, each individual person out there exists.
The concept of the crowd exists within my mind, but it is not arbitrary, right?
I can't call a pile of carpets a crowd, right?
Crowd means a group of people.
So the concepts do not exist in the world.
They exist in the mind, but they are not arbitrary.
That would be how I would work with it.
But how does that accord with what you were saying?
We lost you there for a second.
You're still there?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yeah, you're back now.
Okay, so I will reiterate.
So if I think of a crowd of people, each individual person in that crowd, let's say it's a thousand people, right?
So each one of those individuals within the crowd exists.
And the concept crowd exists within my mind, but it's not arbitrary.
I can't call a pile of carpets a crowd, so to speak.
So the concept doesn't exist in the world.
It exists as a particular pattern of thought within my mind, but it's not arbitrary.
It's not subjective.
Yeah, I would say these categories, these abstract categories such as a crowd, certainly aren't arbitrary, right?
But to say they're stored in neurons and our brain can recognize them, it still doesn't get to the fact of what the them is, what the abstract is.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by what the abstract is.
Depending on the concept, I mean, a crowd, I mean, sure, you could probably break it down into some logical positive answer that like they're in physicality.
You can point to a crowd that is actually made out of atoms, you know, human beings, etc.
But there's other concepts that you can't do that with.
Okay, and I'm happy to hear.
So we agree on physical descriptors like crowd and what are the concepts that that doesn't work in?
Oh, he's gone.
Okay.
James, somewhere in the dark ages, somewhere in summertime.
I'm all ears, my friend.
What's on your mind?
How's it going?
Is my mic okay?
What do you think?
It's not great.
Just in general, people, if you want to talk on the show, have a headset, have a decent mic.
And, you know, you can just literally, you can go to your app.
You can do a recording.
You can play it back to just make sure you don't sound like some beach radio on a U-boat in 1944.
So it just saves everyone a little bit of time.
It saves me some editing afterwards.
So it's just a little bit of consideration, I suppose, empathy.
John, are you with us?
Sorry, James.
My apologies.
James?
Me?
Yeah.
How is my mic now?
I guess it's a little better.
So what's in your mind?
Yeah, it was just, I think the discussion between yourself and John is basically it's Platonism versus Aristotle, isn't it?
I think that's fair.
Yeah.
So just for those of you who don't know, Plato felt that concepts existed in a higher realm, like they physically, in a sense, existed in a higher realm.
How do we know what a chair is?
Well, before we were born, we saw a perfect chair in Plato's world of forms, and we see the faint echoes of that perfect chair in every chair we see in the world.
And this is true of every concept.
Whereas Aristotle said that we develop concepts from repeated exposure to objects with similar construction, identity, or purposes.
So a chair has got four legs and a back used for sitting down.
We see people do that a lot.
We understand what a chair is, and we build up our concepts from empiricism, from what we see.
Is that close to what you're talking about?
That probably is what Plato said.
I never heard that, you know, that we had these concepts born or that they were innate in us, that we were born with them.
That sounds a bit, it does sound a bit out there.
I've heard you say, criticize Plato before that it sounds pretty out there.
That does sound out there.
But like, what about atoms, you know, like, you know, helium with a set amount of, you know, whatever, what is it, neurons or not neurons?
Electrons.
Electron.
Yeah, exactly.
The periodic table, you know, with the set amount of oxygen molecule.
What is it?
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Basically, like that, it's not just you know, like with it's it's it's a set amount is exact number of atoms.
Like I can see what you're saying about a chair, but I don't know, like, like two plus two equals four, right?
That's true, right?
That is true, and it will always be true.
It will always be true.
Is it true that the moon orbits Earth?
Yes, that's true.
Now, that's kind of problematic in a way, because now I know it doesn't seem problematic, but it is because, you know, whatever that object is, we call it the moon.
That's a moon to us because of our subjective human view, but to other life forms, it wouldn't be a moon.
Well, they'd use a different word for it, right?
Or yeah, or like, you know, a chair, like to a dog, you know, a chair or something to maybe or, you know, you know, but this is sorry, this is a rose by this is sort of famous out of Shakespeare, and Gertrude Stein actually rebelled against this in a way.
But Shakespeare, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, which means that the physical structure of the chair remains the same, even if somebody has a different language.
It's the same for the dog as it is for a person.
The dog may use it for a different purpose or something like that, but it's still a chair.
Like, you know, in Easter egg hunts, you'll take some Easter eggs and you'll hide them in the back of a chair or something like that.
But you're just using the chair for another purpose.
It doesn't change its nature.
It doesn't change its atoms and it doesn't change its central purpose.
I can see what you're saying, but what about like to see what about to see the chair as being inherently separate from everything else when it's possibly interdependent?
I think it's an inferior truth to 2 plus 2 plus 4, that the moon revolves around the Earth.
Sorry, sorry.
Your thoughts are very scattered.
So you've got to make a case, right?
You've got to identify an argument.
You've got to make some consequences.
So I just, you know, start again.
The moon orbits the Earth.
So you've got 2 and 2 is 4.
The moon orbits the Earth.
You say that's inferior to 2 and 2 make 4.
Is that right?
I would say that.
For different reasons.
The fact that we see it as a moon is subjective to us.
That's problematic.
The fact that we see it.
Hang on.
What do you mean by problematic?
Well, just that, you know, a chair is that object that satisfies our concept of chair is not a chair to an ant.
So?
So that's subjective.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, it's not subjective.
No.
The atoms don't change.
An ant could be crawling up a chair, leg.
And of course, an ant doesn't have language or any capacity to form concepts or anything like that.
But the atoms and the physical structure of the chair don't change depending on what name it's called or whether you're short or tall.
The chair remains stable in its physical properties.
That's true.
Okay.
So that is true.
So basically, like it's true right now that the moon orbits the earth.
That is true right now.
It's true that 2 plus 2 per four is true right now.
In a billion, billion years time, it might not be true that the moon orbits the earth.
But even why would that matter?
I mean, in a billion billion years, the chair will have disintegrated.
So what?
Because 2 plus 2 percent will be still as true then as it is now.
So it's a more reliable, because it's more reliable, it's superior.
Well, I don't agree with that at all.
And I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm just saying I don't agree with you.
You could be entirely right.
I could be talking about out of my armpit.
But it's not so much whether the moon orbits the Earth.
Everything has entropy and decays and changes over time.
But it would be a question of physics, right?
So matter has the property called gravity in that mass attracts mass.
Now, that will be the same in a billion, billion years as it is now.
And so there'll just be some other moon orbiting some other planet, whatever it is, right?
So, I mean, the particular physical manifestations of something aren't the eternals.
The eternals are, you know, the physics and the atomic structure of things and the relationship of things, the relationship between matter and energy equals mc squared.
All of that stuff is permanent and constant.
So I would not say that two and two makes four is superior.
And also, I would say it's inferior because two and two makes four as an equation only exists in the mind.
And I know that there's people, I had a debate with someone the other day where he said that mathematics and abstract physics were the only real truths.
And I'm like, no, no, because that which exists in the world is superior to that which exists only within the mind.
So if I say, I'm going to give you a million dollars, you'd rather me hand over a million dollars, right?
Whereas if I just say, I'm going to give you a million dollars and I transfer the thought of a million dollars, like let's say I have a physical million dollar bills, right?
I give you a crate of million dollar bills, you'd be much happier if I said, oh, I'm going to give you a million dollars.
You'd be much happier if I gave you a big crate full of a million dollar bills or whatever it is, rather than if I said, no, I'm just going to give you the idea of a million dollars.
I'm giving you the concept of a million dollars.
The concepts are less valuable than the things.
The concept of food is less valuable than food because you can't eat the concept of food.
The concept of water is more valuable, is less valuable than actual water because you can't drink it.
You can't water your lawn, but the concept of water.
So the idea, this is sort of Platonism again, the idea that the concept is superior to the matter and the manifestation is false.
And first of all, we only have concepts because of the stable properties of matter and energy.
And so saying that the concepts that are derived from things in the world, that the concept somehow becomes superior, it's like saying that the shadow cast by a beautiful statue is superior to the statue.
No, the shadow is just an effect.
It doesn't actually really have any material form.
It's just, you know, the absence of light caused by the shadow blocking whatever light source it is.
So the concepts of the shadows cast by things in the world and saying that the concepts are superior to the things in the world doesn't make much sense to me.
Well, yeah, that's that's kind of interesting and ironic because, you know, like do you think a physical cube exists?
Do you think a cube exists in the physical world?
Sure.
I mean, occasionally I'll have some in my tea.
But a cube by definition has all perfect right angles.
Right, which means it's not particularly valuable because it doesn't exist.
And so it's an interesting descriptor and it's a fine thing to have in your mind.
But the thing that really matters is the cube in the world.
It's the dice, it's the sugar cube, it's the box.
Those are the things that matter.
So the fact that there's a, quote, abstract perfection in the concepts doesn't make them superior.
It makes them inferior because everything in the world that exists is imperfect relative to these sort of abstract ideals, but they're actually perfect in that you can use them, right?
So again, if you were hungry and I said, I'm going to hand you the concept of food, you'd be like, well, that sucks, man.
I'm going to starve to death.
I'm hungry.
Give me some food, bro.
I say, no, no, no, I'm giving you the concept of food.
That's way better.
I'm giving you the concept of a million dollars.
That's way better than actually getting a million dollars.
You'd say, well, no.
And I'd say, listen, man, if I give you a million actual dollars, they're going to be slightly printed differently.
They're going to have different numbers on them.
They're going to be slightly different sizes.
The edges are going to be ragged.
You don't want those million dollars, man.
You want the concept of a million dollars.
God, that's perfect.
And you'd be like, no, it's not perfect because you can't spend it.
Can't spend your idea of a million dollars.
So the things in the world are infinitely superior to the concepts.
The fact that the concepts are, quote, perfect means that they're useless.
I mean, in terms of utilizing things in the real world.
So if I give you four bananas, you can say, well, but four bananas as a mental category is four perfect, ideal platonic bananas.
But you give me these four bananas.
They're slightly different colors.
They're slightly different shapes.
They're slightly different ripeness and so on.
It's like, well, yeah, but you can eat them.
So they're infinitely superior to the concepts, if that makes sense.
True.
I can't help but think of the, is it an idiom?
You teach it, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach the concept of fishing.
No, why do you think?
Well, yeah, but the concept of fishing is only valuable insofar as it helps you actually catch fish to eat.
Therefore, the concept, if I said, I'm going to give you the concept of fishing, but you can't ever fish for anything, you'd say, well, that's pretty useless.
The concept on its own is useless as tits on a bull.
But if you can use the concept to actually get fish, the purpose of the concept is to serve the material.
But can you imagine if we were just purely physical with no mind?
Like imagine our life as a human being with no mind.
Sorry, sorry.
Sorry to interrupt.
I apologize for that.
Why would we have no mind if we're purely physical?
Well, like the mind is abstract, isn't it?
I'm not sure what you mean by the mind.
The mind is an effect of the brain, right?
Consciousness is an effect of the brain.
We have all of these physical neurons and cells and atoms and space and energy and all of that in the sort of three pounds of wetwear in our skulls.
So we have all of that, and there's no such thing as consciousness without all of that.
So it's like saying gravity is an effect of matter.
Okay, yeah.
Shadow is an effect of blocking the light.
And consciousness or the mind is an effect of the physical brain.
But I'm not sure it wouldn't be immaterial, would it?
I don't know.
Like the physical world, you know, with no concepts, like us being humans, we have the concept of chair and fish and all these things and how rich that makes our lives.
Like without a mind or without those concepts, you don't have to.
No, you're saying, again, you keep saying without a mind.
I just made an argument that the mind is an effect of the brain.
The mind is our subjective experience and hopefully with some objective definitions in there, but the mind is our experience of the operations of our brain.
And the brain, without a doubt, is material.
So why would mind be immaterial?
Well, the concepts that are retained within the mind.
Okay, so obviously, if we have the concepts in the mind, they exist in some configuration of neurons, right?
Yeah, I mean, you've got the perfect parallel with the hardware and the software of a computer, right?
And you've got a big background science.
You've got the transistors, the individual transistors, the zeros and the ones, and you've got the transistors in an off-state or an on-state.
And that parallels, that's where the two worlds meet.
It's at that binary level, the transistors and the zeros and ones, right?
So yeah, so if we have a concept of a chair and the concept of the chair exists in a particular pattern of neurons within our minds, is that fair to say?
Beg your pardon to say that again?
The concept of a chair exists as a particular pattern of neurons within our mind.
Yeah, or we could go down to as low as instead of a chair, the concept of one or zero.
Okay, we don't just, everyone's familiar with the chair.
We don't have to get into binary and computers and math.
I'm trying to keep this as sort of user-friendly as possible, right?
This is like, I'm trying to do Windows, not DOS here.
I'm trying to do touch screens, not Unix.
So the concept of a chair exists within our mind.
It's a particular pattern of neurons, right?
Probably.
I don't know, but probably.
It seems raised, but I don't know, but probably.
It seems raised.
Okay, you have the concept of a chair in your mind, and we know that because you're able to recognize a chair, and you don't go and sit your ass down on a cactus or your neighbor, right?
So you're able to recognize a chair and use it for its intended purpose, right?
Because it's a concept.
I'm sorry?
Because it's a concept.
Oh, that object there satisfies My concept of chair.
Yeah, and you're right.
You don't go and sit on a bush and say this chair is broken, right?
So you're able to reliably establish what a chair is.
You're able to know what a chair is, and therefore that knowledge has to exist within your mind somewhere, right?
And we store knowledge in the mind in a series of neurons or a pattern of neurons, right?
I mean, obviously to oversimplify it, I'm no neuroscientist, but let's just use this as sort of colloquial sense.
So the idea of a chair is stored in a pattern of neurons within our mind, right?
I don't know, but it seems probable.
It seems possible and it seems reasonable.
Okay, so I'm certainly happy to hear counter evidence.
If knowledge is a pattern of neurons within the mind, and knowing what a chair is is a form of knowledge, how could it not be that?
Are you saying that there's things that we know and understand that have zero physical basis and zero physical manifestation in our mind?
Yeah, so we could we could make the reduce it down to the transistors again.
Zero is a lot.
No, no, just don't know why you keep dragging it back to computers because that's not what I'm talking about.
Talking about neurons.
So is it your theory?
How is it different in principle?
It surely is the same and it's simpler.
No, no, no, no, no.
No finding.
No, no, no.
I've been a computer programmer for many years and it is not the same.
A computer is not the same as a human brain.
So this is why I'm not going to go with you to the computer.
So because we're talking about the human brain, so let's stop dragging computers in.
And then if we're talking about computer programming, I'll stop pretending that the computer is a human brain.
I will not do that.
So just stick with the brain.
Is it your contention that you have a knowledge in the brain that is non-physical?
In other words, you don't need a particular pattern of neurons to have that knowledge.
I think what it comes down to is like, just say, if we could imagine a hypothetical where there was no intelligent life in the universe to retain the consciousness.
Oh, my God, bro, bro, bro.
I'm just asking you about your brain.
Why on earth would we, we can't possibly theorize a complete absence of intelligent life within the universe because then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Let's just stay with what's practical.
Are you saying that there's knowledge in your mind that is not based in any particular pattern of neurons, but has a non-physical, non-corporeal, non-energy source?
There could be truth out there that we haven't discussed.
No, no, not out there.
No, no, I'm just, oh my God.
Listen, bro, you don't have to answer the question, but you do have to either tell me, you have to either try to answer the question or tell me you're not going to answer the question.
It's kind of rude to just go off on these tangents, right?
But you see, like, you know, like when people say, you know, like back in the day with Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newell, when people say, oh, see, you're saying people have to basically say what, and then Peter Hitchens said, what was it?
No, no, I'm saying what I'm saying.
But the other person has to say what you say in their own words and then for you to agree on it.
Because, you know, so when, so we have to, I have to agree, I have to say what you're saying in my own words and then for you to agree, you say, yes, you understand.
Because if I repeat exactly what you've said.
No, no, you don't have to repeat it back.
I said that the knowledge of what a chair is must be the result of a particular pattern of neurons in the mind.
And you said, maybe.
Right?
So then I'm trying to understand that if you are saying maybe, you're saying that you also believe that there's knowledge in your mind that is not physical, that is not part of a particular pattern of neurons.
I'm just asking you to say yes or no to that's what you believe.
Say it again.
Beg your pardon.
Say it away.
Okay.
I'm just going to try it once more because I'm not getting anywhere in the conversation and it's been like 10 minutes of just round and round the mulberry brewer.
So I'll give it one more try.
All right.
So I said the knowledge of a chair must exist as a physical structure or relationship of neurons in the brain.
So I don't speak Japanese.
So my neurons do not have Japanese, the language, as part of my knowledge base.
Now, if I were to study Japanese, I'd be wiring up my neurons to understand Japanese.
So the knowledge of the chair must exist as a physical relationship between neurons in your brain.
And so you said maybe.
And I'm like, okay, so that means that you believe that it's possible or probable or real that we have knowledge in our brains that has no physical representation in the relationship of the neurons.
So that I can have an idea of what a chair is with no corresponding neural connections that would identify what a chair is.
You see, I can see, like, there is, like, honestly, there's the perfect parallel there between the transistors, which is the neurons and then the concept of chair, like the concept of the channel.
Okay, let's go.
Okay, fine.
If you're obsessed with the computer, we'll do the computer.
Is it possible that there's knowledge, sorry, is it possible that there's data stored in a computer that is not stored in any physical part of the computer?
No, it would have to.
Okay, fantastic.
Okay, so you can't have data stored in a computer without it being reflected in the physical memory or hard drive of the computer, right?
The transistors would have to be in a certain sequence or something.
Fantastic.
So that's all I'm saying with the neurons.
Well, we don't know how intelligence works or neurons.
Like, we don't know how conscious, human consciousness, it's a big mystery.
It's a big frontier.
No, but it's not ghosts.
Like, we don't know.
We don't know exactly, let's say, what's on the very interior of a neutron star.
I mean, just making something up, like something that we don't know.
But we know it's not Keebler elves and ghosts, right?
We don't know everything that's in the universe, but we know there's no such thing as a square circle in the universe because that's a self-contradictory entity.
So, of course, we don't know everything about how consciousness works.
We probably don't even know more than a couple of percentage points.
But we also know that the knowledge that We have is not coming from ghosts or non-material things.
I don't know what is on the far side of, I don't know, some asteroid that's out there that's turning, or we can't, I only see one side, like the moon.
I don't know what's on the other side, but I know it's not ghosts.
I know it's not square circles.
I know it's not unicorns that don't need oxygen, but are mammals, right?
So we can eliminate a whole bunch of things.
So the idea that we have knowledge in the mind that has no physical substructure is false because all knowledge that we have must be based upon the physical because we're not inhabited by ghosts.
No, and it's interesting that you went for the example of the squared circle because they're two abstract concepts.
They're two mathematical concepts.
And once again, they become the foundation of epistemology, that what you can know and what you can't know.
You cannot have a squared circle.
You both agree on that.
And they are both concepts.
They are both mathematical concepts.
And, you know, again, you know, you know, there's no such thing as a physical cube.
There's no such thing as a physical square.
Sorry, there's no such thing as a physical cube?
100%.
Have you never rolled a dice?
That's not a cube.
That's an object that has a cube-like quality to one degree or the other, but that is categorically not a cube because a cube, by definition, it's all perfect right angles.
And you look at those angles on that dice, and it's far from the cube.
100%.
So are you saying that a cube in the world, like, I don't know if you've ever played Dungeons and Dragons or something like that.
So in Dungeons and Dragons, there's a four-sided dice, which looks like a little pyramid.
And then there's a six-sided dice, which is a standard Las Vegas cube.
So when I say, pass me the cube dice, would you look at the triangle or the little pyramid and you'd look at the six-sided dice and you'd say, oh, fuck, I got no idea.
I can't tell you that.
Because I don't have it mathematically perfect.
You'd know exactly what to choose.
I know in colloquial terms, it satisfies, relatively satisfies the concept of cube, but it is categorically 100% not a cube.
No, that's bullshit, man.
Come on.
Come on.
No, 100% not a cube.
Don't be lazy.
Don't be lazy.
No, don't be lazy.
Listen, a cloud is categorically 100% not a cube, but something that's real close to a cube is not 100% not a cube.
No, a cube by definition has a perfect right angle all over.
Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on.
So let's say that you can make a cube that is like a physical cube that satisfies the perfect mathematical cube at 99%.
It's 99% as close to a perfect cube as you can get, right?
And it's still categorically not a cube.
I don't know what you mean by categorically.
Are you saying that a cube that is 99% the perfect cube is still 100% not a cube?
It would seem so.
And I can't think of another example, but I reckon I can.
It's 99% a cube.
It's not 100% not a cube.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to tell our ass from a hole in the ground.
It's just categorically not a cube.
Okay, you keep saying categorically.
I don't know what that means.
It is in the category.
It's a six-sided dice in the category of cube.
Categorically, it's like one or two other.
It's in the category of a cube.
Yes or no?
No.
It's in the category of a physical object that has a cube-like quality in one degree or the other.
Oh, come on, man.
You know this doesn't, it's not working, right?
You know, this is not working.
It's not that.
So you said it's cube-like, right?
It has the cube-like quality.
Did you say that it's cube-like?
Yeah.
Okay, so cube-like is in the category of a cube.
But it's categorically, it's 100% not a cube, though.
cube has 100% right angle and that okay He's just clinging to a definition.
So just so you're aware, the mathematics and the abstracts and the perfect circle that's different from the circle you can draw even with a compass or whatever it is, a perfect circle is inferior to an actual circle.
The concept is imperfectly derived from the instance.
And the concept is less valuable than the instance.
And there's this weird platonic thing, and I guess this guy was kind of hung up on this as well, that somehow cubeness, the abstract definition of a cube, is somehow perfect.
And the actual perfectly made or almost perfectly made laser six-sided dice or whatever it is, is somehow imperfect.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Because everything in the world that we see, hear, taste, and touch, and smell, because everything in the world has ragged edges and imperfect boundaries and so on, that's the actual thing, right?
So the six-sided dice is the cube.
Now, what is represented in our mind is imperfect.
Why?
Because it's an abstraction that does not exist in its perfect form in the real world.
So the concept is inferior to the thing itself.
Whereas he's saying, well, the concept is perfect and the thing itself is imperfect.
Nope.
And we know that.
We know that for a fact, honestly.
If you were to go to a kid and say, hey, man, I've got a bag of candy for you.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound, I don't mean to make that sound so sinister.
Hey, kid, free candy.
Remember, strangers have the best candy.
So you go to a kid, your kid, your kid, right?
Let's make it not creepy, right?
You go to your kid and you say, hey, I got a bag of candy for you.
And they open the bag of candy and there's just a whole bunch of pieces of paper with the word candy written on them.
And they say, there's no candy in here.
I said, no, no, no, this is the best candy because it's the concept of candy.
I wouldn't want to give you any of that imperfect candy.
Like, you know, those M ⁇ Ms are all slightly different sizes and they're never exactly the same color.
And, you know, the ragged edges, they're not perfect spheres and so on, right?
The Toblerons, they're not perfect triangles.
So you don't want any of that real candy because that real candy sucks.
This is the concept of candy, Which is perfect, your kid would burst into tears and say, Where's my candy?
So, you don't want those imperfect things.
I want to give you the concept, which is perfect.
And they'd say, No, I want the candy.
So, but the candy is imperfect.
He's like, But I can't eat the concept.
You can't live in the idea of a house, which means the idea of a house sucks relative to a house.
And so, really important stuff.
Hike, hike, hike.
I am all ears if you want to bring the fiery illumination of your frontal lobes to bear on philosophy.
What's on your mind?
Hello, hello, yes or no?
Well, I mean, it's funny because I know the audience is intelligent.
I don't know, is there a lot of difficulty with microphones for people?
I mean, I get phone calls from people all the time and they seem to have no problem speaking into their phone.
So bizarre to me.
All right, Mr. Singularity, what's on your mind?
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Hey.
I mean, we can pick up wherever you want to.
I don't really know what to talk about, to be honest.
I just requested because I thought it was really interesting to talk about.
All right.
Drillgen, what's on your mind?
Just in general, if you have a question, that's great, but don't ask me what I want to talk about.
This is Colin Show.
Durgan Stephen.
Hey, how's it going?
Good.
How you doing, man?
Good.
So are you kind of saying that Kant's wrong about the categorical imperative?
Are you kind of idea that we can't really get to objective truth, that you're seeing something and it's really light rays coming into your eyes?
And so there's this kind of separate concept.
I guess I'm trying to figure you out.
What do you say to that?
Not sure what you're asking me because the categorical imperative is Kant's attempt to create universal morality.
If you're talking about light rays entering the mind, I mean, that might be more locky and that might be more empirical, but I'm still not sure what you're asking me.
I'm sorry if I'm missing something.
No, my apologies.
I'm getting my Kant mixed up.
I'm trying to think what the term is now.
But the idea that we can't have access to physical truth.
Oh, no, we can absolutely have access to physical truth.
Yeah, for sure.
I mean, our conversation couldn't work if we didn't have access to physical truth because we're not in the same room and the medium of conversation between us requires a whole bunch of physical truths to all work in sequence in order for you and I to send the bits and burps of data back and forth to even have the conversation.
So our ears have to work, our mouths have to work, our voice boxes have to work, the microphone has to work, the phone has to work, the internet, the data lines.
So yes, absolutely.
You can't have a conversation without assuming that we have objective, the capacity to process objective material truths.
But sorry, go ahead.
Well, I guess we would have to kind of subscribe to the fact that we have a conventional reality.
So we're kind of excluded.
I don't know what you mean by conventional reality.
What's an unconventional reality?
Conventional reality compared to what?
Well, it comes up once in a while when maybe something that we were really sure of, we then find out wasn't the case.
So this kind of happens.
I mean, if you're talking about something like two plus two is four, that's a pretty solid thing.
I mean, didn't you write a book on Hume or something?
Okay, are you scattershotting thoughts here or do you have actual questions?
I feel like I'm following some acid jazz while on acid.
So if you can boil it down, I'd appreciate it.
Well, the topic I had kind of prepared if I ever got on was I was going to kind of strike at the very base of your whole project.
You ready for that instead?
I'm sorry, but why aren't you doing that if that's what you want to talk about?
Well, because I was kind of jumping into this, I'm kind of confused about, you know, if we just go to the idea of Hume where he said you couldn't be certain of something as sure as a cue ball hitting a ball that there was a cause and effect there because you can never reach that.
And I thought Hume was something you were, I'm still getting familiar with.
I'm familiar with Hume, so make your case.
So you want to go that route, or you want to talk about...
So whatever you're prepared with, whatever is the most interesting and compelling for you, I'm happy to talk about.
Okay, well, I guess the dream would be to talk to a philosopher about the topic of, because I think this is the million dollar question to switch the lights here.
Do we have too many people on the earth or not?
Seems like your whole project is based on the idea that we don't have enough people.
I mean, you're what?
What are you talking about?
My whole project is based on the fact that we don't have enough people?
What is my whole project?
I don't know what you're talking about.
This is like the fifth new topic.
Are you stoned or something?
Like, what's going on?
No, I'm not stoned.
What do you mean, my whole project?
What is my whole project?
Well, like the kind of idea to help men on their way to having a relationship, which would seem like it would need to children.
So my whole project is dating advice?
Well, it does seem like you're trying to help populate to Earth.
Is that not the case?
What do you mean by seems like?
I don't know what you're talking about.
I mean, I've talked about a million topics in the 40 plus years that I've been into philosophy.
So I'm not sure what you mean by my main project.
Well, I guess what interests me about this is you have people who think we have too many people on the planet, right?
The globalists, the eugenicists, people who would say that, you know, people who maybe are trying to kill us, but they have a good reason to do it.
And I always thought that would be a really good topic to argue.
And since to me, it seems like you are on the other side of that project.
You're trying to help people have relationships.
You're trying to help people have.
Okay.
What is your question?
Do you think there's too many people or not enough people on the earth?
I don't have a particular opinion about whether there are too many or not enough people because I try to restrict what I focus on to things that I can actually do something about.
Now, do I think that people who are smart and interested in philosophy and curious about these kinds of matters, who I assume are in the top 1% of intelligence, do I think that they sometimes overthink things and get paralyzed and should just go out and talk to Girls or talk to boys, talk to men, talk to women.
Yeah, I think courage is a good thing.
Do I think that people who enjoy the gift of life should pay it forward?
Well, sure.
But as far as the number of people, I mean, there are people being born every day, there are people dying every day.
The world is not exactly overpopulated with intelligent people.
So I don't have any particular, I don't have a number on my wall and say, it's good, it's gone up this year, bad, it's gone down today, yeah.
But I do think that people should fall in love.
I think that they should get married.
I think that they should have children because that's celebrating the gift of life by passing it forward.
It's creating deep meaning out of your life.
You get to fall in love, which is the greatest thing in the world.
So all of that is a positive.
And the purpose of philosophy is happiness.
And it's the most, statistically, the most likely thing to make people happy.
So yeah.
But I don't sort of sit there and say I'm adding or subtracting to the number of people in the universe or something.
So that's not really something active in your mind that you're on.
We don't have enough people.
We need to kind of step up kind of project.
Not really.
No, that's helpful.
All right.
Moving on to the Sigma and CAP.
Sorry, it was like 15, 10, 10 minutes or so.
No, no actual question.
Sigma and CAP, what's in your mind?
Yes, sir.
Go ahead.
I am an atheist, but I don't really like the association of atheism.
I'm more non-religious, but I still think that I still believe that we want to be created in the universe.
But my main question has to be about how do Christians come about?
Are Christians made?
Are they born?
Because to me, the definition of a Christian is someone who has faith in God.
No, that's not the definition of a Christian.
Oh, what definition would she give?
A person who accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, not just somebody who believes in a God.
There's tons of religions that believe in gods that wouldn't be Christians, right?
Yeah, yeah, sure.
Well, sorry, that's a big change.
What do you mean?
Yeah, sure.
There's 10,000 gods.
Christians believe in Jesus as the Son of God and that he died for their sins and was resurrected and can get them into heaven if they pursue New Testament ideals, not Old Testament ideals.
So that's a big difference from what you said, just anybody who believes in God.
Everybody who believes in God is not a Christian.
I'm sorry, did I say believe?
I meant that they have faith in God?
Okay, either way, either way.
The God is not the issue.
It's called Christianity for a reason, not Godianity, right?
Christianity means focused on Jesus Christ.
Okay.
So it's someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior, their Messiah?
Yes.
So what do Christians usually mean by when they say they have faith in God?
I'm sorry.
Are you asking me what my opinion is of these things?
Yes.
Yeah, it means that I have a personal relationship with God and Jesus.
And let's focus on Jesus, right?
Because it's what would Jesus do, not what would God do, right?
So they say I have a personal relationship with Jesus who guides me into making better decisions and whose edicts I follow because he is all good and all perfect and has given these commandments and these morals to mankind.
And the purpose of mankind's experiment in the world is for people to be good and to achieve salvation.
And so I have a personal relationship.
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he came to earth 2,025 years ago and died for my sins.
Okay, that's great.
I want to point out that I really do love Christians.
Some of the best people I know are Christians.
And in many ways, I kind of wish I was one.
But, you know, I just, I guess, I haven't accepted Jesus or I don't really have the faith that faith in God or anything like that.
So my always big thing was like, how does an atheist become a Christian?
Just acceptance?
Well, you would have to, I think, I don't want to speak for Christians, but I would say that you would probably have to have to go through the process of being born again and committing your life to Jesus and accepting Jesus into your heart and going to church and reading the Bible and following the edicts of Christianity.
Okay.
Yeah, I've been slowly reading the Bible, still getting my way through it.
Now, do you have any sort of questions or comments philosophically speaking?
I mean, your personal spiritual journey, I'm sure, is important to you, but this is aiming to be a sort of general purpose philosophy show.
Yeah, I was just wondering how atheists become Christians, but I think you've laid that out.
All right, thank you.
Estival Salstis.
Estival Saltstis.
I really could be able to pronounce these things.
But what's on your mind?
If you want to unmute, I'm happy to hear your thoughts.
Oh, hello.
Good evening, Stefan.
Yeah, this might be a very short conversation.
I was curious to know, I have a particular definition of what an atheist is.
And I'm curious to know what yours is.
Sorry, what do you mean a particular definition?
I mean, there is a definition of what an atheist is, right?
No, because in the past, when I was younger and when I considered myself to be one, you go look and you find that dictionaries have various definitions.
And I thought that quite a few of them were actually incorrect, because it's not really a belief.
A lack of belief does not equate a belief.
So if you lack a belief in deities or a God, that is what makes you an atheist.
But that is in itself not a belief.
It's just a lack of a belief.
And since you, which is kind of funny and sometimes a bit abrasive or annoying, you say, you know, all these atheists, this or that.
And I'm like, yeah, but you're really talking about people who are socialists, Marxists, or whatever.
And what motivates them to take on certain positions politically, philosophically, is not really their lack of belief in a deity, but whatever else shapes their thinking, their convictions.
So are you saying that if you know that somebody is an atheist, you can't predict with any reliability any of their other beliefs?
Well, it's not the homogenic group of people.
No, no, don't do that.
What am I doing?
Well, of course, it's not a homogeneous group of people.
I get that.
I'm not, everybody's all the same, right?
Obviously.
Do you think it's possible if I tell you Bob is an atheist?
Do you think it's possible to deduce with a high degree of probability his position on a wide variety of social and political issues?
No, not necessarily.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You're wrong.
And I don't mean to be blunt, but you're just wrong.
I mean, have you ever looked it up?
Or is it just pulling an opinion out of your armpit or what?
Well, I might ask the same thing of you.
Okay.
Well, I have looked it up.
So 91% of atheists are pro-abortion.
90% of atheists took the COVID shot, as opposed to 15%, 50, sorry, 57% of white evangelical Christians.
Atheists, 90% of atheists or so are fully accepting of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, climate change arguments.
And about 85% in America, about 85% of atheists are pro-the Democrat Party, which is a hard-left political party.
So if you know that Bob is an atheist, he's an NPC with regard to all of these other things.
Now, it's not skepticism.
You can't say, well, he's skeptical of the existence of God, and that's all of his other beliefs.
No, because skepticism would also be skepticism of a pretty rushed gene therapy rollout.
Skepticism would also be skepticism of the fact that bought and paid for climate models that give political rulers access to trillions of dollars and massive amounts of political power, that you'd be skeptical of those, right?
It would also be skepticism regarding, I mean, if you're an atheist and you're very, very skeptical, then you would accept that fetuses, developing fetuses are, you know, obviously at least potential human life.
And there would be at least, you wouldn't just immediately able to dismiss them as a clump of cells because a clump of cells could be a tumor, a clump of cells could be a dead fish on a beach, right?
But this is a specifically alive.
So it's not skepticism.
Is it rationality?
Nope.
It's not rationality.
You'd also be skeptical of hard left policies because hard left policies, you know, socialism slash communism, cause the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions, depending on how you counted of people in the course of the 20th century.
So it's not rationality.
It's not objectivity.
It's not science, because science is skepticism and atheists were very much lining up behind this whole trust of science stuff that was going on under COVID.
Atheists supported absolutely tyrannical COVID stuff as a whole.
Again, there are, of course, exceptions.
It's sort of pointless to point out that there are exceptions to general rules, but it kind of needs to be done.
So if you say, well, atheism is just the absence of belief, then why is it so correlated with other absolutely irrational perspectives?
That's an interesting question.
And frankly, I don't have some paper, some piece of research I can pull out of my armpit or whatever place to present to you and say, well, this and this and that, and that's why it's so.
But having said that, yeah, atheism is not synonymous with being a skeptic.
It's not synonymous with being rational.
It's just a whole spectrum of things, one particular position, which means that you lack a belief in the existence of a deity or deities, plural.
Well, and so.
Go ahead, go ahead.
And I do think that, because, you know, a long time ago, I was following these people when Christopher Hitchens was around.
And, you know, you had the, they called themselves the new atheists and the four horsemen and all that.
I think gradually, and maybe it's gone quite rapidly at some point, a whole bunch of things shifted in society, politically, etc.
And I don't think back, I'm talking, when is this 2010, 2012, something like that, that you had all these social justice warrior types, you had all these woke nutters, these gender-fluid queer people.
That was not part of it.
It was just a philosophical or a religious question as in, you know, pertaining to that.
And then atheists obviously say, well, you know, it all started with the Big Bang.
And, you know, that's the topic in itself.
I don't find it satisfactory to just, you know, there was no time, there was no space before the Big Bang.
And voila, that's it.
And you're alive and then you're dead.
And there is an eternity.
Sorry, I do need to.
I mean, you sort of telling me about your sort of inner thoughts and experiences are fine, but not for a philosophy show.
So if you have any questions or comments that I can actually participate in rather than sit down.
Okay, no, that's fine.
I guess I can talk about your things.
So the challenge is to figure out what is in common with atheism, communism, statism, slave to scientism, which is the new mystery religion of guys in lab coats hiding their data and telling you you just have to obey them because.
So you have to sort of figure out what is in common with all of these things.
Now, I mean, I have my own theories.
We don't have to get into it right now because this is a call-in show, so I want to get into other people's thoughts.
But it's not just coincidence that atheists tend to be very pro-totalitarian, that atheists were absolutely shameful over COVID and have never admitted to any of the problems.
The fact that I've presented atheists over the last couple of days with countless pieces of information about how totalitarian atheism is as a whole.
And they don't care.
They don't care.
It doesn't matter to them.
There's no rebuttal.
There's no, oh my gosh, you know, that's new information.
That's really disturbing.
Gosh, I got to really think about that.
The fact that atheists in general are the most hateful of free speech of all the major belief or non-belief systems Or whatever, none of this is a coincidence.
The atheism is not just a lack of belief in God, it's associated with a whole bunch of other things.
And the fact that all of these new atheists and so on were all heavily pushed and promoted by the largely socialist or communist-led publishing houses is not an accident.
Okay, I appreciate your comment.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to move on.
I still want to ask you something because I just saw a video of you where you said that people who that was during the COVID so-called pandemic.
I mean, there was never a pandemic.
It was a STEM damage.
I was one of those people who, you know, didn't conform.
I never took the shot.
I never wore a mask.
I always went out to protest, faced the riot police every Sunday until we got hose off, you know, with water cannons and clubbed off by police.
Please, bro, you've got to, you've got to, like, you've got to get to a question.
Yeah, but I saw this video where you were like, you have to be ashamed.
But back then, you were part of the people who said, well, believe the science, follow the science.
And now you say, well, you know.
I'm sorry, you have to be ashamed.
It wasn't reasonable.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Yeah.
I said, what did I say specifically and when?
Okay.
This little video clip, which is posted underneath one of your comments, you said that people ought to be ashamed for being selfish, for not listening to the people who said, well, you have to take precautions.
And if other people do.
And when did I say that?
When did I say that?
I don't know when it was recorded.
Do you think that's important?
Well, it was some years ago.
It was obviously during this fake pandemic.
Okay.
So you've done 108.
Hang on.
Here's the thing.
If you want to be responsible, man, don't throw out these wild accusations without checking what's going on.
Like, just be fair.
Be reasonable.
You wouldn't like it if somebody took a little article.
Aren't there a number?
Okay, no, no, no.
I'm talking now.
So in general, atheists say, oh, I want to treat others as I want to be treated.
So people don't want to take things out of context.
So when I was in Hong Kong in 2019, I was doing a documentary.
I was marching with the Hong Kong protesters and so on, the anti-communist protesters.
I did a whole documentary called Hong Kong Fight for Freedom.
It's really good.
You should check it out.
It's free.
Freedomman.com slash documentaries.
So my contacts in Hong Kong were telling me basically that the COVID-19, I was one of the first people to report on it because it showed up in Hong Kong early on.
And they were saying to me basically that their belief was that it was a bioweapon that had come out of the Wuhan lab in China.
Now, there were a whole bunch of people saying it's nothing, it's not important, it's not real.
And I was saying, you don't have that information.
You don't have that information.
I wasn't telling everyone it was going to kill them, but I sure as hell wasn't going to go out on a limb if it did come out of a bioweapons lab.
I wasn't going to go out on a limb and say it's nothing.
And so, and the alpha strain of COVID was a son of a bitch of an illness.
It was pretty nasty, and it was taking a lot of people's breath away, to put it mildly.
So, yeah, I was not happy with all the people I saw online saying, oh, don't worry about anything.
You don't even need to wash your hands.
It's like, no, you don't.
Listen, you don't have that information.
What I was getting from my contacts was that it was a bioweapon.
At least that was the suspicion.
And I did a whole video called The Case Against China.
So I think it's highly irresponsible before you get the information to tell people not to worry.
It's highly irresponsible.
You cannot tell people before information not to worry about a disease.
So I absolutely stand by that.
I would not have said anything different, even going back in time, because people just breezily announcing that nobody had anything to worry about were wrong.
There were things to worry about.
And prior to finding out the facts about COVID, now, of course, people remember COVID, like the Omicron, the later on stuff, which was obviously much milder and so on.
I opposed all government-mandated lockdowns.
I absolutely very clearly said they were going to do way more harm than good and that they were immoral.
Now, I was fine with two weeks voluntarily, voluntarily.
I was fine with two weeks to see what was going on.
But everybody who was just out there with no knowledge and no facts saying that people should ignore COVID-19 in its first and virulent strain, that was irresponsible.
I never took the vaccine myself.
I never promoted that anyone take the vaccine.
I strenuously opposed all the mandates, but I also opposed all of the people who were saying, it's nothing, it's not real, you've got nothing to worry about.
That was highly irresponsible because that was prior to any information.
But sorry, go ahead.
Well, then, you know, we are more aligned than before I had this conversation, then I knew.
So don't go around making public accusations of people being wrong and potentially immoral without looking into the facts.
Without looking into the facts.
Treat people the way that you would like to be treated in this kind of instance.
If somebody was posting out-of-context clips of you, I mean, you'll notice the people who post those clips, they don't have the date on them.
So it's very early on.
They don't also point out that I oppose the lockdowns.
I opposed government mandates.
I never took the vaccs.
And, you know, in Canada, that was not the easiest thing in the world.
So get your facts in line before, especially in public, before accusing people of significant wrongdoing.
All right.
That's a good name, The Prodigal Heal.
What's in your mind, my friend?
Yes, sir.
So I guess my question is, and I'll go ahead and listen to your thoughts on this.
But, you know, you were talking about the candy and the piece of paper and giving a kid, you know, the candy and just saying, hey, this paper is good for you because it doesn't have all that sugar in it.
So what's your take on something like, you know, the Bitcoin and the AI generated and the transhumanism, I guess, that's kind of taking place right now over society with these products.
You're going to have to give me a more focused question.
So, like, you know, you take Bitcoin, right?
And, you know, basically, you know, what's what's, you know, they say that the dollar is a fiat currency, okay?
But what's Bitcoin backed by?
It's backed by the same dollar that's kind of.
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on.
What do you mean Bitcoin is backed by the dollar?
No, you're not, you're paying cash for Bitcoin.
It's backed by the dollar.
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
What do you mean Bitcoin is back?
I don't understand.
What do you mean Bitcoin?
Bitcoin can be valued in dollars, but what do you mean by Bitcoin is backed by the dollar?
Well, what else is it going to be valued in?
What are you going to sell Bitcoin in?
Sorry, I don't understand.
Do you not know that you can exchange Bitcoin for houses, cars, goods and services of any kind directly without going through fiat currency?
Well, you're buying the houses and the cars and stuff like that based on the sheer fact that you're going to get a dollar for the Bitcoin or something that you can tangibly trade.
No, no, no.
Can you say that?
No, there are people who run their entire businesses off Bitcoin and most of their lives off Bitcoin without ever touching fiat.
So, I mean, listen, all due respect.
You're just wrong.
I just don't see exactly how that's possible, how you're going to survive off of.
Why would anything matter based upon what you do or don't understand?
You know, that's like we say, oh, I don't understand quantum physics, man.
So it's bullshit.
It's like, that's perspective, right?
at least you can learn quantum physics.
The idea that Bitcoin is backed by a dollar is ridiculous.
Bitcoin is a decentralized autonomous network.
What makes it decentralized?
Definitely exchange available.
What makes it decentralized autonomous?
How's it decentralized autonomous?
Okay, so if somebody doesn't even have the first clue but comes in confidently stating stuff, I have no patience for that.
Like, maybe it's because I'm going to be 59 in a couple of months, but I have no patience for people who come in confidently asserting things without having a freaking clue about what they're talking about.
It's backed by the dollar.
What do you mean it's autonomous?
It's independent.
What do you mean it's decentralized?
All right, E, take us home, man.
What's on your mind?
You don't need to unmute.
I can't hear you.
College, are you talking to me?
Is your username E?
It is.
Do you think that there are a lot of other E's out there?
I saw a few.
There's a popular E. I'm not sure.
Has he requested to talk on my show?
No, he hasn't.
Okay, then it's.
I just tuned in and I heard about Bitcoin and I just hit the button, so I don't really have anything yet.
Sorry, you requested to talk, but you don't have anything to say.
Yes.
I was going to talk about Bitcoin.
Amazing, man.
Have people lost the art of civilized discourse completely?
Not everyone, right?
All right.
Atlas.
What's on your mind, my friend?
Hello?
Yes, sir.
Hey, Stefan.
I would first want to apologize for some of the snarky comments that I made on your post earlier this week.
What were they?
What did you say?
Oh, it was I got upset earlier this week when you were encouraging young men to approach women.
Okay.
And why did that upset you?
Well, I remember I was reading the post as Tony is shaming men.
And I personally, I think they men do need to approach women.
Anyway, but I'm just I the way I currently work in I'm sorry, but sorry to interrupt.
What did you say that you regret?
Oh, it was just I can't remember what I made a couple snarky comments and I a couple days go by and I sit there.
But just in general, and I don't mean to nag you at all, right?
But just in general, a sort of a word to the wires from an older, older guy, maybe.
If you're going to apologize for something, don't say, I don't remember what I did.
Because apologies kind of need to be specific, right?
If I said, I'm sorry for X and somebody says, well, what do you mean by X?
I don't remember, but it was something negative.
It's a little tough to take apologies seriously if you don't even really remember what you did.
And again, I'm not trying to be Mr. Naggy.
This is fine with us.
I'm just saying that in general in life, you want to be specific in your apologies.
Otherwise, people are not going to be particularly sure what it is you're apologizing for.
And also, if you don't remember what you did, it's kind of hard to say, I'm not going to do it again, right?
Yes.
Okay.
So again, I'm not trying to be Mr. Nag.
I just, it doesn't matter with us.
It's fine.
I'm just giving you that sort of coaching for, you know, because we all have to apologize and we all do things that are suboptimal or wrong or bad or mean.
Sometimes I certainly do myself.
So just a little tip.
But anyway, sorry, please go on with your question.
Well, I wanted to get that out of the way.
Oh, and to comment about Bitcoin, I find there's an amazing analogy for Bitcoin itself as a belief system.
In the same way, I don't have to believe in Islam or Christianity or these other religious belief systems.
It's whether or not I believe in that system.
Other people are participating in that belief system.
And therefore, when I go in and participate with that belief system, it will work.
Because in a way, it's similar to, if I remember my Ludwig von Mises correctly, that value is a perception of the human mind, and it's not intrinsically in things, and therefore...
Yeah, for sure.
No, I appreciate that.
But sorry, go ahead.
Oh, and I was also wanting to comment that I've listened to a couple of these, your shows over the past couple of days, and it is terrifying to listen to a lot of people who their only power is To deconstruct other religions or other belief systems.
Meanwhile, they have nothing constructive to put into the world.
Well, I mean, the terrible thing about modern atheism is its complete lack of self-criticism.
All it is focused on is, and in this, it seems particularly like pathologically, hysterically female, is that, you know, like the nag, nag, nag, nag.
And another thing, you know, just nag, nag, nag.
And that this lack of self-criticism is astounding.
And of course, everyone's seen this, right?
My daughter explained to me what ratio it was when she happened to see this tweet, right?
Which is way more comments than likes.
But it was continual.
It was completely exhausting.
And I'm not, you know, I'm pretty robust when it comes to sort of mental challenges and mental battles and so on.
But it was like, part of me is just like, I mean, my God, like this is exhausting that every single time you criticize anything about atheism or ask for the root of atheist morals, all they can do is bitch about Christianity.
But the church does this.
And it's like complete lack of lack of, this is like, you know, saying to some woman who's, who's, you know, 100 pounds overweight, saying, you know, you need to lose some weight.
Well, my sister's even fatter.
And it's like, what does that have to do with, you know, you say to some kid, what's two and two, what does two and two make?
Well, well, that guy got it wrong.
It's like, I'm asking you, like, what, what, I was simply asking atheists, why don't you lie?
What's your reasons?
I understand the reasons for Christianity or other religions.
I may not agree with those reasons, but I understand them.
What are your reasons?
Oh, but the Crusades.
And it's like, no, no, it's nothing to do with it.
Like, can you focus?
Can you answer a question that is directed at you and your belief system?
Or can all you do is bitch about Christianity or me or others?
And it's wild, man.
Anyway, sorry, you were going to say.
Yeah, it's terrifying.
And I am thankful that I've listened to your book.
I've listened to your book, UPB, and I've tried to incorporate it, but I fall short as my behavior.
I don't ask you why, if that's any consolation.
But I also, would it be okay to change the topic to a free will discussion?
Yes, I have a call in a little bit, but I've got another little bit of time, so go for it.
I was wondering, is would we ascribe free will, does everybody equally get free will?
And I've wondered this.
Sorry, what do you mean?
Hang on.
Sorry.
By get, do you mean has the potential for or manifests?
Right.
So if you don't work out, then you don't have the capacity to run 10 miles, right?
Right.
So does everybody have the capacity?
Again, assuming general levels of human health and youth, can everybody run 10 miles?
No.
Does everybody who's relatively healthy and young have the capacity to run 10 miles?
Well, sure.
So I'm not sure what you mean by has.
Do you mean it has the capacity or manifests equally?
Well, I'm honestly, I'm wondering if free will could be an IQ-related issue, you know, some kind of factor like that, where, where the mass of people, the NPCs of society who like they don't question authority and they just float through life.
Well, atheists are high IQ.
How did they do?
Like, I don't know if it is a free will.
It's some, is there some secondary factor that we have?
Well, so, I mean, yeah, so to have free will, you have to have the free Q, not the IQ, but the free will.
Yeah, yeah, free Q. No, I mean, it's a great question.
Now, I can't budge IQ as a philosopher.
I don't have that capacity.
And that's just being in the subset of humanity as a whole doesn't really know how to budge IQ.
Like, you know, we know how to hurt it, maybe, but we don't know really how to budget much upwards, right?
And putting stupid people through university doesn't make them smarter anymore.
Well, yeah, they spent $100 billion.
Yeah, the Head Start program spent $100.
Yeah, they spent $100 billion trying to close the black, white IQ gap and were unable to do it.
So we don't know how to budge that.
On the plus side, philosophy is not fundamentally focused on IQ.
Fundamentally, it is focused on wisdom.
Now, can you be lower IQ and have more wisdom than somebody of higher IQ?
Absolutely.
And if I had the choice between IQ and wisdom, I would choose wisdom every time.
Every time.
Calling Scott Adams, right?
I'm sorry?
Scott Adams famously took the COVID shot.
Well, yeah, but he was married to this.
What's this?
He was married to this Uber Hadi, and I think she wanted to go away for the honeymoon.
I don't know, but whatever, for whatever reason, right?
So I would take wisdom over IQ.
Now, I can't change IQ in people, but I sure as heck can spread wisdom.
So wisdom is having a Aristotelian mean proportionate response to ideal standards, right?
So you have an ideal standard called telling the truth.
Well, you don't go around telling everyone the truth all the time because you're just going to get thrown in prison or beaten up or, you know, whatever it is, right?
You get to be Ricky Gervais in your own TV, in your own movie.
Well, Ricky Gervais.
No, Ricky Gervais is an absolute coward in regards to what's happening in England and all of the problems that they're having in England.
And he's, oh, my ex-wife died of cancer and I'm going to regurgitate Dawkins' talking points from 20 years ago and consider it like edgy comedy.
I mean, it's really, it's terrible.
Absolutely terrible.
He did a movie, though.
It was called The Invention of Lying, where, and it was a very funny show where he, yet the entire world is based on nobody in the world.
I get that.
I don't want to do a movie synopsis of Ricky Gervais because I just consider him to be terrible.
I mean, all the money, all the power, and he just won't tell the truth about what's going on in England.
Anyway, neither here nor there.
So you have to have, to have free will, it is our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
And so you have to have ideal standards.
Now, Christians have ideal standards.
Muslims have ideal standards, right?
Other religions Have some standards.
I'm not particularly, I'm certainly not any expert on worldwide religions, but you have to have an ideal standard.
And then, when you have an ideal standard, you have the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
So, for instance, what would Jesus do?
That's your ideal standard.
And you can compare what it is you want to do.
I'm really angry at this guy.
I really want to hit him.
Jesus wouldn't.
Jesus would sit down and reason with him or, you know, try and try and work with him or pray for him or whatever it is.
So you'd have, you know, grit your teeth and you don't do what you want to do.
You force yourself to do something better than what you want to do, right?
So just to sort of spoiler a bit about what I'm going to talk about tomorrow night, part of what I was doing was asking atheists, what is your ideal standard?
I mean, you could call it morality or whatever, the ideal standard, right?
What is your ideal standard?
Now, if atheists don't have an ideal standard, they don't functionally have free will because they have nothing to compare proposed actions to.
And hedonists just do whatever feels good.
So they don't have any ideal standard to compare proposed actions to or against.
And so hedonists don't really have free will.
They're just following their dopamine.
They're just following their nerve endings and their pleasure and whatever it is, right?
They might as well be monkeys in the zoo, you know, just stroking themselves.
So my question to atheists was, do you have free will?
Now, if atheists don't have ideal standards, and again, there was a wide variety of responses, but a lot of them centered around the carrot and the stick, which is, well, I gain social benefits from telling the truth and I feel bad if I lie.
But that's not an ideal standard.
Being bribed to be good.
And then they say, well, how, you know, Omar, if you need bribes to be good and you need threats to be bad, it's like, this is exactly what you're talking about, the atheists, exactly what they're talking about.
They get a benefit called social reward.
And then if they lie, they get a punishment, either called social rejection or feeling bad or whatever it is, right?
It's still heaven and hell.
It's just not in the abstract.
So my basic question was, do atheists have free will?
Well, if you don't have ideal standards, UPB is an ideal standard, right?
So if you don't have ideal standards, you have nothing to compare proposed actions to, and you are fundamentally an NPC, right?
Now, my theory was atheists don't have ideal standards.
Therefore, they're going to react in a fully NPC fashion.
It's like they're going to react in a fully NPC fashion.
And I will say, and I can't honestly think of exceptions.
I really can't think of exceptions.
They reacted in a fully NPC fashion.
It didn't matter what data I posted.
It didn't matter what facts I posted.
It didn't matter what rebuttal I posted.
People just did the same thing over and over again.
Because the most honest answer, and I say to atheists, why don't you not lie?
Would be, you know, I'm not sure.
I mean, I feel like it's just I don't want to, but that's not really a good reason because there are obviously people out there who want to lie and are good at it, right?
So somebody might do it back to me.
Well, somebody might do it back to me, but it didn't matter because the atheists put our Lord and Savior, Anthony Fauci, first and foremost on their altar of subjugation and found out that they'd been lied to by a whole bunch of people over COVID.
Didn't matter.
Didn't matter to them.
They didn't say, oh, my God, you know, I trusted all these people and it didn't really work out and it really had me reevaluate my whole position.
They didn't care.
They didn't care.
So the form of the question, atheists, why don't you lie?
Or what compels you to tell the truth?
The form of the question, they lied in almost every response.
And facts didn't matter.
Reason didn't matter.
Rebuttals didn't matter.
They just would insult Christians, insult me, claim vague esoterical benefits, which, and then they would refuse to answer.
Say, well, you know, you flourish when you tell the truth.
You do better when you tell the truth.
I'm like, are you fucking kidding me?
Look at history.
Look at the last five years, for God's sakes.
Look at the media.
Look at politicians.
Look at educators, quote, educators.
Look at the pharmaceutical companies or other giant corporations.
Look at USAID for guys.
They've lied about everything.
Look at foreign aid.
Like, people get trillions of dollars from bullshitting their way through life.
Massive amounts.
Isn't Al Gore a billionaire for lying his ass?
Well, he's made a lot of money off those carbon tax credits, right?
So, so, and, you know, I mean, how many times has this noble liar, whatever it is, the inconvenient truth.
Sorry, updating my Plato.
The inconvenient truth, how many times has that been debunked?
And, you know, people still repeating the wage gap to get women all surly and testy.
And like, how many times?
It doesn't matter.
They had to take down the at Glacier National Park, the take down the science.
This is still there.
Yeah, how many times do the scientific predictions of we're five years away from climate catastrophe, which has been the case since the 70s, how many times does it matter?
How many times they blow past that?
Atheists still believe.
They still believe in the science that isn't even science.
It's just computer models, which you can make up anything with bullshit computer models.
I mean, I was in the business world and I can't tell you how many proposals came across my desk that were business plans that were just complete nonsense.
There was no foundation.
You can type whatever you want into, it's like downloading your bank account, putting it into a spreadsheet program, typing in a new sum and saying, I'm rich.
Whatever you want.
So it doesn't matter.
Sorry, go ahead.
They have the same amount of integrity as those people in 2006 pointing the financial projections going, oh, yeah, the economy is going to be great.
Right, right, right, right.
Right, right.
Or Peter Schiff with Bitcoin, but that's a whole other topic.
So yeah, so my sort of prediction, and I'll go into this in more detail, the sort of giant social experiment, was it's not going to matter what I say.
They're going to have completely pre-programmed responses because as atheists, they don't have an ideal standard to compare proposed actions to, and therefore they have no functional free will.
And boy, did they ever completely conform to that.
And even when I pointed it out, even when I pointed it out, saying I've posted about how terrible atheists behaved over COVID, they don't care.
They don't care.
It doesn't Matter because it doesn't compute.
They don't have an ideal standard.
It doesn't matter.
And so, yeah, for free will, you don't have functional free will without an ideal standard to compare your proposed actions to.
And so, of course, the whole point for me has been to promulgate and put out all of these ideal standards so that people can actually have some functional free will.
And right now, without ideal standards, the atheists are barely bots.
Right.
The scary part is we, the metaphor of we haven't, we never made it out of the dark ages.
We are still living in a world that's controlled by wizards.
Oh, no, worse than the dark ages.
No, no, the dark age.
No, the dark ages had ideal standards.
We're still controlled by wizards, you know, this whole thing, like every time the propaganda machine gets whirled up, it's analogous to like some wizard casts a terrible spell over all the, all of the villages.
Yeah, we're in the land of witch doctors.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So all of the rationality and objectivity of atheists, all the skepticism, right?
Where was all the atheist skepticism when it came to do I have ideal standards of morals?
Oh, that's an interesting question, you know?
And of course, the atheists revere and worship people like Galileo.
They revere and worship people like Socrates and so on, right?
And Socrates said, I know nothing.
And the atheists, even though they worship Socrates, are full of absolute vanity about everything they know and everything that they understand.
And they just make statements that it doesn't matter whether they'll be, oh, you know, you don't flourish if you lie.
It's like, like you're literally criticizing religion, which you consider a lie, which is way more powerful than atheism.
And you're saying that there's no flourishing if you lie and let you continue to criticize Christianity, which is flourishing a whole lot more than atheism.
If you look at number of adherents and wealth and structural power within society and so on.
So they literally will say religion is a lie.
Religion is way more successful than atheism.
And yet people who lie never succeed.
Like it literally is that level of cognitive dissonance.
They don't even notice what they're saying and how much it contradicts their entire position.
It's absolutely wild.
It is.
All right.
So anything that you wanted to mention at Le End?
And I really do appreciate everyone dropping by tonight, but I certainly give you the last word, Brilla.
No, it's been a pleasure getting to actually talk to with an intelligent person in real life.
And I apologize for not having specific things about earlier this week that it all just kind of got fogged together.
And so that I wanted to apologize about.
But that's again.
I appreciate that.
And if it's any consolation or any comfort, your apology is perfectly and totally and happily accepted.
And it's as if it never happened for me.
And you're certainly welcome to join the conversation anytime.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
Thanks, everyone.
Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
Freedomain.com slash donate.
To help out the show, lots of love from up here.
I will talk to you tomorrow at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard.
And thank you for your time today.
And thanks to everyone who called in.
All the best.
▲
Export Selection