The Atheist Experience The Atheist Experience 29.39 with Dr. Ben and Scott Dickie
Sep 29, 2025
01:48:34
In today’s episode of The Atheist Experience, Dr. Ben and Scott Dickie of Talk Heathen stage a friendly takeover, fielding calls on the nature of reality, mathematics, and divine revelation! From philosophical deep dives into *a priori* knowledge to the challenges of grappling with infinity, this episode puts logic and the burden of proof center stage.
Zeno from the International Space Station begins by mentioning intelligent design but quickly pivots to telling the hosts they have faith. Identifying as agnostic, he insists atheists claim God's non-existence. Dr. Ben and Scott challenge him to state his own beliefs rather than misrepresenting theirs, but when he fails to engage productively, what will become of the conversation?
Donald in LA presents a complex philosophical argument for God, blending concepts from Aristotle, Plato, and others, suggesting that the effectiveness of mathematics points to a prescriptive cosmic consciousness. Scott counters that math is merely a descriptive language humans created to model observed universal patterns. With the conversation delving into *a priori* knowledge, can Donald defend his premise without relying on observation?
Ken in MI struggles to comprehend an infinite past and future, and the concept of a universe without time. Scott simplifies infinity as the consistent existence of a "yesterday" and a "tomorrow." Ken then asks if it is wrong for an atheist to find comfort in reading religious texts, leading to a discussion about appreciating literature without accepting its claims. Where does one draw the line?
Jim in MO proposes that the atheist's burden of proof is analogous to a defense attorney's: simply demonstrating reasonable doubt in the theist's claim. The hosts largely agree but refine the analogy, emphasizing that the burden lies solely with the claimant, and the non-believer has no obligation at all. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden, what is the correct verdict to reach?
Miller in MI expresses that religion can lead down a dark path and shares a personal conflict: he holds a belief against having children before marriage, a value from his religious past that now causes friction in his dating life. The hosts differentiate between personal boundaries for a partner and imposing universal moral rules on others. How can one navigate personal values rooted in past dogma?
Sheldon in NY shares his personal testimony that Jesus is God, based on a voice he claims has spoken to him for over 50 years, providing guidance and predictions. The hosts challenge the reliability of this subjective experience, highlighting auditory hallucinations and conflicting claims from other religions. Faced with a contradiction between his claim to value truth and his unfalsifiable belief, what will he choose?
Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.
Zeno from the International Space Station begins by mentioning intelligent design but quickly pivots to telling the hosts they have faith. Identifying as agnostic, he insists atheists claim God's non-existence. Dr. Ben and Scott challenge him to state his own beliefs rather than misrepresenting theirs, but when he fails to engage productively, what will become of the conversation?
Donald in LA presents a complex philosophical argument for God, blending concepts from Aristotle, Plato, and others, suggesting that the effectiveness of mathematics points to a prescriptive cosmic consciousness. Scott counters that math is merely a descriptive language humans created to model observed universal patterns. With the conversation delving into *a priori* knowledge, can Donald defend his premise without relying on observation?
Ken in MI struggles to comprehend an infinite past and future, and the concept of a universe without time. Scott simplifies infinity as the consistent existence of a "yesterday" and a "tomorrow." Ken then asks if it is wrong for an atheist to find comfort in reading religious texts, leading to a discussion about appreciating literature without accepting its claims. Where does one draw the line?
Jim in MO proposes that the atheist's burden of proof is analogous to a defense attorney's: simply demonstrating reasonable doubt in the theist's claim. The hosts largely agree but refine the analogy, emphasizing that the burden lies solely with the claimant, and the non-believer has no obligation at all. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden, what is the correct verdict to reach?
Miller in MI expresses that religion can lead down a dark path and shares a personal conflict: he holds a belief against having children before marriage, a value from his religious past that now causes friction in his dating life. The hosts differentiate between personal boundaries for a partner and imposing universal moral rules on others. How can one navigate personal values rooted in past dogma?
Sheldon in NY shares his personal testimony that Jesus is God, based on a voice he claims has spoken to him for over 50 years, providing guidance and predictions. The hosts challenge the reliability of this subjective experience, highlighting auditory hallucinations and conflicting claims from other religions. Faced with a contradiction between his claim to value truth and his unfalsifiable belief, what will he choose?
Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.