The Atheist Experience The Atheist Experience 29.28 with Secular Rarity and JMike
Jul 14, 2025
01:55:22
In today’s episode of the Atheist Experience, Secular Rarity and JMike dive into various arguments for belief, including personal, historical, and philosophical claims, challenging callers to define their terms and defend their positions against logical scrutiny and internal contradictions. They also explore the practical applications of critical thinking in constructing a secular moral framework.
Marianne in NJ calls in to present personal experience, scientific, and historical evidence for Christianity, focusing on the Bible's supposed singular narrative written over 1500 years by 40 writers. The hosts challenge this idea with the Documentary Hypothesis, noting the Bible's internal contradictions, and quickly identify her reasoning as circular. They question the utility of her "Google this" approach and dismiss her car crash analogy as not representative of the Gospels' discrepancies. Why does the God of the Bible continue to be described as loving when his actions are anything but?
Sam in AZ initially seeks to discuss scientific and historic arguments for God, but quickly pivots to advocating for a "general theism" and then the ontological argument. The hosts challenge the coherence of arguing for a God about whom nothing is known, using a "bare designer" analogy to highlight the lack of predictive power in such a vague concept. They press him to provide a specific version of the ontological argument, which he struggles to articulate clearly. What distinguishes a "general theism" from other unsubstantiated claims? Unable to actually carry on an intelligent conversation, Sam resorts to racial and anti-lgbtq+ slurs before rage quitting, but thanks to the magic of editing, you won’t hear the slurs! We did however leave in the hosts justified ridicule of this immature tactic. You're welcome!
Rich in CT questions the Council of Nicaea, believing it's where "the whole Jesus bullshit started" and wonders why it isn't discussed more. Hosts explain that while the Council does not inherently disprove Christianity, its historical context should invite skepticism. They note that many self-professed Christians are not knowledgeable on this history and recommend Bart Ehrman's work for deeper insight. Can historical skepticism lead to a more honest understanding of religious origins?
Watcher in PA presents life, love, and goodness as evidence for God. Focusing on "God is love" from 1 Corinthians 13:4, the hosts construct a modus tollens argument, contrasting this definition of love with God's actions in the Bible, such as commanding the slaughter of innocent infants. They highlight the special pleading involved in Watcher's justification of such acts as "judgment," challenging him to admit the contradiction inherent in his definition of love. Does the Bible's portrayal of God align with any consistent definition of love?
Lord in CA introduces his secular moral framework called "compression logic," which aims to ethically remove contradictions from systems by focusing on reducing suffering, recognizing all variables, preserving existence, and allowing mobility. The hosts question the foundational basis for these four moral pillars, discussing the long-standing debate between moral realism and anti-realism. They also push for a more precise definition of "collapse" in his framework, differentiating between tangible and conceptual failures, and suggest exploring the works of Immanuel Kant and constructivism. Can a moral framework truly avoid collapse if its foundational principles are not universally accepted or clearly defined?
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.
Marianne in NJ calls in to present personal experience, scientific, and historical evidence for Christianity, focusing on the Bible's supposed singular narrative written over 1500 years by 40 writers. The hosts challenge this idea with the Documentary Hypothesis, noting the Bible's internal contradictions, and quickly identify her reasoning as circular. They question the utility of her "Google this" approach and dismiss her car crash analogy as not representative of the Gospels' discrepancies. Why does the God of the Bible continue to be described as loving when his actions are anything but?
Sam in AZ initially seeks to discuss scientific and historic arguments for God, but quickly pivots to advocating for a "general theism" and then the ontological argument. The hosts challenge the coherence of arguing for a God about whom nothing is known, using a "bare designer" analogy to highlight the lack of predictive power in such a vague concept. They press him to provide a specific version of the ontological argument, which he struggles to articulate clearly. What distinguishes a "general theism" from other unsubstantiated claims? Unable to actually carry on an intelligent conversation, Sam resorts to racial and anti-lgbtq+ slurs before rage quitting, but thanks to the magic of editing, you won’t hear the slurs! We did however leave in the hosts justified ridicule of this immature tactic. You're welcome!
Rich in CT questions the Council of Nicaea, believing it's where "the whole Jesus bullshit started" and wonders why it isn't discussed more. Hosts explain that while the Council does not inherently disprove Christianity, its historical context should invite skepticism. They note that many self-professed Christians are not knowledgeable on this history and recommend Bart Ehrman's work for deeper insight. Can historical skepticism lead to a more honest understanding of religious origins?
Watcher in PA presents life, love, and goodness as evidence for God. Focusing on "God is love" from 1 Corinthians 13:4, the hosts construct a modus tollens argument, contrasting this definition of love with God's actions in the Bible, such as commanding the slaughter of innocent infants. They highlight the special pleading involved in Watcher's justification of such acts as "judgment," challenging him to admit the contradiction inherent in his definition of love. Does the Bible's portrayal of God align with any consistent definition of love?
Lord in CA introduces his secular moral framework called "compression logic," which aims to ethically remove contradictions from systems by focusing on reducing suffering, recognizing all variables, preserving existence, and allowing mobility. The hosts question the foundational basis for these four moral pillars, discussing the long-standing debate between moral realism and anti-realism. They also push for a more precise definition of "collapse" in his framework, differentiating between tangible and conceptual failures, and suggest exploring the works of Immanuel Kant and constructivism. Can a moral framework truly avoid collapse if its foundational principles are not universally accepted or clearly defined?
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.