The Atheist Experience 29.41 with The Cross Examiner and Justin 2025-10-12 16-25-32

In today’s episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Godless Engineer dismantle claims regarding prerequisites for end-times prophecy and critically analyze an English teacher's grammatical objections to using singular "they/them" pronouns.Anson in gerrymandered anuses asserts end times prophecy required the 1948 rebirth of Israel, arguing Paul was mistaken about Christ's imminent return. Hosts critique this "going out of business" scheme, asking why God is constrained by geopolitics and human evil. They reject the claim that atrocities like the Holocaust could be "worth it" for salvation. Why must suffering precede divine intervention?Jason in misanthropic orangutans, an English teacher, objects to singular "they/them" usage on rigid grammatical grounds, preferring "one" or "we." Hosts note that singular "they" has been standard since the 1300s, citing the Oxford English Dictionary. They argue that refusing a requested pronoun in favor of using a person's name is unnecessarily difficult, dismissive of their identity, and driven by personal comfort. Is linguistic conformity more important than human respect?Thank you for watching this chaotic episode. We are back next week, Sundays at 4:30 p.m. Central Standard Time!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

In today’s episode of The Atheist Experience, Secular Rarity and Godless Engineer tackle the pervasive threat of Christian nationalism and the historical evidence (or lack thereof) for Jesus. They also dive into challenging calls questioning whether intellectual inquiry is necessary for belief and celebrate a caller's successful deconstruction into secular community.Robert in WI argued intellectual inquiry is useless for finding God, claiming belief is primarily emotional and universal. The hosts questioned why objective truth regarding God's existence should exclude rational methods used everywhere else. Is intellectual honesty only reserved for non-religious claims?Mary in NC updated the hosts on her long deconstruction, noting that realizing the creation story was a myth finally clinched her atheism, ending 17 years of guilt. She now enjoys freedom and thriving secular community through painting classes and events. Does community without indoctrination offer a better foundation for life?Gigi in NC questioned why preachers avoid discussing harmful Bible content, asking if they are ignorant or intentionally deceitful. SR and GE explained that many religious authorities lack deep theological knowledge, sticking only to scripted, surface-level narratives about Jesus. Are preachers equipped to address difficult biblical passages truthfully?Thank you for joining us this week! The Atheist Experience will be back next Sunday at 4:30 p.m. Central Time.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

In today's highly charged episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Jimmy Jr. dive into the concept of learned helplessness and the vital need for resistance and defiance against systemic injustice and trauma. They challenge callers on the evolutionary origin of meaning and morality, and wrestle with the difficulties of engaging in rational debate with those who redefine terms to avoid definitive answers.Jeff in LA believes human curiosity is an evolved trait that explains the search for meaning and the rise of religion. The hosts agree that early religion was a "first attempt at science," offering quick answers and evolving into a societal "domestication tool" for control. Can curiosity drive meaning without dogma?Anatoly in NY posits that people leave religion due to misunderstanding biblical definitions. The hosts found it impossible to debate, as he offered confusing, constantly shifting definitions of God (e.g., "social structure" plus "physical world"). They challenged him on God's immorality, specifically citing biblical commands for slavery. Forrest criticized his profound inability to answer simple, direct questions. Why does he avoid defining his belief clearly?Thank you for tuning in this week! Jimmy Jr. encourages believers to "do better" and challenge them with substantive arguments next time. Thank you to the crew, producers, and mods who make the show possible. We will see you next time!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

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.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

In today’s Atheist Experience, Justin and Jim Barrows dissect the flimsy foundations of faith, critique the peculiar "design" of the human body, and explore the logical leaps required to uphold belief in the face of scientific understanding. They challenge callers on everything from deconstruction guilt and family relationships to questionable links between Kabbalah and quantum physics.Mary Cate in NC is working through deconstruction and feels guilty, missing her religious community. The hosts suggest building new secular communities and emphasize that maintaining family relationships without endorsing beliefs is not dishonest. What steps can one take to navigate these complex social dynamics?Ben in KS, an agnostic, questions if science’s inability to explain "spirituality" or deeper layers of existence leaves room for God, citing particle-wave duality. Hosts challenge him to define which God and argue that naturalistic explanations, supported by Occam's Razor, remain the most coherent approach. If a God is added, how does one explain that God's grounding?Daisy in WA asks if dogmatic religions can be disproven, unlike deism. Justin and Jim provide numerous examples of internal contradictions within the Bible and the Quran, highlighting scientific errors and failed prophecies. How do these internal inconsistencies challenge the claims of divine inspiration?Hannah claims that modern physics, specifically the concept of ten dimensions and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, provides evidence for Kabbalah and an unknowable Godhead. The hosts dismiss these as coincidental numerical matches and misrepresentations of scientific principles without testable evidence. Why do such parallels, without supporting evidence, often amount to pareidolia?Benji, a theist, discusses the point of converting atheists if worship is subjective and brings up the "terra fallacy" regarding insufficient evidence. The hosts clarify the distinction between belief and worship, stating that objective evidence of God's existence would be compelling, unlike failed prophecies. What kind of evidence would be universally convincing for existence, but not necessarily for worship?Jim in MO asks if free will truly exists with an omniscient, omnipotent God. Justin and Jim explain that while omniscience alone doesn't negate free will, combining it with omnipotence creates a problem of predetermination and the problem of evil. Does God's ultimate power mean our choices are merely part of a divine plan?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.

In today’s thought-provoking episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Deconstruction Zone Justin dive into the persistence of bad arguments, the misinterpretation of scientific findings, and the profound impact of beliefs on personal and societal well-being.Rook in NY posits that belief in God isn't inherently bad, suggesting that in a "perfect world," individuals could hold such beliefs privately without negative consequences. Justin and Forrest counter that religious beliefs inevitably influence behavior and policy, citing historical examples of religiously motivated oppression and arguing that even private beliefs can hinder personal growth and societal progress, as beliefs don't stay in a vacuum. Rook ultimately acknowledges his point's shortcomings upon deeper scrutiny. What are the broader implications of beliefs that remain unchallenged?Simone in United Kingdom presents a syllogism, arguing that if thoughts are part of reality and we think God exists, then God exists as part of that reality. The hosts challenge this, asking if imagining a creature means it truly exists, and if this is a genuine reason for belief or a fear of hell. Simone reveals she is still in the early stages of deconstructing her Christian upbringing and has more questions than answers. How does one navigate a deconstruction journey when fundamental beliefs are questioned?Brisbane in AZ questions satanic atheism, claiming an AI overview suggests it promotes self-indulgence and a rejection of altruism. Forest refutes this by reading the Satanic Temple’s actual tenets, which include compassion and justice, and critiques Brisbane's reliance on inaccurate AI summaries over primary sources. The discussion highlights the dangers of trusting AI for complex information and the importance of critical thinking in evaluating belief systems. What role should AI play in informing one's understanding of complex philosophical or religious concepts?Robert in GA challenges the hosts on Jesus's fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and asserts that the complexity of life necessitates a creator, claiming the Big Bang violates thermodynamics. Justin explains how Robert's cited prophecies are taken out of context and not messianic, while Forest refutes the scientific claims, pointing to evolution and the accurate understanding of thermodynamics. The hosts urge Robert to engage with actual scientific and biblical scholarship rather than relying on misinformed arguments. How do individuals overcome ingrained misinformation when seeking truth?Hindu in India argues that consciousness, rather than emerging from the brain, is an ultimate reality of the universe, aligning with the Vedic concept of Brahman. Justin and Forest press for empirical evidence, pointing to how brain modifications alter personality, contradicting the idea of consciousness as an external driver. The hosts emphasize that materialism offers an evidence-based framework for consciousness, while idealism often relies on presuppositions. What scientific breakthroughs would truly bridge the gap between materialist and idealist views of consciousness?Robin in FL shares a family claim that a "spark of life" at conception, supposedly visible during horse breeding, proves the existence of a soul. Justin and Forest clarify that this "spark" is a scientific observation of zinc release during fertilization, not a visible soul, often misinterpreted from studies on mice. They question the logical extensions of this argument, such as mice having souls, and the implications for asexual reproduction. How do scientific findings become distorted and adopted into religious or spiritual narratives?Chris in KS raises the question of circular reasoning in Old Testament prophecies applied to Jesus, particularly Isaiah 7. Justin affirms this circularity, explaining that such prophecies often require secondary interpretations not supported by their original context, challenging the criteria for true prophecy. Forest then discusses gender, distinguishing it from sex as a fluid, socially constructed spectrum not bound by a binary, and encourages self-reflection for deeper understanding. How can an individual reconcile deeply held religious beliefs with evolving scientific and social understandings?Thank you so much Richard for being here thank you Forest and thank you crew we'll see you again next week uh same time same place 5:30 uh Eastern time 4:30 Central time bye!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.