Wha'ts Up with Alex O'Connor? | Secular Sunrise

Añadido: 2026-04-29

[00:00:16]Heat.

[00:00:19]Heat.

[00:00:35]Heat. Heat.

[00:01:16]Hey, Heat. Heat. N.

[00:01:49]Hey, Heat. Heat.

[00:02:31]Heat.

[00:02:50]Heat.

[00:03:48]Hey, Heat. Hey, Heat.

[00:04:33]Well, good morning everybody. So nice to see you. Happy secular sunrise for Tuesday, Tuesday, April 28th, 2026.

[00:04:48]I'm your host, Felicia.

[00:04:51]Cheers.

[00:04:55]Ah, and so little programming note. Um, the last two live streams, for whatever reason, were set to unlisted by YouTube, and I'm not really sure what was going on there. So, I'm going to try and figure out why the weird chat settings and why the uh why the unlisting's happening. I'm not really sure what I did, but something changed. So, um, apologies. Uh, so I've I've since made the last two live streams public. I didn't realize they were unlisted. I pay such little attention to the account.

[00:05:29]Uh, but yeah. So, uh, good morning. I have the usual cup of coffee.

[00:05:37]Took my usual walk this morning. Very lovely walk this morning. Still a little chilly. Still a little chilly. It was, I believe it was 40° outside when I went to take my walk.

[00:05:49]And it's still It's 42 right now. It's only going to be about 63 65. It's It's only going to be about the 60s the entire week.

[00:06:00]I guess that's not too bad for early May. Late April, early May. I guess that's not the worst thing ever. And you'll no longer create virtual card numbers on Chrome.

[00:06:16]Okay. Thank you.

[00:06:18]Thank you for Thank you for text messaging me at 7 o'clock in the morning, Capital One. I appreciate that.

[00:06:24]It's wonderful.

[00:06:28]I agree, JP. YouTube can be weird at times. Hello there, Fay. Good to see you. Good to see you.

[00:06:35]Got my nice cup of black dark roast coffee. No sugar, no milk. And uh yeah, got a new SD card, 128 gig. Don't know what to do with it.

[00:06:51]Actually, I know exactly what to do with it, but uh Oh, yeah. I wanted to tell you guys what I got. Hang on. See if I can find it again.

[00:06:58]It's the I probably won't be able to bring it up on screen here, but it's the Maybe I could do that. Maybe I can bring it up on screen for you guys. Let me see. No. Um I won't be able to suede up window manager. I haven't got that set up. Oh well. Um I'll paste in the chat room. I bought this. I'm waiting for it to come in because I don't have a Raspberry Pi 5 to waste on it yet. But I bought this thing. It's in the chat now for you.

[00:07:28]It's the portable handheld Linux terminal 3 and a half inch uh touch display 640x 480. I got it with a Raspberry Pi 5. Um it's a nice little cool little unit too. Really it's a cool looking cool looking little thing, but I intend to use it purely purely as a terminal. Um not as a desktop. There's a lot of people on YouTube using as desktops. I'm not.

[00:07:55]I purely want to use it as a um as a Linux terminal uh portable terminal. Uh so that'll be fun. So yeah, bought that.

[00:08:06]Just wanted to share that with you all with all the array of weird things I've got going on. Again, I've got a Pico Calc with a dedicated by Clockwork Pie. Whoa. It's not dropping, Felicia. Geez. But yeah, I've got a I've got a Pico Calc, the running a Raspberry Pi Pico running a uh dedicated um uh Linux uh pseudo Linux on it.

[00:08:35]So that's pretty cool. So I do all these really I do all these really weird things.

[00:08:41]So that's one of the weird things I do.

[00:08:42]You know, Flipper Zero, all those I've shared that with you guys before, but now I've got another thing I'm going to add to the collection as soon as that comes in.

[00:08:51]another thing to add to the collection of nonsense.

[00:08:56]And yes, don't worry for those of you new to the stream, we uh we sort of chat in BS for the first 10 minutes or so.

[00:09:02]We, you know, I like to ramp things up a little bit, get the get the brain juices flowing. It's, you know, it's 7 o'clock in the morning. Uh show's only going to be an hour long, I've decided. Um I don't really feel like doing two hours every morning. It's it's a bit draining on me, so I think I'm just going to keep it to an hour long. But yeah, don't worry. Don't worry. We'll get to the topic at hand about Alex Okconor. We'll get there if you knew. But again, it's it's 7 o'clock in the morning here, guys. I've got to got to think. I got to ramp it up, you know? I got to ramp the brain up.

[00:09:38]Gosh, it is such a nice morning out though. It really is. It's a beautiful morning out.

[00:09:45]I was doing some research research. I was doing some searching on RVs and for the longest time I have wanted uh I have wanted a um a Chinook or Shin or Shinook. I guess it's midday there JP. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me let me fast forward my brain. Oh, wait. No, I don't want it to be midday here. fast forwarding my brain because I will not be able to talk about atheism, about secularism, about theism, about anything because I'll be so neck deep in in code and and AI agents and security vulnerabilities that I I I I'll just be I'll sound like I'm I I already sound like I'm rambling. I will sound like a complete lunatic to y'all if I feel so bad for some people sometimes because like they'll I I've I've spoken to people um on Discord or on Reddit who have who have watched my videos or they've they've seen me interact on different shows, which by the way I'm still I'm waiting for Kelly to get back to me, but apparently I'm going to be on um on uh Truth Wanted uh sometime in the next couple months. So that'll be pretty cool. Um, but I I speak to people all the time. Um, and they expect me to be exactly like I am like on the on the on the videos or sometimes like when I'm responding to people in comments and then they'll talk to me in the middle of the day when I'm when I'm in when I'm working and I'm I'm discussing, you know, uh, how things should work with my team, how Postgress should work, uh, how our database should work, how we should handle these things, that sort of stuff.

[00:11:21]and they'll talk to me and my my brain's going about 50,000 miles an hour and I will literally cut them off and tell them, "No, you're wrong and I don't care enough to explain it to you. Go bug somebody else." I've I've had this happen with the before in in Discord. Um when I'm like in the middle I'm like 2 o'clock. I was It wasn't yesterday. It was last week. I was like Wednesday or Thursday. has somebody come into my Discord like Wednesday or Thursday and start messaging me at DMing me about like the the the modalontological argument and why I'm wrong about how it doesn't prove a god. And I was like I I straight up like stopped the conversation. I was like, "Dude, I don't care, right?" Like I I literally don't give a rat's ass about your reasoning right now. Um you're wrong. The reason you're wrong is you cannot prove the S5 uh jump to reality. You can't justify it in any meaningful way. Go figure out why philosophers argue over this and why you can take a position on it, but I'm fully justified in rejecting it. And please stop wasting my time. Just like don't don't bug me at 2:00 in the afternoon while I'm in the middle of trying to triage code and then and then try to justify the modalontological argument to me. Like, stop it.

[00:12:46]bad bad theist or maybe bad atheist. Maybe I should talk bad atheist. Maybe I should talk about um Alex Okconor being a bad a bad atheist lately. He's been getting he's been getting hammered, hasn't he? Wow.

[00:13:03]Al Cosmic Skeptic has been getting hammered in the atheist community as of late.

[00:13:10]I think um what was that one channel's name? The sound of reason was doing a video on him about how he's a he's like a paid stoge of Christian propaganda or something.

[00:13:22]The modal onlogical argument is nonsense on the face of it. I mean JP um Plantica frames it as it is um it is properly basic or basic I forget I forget what the modal wording is for it but it's essentially it's okay to use the modal ontological argument to argue that you're being rational or reasonable about your belief in the existence of God but planting himself doesn't hold that it proves God exists so whatever Um, and I don't disagree with that, so I don't care. Uh, but yeah, Alex Okconor has been getting ragged over the coals by the atheist community lately, hasn't he? Wow.

[00:14:09]Now, I don't particularly want to like get into like the specifics of it, but I'll say I think a lot of this is I can't say that a lot of this is planned outrage, right? Like I can't say that this is like all planned clickbait, but Alex has done like clickbaity stuff in the past, you know, so I'm not I wouldn't be too surprised if that he if he's mining a specific type of outrage niche here with his content. But let's let's take a step back. When did when did all this stuff start to blow up? I think Alex has been getting pretty harsh criticism now for some time. like sometime um uh even before the the little blow up with Matt Dillah Hunty uh he's been getting some pretty I wouldn't say harsh criticism but he's been getting push back on his approach to he doesn't even do counter apologetics I don't want to say counter apologetics but he's been getting some some push back um and his conversation with Joe Schmidt was really kind of I guess like the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of his relationship with the skeptic community. Um, and I don't I don't necessarily feel like that's a fair thing to to to say about Alex or or do to Alex. Um, I think I don't really have an opinion on Alex to be perfectly honest with you. I don't I don't necessarily enjoy his content. I don't find him to be a particularly a particularly great thinker. He's he's a very good ortor, but he's not a he's not somebody I would put my hat on in terms of making a a valid syllogism.

[00:15:53]Let's let's say he's he would be what's what's a good way to put this?

[00:16:01]He's he's he's he's Christopher Hitchens if Hitchens was less technically able. um less technically minded in the in the um in the logic department, I guess we could say.

[00:16:19]Um he's very well spoken, very well spoken, but he is not to he he's not the type of person whose content I regularly consume as I kind of feel like he's rather I don't want to say reductive.

[00:16:37]He misses a lot of the detail of technical arguments a lot and he'll just sort of gloss over them, I guess, is is my biggest complaint. Um, and it's not just him, but everybody in his circle does that. Joe Schmidt is one of the people I don't really watch all that much. Um, because The Majesty of Reason is an interesting channel. Um, but it's it's also a philosophers's channel. And when I say a philosophers's channel, I mean that in a very derogatory manner.

[00:17:12]Um, like for example, um, one of the one of the jokes we had, uh, at the last company I was at was that, uh, the difference between an engineer and a philosopher is that a philosopher will write a bunch of BS on a paper uh, at 2:00 in the morning so he can hand it in the next day. uh an engineer will actually do their homework and actually have to build something rather than trying to skirt their way around BSing a teacher.

[00:17:41]Uh and so one of the things that uh we ended up calling philosophers uh at the last place I worked was were the were the were the were the half homeworks.

[00:17:52]It's certainly a very derogatory term but yeah um and Joe Schmidt's one of them. Joe Schmidt is one of those people who will present a sound argument for his channel, but he won't present the whole argument. So, in his um in his uh Pascal's wager video, for example, he got a lot of praise for being quote unquote based because he ultimately concluded that Pas taking Pascal's wager makes sense.

[00:18:22]And the problem with his uh the problem with his his reasoning isn't that based purely on Pascal's wager alone and in the time frame it was framed in that it makes sense to take the wager. It's that it's 2026 and we now have modern decision theory. Um we now have u modern risk analysis. Um, for example, um, a risk analysis in the modern sense, uh, would also include all of the other variables, which is sort of dishonestly ignored in Schmidt's, um, presentation.

[00:18:56]Well, I don't, I'll take that back. I don't say dishonest. Dishonest is wrong.

[00:19:00]Um, it's glossed over in his presentation. And so, um, you get you get things like that with pretty much every single one of Schmidt's videos.

[00:19:08]Um, and so it forces you to, a lot of people will just hinge on his conclusions and just run with that. But in reality, what you should be doing is after Schmidt does a video, you should be running to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and figuring out what he left out, right? and then going beyond philosophy and seeing what actual technical things he has ignored um and constraints he's ignored or or blown by or just just completely and outright dismissed sometimes or didn't know about or didn't care about. Um, and that's kind of my view on philosophers in general, uh, is that they will they will for some reason get so addicted to huffing their own farts as philosophers that they forget entire fields exist that utterly blow philosophy out of the [ __ ] water. And Alex falls in the same trap, you know? And that's kind of like I think where the whole problem comes from. I think I think ultimately that's where the divide comes from is sort of huffing your own farts as a philosopher versus actually doing the work and doing the leg work in specialized fields. Um, and it's kind of sad to see that, I guess, because I his the him and Schmidt's argument against Matt Dillah Hunty's claims are not evidence um is a really weird thing, man. It's really, really weird. Like I understand that the claim can be a form of evidence in a courtroom, right? But like the problem is science isn't a courtroom. You can make the you can make the the metaphor or the analogy that the courtroom is peer review, but that's just an analogy, right? There's no there's no jury of peers making a final judgment and handing down a verdict, right? It's it's a continuous flow. It's a continuous process.

[00:21:23]And so if you make the claim that light, for example, is actually a particle and not a wave.

[00:21:35]That's not a piece of evidence that a particle is a that that light is just a particle and not a wave. That's not that's not evidence. that's your claim.

[00:21:45]And so in the scientific format, the claim is not and cannot be evidence.

[00:21:51]Um, and that's I think where the real problem with that conversation lies is that Schmidt is essentially busy huffing his own farts about philosophical reasoning and not going into the actual technical depth of the fields he's trying to philosophize around. And Alex listens to people like that and then regurgitate [ __ ] like that. Um, and he just he had a recent blowup too, another blowup um, in the skeptic community uh, trying to debunk Ricky Jervves. Uh, and his his short about debunking Ricky Jerves. This was so weird to me. This one was just so weird. Like his short about debunking Ricky Jerves. Let me see if I can bring up the um, let me see if I can bring up the uh, Gotta quit that. Got to bring this up.

[00:22:40]I'm going to try to bring up the transcript. I'm not going to bring up the video because I don't really feel like doing like um I don't really feel like doing like a video response. I don't I don't feel like it's worth anybody's time. Um but I'm going to try and bring up his uh that's logic is arbitrary.

[00:23:00]I'm going to try and bring up his um this transcript about Ricky Jervis being debunked here.

[00:23:07]There we go.

[00:23:10]Whoa. That's the diorization. That's way too big.

[00:23:13]Um, sorry. I have a I have a whole thing that automatically transcribes and diorizes uh videos on YouTube. Um, so I've got to put this in word rap because this is way too long. Um, whoops, that's wrong.

[00:23:31]You don't believe in 200? I don't believe in All right.

[00:23:35]So, um, he goes on to say, uh, Ricky Dves is popular for having said, "You believe in one god, I assume, but there about 3,000 to choose from. So, basically, you don't believe in 2,999 gods. I don't believe in just one more."

[00:23:48]Which I think is the most unthinking thing you can say about the issue of God's existence.

[00:23:56]Imagine you were sat around with your 10 brothers and none of you have ever met your father and you were discussing what you would think our father was like.

[00:24:04]One of your brothers says, "Well, you know, I think he might have been French." And someone said, "No, no, I'm sure he was American." And if you look at the kind of man that uh that mom's into, I'm sure he might have been American. Uh and he goes on and on and on and on. Um so, uh he then goes on to say, "I think you're making a mistake there. There's a huge difference between say the difference between 10 and 11 or the difference between five and six and the difference between zero and one. It's a difference of quality rather than just quantity. Um, and this is this is this is where the philosopher gets really stuck in huffing their own farts and not actually thinking about what they're saying. Hello, Theo. Good to see you.

[00:24:47]Ryan, good to hear you. Please hit the like button. I thank you so much.

[00:24:50]Jessica, the transmetal alchemist.

[00:24:52]Always great to see you.

[00:24:55]Um, yeah. So this is I believe this is where Alex starts to really miss the point of a lot of things because he doesn't even realize that in his own statement is a presupposition.

[00:25:06]A presupposition that God exists because his his entire analogy we we know that brothers and sisters come from parents.

[00:25:21]We know that parents come from grandparents, grandparents come from great-grandparents, and so on down the line.

[00:25:29]We know all this. What we don't know is where God comes from, if it exists at all. We know our grandparents exist or have existed.

[00:25:40]We don't know that God exists or ever existed. And so Ricky's line absolutely still holds in the in the formal logical sense here. is not about quality rather than just quantity. This is not about a presupposition about trying to debunk Ricky Jerves and I think it's for clickbait to be honest with you because this is kind of very silly. This is one of those silly arguments that apologists make. You know, in addition, what's really weird about this video from Alex, this short from Alex, it's terribly weird short from Alex. um is he's he's he's criticizing Ricky Juves. Oh, you can just close again. That's great. Thank you, code. If you could not do that, code while I'm trying to read stuff.

[00:26:28]What is Why is this split like this?

[00:26:30]What is going on? It's weird.

[00:26:36]What the [ __ ] Why is code?

[00:26:41]That is weird. Sorry. Um, what's really weird about this is that he's criticizing Ricky Juves, who is trying to communicate to somebody what it's like qualitatively to be an atheist. He's not trying to argue that God doesn't exist because he believes in one less God. The counterargument Alex is proposing is so weird to think that Ricky Juves's argument is about disproving God.

[00:27:15]It's it's such a fart huffing counterargument and such a fart- huffing debunk that it's just I really don't understand it. I don't understand where he's coming from on two levels. To to make the analogy of brothers talking about where their father came from that they don't that they personally don't know about, but they know they have a father. They demonstrabably know they have a father because all humans have mothers and fathers of some degree or another because we've come from sperm and eggs. Um whether you want to pull the gender communication norms out of that or not, I let's let's save that for another conversation. But um they can speculate on that all they want because they know that somewhere down the line they in this analogy they must have had a father. for somebody to sit down and go, "Yeah, but what is God like?" already presupposes that God exists. Ricky Traves's conversation is not about disproving God. He's saying we're we're having a conversation about what is God like and I'm sitting here saying, "Do I have a God?"

[00:28:23]That's like that's like saying Ricky Jerves would be around this campfire with these brothers asking if he had a father.

[00:28:31]It's such it's such a silly argument from Alex. I do not get it. I also don't know why he's defending it so rigorously.

[00:28:40]In his um in his comments um he says this is so weird. So many people are saying but we have evidence for dads have completely missed the point. Of course they're not comparable in that sense. The argument is not only that one less X doesn't work. It's and that 3001 is completely metaphysically different from one to one. That's the problem, Alex.

[00:29:00]That is That's absolutely the problem.

[00:29:03]The problem is a the way you worded it because you you may be a great speaker, but you're you spoke the words you spoke were dumb as hell. Okay. But number two, you're trying to speak metaphysically, postphysically, when you can't speak postphysically about fathers. Alex, you you're trying to come up with these excuses for your terrible analogy. You're trying to cut you're trying to save this this awful, poorly communicated idea, and it's just it doesn't work, dude. Like the 30,000 to1 argument is a casual argument trying to explain to the Christian why you don't believe they're God. It's a qualitative personal experience.

[00:29:55]And then you're going to sit around and say, "Well, that doesn't count because my metaphysics says it doesn't count."

[00:30:00]Are you [ __ ] kidding me, Alex?

[00:30:03]Really?

[00:30:06]Like, I don't I don't get it, man. It's His His stuff has been just absurd lately. Just absolutely absurd lately. I don't understand it.

[00:30:19]When does your own show start with Kelly perhaps? Oh yeah, Theo. It's a good one.

[00:30:23]I would use a comparison. If you do not believe in ghosts, leprechauns, and vampires, but believe in fairies. I can ask you why you accept one supernatural claim and not the others. So I believe in one less. Well, JP, here's the thing, right? Like he's he's m he's trying to make the metaphysical argument that the 3000 to1 comparison is not the same as the onetoone comparison.

[00:30:45]And I understand where he's trying to come from.

[00:30:49]Um I'm sorry. The 3,00 minus one to the one minus one comparison are not the same. Um but the problem is the problem is to to make that metaphysical comparison, you still need to demonstrate that your presupposition is correct.

[00:31:09]That the presupposition of speaking about a god is correct. Otherwise, you're just left. He's what? Well, I think I know what's going on. I think I just figured it out. He's He's in that weird agnostic hole where you can't say God doesn't exist, but you can't say God does exist. And so, he's trying to make the argument that to say you're making the the 3000US1 argument is invalid because the one minus one argument leaves no room for speculation.

[00:31:43]essentially I think he's he's stuck in that agnostic he's he's stuck trying to argue the agnostic position essentially while trying to debunk Ricky Jervves who is literally sitting down trying to tell somebody what it's like qualitatively to be an atheist it this is such a weird spiraly hole of nonsense that Alex is putting us through like instead of taking the agnostic position on this. Why not just analyze what Ricky is saying in context and then give a commentary on that? Because you can't make you can't make this metaphysical comparison distinction and then say, "Oh, by the way, this comparison of the 300,00US one to the 1 - 1 is totally valid is a totally valid way to invalidate your qualitative experience." It's not. It's This is ah It's so weird that he did this.

[00:32:45]I just need to figure out what I want to do with it, huh? Oh, yes. I guess uh Rion, we would all love that. Ryan, we would love to.

[00:32:55]I would love to love to love to um I I I hope she does. I hope I hope Ryan does more regular stuff. I really do.

[00:33:05]Kelly, good to see you. Good morning.

[00:33:08]I prefer not to always fly by the seat of my pants. Well, same here, Ryan.

[00:33:11]Ryan, I agree with you. That's why I'm like limiting the show to an hour. Um, and each day I have a topic planned out and then discuss the topic. I don't want to do a um I don't want to do for this show, I don't want to do a um let's just let's just hope it works type of show, you know. So, it is good to see you Detroit atheist queen. But to to get back to to Alex here, um it's it's just so weird for him to be so rigorously defending this and at the same time his complete misapplication of his agnostic standards to a conversation that has nothing to do with the metaphysics he's arguing.

[00:34:01]And it's he's using it to debunk somebody's qualitative experience of being an atheist.

[00:34:09]It's just it's kind of dishonest in a way. It really is. It's a strange sort of dishonesty that the agnostic sort of has to take in that position. I guess I don't I don't know why an agnostic would even take this position.

[00:34:24]I mean, yeah, sure. Go ahead. Be agnostic. Don't be atheist. Don't be theist. Be agnostic about the whole proposition. That makes total sense to me. I don't care. But like if you're going to take the if you're going to take the position that somebody trying to explain the qualitative difference between being a theist and being an atheist is invalid, you've got a lot of leg work to do that Alex doesn't do. And I Yeah, it's just it's just so weird that he's making these weird arguments, right? Like the Sound of Reason did a video on Alex's John Lennox video. Another thing that blew up in the skeptic community, very critical, um, where Alex just nods along and goeshm to John Lennox of all people, John Lennox.

[00:35:08]Like the reason I disdain people like John Lennox so much is the same reason I disdain people like William Lane Craig so much or Alvin Plantiga is that they are genuinely smart intellectual people who have decided to quite precariously push their their intellectualism to the side to favor the faith argument. argument. Um, and that's an interesting niche to be in for sure, but what I would prefer is you separate out the intellectualism and the faith.

[00:35:49]Not necessar And and Lennox doesn't do that. He he twists himself into weird pretzels over mathematics and God just to validate his position sometimes. And people don't like ever discuss that with him, you I think that's part of the reason I think part of the reason why they never discuss that with him is that John Lennin doesn't just give off-the- cuff interviews to to atheists or agnostics.

[00:36:16]Um, he does very very careful his his agents handle him very carefully. Um, if you've ever tried to reach out to his agents, he won't just come on to your show and answer your tough questions.

[00:36:29]So, I wouldn't be surprised if if Alex maybe agreed to that um in some way, but I don't I don't think he did. I'm not I don't I'm not saying he did. I But John Lennox is handled very very carefully, which is fine. I mean, for example, I don't go on debates, so and I don't debate people, and there's nothing wrong with that. Um, there's nothing wrong with John Lennin handling his own position very carefully. If you if you want to be presented as a very intellectual speaker um who's very who's known to be um oh god what did I where did I hear one person call him in the apologetic circle the one true I believe it was like the one true shining light of hope for Christendom or something like that something weird like people elevate these apologists to these very strange levels um but to Alex's video with John Lennin was surprisingly tame. Um, if I if I had a one-on-one with John Lennin, I'd have some very serious, deep questions for him about his approach to theology and why he argues some of the arguments he makes against things like atheism.

[00:37:44]Um, and I think I think that's where the push back from the skeptic community comes from is that he had that opportunity and he didn't pursue it. he just sort of nodded along with Lennox.

[00:37:56]Um, and I think that sort of string of stuff that's happening with with uh Alex uh because he also had um gosh, what was that video he had before the before the blowup with Dilla Hunty?

[00:38:10]Oh, dear me. What was the video he had before that one? He he interviewed somebody.

[00:38:16]Oh, I forgot who it was. I don't really care. I don't watch him. I just I just notice the drama flare up constantly and it's just like uh whatever. I just don't personally I don't care. Like if if Alex came out tomorrow and said, "I am definitively a Christian. I got baptized in this evangelical church and yada yada yada." I personally wouldn't be surprised nor care in the slightest.

[00:38:38]Like, okay, good for you. Cool. Uh what are your arguments? And let's uh let's have at it, bud. You know, uh have you seen any of TMN's videos? He deals with people like John Lennin very much better than Alex. Oh yes, I've I watch TMN regularly. Um I know uh TMM is um is agnostic. He pushes back on the I don't even know what the definition of God means because it's incoherent. And I respect that position. My problem with TMN's videos is they get very repetitive, which is part of the reason why I don't make so many videos as well is because I'm afraid of becoming repetitive. Um, you know, there's only so many times I can say, "Your definition of God is incoherent to me.

[00:39:20]Can you please explain that?" There's only so many times I can say, "I don't understand what timeless and spaceless means. Can you explain that?" Um, and then once they start to either try to explain it, I just go, "What are you talking about? That's not what physics says. That's not what reality says. We have no evidence of that." Or, um, they just go, "It's it's faith-based." And I just go, that's cool. Enjoy your faith.

[00:39:45]You know, but that's part of the reason why I kind of tune out TMM every once in a while. Like I'll I'll tune in tune in.

[00:39:51]I'll make a comment, maybe a snarky reply, but a lot of his videos are either um him just making the agnostic position, which is fine. Uh but I've heard it a million times already, so whatever. Or it's him criticizing debates, and I don't care about debates, especially the internet slapfight debates. I don't I really don't care um that I don't care to see one side humiliated while the other side dunks.

[00:40:17]Uh I care to see um I care to see an actual intellectual back and forth.

[00:40:22]That's why I don't watch like Planet Peterson or um that's why I don't watch um modern day debates or anything like that. It's just one side trying to dunk on the other and not actually advancing anything. So whatever. Uh, it's I I find it completely boring. Like when when Erica does her uh when Erica does her debates with like creationists and stuff like that or anti-evolutionists, I just sort of roll my eyes because I'm like, Erica, you're you're so much more talented than this. Why are you even bothering? She's like, I've asked her and she's like, "Oh, I find it really fun." I'm like, "This is nonsense."

[00:40:55]Like, are you kidding me? You're you're so much better than this.

[00:40:59]I suppose it could be repetitive. It's not just him, JP. It's every single atheist is extremely repetitive to me and it's it's kind of exhausting. You know, we don't need debates. We need education. Um and moving forward together. I completely agree, Theo. Um I don't I I I don't understand the idea of dunking on atheists. I don't understand the idea of dunking on theists. Um none of that helps convince anybody. It just it's just clickbait is all it is. It's just ad revenue. That's all it is. Um, and I'm not I'm not really here for that. That's why I don't engage with people like Jim Bob. Uh, it's why I won't engage with people like Jay Dyer or stuff like that. Um, it's it's all a show that I don't I don't believe they're truly honest people. um in honest in the sense of the persona they put forward and the arguments they put forward are either completely theirs or are um formulated in an honest way that's not just specifically designed to get people twisting in a pretzel. It's also why I don't watch Debate Zone with with Justin. Um because he basically does the he basically does the whole he basically does the nice guy do Darth Dawkins um thing where he he just forces uh callers into his framework and then that's it. It's like he's not I don't I don't find him to be wrong necessarily. I find the content approach to be less useful than um than than more useful, you know. Um not that he's a bad person or anything like that.

[00:42:36]I just I don't I don't find that sort of content attractive. Um I mean, what can I say? I'm a I'm a Carl Sean type of girl, you know? I'm a I prefer, you know, Carl Sean. I read I I've read Helgoland by Carlo Relli maybe 20 times now. um on the order of time.

[00:42:56]Uh stuff like that. I'm not a I'm not a well well you know in the Greek the he or or yeah in in the Greek the the New Testament says this. I just I don't care, right? Like great. I'm I'm so glad you're debating the the meaning of the words in your fantasy book or or your holy scripture, however you want to phrase it. But like I I don't I don't care. How does this how is this applicable to reality at all? I'm an I'm case in point. I'm a software engineer.

[00:43:25]I'm a senior software engineer, right?

[00:43:28]So like when I when to get back on topic with Alex, right? When I when I hear an argument, I go, "How does your argument translate to reality at all?"

[00:43:37]Right? So So translating Alex's argument against Ricky Derves's explaining his explaining the the quant the the qualitative way he lives as as an atheist.

[00:43:49]How does how does Alex's comparison matter in the slightest? How does it how does it change reality at all? How does it actualize? Right? Like how does how does making this comparison and debunking Ricky Dvase at all about the the qualitative experience of his life as an atheist? How does that accomplish anything? What does it do? Like what what do these arguments do exactly? What does the what does the presuppositional argument do? Right? like what what what does the presuppositional argument of logic comes from God do for anybody? It doesn't do anything. There's no there's no useful prediction that can come of it.

[00:44:30]There's nothing that can be built with it. It's it's literally just my God wins.

[00:44:39]Boohoo, atheists.

[00:44:42]Okay, great.

[00:44:45]If anything, you've you've you've demonstrated that abstract ideas have some sort of grounding in reality rather than just being of minds. Um, which okay fine. What does that do? How do we implement new things? How does this help us advance the field of quantum computers? Right? Like how does how does this help the field of medicine? How does this help us end wars? How does this how does this do anything for anybody? Like because I think a what a lot of people like Alex forget and what Joe Schmidt forgets and what Matt Dillah Hunty tends to forget, what you know Justin from Debate Zone tend to forget or or even like uh Joel the Bible guy or even Ian the the other you know big popular debater on TikTok right now. I think what they all forget is that we live in reality. You know, we live we live in this we live in this one reality that we all got to share. Whether the nature of that reality can be truly known to us or not is completely and utterly irrelevant. Cuz at the end of the day, you got to wake up, you got to take a [ __ ] and you got to go to work just like everybody else. How does knowing philosophically knowing any of this nonsense qualitatively affect anything? How does it help anyone? How does it feed the homeless? How does it house the homeless? How does it give How does it give uh school kids lunch? How does it how does it give people an education? How does it help people learn to handle finances? How does it do any of that? Cuz it doesn't. It's it's the most that's why I want to know why people believe what they believe and not and not arguments for the proof of the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Like it makes it it's so totally weird and abstract to me, right? Like what does the argument of what does the argument of morals are grounded in God or morals are laws of God? What does that do for us exactly?

[00:46:57]Because morals have demonstrabably changed over time and with cultures.

[00:47:01]Even if I grant your notion that somehow revelation is progressive and thus morals can be allowed to change or whatever. Even if I grant that premise, it doesn't do anything.

[00:47:14]It is, as I would phrase it in relational atheism, operationally idle.

[00:47:19]How do I help people with that?

[00:47:23]Right? Like, how do I how do I get how do I get a drug addict to admit that they have a problem and that they need to manage their addiction? How do I convince people that managing addiction is a much more effective tool for making addicts successful members of society than trying to cut them off their vices cold turkey? How do I how do I explain that to a theist who is a hardcore theist when it comes to like say drug addiction or alcohol addiction?

[00:47:54]How do I do that? How do I how do I implement things? How do I build things?

[00:47:59]How do I how do I make humanity more successful when morals come from God? What does that do for anybody?

[00:48:09]Like I don't care if you believe that.

[00:48:11]If you believe that, by all means, but bridge but somebody please bridge the gap for me. Like somebody please bridge the gap of like what these arguments do.

[00:48:24]We'll call it shut the [ __ ] up and let's you and I do a show together called shut the [ __ ] up and listen. Oh, Ryan, if you and Theo do that, that'd be kind of cool. I'd be down I'd be down to watch that. Uh, you might find my wind song comments here on YouTube interesting as she seems to be the kind of person you might like. I'll I'll reach out JP.

[00:48:42]Thank you. That's kind of what it was supposed to be like before. Somehow it didn't go that way. Oh, what happened to that?

[00:48:50]Uh, calm explanation of finding common ground through Socratic dialogue is much better than gotcha debating. I agree.

[00:48:57]Um, I can't stand presuppositionalism. It's just word games. It's well that's that's just presuppositionalism is just you know presuppositionalism is born of Cornelius Vanill being really really tired of not winning arguments against academia and then getting and then getting sympathetic um hardcore uh right-wingleaning um Calvinists at Westminster to listen to him and establish his his um his um uh uh I want to say ministry. I forgot what the word is. um whatever, you know what I mean?

[00:49:33]Uh establishing that out in Westminster.

[00:49:35]So that's all that that that's all presuppositionalism is. It's presuppositionalism is honestly the the biggest theological temper tantrum I think anybody's ever had in the history of theology. That's that's essentially what what presuppositionalism is. Um you have a large community waiting for the reboot. Yes, you really do. Uh you really do, Ryan. We're looking forward to it. Whatever you choose to do, Ryan, we are behind you 100% cuz it's kind of awesome. But I would I would humbly request that I be allowed to show my face once in a while around there.

[00:50:07]That'd be cool.

[00:50:09]Uh addictions are not a moral issue, but a medical condition. I agree. Um I would love to see Theo and Ryan on a show together. That'd be awesome. Um but yeah, like and this is the problem I have with Alex. This is the problem I have with with Joe Schmidt. Problem I have with Matt Dillah Hunty. Um, the problem I have with the whole debate sphere is it doesn't do anything. It's completely and utterly operationally idle. It doesn't fix anybody's lives.

[00:50:35]We're not we're we're sitting around like pretending we're we're fighting this big grand cosmic fight for the hearts and minds of of civilization. And to an extent, we are, but those fights, those battles are going to be won more in court and in the political landscape than they are on YouTube and Tik Tok.

[00:50:54]And they're not going to be won by dunking on people, right? Like it's it's not going to be won by dunking. Dunking on people is just going to make people more bitter and more determined to to make your side lose. Like that's that's really all we're going to do. So like what is what does an argument for or against God do? I personally am an atheist and I hold to atheism and I think warning people about tactics is definitely like a much more useful use of time than dunking on people. Like if you if you were to take like a video of like Jehovah's Witnesses and how they how their approach is sort of insidious in in how they capture people into their cult. Um, if you if you if you spoke about that and spoke about the warning signs of, hey, you're actually talking to a cult member who's trying to who's trying to quite underhandedly drag you into their into their strange murder death cult. I think that's a much more useful thing than does God exist? Right?

[00:52:02]Like I think that's a far more useful thing.

[00:52:06]um like being able to be like, "Hey, you know when that Jehovah's Witness is really friendly and smiling and talking to you at your front door?" Yeah. It's actually part of their whole tactic, right? When a But like to make the argument that morals come from God is like kind of a weird self-defeating argument because you have to take the position that revelation is progressive. Um, and so you then have to take the position of well no this this you then have to take the position of defending modern defending your moral position that you hold that is from God against modern progressive morals and then you're just basically at the same argument anyway.

[00:52:55]So even even if you even if you say morals are from God, you have to you have to argue which God you have to argue which morals. Why is it progressive revelation? Why? That's it's just such a weird argument to me. Like okay, great. Morals are for God. Now prove that progressive revelation does not include changing your mind about same-sex marriage. Tell me, progressive revelation strictly forbids the idea that two dudes can can get married or two women can get married or that women can serve in in the churchhood. Tell me tell me progressive revelation is not just a self-defeating argument for biblical uh inherency.

[00:53:40]It's just so it's just so weird to me like to make those arguments.

[00:53:45]I don't know.

[00:53:48]I don't know. Maybe maybe I'm just one of those crazy people that's just stuck thinking about things a little too deeply.

[00:53:56]I can't believe the Jehovah's Witnesses still exist. It's been over 110 years since 1914.

[00:54:01]You know, the Jehovah's Witnesses thing is not surprising to hear that they exist be when you think about the history of Christianity in and of itself. Um because you could you could just look at the history of Christianity and say that the existence of Jehovah's Witnesses is predictable JP because of um be because Christianity exists.

[00:54:30]You could you could just as easily be somebody in Palestinian Rome, you know, 10 years after Jesus was crucified, assuming that whole crucifixion thing is factual. 10 years after Jesus was crucified going, I can't believe there are still Christians. The dude never rose from the dead, right?

[00:54:49]Like, it's not that hard to believe that there are still Jehovah's Witnesses who are just like, "Oh, no, we have to reinterpret things." Like, do you really honestly think the early Christians weren't like that? That they weren't in completely insistent that they had to reinterpret things because they didn't understand the teachings of Jesus. And so they they must have they must have missed everything.

[00:55:13]They must have missed something.

[00:55:15]They had could you imagine could you imagine in in 55 CE they had their own they had their own Palestinian um Roman Palestine Da Vinci code is that's probably what happened more than likely if you ask me my opinion as an atheist that's probably what happened. It's probably really predictable that Jehovah's Witnesses exist. It's really predictable that Mormons exist.

[00:55:44]It's really predictable that um that that Scientologists exist. I mean, Elron Huard's dead. Long dead.

[00:55:53]Scientology is still a thing.

[00:55:57]I mean every every religion every religion has their predictions, their messiahs and their failed predictions and their failed messiahs and every religion is still pretty much around you know I mean every is too broad and encompassing. I should probably restrain that a little bit more but you know it's it kind of holds.

[00:56:22]It's just people want to believe, I think, is what it comes down to, right, Ryan? They've had several of those dates come and go. 1975 was the last big one.

[00:56:34]Yeah. Um, but here's the thing. Like, it's not just the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[00:56:39]It's um it's those apocalypse people, too. What the hell is it called again?

[00:56:44]Uh, not revelation, rapture. Those rapture people, they come, they come and go. My whole life they've come and gone.

[00:56:52]Those rapture people my entire life they've come and gone. They I remember when I was a kid it would be actual news stories that people like on the on the local news that people were worried and getting prepared for the rapture and people did invest there were investigations into the rapture.

[00:57:11]That's how popular the rapture was.

[00:57:15]And that's come and gone every almost every single year that I've been alive.

[00:57:19]And it's always wrong. It's always missing. It's always inaccurate. It's always something else. Or there's there's always at least one person saying, "Oh my god, guys, the rapture actually happened and we're left behind." Or there's someone saying, "Oh, we read it wrong. We have to we have to think in this calendar." or or no, it's it's actually written in this language and so we have to interpret it in this we have to interpret it from the from the the Gregorian calendar or sorry not the Gregorian the older Roman calendar but in order to interpret in the older Roman calendar we actually translate the older Roman calendar to the older Jewish calendar which was actually a translation for another calendar and it just it's like oh like you guys you guys will just do backflip flips and back flips and back flips to justify your position without ever wanting to say the words, the four magic words.

[00:58:19]I'm sorry. I'm wrong and just move on.

[00:58:28]I think that's what people get caught up in. You know, in Tik Tok, people think the world is ending. Oh god, it's Tik Tok. Ryan.

[00:58:35]Ryan, here's the thing. And it's not just it's not just Rapture Talk on Tik Tok, Ryan. Oh my god. I had to uninstall Tik Tok because the amount of trans girls on there who as soon as Trump was elected started with the we need to uh we need to apply for asylum in Canada stuff on Tik Tok is absolutely wild. And the number of number of trans girls on there and trans allies on there who keep trying to insist that oh yeah no Canada's accepting being trans as a reason for for uh getting asylum into Canada right now is just wild. Like Canada's not doing that. Guys, girls, don't do that. If you're denied asylum in Canada, if you're denied um refugee status in Canada once, you're denied refugee status in Canada forever.

[00:59:33]Don't screw that up. Like I it's just it's just wild to me the amount of just overhyped rumor mongering that goes on on Tik Tok and social media in general that just it's just completely weirdly fabricated and unchecked and catches like wildfire.

[00:59:53]It's nuts to me. Like I've I've had to advise a personal friend of mine like no no don't don't apply for refugee status in Canada. Not unless you actually qualify as a refugee under their terms.

[01:00:07]And they don't list being trans as one of the valid reasons for being for acquiring refugee status.

[01:00:17]They specifically list people in America as not qualifying.

[01:00:22]Full stop. Full disqualifier.

[01:00:26]Like, don't do it. I've seen way too many people turned away and basically deported from Canada for the rest of their lives because they basically lied about their refugee status.

[01:00:38]Don't do that, girls. Please don't do that to yourselves. Don't do that to yourselves. You're just hurting yourselves.

[01:00:46]Oh well.

[01:00:48]I just I don't I don't get it. And Alex, to get back to the last point, um, this for me this my whole complaint boils down to philosophical fart huffing with Alex. Just to close out the last five minutes or so of the show, Alex's stuff really boils down to to sort of fart huffing for me. I think people who watch Alex like the smell of their own farts. I think people who debate on Reddit and debate on YouTube and Tik Tok like the smell of their own farts and they like the they like the they like the dopamine hit from being right or being proven right or feeling justified in their righteousness more than they like advancing the conversation and genuinely helping people. And I find that very disappointing. You know, I really find that like if you wanted to genuinely help somebody on your debate show, right, or on your call-in show and they call in with a syllogism, let's say that their syllogism is they're using set theory to try and prove God, right? and you seriously write it down and then you debate them on the technical merits of their set theory argument that they very clearly copied from Stack Overflow or Reddit or Discord or something like that.

[01:02:07]What you're doing is not um is not helping them understand why they're wrong.

[01:02:15]What you're doing is helping them refine their argument into something a little more unassalable, a little easier to pass. You're helping them refine their performance more than their opinion. If you really if somebody comes up to you with set theory, right?

[01:02:32]And they say um and they claim that uh that that set theory, I'm not going to go through the whole um C is a subset of G, therefore G must exist, therefore God, right? I'm not going to go through the whole formal syllogism of it, but if somebody comes up to you with that, stop and ask them two very important questions. One, why can I not just replace G with anything?

[01:02:57]Why can I not replace G with cosmic fortune cookie that we were cracked out of?

[01:03:03]How does that logically entail? Right?

[01:03:05]How does that logically follow? Um and then two, ask them how do you demonstrate that set theory directly translates to a description of reality?

[01:03:18]Like don't don't just don't just let them like blurt their way through their set theory, right? Don't just correct them on their on their misformulation of ZKF.

[01:03:29]Like let them like honestly like ask them like how do I translate set theory into into actuality?

[01:03:38]What what is what is the step? Same thing with modal ontological arguments, right? How what is the step from taking S5 logic into reality? How does that translate? How does that work? because you're using words, you're using descriptions, you're using logic, you're using abstractions. That's all fine and great. Congratulations. Your brain is functioning. All you've proven is that your brain functions.

[01:04:03]You haven't demonstrated anything about reality. You've said your brain functions enough to use set theory.

[01:04:09]Great. Congratulations. What is How does this translate to reality?

[01:04:14]How is the universe a set? Let's let's start there, right? How does how does how does how does how does any of this work exactly?

[01:04:26]Like walk them away from using things like that and be like, let's sit down.

[01:04:31]Let's let's actually discuss this. Like let's let's honestly discuss what you're trying to say and what you're trying to imply here. Like why does that why do you think an axiom in philosophy is demonstrative is as demonstrative or as powerfully demonstrable as me getting up and taking a piss in the morning? How does how does that work?

[01:04:57]And people trip and fall on this quite a bit. They have a very difficult time discussing that.

[01:05:05]It's very interesting.

[01:05:08]You'll have some very very interesting conversations with people when you do that. When you humanize the abstract elements of their arguments and you ask them, listen, how does God actually work?

[01:05:23]How do you actually demonstrate any of that? And that's that's much more powerful, I think, than arguing on the the technical merits of a conversation.

[01:05:36]All right. Well, I think I've extended this episode long enough for a complete hour. Boy, you know what? I should just rename this from Secular Sunrise to Felicia Vamps for an hour.

[01:05:49]We've had a great conversation going on in the chat, by the way. Um, it's uh it's uh Devster. Do you even understand what Alex talks about? He has talked about this before. You are You are misrepresenting him. I'm not misrepresenting him.

[01:06:06]You've missed an important part of what I said. I said Alex is comparing he's trying to he's trying to do a metaphysical comparison um of a 3000US one to a one minus one and saying that it's it's a quantity issue. And I'm saying Ricky's argument is not an argument against God. It's a demonstration of what it's like to be to be an atheist.

[01:06:35]It's a qualitative argument.

[01:06:39]It's about the internal quality that he experiences.

[01:06:44]That's what Alex misses. So, while you can white knight Alex all you want, his entire argument is brain deadad buckus.

[01:06:56]Anyway, that's all I'll say about this. Um, he does have uh he does have some good points sometimes. He has he's a great orator. But tata for now, folks. It's been a fantastic hour and we'll see you tomorrow on Secular Sunrise. Peace.