Childhood amnesia—the inability to recall events from early childhood—is caused by the hippocampus being structurally incomplete at birth, with new neurons rapidly forming and disrupting existing memory connections. Memories are stored in molecular patterns across multiple brain regions, and once language is learned, memories from before language acquisition become inaccessible because they exist in a different format. This explains why most people's earliest memories are around age 3-4, despite babies forming memories that simply cannot be retrieved later.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Godly Grab-Bag Live
Added:mind has been wondering.
Curiosity on overdrive. [music] You feel a need for something and it's coming alive.
[music] The moment is rising like you hoped it would. Who knew a [music] tangent could feel so good?
Let her take [music] you on another tangent. Turn a thought into a whole new planet. She'll make your [music] sense of wonder feel gigantic and lights the way like magic. [music] You arrived to learn the facts, [music] but you stayed for her glow.
You heard her musical laugh [music] and her quick stole the show.
The moment [music] is rising like you hoped it would. Who knew [music] a tangent could feel so good?
Let her take [music] you on another tangent. Turn an idea into a whole new planet. She can pace a universe from fragments. [music] Ember lights the dark like magic.
Who knew a detour could hit like this?
Smart mouth [music] star maps and a sideways twist. No religion, just a mind on fire. Taking us higher and higher and higher.
Let her take you on another tangent.
TURN A thought into a whole new planet.
She'll make your sense of wonder feel [music] gigantic.
Lights the way like magic.
[music] [music] Hello, hello everyone. Welcome back.
Happy Friday. We are doing a semi-spontaneous lowkey live stream today.
Instead of a specific show dedicated to a specific topic, we have a bit of a grabag going on and chaos and mischief and shenanigannery is likely to ensue.
Thank you so much for joining. Before we even get started, the free has gifted 50 memberships.
Amazing. Thank you so much, Ayra.
Everybody who who received those, please enjoy all the assorted goodies that come along with that. We've got a crap ton of custom emojis. you feel free to use in the chat or in comments sections on videos on this channel, but also there's a ton of member exclusive content and other assorted goodies. So, poke around, enjoy. I I hope I hope this places to your liking.
Thank you so much, Aira. Oh, goodness.
All right, so before we really dig into things, a few things have happened. Um, one of them just came to my attention just a couple of hours ago. A friend of our community, Joe the Kentucky atheist, who organizes the uh well, helps organize the Ark protest the last couple of years, including this past year, has has run into some global flood trouble of his own, you might say. He got back from the ark protest and and discovered that his house has been washed away in well I don't know if it's been washed away but it's his house is [ __ ] in the flash floods they've been getting in eastern Kentucky along the or is it western along the Ohio River is [ __ ] So if you can, they he and and his partner and their son have lost everything.
And so there's there's efforts underway to try to help to organize some response uh specific goods and and organizing getting things to them to assist. But one thing that always helps is finances.
That's how you afford a place to stay while you sort things out. That's how you afford food. That's how you replace the things that are difficult to replace otherwise. So on and so forth. So I have linked and pinned in the description um his PayPal, which is the most direct way to get funds to him and his family, which you can see on screen here. It's it's PayPal the Kentucky Atheist. He may have alternative methods of of you know it he has a channel here on YouTube. You can reach out directly but I want to make people aware that when a member of our community really really needs help. We always try to at least help and and even if you can't contribute, spread the word. It does a lot of good. So thank you so much on that one. Joe has done so so so much for this community over the years and including trying to help other people.
We try to help where we can when we can.
So, thank you for your attention on that matter. In less depressing news, um you may have seen the notification on on the various socials, including here on YouTube, but yesterday I finally released the PTSD flag. Now, you may recall several months ago I was asked uh well, I I've been doing a lot of shows about specifically mental health and trauma recovery and abuse awareness and all sorts of things along those lines.
And after a show on mental health, I was reached out to asked to create a flag because I've been making a lot of flags this year. And I looked into it. It turns out there wasn't already a flag.
In fact, there aren't many flags for survivor groups of any kind really.
There's a lot of awareness ribbons, but awareness isn't the same thing as pride.
Awareness is for telling other people what challenges a stigmatized group or community faces. Pride is for members of that community so they can feel less stigmatized.
And so, it seemed to me a good idea to honor that request. And I spent a lot of months working on this flag design. I started with the teal ribbon for PTSD awareness. I found complimentary colors based on both how they look and their meanings by digging into the various ribbon meanings. It's it's almost a modern heraldry the way the colors work with different meanings, especially in the way they interact. I guess it's almost like tarot because the meaning of a specific card changes depending on what other cards are around it. In any case, put a lot of work into that.
Worked with a bunch of individuals to get a design that was both pleasing to the eye and significant visually.
And then I I have to give an a special shout out to a bunch of people working with me on on shapes and appearance and so forth, but also this Jess, this specific Jess pointed me at resources for evaluating color combinations and palettes and things with regards to different um sensory issues from color blindness to neurological overstimulation.
And I spent a lot of time running various combinations of colors and hues through those different resources to make sure I could produce something that was both visible to people who had various flavors of color blindness and and wouldn't set off anything unfortunate and basically to try to make it as accessible as possible. That's also the reason for the muted tones including on the white. It's actually a softer off-white because pure white can be difficult. It's it's similar with the disability pride flag how very saturated colors can be difficult for some people with visual processing issues which is why there's more muted pastel tones.
Same thing here. Bright pure white not great. So that's that's why that's there.
The symbolism of course is as as I describe here on on this little thingy here on screen. The uh the teal of course is the original PTSD ribbon and it represents healing and calmness.
The soft green at the top is for growth and renewal. The light blue at the bottom is for tranquility and clarity because you need all of these things in order to recover. For anybody who isn't familiar, PTSD isn't just anxiety. It's posttraumatic stress disorder. It's the emotional and psychological damage you experience following a traumatic event, whether it's a car crash or long-term abuse.
It takes your mind a lot longer to recover than your body. And this is a very stigmatized group. In fact, as it turns out, there's a lot of people who consider themselves to be traumainformed who spend most of their time attacking people for having trauma, which is a just the amount of misinformation and maliciousness around these topics is mindblowing.
And so, this is kind of important to me, too. Um, the white triangle represents hope because I mean whom among us hasn't been in a position where the only thing we could hang on to was hope because we didn't feel connected to anything else in our lives around us.
Hope can be a thin thread but when it's all you've got then it can make a big difference. And of course the purple cutting across everything because we can never get away from our scars.
Nor should we have to to pretend they're not real. That's just denial and that's antithetical to healing. So that's that's why the flag. Um there's an article that goes along with this on my sub substack which you can find linked at better than.com or in the community post about this flag where you can learn read up more about what went into the development and all those various things.
And additionally, of course, I made a space pride flag of it and you can find that in the usual place. I don't feel right about doing a capitalism when I'm talking about a a community thing, but on the Substack, there's a link to a Google Drive file where you can find just the flag by itself in high resolution or this community post that that that is being shared here if you want them naturally. So, there's I just wanted to explain about that, you know.
All right. So, let's see now into into the fun goodies. Oh, right. Right. I went out of order because there were important things to talk about. Thank you all so much for joining. I see a bunch of really cool people here coming through chat. Um, it there's too many for me to call out names, but I appreciate you all being here. If you're new, my name is Ember.
I'm an interex woman of transgender experience and I do a lot of various advocacy. Often it's issues relating to trans and interex people like me.
Sometimes it's a deep dive into history or science or philosophy or other things. Those are both serieses. There's a few courses here on this channel.
Today we're doing a low-key grab bag. Um and and there's there's some politics, there's some apologetics there. Oh my goodness.
I hope I hope you enjoy and and if you are new, please remember to hit the subscribe button. It helps ever so much. Okay, now continuing on a silly news story that crossed my my my desk, I guess, a little earlier on today from Pedapixel. I'm still subscribed to Pedapixel because even though I haven't worked as a photographer in many, many years.
I like reading up about these things.
Now, this actually happens to coincide with the space stuff that I've been about for a while. My whole life, honestly. But never mind that.
The US has approved a gigantic satellite mirror that will illuminate the Earth at night.
What could possibly go wrong? I mean, we're already dealing with a record-breaking climate crisis. Why wouldn't we want to add more sunlight to our system, even during the nighttime?
Now, it should surprise nobody that while we're still a long way away from terraforming other planets, people have been coming up with ideas for how to help terraform Mars to make it more habitable for humans.
And one of the leading proposals is to build big orbital mirrors that will shine light at the Martian poles day and night. Both to add heat to the system through more sunlight and to melt the poles because the one pole weird fact about Mars if you don't know one pole is almost entirely water. The other pole is almost entirely carbon dioxide.
Now we humans don't care for carbon dioxide atmospheres. They they tend to be kind of poisonous to us. But CO2 is very, very good at holding in additional heat. And so vaporizing both poles would add fresh water to the Martian ecosystem and a thick CO2 layer to the atmosphere to thicken the atmosphere and help hold in more heat. So that seems like a popular starting place.
The downside is um doing that to Earth is a terrible idea because we don't need more heat. Thank you much. And also destroying the night has a number of issues. One of them being it greatly limits our ability to science. If we're already having trouble seeing past our armor of satellites ringing our planet right now, adding big old mirrors to make it sun sunshine all the time probably probably not going to help with that. Another issue is it will seriously screw up our the bio-ythms of our ecosystems which short of the polar regions are calibrated to dial cycles.
If there's suddenly no night, I don't foresee that going terribly well. But never mind the science. We're not using science here in the US anymore. So, of course, the this this publisher, this website, Pedapixel, it focuses on the photographers's perspective on things.
So, it starts out with, picture this, you're photographing in the middle of the night. It's dark and you desperately need light. So, you whip out your phone, open an app, pay some money, and boom, the night becomes day thanks to a satellite that is now reflecting sunlight to your location like a bright full moon.
Now, the picture is somewhat misleading.
The satellite they're talking about would be something on the order of 60 miles across when when the mirror is fully unfolded.
And it it would be probably on par with full moons light.
That's not daylight bright, but if you've ever spent some time under a full moon, it's pretty bright. Adding another one. Oh my goodness. So there there's a lot. For some reason, the Federal Communications Commission gave the approval for this project. I'm I'm not sure why they get a say, but okay. The astronomers are not happy.
Oh goodness.
It's terrifying to me that one country can change the night sky for everybody in the world. Samantha Lawler, an astronomer at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, told the New York Times, "Boo!
I need access to dark skies in order to do my research. If you've got giant mirrors shining down, then we've lost that." Again, with the satellites we already have are are quite troublesome.
And yikes.
The satellite is called Arendel One, which will orbit the Earth about 400 miles above the surface and will unfurl a square meter. Oh, 60 feet wide.
Not 60 miles. Can you imagine?
60 feet.
The mirror would then bounce sunlight towards a specified location and illuminate a circular patch about three miles wide.
It's Okay. The the company is called Reflect Orbital. Ben Novak, the the tech bro, uh, one of them, a co-founder, said they plan to charge $5,000 for an hour's use of one mirror as long as the customers committed to using a,000 hours annually.
That's $5 million.
That's a That's five. you get. That's your discounted rate. If you commit to spending $5 million, then it'll only cost you $5,000 an hour for this satellite to shine down on on your air.
What are we doing? What are we're We're going to go extinct, folks. This is just it. We're just going to go extinct. $5 million per year per customer is almost certainly outside of most photographers budgets.
Yeah. I mean, [laughter] when I was a working pro, I would accept jobs for lenses because sometimes, like, you know, I would I might do a particular kind of shoot, a deluxe wedding package for example, that might run a couple of thousand dollars. If the people didn't have a couple of thousand dollars, but they could get their hands on a lens that would cost me $2500, then I would accept the lens, you [laughter] know, like being a photographer is kind of pricey, but five million a year. [snorts] No, I mean, I don't even know if Annie Liowitz could swing that. My goodness.
So, the FCC has approved just one of these satellites, but Reflect Orbital has plans to launch a thousand of them.
even bigger.
180 ft across three times and that's that's width, right? So remember area is the square of of it's it's not even a diameter when it's a square. How why are we squaring circles? Hey, that's the answer to that riddle, isn't it? How do you square a circle? You measure its diameter and then, you know, figure pi in there somewhere. [laughter] Never mind. Math jokes. Only Dr. Kip will get that one.
Biologists warn of the dangers of such technology. The proposed scale of orbital deployment would represent a significant alteration of the natural nighttime light environment at a planetary scale. Biologists from Europe, the US, Japan, and Canada all tell the Guardian. The biology community says that altering the light dark cycle could upset circadian rhythms that regulate sleep in humans and animals as well as interrupt animal migration, plant cycles, and even the phytolanton in the sea that are vital to life. We're going to go extinct to make a tech bro slightly richer.
What are you surprised?
All right, that I just wanted to talk about that because it's so outrageous. I just I can't even with these people.
Like my goodness.
Margie says, "How do you square a circle?" A cylinder, right? Like, oh my goodness.
The first time I engaged with a philosopher bro and he threw that at me, I'm like, "What do you mean?" And they're like, "Well, it's impossible."
I'm like, "Only if you have a very limited imagination."
[laughter] Like I I I took um what what what do you call these things?
one of these gizzies, a a makeup spreader thing, and and I like I I I squished it down so that it was a square on one side and and and a circle on the like I did it in a video. Like you it can be a square and a circle at the same time because those are both two-dimensional shapes and we have three-dimensional objects. We we can do that, you [laughter] know.
I don't know. I'm very silly. I don't have a lot of respect for for the the philosophy bros. Um, sponge. That's it.
Thank you, Robin.
I can remember dural cycles, but not sponges. This is the nature of my brain.
Oh, goodness. Aren't y'all glad that they [snorts] Okay, speaking of philosophy bros, I brought us one of those. This This is the random thing. I I have a backlog of videos that I will never in my life have time to get to, but this one really tickled me. It's um not a big apologetics channel exactly, but it it this fellow the title the title is 31 years without faith. One argument ended it. I'm like, "Okay, I'm always eager to hear the one argument that convinced this lifelong atheist to become whatever flavor of religion they are now." Because I mean, I want to know if there is a compelling, convincing argument. I want to know.
Place your bets on how well this goes.
I'm tempted to run a poll, but I don't think I can put in enough options for [laughter] it. It'll be fine. So, let's let's um yeah, let's get into it. What the hell?
>> I spent 31 years of my life thinking that religious people had simply stopped thinking. I thought there was no way you could just choose a religion and believe it was true, that spirituality or the universe was the case. Then I came across an argument that essentially made me feel like I was being intellectually dishonest. So, this is the case for why you can't.
>> Cool. So he he he thought everyone was stupid and then after 31 years he came across an argument that changed everything. Cool with you so far. What is this magical argument?
>> Old logic, morality and science and throw out God. You have to pick. And so this isn't a feeling. It's not a vibe.
This is an actual argument. Every time you say >> what is an actual argument? The fact that morality and reasoning exist.
Now, some of you will already see where this is going. You're not wrong. It [laughter] But we'll let him get there.
>> Say that's not logical or that's wrong.
You're already standing on something.
And that something only makes sense if there's a god. I spent years trying to knock that floor out from under that.
That's it. That that is the argument.
He'll explain in more detail and we'll get into it in more detail, but that is his argument right there is logic works, therefore God. Now, there is a name for this argument. It's it's well, it's called a few different things, but the filibros like to call it the transcendental argument for God.
And what it means is there are things that transcend the human mortal experience. And therefore, there must be a magical being of some kind who really hates shellfish for some unexplained reason. It just it simply has to be.
And who knows why, but maybe he'll do a little bit better than the the typical person who uh who goes in this direction. Now, for anybody not familiar, because it's pretty much only poets and fellow bros who use the word transcendental. That just means to transcend something. For instance, it you could say the laws of physics transcend human laws because they were here before there were humans. They will be here after there's humans and nothing humans do can approach them. Like we can't overturn gravity. You know, even if we come up with a technology that lets us ignore gravity, we still have to deal with it every time. So the laws of physics transcend human laws.
That's all that means is it's something that's beyond the scope of what you're talking about. But that doesn't prove anything. You know, like we could we could as ancient Greeks, for example, we could presuppose there might be some kind of gravitational force. We might not be able to nail down what it is without calculus to help us or how it works or whatever the case may be. But we could presuppose there's some kind of gravity. What does that entail about supernatural beings existing outside the universe?
There's a big disconnect here, you know, like how do we know first of all that there is any being behind it? And second, how do we know which being it is? Is it Zeus? Is it Kronos? Is it Hera just [ __ ] with everyone? Like, how do we know who it is? We don't. It's just presupposed.
>> Me and I couldn't. So, let me show you exactly what cornered me. And really quick before we get into it, if you can give me a like and a comment down below.
Let me know if you agree. Let me know if you disagree. I love open conversation.
So, let's get into it. And if you want to see more from me >> and and same things, push the buttons if you're watching in the future. Hello, future people. Leave a comment down below and explain to me why I am a silly goose for not understanding why this is a slam dunk argument.
>> I would love if you've subscribed. All these things mean so much for the channel. You have no idea. So, thanks in advance.
>> Most side sleepers think they're fine.
>> Curses.
I thought I I had managed to evade the commercials before we started. That's all right. I I will I will switch.
>> I spent 31 years of my life thinking that religious people >> get back to where we were standing on some in advance. So, who's >> Okay.
[laughter] Wowers. All right. All right. All right.
um standing on something. So he's saying he's standing on the ground that God holds up, but nobody has been able to demonstrate that it's God holding up the ground. Just that there is ground. And so he's saying because there is ground, there must therefore be a God holding it up and a specific god, the god that he likes.
This is just Ray Comfort. And And for anybody who doesn't know what I mean by that, one moment, please. This [laughter] where? Okay, here we go. Behold the atheist's nightmare. Now, if you study a well-made banana, you'll find on the far side there are three ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves.
On the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents. Green, too early, yellow just right, black, too late. Now, if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda cam makers, they placed a tab at the top. So, God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find the wrapper, which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth.
So Ray Comfort, he's a young earth creationist. His whole shtick is if there is a creation, there must be a creator. Just like if there's a painting, there must be a painter. Or or if there's a snowflake, then there must be a snowflake or. And you can see how this argument from incredul boils away into nothing fairly quickly. I made a spoof video a while back, which I believe is one of the members exclusive content things here on this channel. Um, so what did I call it? something about the founder, the the one true founder.
The the idea is that because the United States is a complex system ruled by laws that transcend the wisdom of any single man that demonstrates there must have been a one true founder. And you know, never mind Ben Franklin, George Washington. That does it doesn't make any sense. It must be one perfect founder who never makes mistakes and and gave us the constitution by dictating it from Mount Si.
Sure, you could say historically speaking, there are multiple founders and most of them were not all that interested in the cause of freedom for anyone else, but never mind that. It simply doesn't make sense to have multiple founders because one founder would be ultimately powerful and multiple founders would be limited in their power. They would interfere with each other and we wouldn't end up with this beautiful country that while it does contain earthquakes and volcanoes and the occasional plague of diarrhea lettuce apparently that's because of original sin though.
So no you get where I'm going with that.
So bo basically this boils down to the same thing. It's saying there's a there is a universe, so there must be a creator of that universe for some reason. And never mind that there's multiple missing steps in that chain of logic.
He's saying that there's there is a universe to stand on. So it must be one specific magic being, not just any magic being, but one specific one. And it's whatever philosophy you try to wrap that in. It's the same argument from ignorance.
I don't know how things got to be this way. Therefore, a magic being, my magic being, send me money. Obey me because I'm I'm the prophet of the magic being.
[ __ ] hell.
>> Who's this for? This is for the skeptic that lives as if truth is real but says it doesn't. You've been told that everything is just your Is that a sentence to live as if truth is real but says it doesn't? Like no. Skeptics are skeptical because we believe truth is real. It's the the main difference between a skeptic and a non-skeepic is that we question things.
That's what it means to be a skeptic.
that even if you are certain, if you're convinced of something, you're still willing to question that belief when presented with new information because there's always at the top of everything the underlying truth to the cosmos that we're quite capable of being very wrong. Humans have done it a lot in the past. We're all capable of making mistakes and so we're open to new information even when we're convinced of something as opposed to just making something up, calling it truth, declaring I have the only truth and ignoring all other information.
Very strange your truth or that morality is subjective or that logic is just a human convention. But if someone betrays you or cheat, >> let's run through those again because some of those were true and some of them were not.
>> Lives as if truth is real but says it doesn't. You've been told that everything is just your truth or that morality is subjective or that >> everything is just your truth. That's the thing that Frank Turk says but basically nobody else. Morality is subjective. Like there's no way around that. We could we could get into that and maybe we will as we go on. But TLDDR morality o in and of itself is necessarily subjective. It only functions with regards to a specific subject making a value judgment on the actions of someone else or themselves or whatever. Like you can't judge things without a subjective perspective. Like what do you mean? that logic is just a human convention. But it's >> log well so there there's there's some word games going on there. Logic as it happens is a human convention. It's a language after a fashion. It's a form of mathematics. You could argue it's symbolic mathematics.
But math, like logic, isn't the universal language that a lot of people like to try to present it as. Um, for instance, we typically use here in in the English-speaking world a base 10 mathematical system. You don't have to do it that way. You could use base 12 like the Babylonians or base six like the Chelanss who are also Babylonians.
Or [laughter] [snorts] math can work in a whole bunch of different ways. The principles are the same. The underlying laws of of logic that guide how math works are the same.
But the vocabulary is different. The functions are different. The syntax can be different. And all of it, the symbols we use and the meanings that they relate to, the operations, those are all things we made up. There's nothing objective in a universal sense that the the X represents multiplication, which in turn is representative of repeated addition. You know, like there is no such thing as multiplication in a universal context.
It's just shorthand for repeated addition.
Similar thing with with exponents. It's it's just where multiplication is repeated addition. Exponents are repeated selfidentifying multiplication and so on. Like there's all these different processes are things that humans described.
They're not an intrinsic part of the universe. That's just the way the language we made up to describe these things happens to work.
And logic is the same. It's just the symbols and processes that we came up with to attempt to describe reality.
It's not a prescription of how reality has to work. And often we're very wrong.
Like you know the whole thing about the numeral zero beingvent invented in the 1100s. Like I still haven't quite processed how people before then conceptualized things like anything that that held a zero as we consider it now would just be undefined much the way we consider division by zero today there is an answer it's just not easy to write on a piece of paper. So there isn't a definition to it. It's a possible operation it's just not defined.
Incidentally, you could write it as as a reciprocal of infinity, which is a fun way to really piss off your math teachers.
>> Someone betrays you or cheats on you or lies to you, you say that's wrong. So firstly, we have logic. You rely on it every day and it demands real ground.
>> No, nobody is saying that betrayal is wrong in a universal violation sense.
We're saying that it's hurtful and therefore is wrong. It's the hurt that triggers the moral judgment part. If you could cheat on someone without hurting anyone, then we wouldn't have a basis for calling it wrong. It's the harm that's the problem, not the action. And that's one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of moral systems because they tend to move us too many steps away from our actual values that underly the morals and we end up doing things that don't help our values. [laughter] Aside from just opinion morality, you treat some things as truly evil, not just as inconvenient. And science, you trust that it describes a real objective world that we actually can have knowledge about. you already live.
>> Well, kind of.
To say trust is is a bit of a reach.
Like we we don't trust the world. That's why we're constantly testing it.
We don't believe that what we find in a 2,000-year-old book accurately describes the world. If we did, we wouldn't bother to test things and we wouldn't find out interesting things that go against the book, like the world being older than 6,000 years and sphericalish and orbiting the sun and no one using it as a foottool that we've been able to determine and so forth. We wouldn't have found all kinds of interesting things.
>> As if these three things are real. The transcendental argument simply takes it seriously. So what exactly is the transcendent?
>> What do you mean the transcendental argument takes it seriously? Science exists because we take the existence of the the world, the universe, time, space, matter, energy, all the other we take these seriously instead of just making [ __ ] up about them.
Argument for God's existence. Well, most arguments for God's existence go bottom up like what's the evidence for God's existence, etc., etc. the trans. Do do they?
I have yet to see one. I I mean, if he knows of one, I'd be happy to hear it because it seems like the reason we have so many arguments because there is a lack of evidence for a god's existence because if you just show the god, like I can show my squishy booby. If you could just show it, you wouldn't need arguments. If you had evidence, you wouldn't be playing word games, which is one of the reasons that tag, priest up, all these various things.
I consider them to be an admission of defeat. The fact you have to resort to such levels of deception and manipulation is an admission that you don't have anything, you know, evidence-shaped at all or you would present that Ayra is off to bed. Good night, Ayra.
Thank you for coming by and and get some sleep. My goodness. I know I'm not one to talk.
>> argument goes behind all of that to the paradigms that even allow these things to tell you anything about them. For example, what >> what does that mean? The transcendental argument goes behind all the arguments.
Well, kind of. Since it's a presuppositional argument, it comes up before you actually even get to the argument because if you had to argue it, you'd lose immediately.
And I'm sure we'll get to why soon, so I won't jump the gun on that one. So, it's an admission that you can't even make an argument, let alone demonstrate evidence actually has to exist for logic, morality, and science to actually make any sense in the first place.
Transcendental is a philosopher's word for what has to exist for knowledge and reason to be possible at all.
Presuppositional.
>> No, no, that's not true. Like I was saying earlier, transcendental refers to anything that transcends the context or reference that you're referring to. It it doesn't mean the thing that has to exist for logic to work.
What the [ __ ] are you even talking about?
But also it's just an assertion. It's it it's a very silly assertion. In fact, like I could say it's it's leprechauns.
It's nil the great not god and creator of creator gods. Just saying it has to be necessary doesn't demonstrate it's true. You're just saying things.
Apologists Cornelius Vanill and Greg Bansson press this hard. The laws of logic, the uniformity of the universe, and objective morality only make sense if God exists. The claim you're declaring things. How do you know that? How do you get to that conclusion?
Because from what I can see, first of all, objective morality objectively doesn't exist. But the so that like completely debunks these the the whole of the argument right there. But as for the other claims, logic working, the uniformity of nature, how do you get there?
It's essentially that every non-Christian worldview borrows from Christianity to justify its paradigm. So the argument doesn't assertions that are also demonstrabably false. So this is a thing we get from Frank Turk all the time. In fact, he wrote a book about it called stealing from God. And he basically just asserts that for over 100 pages, which is weird because Christianity got all of its ideas from pre-existing cultures. All of them. And even if Christianity had never existed, all of those ideas would still have been in the pre-existing cultures. There's cultures in this world that never even heard of Christianity until the colonial era and they were cruising along just fine. So this is a nonsense argument that is also demonstrably false. Many of the values that we do have in the western world are in spite of Christianity not because of it.
Doesn't ask you to stop thinking. It asks you to follow the logic wherever it leads. My resistance to faith was mostly emotional and cultural. I didn't want religion. I wanted to be reasonable. I wanted to be open-minded. I wanted to be scientific. Then the argument pressed me on those three exact words. Three. Is is that emotional? Is wanting to be reasonable? Is wanting to be rational an emotional thing? Or is it a values-based thing? Like maybe you develop an emotional attachment to your values because you get it all up in your head about I want to be a good person, but you don't need to do that. You could approach it from a purely utilitarian perspective like medicine for example.
To be a a medical doctor you need to be objective and you make your decisions based on probable outcomes. You apply one treatment or not another because the one is more likely to produce a beneficial outcome not because you really really want to do that one treatment because that's what a good person does. you know, >> questions I couldn't answer and still can't on the terms of atheism. So, firstly, on reason, if my mind is just a product of a cosmic accident, why should I trust it when it tells me that God doesn't exist?
If if your mind was the product of some other process, first of all, it's it's a huge mischaracterization to refer to human neurology as a cosmic accident because the sheer number of accidents that are required to get from the ignition of the sun to here is astronomically staggering. Remember, if there was an intention behind biological development and evolution, then why did it take billions of years and five planet killing extinction events for humans to eventually show up? If we were the goal, why didn't we start there? Or why didn't evolution go directly there? What up with that?
Essentially, if the patterns of my brain are all just created for my survival and to give me an illusion of my own meaning, um, and I can't really know anything for sure outside of my own perception or interpretation, then how >> Yeah. Yeah. That's that's skepticism.
That's understanding that you can't ever be 100% sure of the things you think you know.
Yeah, I realize that that can be emotionally taxing for some people, especially when they get all up in their head about existentialism and mortality.
But wishing things were different than they are doesn't make them true.
How can I trust it when it tells me God doesn't exist? Essentially, knowledge in the first place wouldn't be possible because >> this hurts my brain so much. Our brains tell us through reason, through logic, that certain god propositions definitely don't exist. Like for example, the the god that our friend here is going to propose will inevitably end up being something that exists outside of space time and therefore by definition doesn't exist because to exist means you have a location within space and time.
If you're outside of those things, you don't exist.
But whatever.
We can understand that those things are incoherent and irrational and so they definitely don't exist. But nobody's running around saying there absolutely definitely cannot ever possibly be anything we might consider to be a god.
What do you even mean by a god? Are you talking about a magic being that creates universes? Or are you talking about a bearded dude who lives on a mountain and chucks lightning bolts and occasionally sleeps with the locals to produce half gods who then have to spend their lives carrying out heroic tasks and things like what do you mean by a god? It changes depending on who you're speaking to. So we can't rule it out entirely, but we don't have a reason to believe in it either. And that's the piece of skeptical thinking our friend seems to be missing is we don't just question things. We don't just understand we could be mistaken. We also don't just believe in any random thing without a reason to.
saying that not believing in a god could be the product of a defective brain.
Maybe it could, but even if that were the case, I still need a positive reason to believe in the thing you're claiming or I won't believe it. Now, often we run into the sort of things where um believers will try to put their religion up against atheism and they'll make arguments like this.
They'll say, "Oh, well, atheists have to accept this and this and this. These are entailments of not believing in a god, and here's why they're illogical."
Because picking on the other guy's perspective instead of demonstrating your own is always a winning argument.
That's that's why everyone has been converted by now. But they will never ever compare their religion to another religion from the atheist perspective.
And that's kind of where I'm at. I'm actually kind of agnostic, leaning towards theistic or theistic side. My problem is from where I sit, there's people making Christian claims and there's people making Islamic claims and there's people making Hinduistic claims and there's people making claims for every other religion. All with equally bad arguments and a total lack of evidence. So whom am I to believe and why?
>> Everything is just a subjective opinion of my own. If morality is just a social construct, why do I really feel that betrayal and abuse are wrong even if everyone else is cheering it on?
Essentially, we because you have emotions because at some subconscious level you understand that betrayal hurts.
you don't like it and therefore it's wrong. So it's very subjective. In fact, it's it's weirdly it's more subjective in that uh view because you're saying, well, it hurts me, therefore it's objectively wrong. This is like saying, I don't like broccoli, therefore no one should have broccoli.
Now, just to be clear, I [ __ ] love broccoli, and you should all send me all your broccoli. All of it. It's it's I digress. The point is it's generalizing the personal and making it a universal.
I think this thing is wrong because it upsets me and therefore it is universally wrong. And that is interesting.
We >> all agree and we all live as if morality is objective. There are things in this world.
>> No. No, we do not. Literally no one does. He doesn't either because I guarantee there are situations where he would agree that torture might be justified. You know, if if uh for example, you've got your your uh red hat supremacist, shall we say, has hidden a bomb at a hospital because the hospital has, you know, is treating brown people the same as it's treating white people.
And we can't have that. Not in God's United States. that's immoral. And so he as a good person might say, "No, I don't agree with that. We probably shouldn't blow up small children and and sick people and the elderly and so forth to make a political point in favor of racism. Maybe we shouldn't do that." And just in a hypothetical perspective, the mad bomber, the MAGA bomber, if you will, is refusing to give up the information. and you only have a short period of time.
So in that circumstance, maybe he would be on board with torture. So it's not objectively wrong. It's a value judgment each person has to make on their own because whatever he says about it in that context, it's still a subjective decision.
If you can rank it, it's not objective.
If there's prioritization, it's not objective >> that we would can never justify in any circumstance. That would lead me to believe that morality isn't simply a cultural agreement, but there is something internally inside of us that causes us to know certain things are never >> Well, he's he's kind of half right.
Morality does come from inside of us.
each of us individually, which is why people like Frank Turk have to say, "You would agree that it's wrong to torture babies for fun." Why does he have to tack the for fun on the end there? I would agree that it's wrong to torture babies. He can't say that, though, because he's promoting a book of magic fairy tales that calls for the torture of babies, and he's calling it the source of all morality. So if torturing babies, I can say it's always wrong to torture babies. Frank can't say that.
Our friend here can't say that. They have to add the for fun on because the thing they're promoting is the source of all morality also promotes torturing babies.
I'd call that a moral contradiction, but that's just me. No, ethics are cultural.
In fact, going back to the Greek, that's what ethics means is it is the way of a people, their their traditions, their systems of law, administration, rulership, all of these things. To say something is unethical in today's context is almost synonymous with immoral. But in the traditional understanding of the term, it means it is against the ways of our people. it this is this is not the American way whatever that means justifiable and are never good which would mean there's an objective standard to morality which can't exist if there's no lawgiver for that moral law and if the universe is and this is more word play the moral law because when we say law we ass we do a ray comfort we say well you can't have law without a lawgiver I know I'm bad the accent. It's fine, but that's not how anything works.
There is no demonstrable moral law anywhere to be seen. And also, just because you have a law doesn't mean you need a lawgiver.
People, especially tag people, like to make this kind of argument with gravity.
They go, well, you know, gravity is a law and the law calls for a lawgiver. E, we called it a law. That doesn't mean there has to be even laws in the world today. There isn't one supremely powerful lawgiver declaring things. It's usually in many societies, but not all of them because this is intersubjective.
But there isn't like a king just issuing declarations. It's a legislature.
Someone proposes a law and then they argue and debate and may or may not agree and then they send it to another legislative body to argue and debate and they may or may not agree. It there's no lawgiver.
What do you mean?
>> Simply chaos plus time. Why does it look like something I can study with math laws and repeatable experiments?
>> Well, because it's not chaos plus time.
That's a straw man. That's a I don't know if in his case if it's a deliberate misrepresentation of reality. He may simply not understand what the [ __ ] he's talking about and he's just repeating [ __ ] he's heard other apologists say because that happens a lot. But the universe is not chaos plus time. There are chaotic and unpredictable elements within the universe, but for the most part it seems to be pretty damn deterministic.
So chaos plus time, you're not talking about the real universe. You're just making [ __ ] up to make your position sound less absurd.
>> I realized I wasn't rejecting God because the argument was weak. I was rejecting him while standing on the floor that he's holding up. So the transcendental argument says reason needs >> but how again like there's multiple problems here. Multiple multiple problems. The big one that I keep coming back to is just because you don't understand your deliberate misinterpretation of how the universe works, you you've tied your brain in a knot and and tossed it into the corner.
Great. That still doesn't tell us there is a God or which God that is.
It's God. And science said the universe began. Put those together and you get exactly the kind of world that a rational creator would make. There's an argument I actually came across.
>> Do you do would a rational creator make this kind of world where we can only live on one tiny planet around this average star in a very specific band of space with the help of a big giant moon.
And even with all of those circumstances, we can still only live in about 10% of its surface because the rest is either ocean or death. Like, is this what a rational creator would come up with, do you think? 80 billion light years and you can only live on something on the order of 10,000 square kilometers.
us from a Protestant pastor named Frank Turk who has a acronym called search.
Frank Turk siting.
He's not just repeating apologetics.
He's repeating the bottomest of the barrel apologetics. And this is kind of hilarious. But also notice, as I mentioned, as you probably observed on the thumbnail, one argument.
We're now on what, the 14th argument.
But okay, let's hear about Serge. This comes from his books I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and stealing from God to make the scientific case that the universe had a beginning. S is for point of order. Neither of those presents a scientific case that the universe had a beginning. But even if the universe did have a beginning, even if we just grant that, where's the god? [laughter] The second law of thermodynamics. The universe is running down. It's losing energy, which means that it started. It had a beginning point. It's not infinite. You, the It's funny how people like Frank and and our friend here love to invoke the second law of thermodynamics. But do pray tell what is the first law of thermodynamics? Why are we skipping over that one?
Because trying to argue that the universe must have been created while putting right in your audience's faces that matter and energy cannot be created is slightly counterproductive.
So he'll help himself to the second law of thermodynamics, but he'll skip right over the first one that shows his entire argument is entirely impossible. It's amazing.
universe is expanding, galaxies rushing.
>> Also, good point. Margie mentions God is entropy. Like, if the complaint is the universe is chaotic, then why are we believing anything other than the creator of the universe wanted there to be chaos? Why would a rational being create a universe that is designed to decay?
What kind of god does that imply?
apart from each other meaning they came from a singular point. R is for radiation afterglow. This is the that also the universe is expanding as as best we can tell and and trust me I know there are counterarguments saying that well the universe isn't necessarily expanding. It could just be some other phenomenas causing the perceived red shift that we keep measuring on every telescope on every spectrum maybe. No, I I spent quite a lot of my early college career working on that very problem because I didn't like the idea of the Big Bang. I thought the Big Bang was an attempt by Christian apologists to get Genesis 1:1 into science. I was like, it's it's not a scientific idea. We shouldn't be putting mythology into science. Screw that.
It isn't just the red shift, but trust me when I say tired light as an alternative hypothesis does not work.
[laughter] I put years into that with a it's it's a long story. I'm not going to get into it right now. The point is say the universe is expanding. Say the universe isn't expanding. It doesn't actually matter because neither one entails that the universe was at one point in the past. Like even if the universe is expanding, reverse the direction of time and the universe gets smaller. But that doesn't mean it ever compresses to one point.
It's not entailed.
The cosmic microwave heat that is left over from the beginning of the universe, which some would call the big bang. G is for the great >> sort of there is and I studied I put a lot of study into this too the cosmic microwave background radiation that's the the afterglow of the last scattering when the universe reionized which is to say it became transparent for light prior to that moment photons were simply scattered all over the place bouncing off of free electrons and and so on and so forth once the universe reached a certain density it went through something of a phase change and the atoms just started collecting all the electrons and suddenly photons could just go and so the CMB is the last scattering. It's almost like these photons bounced off the surface of a solid universe to a fraction of a fraction of a second later, a universe that was transparent.
almost like polarized glass. They bounce off the black of the polarized glass and then it shifts to be transparent. That's the last scattering is that last bounce.
So, it's not the big bang, but it is the last glance of what the universe looked like in that final moment. And it's fascinating for a whole lot of reasons, but none of them are the point right now.
>> Great galaxy seeds. These are tiny fluctuations in that radiation which are essentially the seeds from which galaxies grew from. E is for that almost doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense, but we could pretend. We could play pretend it does make sense. Galaxies don't grow from seeds. They're not fruits. They're not trees. It's that's not how anything works. What he's referring to is some of the density spots, the what's called the anotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation because it isn't completely uniform. There's some areas that are slightly warmer and some areas that are slightly cooler. And it's hypothesized that these tiny tiny tiny differences are the result of mass underlying the the plasma that the universe was at the time. What's an even more interesting puzzle, though, is that the universe isn't like polarized glass where you hit a switch and the whole thing changes at once. The universe, even back then, was millions of light years across, possibly billions. The math varies a bit.
It's not going to all change like that.
So, what happened? Why does it look like it did? It's a mystery. We don't really know. That would be an area that you might want to try to shove a god. But saying we don't know, therefore god, still not a good answer to anything. But it's a better thing than what he's trying to do here. The point is great galaxy seeds. That that isn't a term that makes any sense.
It almost sounds like it makes sense in the same way I could say more people have been to Berlin than I have. It sounds like it makes sense. You can try to break your brain to make it make sense, but it doesn't actually make any sense.
>> Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Essentially, space, time, and matter seem to have come into existence, meaning that they didn't exist at some point in time. The universe, >> Einstein's general relativity says no such thing. Not even a little bit.
[laughter] Einstein's relativity, for anybody who doesn't know, Einstein's special relativity made um a mathematical relationship between speed and time, which is to say the speed of light is constant for all observers. That's the main principle in special relativity. And so if you are going fast enough that you would start to catch up to light, time slows down so that for you the light is always going apparently the same speed. And we've tested this weird idea and it seems to bear out. General relativity is the application of these principles to gravity because special relativity only works in a gravity-free environment.
adding gravity makes things really weird, but you kind of need it to describe a real universe. So that's that's all that is is it's talking about frames of reference. It's a whole lot of math and you can extrapolate things about the universe from it, but it does not say matter and energy began to exist at some point. No, that's a deduction and a faulty deduction made from that information. If the information is even involved, it sounds to me more like Frank just kind of made it up.
>> Is not ultimate. It has order and it's intelligible and that order came into existence at some period of time. And not only that, but our >> philosophers have proposed over the many many years that what we perceive of as order in our universe is is actually just the difference between the maximum possible entropy and the observed actual entropy. That gap in the entropy that could be versus the entropy that is is what we think of as order.
It's an interesting idea because there's a lot of things in life that work that way. Like for example, uh temperature, right? We think of hot and cold, but in actuality, cold is just an absence of heat. You know, I'm sure most people have heard that one over the years. Same thing. Order is just an absence of chaos. It's not even really chaos, though. Entropy is slightly different, but never mind. Our minds can grasp it.
We can understand that order. That's exactly what you would expect if a rational creator created a universe that you and I could understand. It's not proof in a This is such a weird way to argue. He's talking about how it's building up rather than from top down.
But he's making all these statements that what we see is what you would expect if the thing I'm making up is correct. Like I could say, well, you would expect that if the universe is created by burping hippos or angry boobies or or whatever. Like when you play fill in the blank, anything can go in that blank. But also, you're not making predictions. You're not saying, "Well, if the universe was made by an intelligent creator who prefers order, we should observe this." And then finding that. You're just saying, "Well, we do observe this, so of course it's the thing I made up." I mean, I'm very smart.
>> The lab coat sense, it's a confirmation.
Your trust in science doesn't have to push you away from God. In fact, it can be the way that you see his fingerprints. So, if we look at all these, that part is true.
It's not impossible to believe in a religion and believe in real things also. Like there are a lot of scientists who have various faiths, not just Christianity. They I mean a good chunk of science across all of human history has come to us from the Islamic golden era and there's a lot of Islamist scientists today. There's a lot of science from China across all its history. There's a lot of science from ancient Egypt. There's a lot of science from Greece. Like religion apparently seems to have no effect. If anything, it can prohibit advancements like you know the dark ages. I know some some historians are like there's no such thing as a dark ages. It's a convenient conception for understanding the reduced rate of progress due to ecumenical interference.
I find it convenient to refer to it as the dark ages because people know what I mean. Even though historically speaking there is no such thing arguments and we come to the conclusion that there is some sort of rational creator of the universe. Why trust the Bible? Why choose the Christian God if there's a better question? Because if you can demonstrate any God is real, then we can skip all the word games. we can just go directly to well now that you've demonstrated that God does exist.
We can we can go from there, you know.
So yes, by all means do the easiest thing it should be possible for you to do. Pull back the curtain and show us your god. There's all these apparent gods that we have to choose from. Why would I be led to the Christian one? A creator who began the universe is one thing, but a god who speaks through scripture is a completely different thing. The manuscript evidence is actually pretty unbelievable and stronger than >> I I agree. The manuscript evidence is pretty unbelievable. [laughter] Like which manuscripts are we talking about? Are we talking about the one where Jesus dies and people come to his tomb and it's empty and then they leave and never tell anyone? Or are we talking about the one where he's basically Clark Kent and takes off the glasses after death?
Are we talking about the one where one woman goes to the tomb or the one where three women go to the tomb? Or are we talking about the one where no one recognizes him because his face is different but he retains the holes they can poke to verify it really is him?
Like which which scripture are we talking about the because the manuscripts can be pretty unbelievable. I agree there.
>> Almost anything else we have in history.
Wes Huff of Apologetics Canada, another Protestant, funnily enough, specializes in New Testament manuscripts and Christian origins. He completely dises Huff is studying New Testament manuscripts. He he does not yet have a specialty, but that's neither that. I'll leave it to our academic friends to to get into the minutia there. They like Wes Huff because he sounds academic and he says the things they want to hear, but that's not the same as him demonstrating he's correct.
Mantles the misconception that the New Testament text is just super corrupted and has been changed. There's a quote embarrassment of riches in manuscript copies far more than any comparable ancient work. essentially if you believe in Julius Caesar >> the okay what he's referring to is that there's a whole lot of copies of manuscripts we don't have originals though we have copies we have lots of copies of Spider-Man number one some of them are reproductions I'm sure there's a few originals kicking around but even having the originals doesn't prove Spider-Man exists so this is kind of a dead-end argument.
Also, a lot of people make this this claim that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is Julius Caesar.
Except not because like Julius Caesar appears on coins and things and real historians wrote about him.
So, what do you mean? Like, do you have a coin Jesus was on? Did he They called him a king. Did he have a kingdom? Is there a verifiable history about that at all?
No. Okay.
>> Cleopatra, Marcus Aurelius, you have much more of a reason to believe in the events and the history of the New Testament. There's actually a much smaller time gap as well between the original text and the oldest surviving manuscripts that we have of the New >> Hold on. Let I'll let him finish. In fact, I'll go back a bit so you can hear that whole sentence.
>> Much more of a reason to believe in the events in the history of the New Testament. There's actually a much smaller time gap as well between the original text and the oldest surviving manuscripts that we have of the New Testament than most any other ancient work. And these thousands any other ancient work.
So the oldest surviving copies of the New Testament are from what the late 2nd century early third century.
Most of them are from the third and fourth century. Not that how far removed in time really matters because what the main issue is that they don't exist contemporaneously with the thing they're describing. And to say that they're closer than anything else is a wild [ __ ] claim because I mean for [ __ ] sake we have Roman laws.
We we're not we're not hearing about the Roman laws hundreds of years after the laws were supposedly passed. We have the [ __ ] tablets they were written on when they were passed. And that's an interesting thing about tablets because there's a whole lot of history that's on tablets or cylinder seals or conquest monuments. The law of Hammer Robbie was written during his own lifetime on a big [ __ ] block of stone called a Stella or Stela depending on who's pronouncing it. It was written during his lifetime.
You can't get much closer than while the author is still there, you know. So what do you mean? These hundreds of years later copies of copies of copies are closer than any other source in history.
Either you don't know what you're talking about, friend, or you're lying.
Neither is good.
>> Of manuscripts let textual critics reconstruct the original wording of these manuscripts with very, very high confidence. with all of this historical, philosophical, theological, and archaeological evidence for the Christian God, uh, it just didn't make sense to really go anywhere else for me at that point. So, so he's convinced by the sheer number of copies of Spider-Man that Spider-Man is real and it doesn't make sense to even look at any other possibilities.
But we we need to be intellectually honest, though, folks. So, is that the one argument? Is it tag? Is it the manuscript evidence? Like what is this one argument?
Which one?
>> We've decided that there is a creator.
We've come to the point where okay, I'm pretty sure it's the Christian God. How do we get to Catholicism? Especially with all the societal uh hate that is for the Catholic Church. Why would anyone choose?
>> Well, obviously the hate that's directed at the Catholics is just proof of what Jesus said about being persecuted. It it has nothing to do with the fact that they keep, you know, hurting children and spreading plagues and undermining women's rights and also supporting colonization and and and you get the idea. Like the Catholic Church does a lot of [ __ ] evil [ __ ] Now, if they represent an evil god, that's no problem. But if you're going to run around saying that your God is the source of all goodness, light, and delightfulness, that the Catholic Church kind of proves that God can't exist just by its own existence.
So there's that to be Catholic. Well, three things did that for me. And they weren't emotional escapes. They weren't preferences. They were just the most intellectually honest end points. Firstly, historical.
>> The most intellectually honest. Okay.
Okay. I'd love to hear this >> continuity. The church claims an unbroken line all the way back to the apostles.
>> Intellectually honest. And he immediately goes to the church claims an unbroken line all the way back to the apostles.
Can they demonstrate it though? Because I mean I can claim an unbroken line of descent all the way back to Alexander. I can claim that. I can't back it up.
[laughter] I know my ancestry back uh for one fork of my family back seven generations, which I understand here in the US is pretty far back. I know broadly where some forks of my family tree came from.
That's how I know I'm half Irish, half Welsh, and half Scottish.
But I can't give you the names of specific ancestors in those countries, you know? So maybe the Catholic Church kept better records than my ancestors. They probably did. But how can they show like the fact he has to say they claim an unbroken line?
Why don't they just show it? Why did they have to claim it? Why do you need the word claim in there? Because if it can be demonstrated, you don't have to say claim, right? Am I silly? I'm probably silly.
>> And that argument holds up to scrutiny in the way that no other Protestant argument does. Two is intellectual seriousness.
>> The argument of an unbroken line of popes holds up to scrutiny in the way no Protestant argument does.
Well, there's two problems there. The first is I don't think the Protestants are arguing that their line of popes is better than the Catholic line of popes because to my knowledge there aren't Protestant popes. The second is it isn't just the Protestants you have a problem with. It's also the Eastern Orthodox because they've done things a little differently and also claim succession all the way back to the original apostles.
That's why they're apostolic. But never mind that.
There's also the Muslims because remember all the flavors of Rome descended Catholicism come from Paul, not Jesus or his disciples.
Jesus's disciples did continue being heretical Jews for a few hundred years in the Holy Land until they were driven out by the Orthodoxy. They were driven into the desert, the same desert that a couple hundred years later, a bunch of people from Mecca and Medina came riding back out of chanting Jesus's name on their lips.
So just my perspective on this, but it seems to me that if you want to talk about unbroken lineage, the Muslims have a much better claim than any of these European churches of being the true Christians. Just saying.
>> Catholicism doesn't ask you to check your brain at the door. Aquinus, Augustine, the Scholastics, these people wrestled with reason for 2,000 years.
Three is the sac. They wrestled with reason because the thing they're claiming is [ __ ] illogical. And if you want to get into the specifics, just throwing out names isn't going to do it.
You want to talk about Augustine, the guy who believed in a Persian darkness and light religion and tried to incorporate that into Christianity who tried to add in ideas from Greek philosophy. Because after Rome got sacked yet again in the 4th century, this whole concept of God's holy protection keeping the city safe was threatening to topple the damn religion.
So it's not even Paul's Christianity anymore. Now it's Augustine's Christianity. He put another layer of another religion on top of Christianity so that it could survive the transition from being demonstrated to be obviously not true in its existing form. Aquinus was a whole other ball of wax. He was more like the CS Lewis of his day.
Centuries later, writing random weird philosophies along the lines of Ray Comfort, "If you have a law, there must be a lawgiver.
that were so bad. And don't get me wrong, Aquinus did have some useful thoughts. He actually invented the concept of secularism. He came up with the idea that when dealing with civilizations where there are multiple mortals from multiple cultures and multiple religions, the only reasonable thing to do is to treat everyone like people rather than try to rank everybody by the hierarchal power of their respective religions.
Even if your religion is in charge, that'll never work because it'll invite constant revolutions. So, Aquinus, he did come up with some good ideas, including secularism invented by a Christian that they praise very highly, but his ideas arguing for God out of the five arguments. Four of them are the same argument repeated in slightly different forms. And all of them were laughed at by his contemporaries. They didn't come into apologetic use until centuries later because everyone in his own time thought they were very silly arguments.
So intellectual giants I suppose sacremental claim. Catholicism actually claims God shows up in the Eucharist in confession and baptism not just feelings God himself.
>> So you you can demonstrate your God. You you can I mean I as many of you know I'm a minister. I've done weddings. I've I've performed baptisms. You know I I will help people carry out the traditions of their people. Even if I don't believe in those things because that's important to them as a community to have that cultural continuity.
I don't see a problem with that.
I have yet to see anyone's God show up at them, though. And also, the Eucharist is so weird. Like, if God really does show up, then you really are eating the body of your dead God. And that is [ __ ] weird, folks. I don't know about you, but in most religions, cannibalism is objectively immoral.
Although, I suppose if it's if it's what what would you call that? a diaphase.
If he's 100% man and 100% God, then it's like cannibalism with extra toppings.
That should be a t-shirt.
>> That's either madness or the most consequential claim ever made. So, at this point in the journey for me, >> it can be both madness and the most consequential claim ever made. Being a highstakes claim doesn't mean it's true. Like I can claim I own the moon. The the stakes of that are kind of high. The fact I'm claiming that doesn't mean it's true though.
Me the argument was airtight. The manuscripts were solid. The science was confirmatory. But I didn't have a heart belief until a little bit later. And the moment I stopped man.
>> So all of that isn't actually the one argument. He he washed his own brain. He took it out and scrubbed it nice and clean and and brushed away all the the pesky reason blocking his conclusions and convinced himself of illogical things and irrational concepts and accepted really bad arguments. Arguments that show that there isn't an argument in fact and bought into some spirious claims about manuscripts and and papal traditions and so forth whatever but he still didn't believe it. So, is this the one argument that convinced him? Are we finally getting to the real one argument we've been promised this whole time and we've gone through dozens of arguments now to get to? Let's find out. Managing the conclusion and started to follow it was when things started to change. And I knew what this meant. Authority, submission, a new life reorganized around something bigger than myself. I didn't really want a life organized around something bigger than my preferences. But what I want wasn't the question. What was true was the question. The alternative was much worse. To keep living life as if logic, morality, science were real while denying the thing that could make them have any sort of realness was just a lie. That's not intellectual.
>> I don't follow that. Like how [laughter] your brain exists. Your brain is the thing that makes the concepts have realness. Like I don't I don't know if people who subscribe to tag and other presuppositional arguments can wrap their brain around this concept. But a concept that doesn't that exists only in the abstract, not in the concrete.
It only exists if there's a mind to contain that concept because it's only abstract. There isn't a platonic plane of metaphysical reality from which all concepts derive their conceptness.
It that's not how anything works.
Honesty, that's borrowing from God while pretending he doesn't exist. But the door was open and I didn't have to stop thinking. I had to start thinking all the way through to the end of the argument, not just the comfortable middle. And there you have >> I mean it'd be nice if you started thinking at the beginning, but sure, let's think all the way to the end.
Sure.
>> 31 years of agnosticism ended in a single argument that all wrapped around into making this universe in our world actually make sense. And not because I was looking for comfort, but because the floor I was standing on only made any sense if God was holding it up. The argument logic, morality, and science require grounding. Only God provides that. The confirmation.
>> How like how do you get there? You can say logic, morality, and science all require grounding. That's an explanatory argument. That's saying that my thing explains these. But when you play fill in the blank, anything can go in that blank. My coffee explains these. That isn't a demonstration. That's just an assertion. It's just a claim.
Grounding alone isn't sufficient. You have to be able to connect your ground to the claim. That's that bridge is called a warrant. You have to have a warrant to show that your proposed explanation is the real explanation or at least that people should accept it provisionally pending additional information. If you don't have one of those things to connect your proposed ground to the claim, then your argument is unwarranted.
And I don't get it how so many of these filibros who claim to be such experts on philosophical thought and technique and so forth don't understand the fundamentals of argumentation.
Claim, ground, warrant. You need all three or you don't have an argument.
Science points at the beginning manuscript.
>> Especially Christians as much as they're all hung up on trinities. My goodness.
I'm surprised we don't have someone running around right now saying, "Well, for an argument to make sense, you need three factors. That's the trinity. There we go. That's proof of God." [laughter] Support the text and history leads to the church. So, at that point, we all have a choice. You can keep using the floor or you can admit who's holding it up. If those three questions are sitting on your chest right now, good. The argument was just the door. God is what's on the other side and you're going to love it there.
>> I I thought God was the floor or holding up the floor, but now it's the door.
That's that's the argument. He he looped all the way back around to transcendental argument form.
Why though? Why does it have to be your god? If you really press them on this, if if you if you really engage, you'll get something along the lines of impossibility of the contrary. But we're still playing mad libs. I could still say it's my coffee cup or it's it's my kazoo or it's nil the great not god and creator of creator gods which actually is entailed by saying there's a creator god. You have to have a creator of creator gods otherwise you end up with one of those dreaded infinite regressions. [laughter] That's a whole other argument though for another time.
You could present anything else and then when pressed say impossibility of the contrary that doesn't demonstrate anything either. It's just another claim on top of the existing claim. So tag presupp all these these nonsense things. It's just a circular argument. It's a big circle but it's just a circle and you should laugh at it every time you encounter it. All righty folks. That does it for this friend. Um, I have I have a few more things we can play with.
Let's let's go about it a little bit randomly, shall we? Um, so yeah, we'll we'll take a quick break and then we'll come back with another thing, a different thing. It'll be fun. Thank you for joining us and we'll see you in in just a few here. Um, you know what?
Let's since since we're having fun with apologists, let's let's keep the apologist thing going with this break. I have a problem with this stuff being normalized across AC across the spectrum.
And specifically like why push this on kids? Why introduce this to kids? It's better cuz it's better.
>> How though?
>> Yeah, [music] because it's better.
>> Can you make an argument for that?
>> Sure. Cuz it's better.
>> In what ways?
>> The ways in which it's better.
>> I am a depraved wretch. I am a great sinner. I'm a worm. Completely undeserving of any love or any grace.
I'm nothing. I'm nothing. You're incapable of being a good person. You're an evil person. You're a terrible person at the at the core fabric of who you are. That's why we need laws. We need laws because we're bad people. All of us are bad people. You can't spell pride month without demon. P R I D E M O N T H.
>> If we don't know who the women are, because there are just people, then we won't be able to pull the women up to equality with men. We have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition and that's for two reasons.
One of them is that every one of those people is a person who's been damaged.
But the second one is every one of those people is basically you know a huge problem to a sane world.
>> Transgenderism must be eradicated.
>> Car that kills people. The LGBT transgender grooming our children's minds is a national security threat. We need to hold people for treason. Start having some public hearings and start executing people. This is war.
Kill or be killed. Period. End of story.
>> I will use whatever gives me victory. I don't care about the truth and I don't care about the law. I CARE ABOUT ONE THING, the control.
But then they rigged the election and now we won. So I'm going to be your president.
>> Then what happened is they rigged the election and I became president. So that was a good thing.
>> I agreed with many many things you said during in fact probably more than than most other candidates um when you were running for president. But I still would not have voted for you um because you're an Indian.
>> I just want to say I feel good about the Republican party. I feel good about where we're going as a nation. We're killing all the right people and we're cutting your taxes.
>> It was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed and go to heaven and be with God.
>> How about we all come together and say, "Let's stop attacking pedophiles."
>> You can give consent when you're drunk.
Unless you're all saying, "I've been raped and I'm a rapist." Stop letting people pressure you into thinking. I want to be ignorant. Honestly, being a Christian doesn't [music] exclude us from experiencing spiritual dryness.
We're bad people. All of us are bad people.
And if you're experiencing spiritual dryness, I can't I can't even I can't even I was going to steal one of Brenley's things, but it's Anyway Anyway, spiritual dryness is a scourge for all of us. Hey, if you're joining us partway through the show, thank you for joining.
Um we're we're we're trying to help our friend Joe um at at the moment. Um, the Kentucky atheist who just helped organize the Ark Encounter protest for this year came back home to find massive flood damage. So, um, we're still trying to sort out ways to help and get the logistics for specific items worked out and whatnot, but one thing that always helps is cash. That's how you pay for a hotel room to stay in while you sort through things um, and try to get things going. how you pay for food, how how you pay for replacement items that you can't get any other way. And so I have I've attached Joe's um PayPal to the live chat so that you can help if you can.
And if you can't, that's fine. Many of us are very poor, but do share that around. Um, stay tuned to other atheist community channels as the situation develops and there will be more ways you can help in the future. But for right now, there's a PayPal to help Joe directly and and appreciate that. Also, while you're clicking things, remember to hit the subscribe button if you're feeling frisky. Maybe the like button.
If you if you really want to be a pal, maybe maybe the share button because the algorithm isn't going to show these video to anybody. [laughter] So, I need your help. Use that share button, please. All right. So, coming back.
This is just a random thread I chanced across the other day. It's a a fellow named Introducing Mark who says, "I'll never understand why Christians insist on leaving things in Jesus's hands when they're famously full of holes." And that that made me chuckle. Like I don't know, maybe I was tired, but it made me chuckle a lot. And and then a person showed shared this image, Jesus, my problems. And like what problems is Jesus going to solve exactly? It it made me chuckle. I thought I would share. Now for thing that won't make me chuckle, it's it's this chuckle [ __ ] He he gave an address before the nation um last night. Oh, what is time?
This is why his ass is on the thumbnail and why I'm not because I won't share a thumbnail with this fucknugget.
Let's see at at least a little bit of what he has to say. And I'm proud to report that our country is safer, stronger, and far wealthier than it has ever been before. We are doing great.
Les, >> well, we're on pants on fire right out of the gate because none of those things are true. Now, he hasn't given us a metric by which he means those things, but in the general sense, we're all much poorer both by absolute value of cash and spending power of that cash than we were just a few months ago.
To say nothing of just a couple of years ago, we're not safer. We're under constant threat from our own administration as well as outside forces. We're much less secure. Like, what is he even talking about?
>> Less than two years ago, we inherited an economic and social disaster after the worst inflation in 48 years. The wide open >> Well, that's kind of true.
While the Biden administration did some work to to cut down on the unemployment that this fucknugget left the White House with and the outofc control inflation that he caused.
Biden's not a sorcerer. I mean, he's not even really that great a politician. All in all, you can only do so much in four years.
He did some, but we were still in pretty bad shape. And then the country decided to just give it back to the guy who made the mess.
This is this more than space mirrors is why we're going to go extinct. Folks, >> borders with millions and millions of people pouring in from all over the world, including criminals of all types and 11,888 murders, many of whom killed more than one person. We had transgender >> citation needed. Oh, but wait, we're getting to the good part. Let me go back. world, including criminals of all types and 11,888 murders, many of whom killed more than one person. We had transgender for everybody, men and women, sports, crime.
We had transgender for everybody. He just says it like it makes sense.
I I mean it was funny when he tweeted it, but like he said it with his own m I need I need to make another I need to cut this.
I need to make a clip of this and put it into that apologist compilation thing because like transgender for everybody. [laughter] What does it mean?
is that if everyone was trans two years ago, ostensibly everyone who's over two years old is still trans.
I guess I don't know. Maybe maybe I need to change my introduction. For those of you just joining us, my name is Ember and I'm an interex woman of transgender experience. And on this channel, we we deal with history, science, philosophy, art, politics, especially pertaining to trans and interex people like me. So, do subscribe. It helps ever so much. But maybe I should leave the trans part out.
If it's transgender for everybody, then that's just saying human. So, I don't bother to say I'm a human in my introduction. So, maybe I should just lose that part. I don't know.
>> Ravaging our cities and the whole world was laughing at us as a nation, but not any.
>> Now, now we have a clown performing circuses on the White House lawn.
Now we're being laughed at. But okay, >> anymore. Two years ago, our country was dead. Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world.
>> Maybe by temperature, but I don't think that's true either. Yes, it global temperatures are up quite a lot. Hence all the wildfires and flooding exactly as predicted. But as far as our country being dead, remember this is also the guy that killed over a million Americans with his [ __ ] ass response to the plague we experienced during his administration.
The um the one that YouTube still doesn't like people to talk about. You know the one. Yeah.
>> America is respected like we have never been respected before.
>> Well, that's true. In all the time of of the United States existing since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when America didn't really have any political power at all and we were begging France to help us.
We have never been so disrespected as we are right now. We are a joke to the rest of the world. We're several jokes in a trench coat. In fact, >> we have more money being invested in the United States than at any time in the history of our country. More >> that might technically be true because of the outofcrol inflation. There is a higher total dollar value of money floating around because of the inflation.
Americans are working today than ever before. This week it was announced that inflation saw the largest monthly decline in more than six years just happened. Was just >> Well, that's I need to see some data on that because the prices that we're all paying. Now how they determine inflation, it depends on which agency is doing the calculation, but they will check prices against staple goods like the cost of bread for example. And if inflation were down, then the cost of these goods would either be down or at least not getting any higher. And that's not what we're actually seeing.
So I don't know where he could possibly be getting that data.
Maybe he's not making it up. Maybe it does come from something like, I don't know, the Heritage Foundation, but it's not a standard economic source.
Given out, the media reported it and we accept it. The best in six years. The tax cuts in our great big beautiful bill are saving hardworking families thousands and thousands of dollars. like with the provisions, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on social security for our great seniors along with the interest. What was their tax on social security before? I I haven't actually received social security, so I'm not entirely clear on that one. But there are many, many issues with the big beautiful bill that we've seen others talk about in other detail. I don't feel the need to really go back through those right now. Suffice it to say, everything is more expensive for everyone except him. He is much richer and therefore it's better. Apparently, >> deduction on a loan used to purchase a car, but only if that car is made in America and a 100% expensing for our job creating businesses.
>> Aha, there's the thing. What is a job creating business? What What is the definition of that? Well, we don't really have one. It's it's a policy that's determined by the executive branch, and it changes from time to time. Sometimes it's a business with more than 50 employees. Sometimes it's a business that hires more than a hundred new employees in a single financial year. Sometimes it's something else. So, we don't know what that means. But what it does tell us is that any business that's large enough to definitely qualify, like a major corporation like Amazon or Trump Corp or whatever the [ __ ] they're calling the Trump organization these days, they get to write off 100% of operating expenses on their taxes.
So the stupid rich have an even lower tax burden. Awesome. Our stock markets are at their highest point in many years, but we can actually say of all time and your 401, >> we've heard that one before, too, that the uh the stock is that that one DOJ person who refused to answer any question because the Dow was over 50,000 that day. Um what is the Dow right now?
Let's let's find out. Let's find out.
Okay, right now today it is 52,146.
And that is in fact higher than 50,000.
That's true. Let's look at the 5-day trend. What's this?
It's down from where it was just a couple of days ago. Oh my goodness.
Let's look at a month. [gasps] It's down from where it was just late last month.
Do you mean to tell me that the stock market is in fact not the highest it's ever been?
I am shocked. Shocked, I say, at the blatant untruth our president has spoken on live television.
>> 1ks, pensions, and retirement accounts are setting records every single day.
The highest in history. For years, we paid the highest price for prescription drugs anywhere in the world. Now, we pay the lowest price under my most favored nation's policy because I was able to get the rest of the world and the pharmaceutical companies to act responsibly. Drug prices are coming down by 70, 80, and 90%. Trump rx.gov. This will ultimately reduce the cost of healthcare. You have to go to trumprx.gov and take advantage of.
>> So, we have to go to a Trump business to benefit from a government program. Okay.
Okay. Let's check it out. Let's find out, fam. It turns out there actually is a website here. And this is why I wanted to cover this myself instead of just leaving it to the political channels to do because, as many of you know, I need a lot of medicines to not die and they're very expensive. So, let's let's look into some some things to see to see what happens here. Trump RX the price. I don't know what that means. Trump prescribed the price.
Trump maybe it makes sense to whoever made it. And I also do appreciate that there's random pills on the the cover image thing. All right, cool. Um, if you would be so kind, chat, drop the name of a couple of drugs off the top of your head into the chat and we'll search some up. While we're here, let's let's uh let's bearing in mind what our head general, Department of War guy said the other day, the troops need more testosterone.
Testosterone is expensive. Let's find out testosterone.
Um, we couldn't find testosterone. We're adding new drugs often. Please check back soon. Okay. Um, let's let's try um and androgens, I guess.
Androgen.
Um, no. Nope. No androgens. Nothing nothing along those lines. Um, let's see. What else could we give the troops to up their their testosterone?
Um hm nothing's coming to me, but you know, I bet I bet they need some other medicines, too. And not just the troops, the senior citizens. A big one um that has been very expensive in the recent past that that might might be better now. Um insulin. Let's see how how the insulin looks.
Okay, there's a couple insulin options.
Um starting at $25 US, $35 US. Um and and there's there's a bunch um generic insulin aspart. Now I don't actually use insulin myself so I don't know what any of these things mean but and the insulin aspart is itself generic for novalog. I mean maybe maybe that's great maybe it's not but none of these are the lowest in the world.
It's a lot better than $300 a dose. I will give them that. But is it because the drug companies have to behave responsibly or Well, let's let's click on one of these and see what happens. So, um here's here's a page. It shows us a happy little bottle. The actual product appearance may vary, of course, naturally. Um it's up to 65% off. You have to configure your drug. This is an outofpocket price. If you have insurance, check your co-ay. It may be even lower. Cool. And um let's see. The original price is $25 and the Trump RX price is $25.
What's that mean? The original price represents the wholesale acquisition cost and the Trump RX price is the special discount you get for using Trump RX. And it's the same price.
Interesting. Okay, cool. Um, you know what?
Widely supported at retailarmacies that dispense insulin. Okay, cool. Fabulous.
I mean, we we like to see $25 better than $300, but let's um deviant suggest Viagra. Let's look for Viagra. Viagra.
All right. Um, Selenil Solophilates generic Viagra starts at 560. I don't know what that means. Is it per dose? Is it is it per subs per prescript subscription? You need a subscription. Oh my goodness. Okay. Same thing. Tablets 20 milligrams, 25 50 milligrams, 100. How many? The lowest price for the lowest settings is $11. So it it doesn't actually start at $5, but never mind that.
Oh, and it's through Amazon Pharmacy.
It's $11 with Prime, but it's 55 without it.
So, this isn't even a Trump program.
It's just a discount for being an Amazon Prime subscriber. And if you're not, you have to sign up to get the savings.
Um, and then there's cost plus drugs where you can get it for $1.99 with a 5 to 7day delivery service. Okay. You can also get it at Walmart pharmacy with Good RX, which is not the same as Trump RX. That's an existing discount program that you can opt into. I think it's a subscription plan you have to pay for. I don't [ __ ] know. But like, [snorts] what are we doing? None of this is from like none of this is Trump related.
These are all things that already existed.
half the the drugs they don't even have and the ones they do there's there's no measurable benefit to this Trump program. It's the same prices or worse than you can get elsewhere. So what is this? What are we whatever whatever?
Let's go back to the the the speech.
I did look a little bit last night to try to find some others and it it some of the meds that I need it runs into the same thing. Like you can get some discounts through like Amazon Pharmacy or um be Walgreens plus or or some some pharmacy subscription program like that or Good RX or or [ __ ] like but nothing that's actually from Trump because heaven forbid he save you any [ __ ] money. He'll just take credit for existing programs, though. My goodness.
>> But the cost of health care is coming way down because of what we've done with prescription drugs and with Trump accounts. Every child in America now has access to a tax-free investment account to save for their future. Billions and billions of dollars are being invested, put in by companies and individuals to take care of our children so that at age 18 they will have potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in their account and they'll get off to a great start in life.
If true, that would actually be a good thing and I'd give them credit for that.
Although at our current rates of inflation, having hundreds of thousands of dollars in 18 years is kind of like having $10 in your pocket today. But whatever, it's it's it's still a plus, I guess. Um, billions of dollars. Let's see how much is being invested in Trump accounts.
Uh, for kids, I should probably specify.
[laughter] [snorts] All right. Um, the AI says, and don't don't trust AIS, but just for quick reference purposes, more than 6.5 million children have been enrolled in the federal Trump Accounts program. The federal government provides a one on one time $1,000 seed deposit for eligible children born between 2025 and 2028.
While private philanthropists like Michael and Susan Dell have pledged 6.25 25 billion to further fund and support deposits for older kids.
Cool.
So, there are billions of dollars potentially going into these accounts, but it's not from the people who have so much money to put them in these accounts. It's seed money to make it look like these accounts are successful.
Some of it is federal money. Some of it is from the Dells.
None. None of it is.
Whatever. I'm I'm with Margie. We need to get down the cost of medical care that people actually also need.
In any case, I really don't want to do any more with him. Let's let's do something else instead. [ __ ] that guy. Um let's let's go on to the Heritage Foundation.
What could possibly go wrong? Title N's failed experiment. Why accommodating sex differences beats engineered parody?
Predictably, inevitably, like literally everyone said was going to happen, as soon as they got any real headway against trans kids in sport, they immediately start coming for women's sports. They they [laughter] Title 9 is a failure. We must disband women's sports immediately. Now, of course, he doesn't come out and say that, but he points broadly that direction. And reminder, the Heritage Foundation are the architects behind Project 2025 and most of the pol uh political voices around Trump today.
They're they're basically running his administration. He just declares random things from time to time.
So, that's neat. Um, this is from like a week ago. Uh, Scott Yenor, PhD. I don't know who that is, but it's interesting that his background lights up when I mouse over his name. That's a neat trick. Uh, he is the chair of the American Citizenship Initiative. You know, the people who tried to overturn the constitutional provision saying that people who are born in the US are US citizens. Yeah.
Citizenship. um the senior research fellow and AWC family foundation.
I guess he's the chair of that one too.
I whatever. Um Scott Yenor, chair of the American Citizenship Initiative in the NE. Okay. Yeah, he's chair of both things which are both research fellow programs at the Heritage Foundation.
Cool. Summary. Title 9 has evolved from a seemingly modest anti-discrimination statute.
What do you mean by that? Like it was geared towards I don't even know if you can call it anti-discrimination, but whatever. Um, seemingly modest, it had sweeping implications for every public school in the United States. So, in what way was, you know what, never mind. Into a powerful engine of feminist social engineering.
Folks, did you know that guaranteeing equal treatment for women ends up being feminist social engineering?
Holy [ __ ] Complete with proportionality mandates.
Now, what what what that means is in theory, what Title 9 requires is that for every dollar spent on a male sports team, you must also spend a dollar on a female sports team. That's not what actually happens. It's never been remotely close to that. In fact, it's sort of a violation of the 14th Amendment.
But remember, we did that special episode on Py versus Ferguson not too long ago. And that whole separate but equal thing is still technically legal.
And that's why they do it that way. If you wanted to interpret Title 9 under a actual constitutional perspective, you'd see that it means that we should have co-ed sports teams. We shouldn't be separating our sports teams. They should just be co-ed. But never mind, that's an argument for another time. The result has been two systemic distortions that rest on a false premise that differences in competitiveness and interest between the sexes or stereotypes to be engineered away through state action and cultural revolution.
Where's the false premise? Which which is the distortion? Equality under Title 9 does not require identical outcomes or the eraser of sex differences. That's true. It It doesn't require identical outcomes. It's about equal opportunities.
But never mind.
It requires opportunity rooted in human nature that will reveal genuine differences between the sexes. No. No.
It says nothing about that. There is nothing in Title 9 requiring opportunity rooted in human nature that will reveal genuine differences between the sexes. That's that's word game [ __ ] That's manipulating the language. The first part is arguably true in an interpretive kind of way that it requires opportunity rooted in human nature under the plus E versus Ferguson interpretation where separate but equal is better than both together.
Then yeah, it would require opportunity rooted in human nature in so far as the white people play on one team and the black people have to play on a different team. I mean, I'm sorry, the males have to play in one team and the females on another team. Easy mistake to make because it's an equally stupid division between people, but never mind.
Using plusy though where separate but equal is better even though it doubles the amount of money you have to spend for worse results for all groups.
It does require opportunity rooted in human nature whatever that means. But to then go on and say that will reveal genuine differences between the races. I mean between the sexes that's not entailed and that's not entitle. That's his own thing added on to it. Recovering an approach that accommodates the partly natural, partly cultural differences between the sexes can sustain vibrant women's sports, protect and perhaps expand male opportunities, and contribute to a healthier, more humane social order. Now, what what what does he mean by a healthier, more humane social order? Well, he he says what he means. He's just reasserting the same thing. What he means is a healthier social order is an an approach that accommodates the protection and perhaps expansion of male opportunities while sustaining vibrant women's sports, whatever that means. So, he writes a really long article and I mean it's it's it's not showing me where did it go. I was reading it earlier. I don't know.
Maybe it's behind a payw wall now. Oh, there it is. Read full report. Jesus Christ. There it is.
It's pretty long and it goes into all kinds of interesting things like uh Simone de Bavois her he talks about her a lot and he doesn't understand what she's saying, but he talks about her a lot. You can read this report on the Heritage Foundation site if you really want to, but TLDDR, he says it in the front in coded Doug whistle language.
What he's talking about is undermining Title N so as to not force girls into girls sports. They want to trim back girls sports teams so that there's more money for the male sports teams.
and he's framing it as sustaining vibrant women's sports.
Like if you take women's sports and cut it down to just cheerleading, and don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with cheerleading. Uh no, no shame on that at all, but like make it the tennis team, make it the volleyball team. cutting down all women's sports programs to like one team, vibrant women's sports, and then give all the rest of the money to expand male opportunities.
That's what he's promoting here. And he goes on at great lengths and builds lots of straw men in order to try to justify it. And it's disgusting and infuriating. But TLDDR, they're coming after all this effort to protect women's sports and now they're openly coming after women's sports exactly like every single person said they would.
Amazing. Amazing. This country we live in, isn't it? It just We're going to go extinct, folks. And we [ __ ] voted for it. What are we going to do?
All right, let's see what else have we got in here. Um, oh, there is one thing that I especially wanted to get to.
What the hell? What the hell was it? Um, because it it is a very long article.
Um, let me try 2024.
Okay, here it is. Here it is in the It's right in the introduction. Okay.
In 2024, a Tunisian man defeated a Chinese woman for the Olympic Women's Boxing Gold Medal.
The spectacle of a biological male pummeling a female athlete shocked many and led to renewed calls to keep men out of women's sports.
Let's focus on this for a second.
A Tunisian man.
I don't even What? What?
Now, to be clear, there has never been a transw woman or any of anything else that you could remotely call a biological man in women's Olympic boxing.
Certainly not at the gold medal level.
In fact, there's only one transerson who has ever gotten any medal, and it was a bronze medal in a team sport.
But whatever, a Tunisian man in 2024, there weren't any Tunisian anything in the women's championships and also the Olympic women's boxing gold medal.
Well, which gold medal is he talking about? Because our champion of women's sports here doesn't seem to know anything about women's sports. Now, I don't know much about sports ball either because I'm not that kind of girly, but I looked to try to find a Tunisian man or any Tunisian. And and yeah, as as it turns out, [laughter] in the 50 kilogram category, the gold medalist was from China. In the 54 kg category, the gold medalist was from China. In the 57 kg category, the gold medalist was from Taiwan.
In the 60 kg category, the gold medalist was from Ireland. In the 66 kg category, the gold medalist was from Algeria. And in the 75 kg category, the gold medalist was from China.
So when he says the gold medalist, which is he talking about? He doesn't seem to be aware there's more than one, but also none of them are from Tunisia.
To say nothing of being male.
And this is the introduction. This is in the introduction.
Top quality integrity at every step.
Like what the [ __ ] is he talking about?
Biological male pummeling a female athlete.
Except that never happened. There was no Tunisian to say nothing of a male.
These people just make [ __ ] up and expect their followers, their their readers, their supporters, their whatever to never fact check because they don't because they're not skeptics.
Like even people who have a reputation as being academics still fact check their [ __ ] because it's possible for anyone to screw up. But when you live in [ __ ] imagination land and you can just make up whatever knowing no one will call you on it. So that's why I wanted to cover this one too instead of leaving it to our more politically minded friends because while I'm sure people like Riverboat Jack or or well Joe if he does a politicality um I don't know if he will considering flood damage you can help him with that with the PayPal link in in in the the side chat by the buy. Um but I don't know if they'll they'll get into this even though it's just the introduction.
And I don't know if they'll get into that part. There's no Tunisians in the 2024 Olympics women boxing. Not at Not at the Medalist level anyway. No.
Right in the introduction. We're just making [ __ ] up. It's [ __ ] wild. The predominant brand of American feminism successfully expanded female participation in competitive sports with appeals to fairness, equality, and opportunity. Those damn feminists appealing to equality and fairness.
Those aren't American values. My goodness. All of these retail terms were used to sell a deeper transformative vision. The language of opportunity has been deployed selectively. Well, that's true. At least not in the way he means, but it is definitely true. The ultimate aim of feminist thinkers was a new kind of woman who would be more independent and even dominant and less differential and less oriented toward motherhood and traditional female graces. So tlddr what he's arguing is that by providing women with equal opportunities more women would pursue those equal opportunities.
That doesn't mean no one will be barefoot pregnant and chained to the kitchen. It just means that if you give women the choice, some women will choose not to do that.
And this is a problem. Apparently, all we all we need is for him to go into birth rates. But this radical ambition articulated by Simone de Boir and continued by [laughter] her epigenes.
[clears throat] If you've never encountered that word before, don't feel bad. It's literally only polyai majors who ever use that word. Okay, not literally only them, but it's the only place I've ever encountered it. It just means like the followers who came after. It's often used in a derogatory kind of way to be like the lesser copies.
You might say in a Republican context, ditto heads. They don't think for themselves. They can only regurgitate what they've already heard from someone else. and they do it in an inferior copy kind of way.
So what he's trying to get at here is that even though the things that he's saying cannot be attributed to Simone Deba, it's it's continued by her epigenes.
That's where that came from. Even though he does claim she articulated it, which she did not, but never mind that.
As Margie points out, Simone's whole thing is a woman is made, she is not born. And that's that's it. That was the central thesis of Divvoir's philosophy is that gender is a cultural thing. It's partly influenced by sex or at least the schema, the understandings of what it means to be a member of that sex. In the same way, ethics is what it means to be a member of this people. These are our ways. These are how we do things. A gender is these are the ways of women or the ways of men or the ways of hijra or or whatever. That's the ways of our people in the genre, the subcategory that is this type of person. That's all it is. That's all it ever was. If you were born on a deserted island and had no culture to grow up in, the concept of gender in this context would have no meaning. You'd just be you with no expectations put upon you by others even if you were the same person and like the same things.
So there's that. It's it's it's very silly and so I don't care to go into it.
Oh goodness. Goodness. Goodness.
Oh. All right, folks. My energy is starting to wne. I do want to dig into brains a little bit because I hinted we might in the description. I didn't say for sure we would, but I do want to dig in a little bit, but I am running out of juice. I am in bad shape physically, medically. Um, there's a whole lot of backstory that I'm not going to get into right now, but suffice it to say, I can't stream as long as I used to.
and it's for medical reasons. So, I'm going to take another little bit of a break and then and then we'll do some brains. It'll it'll be zombiefest funtime or something. Um, let me see here. Hey, let's do let's do a capitalism. Let's if if you want to help out Joe, please do so. But if you want to help out me, there's a few different ways you can do that. There's there's Patreon, there's Venmo, there's Cash App linked in the description and on my website better than.com where a lot of the references I pull from for science stuff for for gender based stuff, all that stuff references, but also there's a link to my merch store, which is where you can find cool space pride stuff like this. In 2024, NASA researcher Rachel Lens gave the world a flag made from NASA images for Pride Month. On January 20th, 2025, the incoming US administration ordered that artistic union of science and civil rights deleted.
So, I tracked down the original images it was made from, recreated it, and then added even more wonders of the cosmos to update the flag to the current more inclusive form. On the anniversary of the inauguration, I released it and it went viral several times. Now you can [music] get a physical copy of that artwork as a full-sized flag or a large sticker as well as space artworks of the other Pride flags. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, interex, ace, and new flags being added all the time. Get one for yourself or give them as gifts. and celebrate pride. Celebrate science.
Celebrate resistance.
And help support a creator fighting for human rights for all humans. Head to astral prride.com.
There's also a whole bunch more stuff um including a space pride version of the flag that we open the episode with. If you're joining us later on, please do scroll back, check it out, because it's a project that took me months and I'm very proud of it. Now, the main flag is in the public domain because that's what I was asked to do. But there is a space pride version that's available now and a bunch of other interesting flags and stickers and clothing and such. And yeah, I hope you enjoy. All right, let me see here. I have um right the thing the thing we're doing now.
Do you remember being a baby? Apparently a lot of people don't.
Let's see if we can find out why. That's what this this video claims to be teaching us about. Why? That the creepy reason you can't remember being a baby.
Let's see where this goes.
>> You were there. You were born. You cried. You saw faces. You felt warmth and cold and hunger and comfort. And you remember absolutely none of it. Not your first word, not your first step, not your mother's face on the day you came home from the hospital. Nothing. Just a blank like the first three or four years of your life simply did not.
>> See, this is a weird thing.
Is this one of those cases where a person has an experience themselves and then universalizes it? Because that's not true of everyone. I understand that a lot of people can't remember a lot of those things, but not many people can't remember anything before age three, three and a half, whatever the hell he's saying here. Um, for instance, in my case, while I don't remember my first steps per se, because I didn't realize they were a big deal at the time, I do have memories from before I learned how to walk.
Because the reason memories form is the same reason memories form now.
It's the brain decides there's something important enough to save for later.
There's um the short-term memory, the stuff that happened over the course of the day that you may have to reference later, but there's also multiple modes of short-term memory. There's like I have to remember this phone number for 5 10 minutes versus I have to remember how many O's were in my alphabet soup from this morning. Like there's different levels to it, but what gets saved in long-term memory as opposed to purged when you're done with it gets flagged by the brain for for various reasons as it's marked as important. And when you're very very small, the only thing that can flag things in that way is something emotional, something significantly emotional.
a first step. It's a big deal to adults around you, but to you, I don't know. Maybe it's an accomplishment, but maybe not. It depends on how you interpret your experience. Things before that, though, can certainly leave an emotional mark.
So, I don't know what he's talking about. It's not a universal experience, though, because it's not one I share.
Maybe I'm just weird, though.
>> Happen. Every human who has ever lived has this same gap. Scientists have a name for it. Well, now now he's he is generalizing. Now, this is probably another one of those AI generated channels where it's just like chat GPT said a thing and there's no actual source, but it is not true that every human has the same gap.
Even people who have a gap, it's a different gap. Like if you wanted to assert that I have a gap between birth and a certain moment then it would be to I don't know maybe the six month mark something like that maybe eight months I don't know I couldn't tell time at the time but I also [laughter] it's not important um not everyone has the same gap. There's some people whose gap is considerably longer.
So what? They call it childhood amnesia.
And the reason it happens reveals something deeply strange about how your brain actually works. Something that most people never find out. Here's what makes this so strange. A three-year-old child is not stupid. They are learning.
They are forming attachments. They are developing language, recognizing faces, understanding cause and effect. And they remember things in the moment. A toddler remembers where their toy is. They remember who feeds them. They remember that the stove is hot. But virtually none of those >> debatable.
I don't know if this the AI that wrote this has ever met any toddlers. Um, oh well, okay, in fairness, some of them do remember the stove is hot, but they touch the stove anyway because in in the words of one particular toddler, "I'm not going to let a stupid oven tell me what to do." [laughter] Memories survive into adulthood. Ask yourself, what is your earliest memory?
Most people land somewhere around age 3 to four. A few people claim two.
Researchers at Emory University studied 200 adults and found that the average earliest memory sits at age three and a half before that total dark. So they studied 200 people and made a claim about 8 billion people from that.
Uh-huh. But here's the thing that will genuinely unsettle you. Babies can form memories. We know this. Studies show that newborns recognize their mother's voice, something they learned inside the womb. Infants can remember a specific mobile above their crib for weeks. A six-month old baby will show signs of recognizing a stranger they met 2 weeks ago. The memories are forming and then somehow they disappear. So the question is not whether babies can remember. The question is, where do those memories go?
The answer involves one of the most fascinating structures in the human brain. The hippocampus is the region responsible for converting short-term experiences into long-term memories.
Think of it as the filing system that takes a moment and saves a permanent.
Well, it's it's rather more complicated than that. Like, he's he's oversimplifying something and then analogizing it on top of that, which isn't the best way to get a a real understanding of stuff, but whatever.
The hippocampus is involved in long-term memory storage, but it's not exactly what you might call the file system.
Like when you want to access a long-term memory, your entire neural structure activates and focuses on the specific areas where that particular memory engram is stored. It's not that you necessarily lose memory per se. can because first of all complex memories are often stored across multiple different neurons. They're they're not just in one single neuron and when that neuron dies you lose the memory but it's more like on your computer for example.
I know we love to analogize the brain with a computer but it's it's a convenient example. Um there's there's a master system list of where files are located. And when you move a file in a way that doesn't update that system list, your computer will lose track of where the file is. The file is still there, but you can't access it unless you can find it the hard way by by digging through your file structure and digging it up yourself. And it's it's the same thing here. You need a a master file list to remind the brain of where memories are. You don't lose them per se as much as you lose track of where they're stored.
This is one of the reasons that hypnosis can be useful in recalling memory.
Another, and this has to do with some post-grad research that I myself participated in, has to do with your brain wave pattern. Because it turns out both that reference list of where memories are stored and the ability to unlock those engrams and and recall the information stored in them are keyed to your brain wave pattern. And when your brain wave pattern is significantly different from what it was at the time the memory was stored, it's sort of like a key fitting into a lock. And if the key changes, you're going to have a harder and harder time opening the lock.
And eventually you reach a point where the key is so different it doesn't work in the lock at all. And this is what's happening with a lot of more distant long-term memories. Stuff that you recall frequently throughout your life will get reenccoded. You've all heard the thing about how when you remember something, you're actually remembering the last time you remembered it, not the original memory. That's partly true.
Every time you recall a memory, it updates that lock with the new key pattern. So, you can it it sort of refreshes the countdown on when you can recall it. Now, of course, this is multiple levels of analogy, and we're losing a lot of nuance, but for quick discussion, it's a fair description of how things actually work. This is, interestingly enough, why people with Alzheimer's often experience personality uh regression, temporal regression, because the brain, as it becomes more and more unstable, regresses to a previous stable state.
And what we see in an Alzheimer's patient in that kind of mode, that that safe mode, that moment of of stable recall, not only are they not able to recall things from beyond that time, like they can remember um they can't remember what happened a week ago, but they can remember what happened 10 years ago is because their key doesn't fit in the future memories. It can't unlock those. But they can, we found through studies, recall things from whatever time that is, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, what have you, with greater detail than they could when they return to the present day mind state, because the key at that time fits the fits different locks. And so they can access memories that are there that their present day self wasn't able to access.
It's really neat. It's kind of terrifying, but the implications are pretty huge. In any case, the hippocampus, it it plays a role in memory storage, but that's not the only issue permanently. Here's the problem.
At birth, your hippocampus is barely functional. It is structurally incomplete. The neurons are there, but they are not properly connected yet.
They have not grown the long branches called dendrites that allow brain cells to communicate efficiently. And here's something even more striking. Your hippocampus is one of only two regions in the human brain that continues generating entirely new neurons throughout your life. a process called neurogenesis. The hippocamp very very generalization-y not strictly true. For one thing, you do have dendrites when you're born. Your neurons continue growing and changing throughout the course of your youth, adulthood.
There's that popular saying that the prefrontal cortex isn't done cooking until 25. In actuality, it keeps going your entire life. It's the study being referenced to show that stopped studying people at age 25. The same thing is true with your hippocampus. It continues to produce new neural connections throughout your entire life. Not necessarily so much new neurons, but the more interconnected your brain becomes, the more pathways the electrochemical signals can take.
And remember, there's two different processing paths in your brain. There's direct electrochemical signaling and also brain waves. And the reason for the brain waves, there's a couple different functions to them. They serve as a kind of timing belt for the mind. Not just the conscious functions, but the subconscious functions, the bio-ythmic functions that need synchronization.
It's almost like a heartbeat, but for the functions of the brain, there's other parts of it that contribute to consciousness. Um, if you've ever been really, really stoned, you might hear something of an internal echo. That's because your brain wave pattern has been chemically destabilized. And so, you're not able to keep your consciousness in sync because you don't actually have one unified consciousness. You have multiple sections of the brain all talking to each other at the same time. And your brain waves help you pretend that they're all one consciousness speaking in sync.
It's a weird weird thing, but I digress.
Campus is constantly making new cells.
In adulthood, that new cell generation helps with learning and memory. It helps you form new long-term memories more easily. But in infancy, it works against you. When new neurons flood into the hippocampus at the rapid rate of early childhood development, they disrupt existing connections. Old memories are essentially overwritten by the sheer volume of new neural growth. The network we built >> that that that's not how anything works.
You can disrupt existing neuron connections but not really that because the brain is physically getting bigger as you grow. That's why there's a need to develop new connections. But also the memories aren't stored in the synapses.
They're stored in actual molecular bodies within the brain. Like there's there's a physical component to them.
It's not just a connection. It's it's h it's frustrating because it's like the file analogy is better. It's like there's a physical folder with the memory in it. Now again, it's never in a single space. It's a number of different chemically changed components and molecules in the microtubules in various different parts of the brain for any specific memory often relating to the component dealing with a sensory input.
Like a strongly visual memory will have most of its components near the visual processing center. An olfactory memory like a memory that you smell something that reminds you of your grandmother's perfume will tend to be near the alactory center but also another part of your brain which happens to be responsible for remembering familial relationships and so on and so forth.
It's interconnected. That's actually how it works. It's not like the memory is written down in language, put in a file, and stored on a hard disk that's made of organic matter. The specific memory components are quantities of stimuli associated in a specific way. So, what you're actually remembering is the smell and the relationship to grandma. And your brain is going, "Yes, yes, I remember that." Like that. That's those are the two things you get and your brain is playing a guessing game and remembering and then there's additional data to supply more details once you've achieved that level of recall to trigger the right memory access pattern.
It's wild. H Deviant says Ember talking about engrams is concerning to an anti-Scientologist. Like have you taken any free personality tests recently?
I have not taken any free personality tests to anybody who might be concerned.
[laughter] In any case, I'm going to wrap up, folks. The TLDDR for this one that he's he's working on getting to is that once you learn language, you start recording memories in language and you can't access memories from before you learned language.
because those memories exist in a different format. It's like having a computer again that runs on um a Mac operating system and then reformatting it to run on a Windows operating system.
The data from before you changed operating systems is still on the hard disk. I mean, possibly, maybe it is, but you can't access it because you're running on a different operating system that just can't make use of that data.
And there's something to that, but it's also not entirely true because while your thoughts might exist in language, they're never entirely in language. And some people don't think that way. And also, you don't lose access to memories that are encoded in a different way.
Like for example, when you get into a car crash, you go into a different brain state. You're now in a panic response mode. And so the memories that you encode during that moment are going to be under a different brainwave pattern.
You might be able to remember them when you're back in a safe situation. You're no longer in danger, no longer experiencing that panic response, but you might not.
But putting you under hypnosis where you're able to recreate that brain wave pattern, suddenly the memory becomes accessible again. That's why that happens. None of that has to do with linguistics or not. But raw fear is often not in a linguistic form. So, it's an interesting hypothesis, but doesn't actually hold up to much scrutiny.
It's a fun idea to talk about, though, because we can talk about brains and things and and other goodies like that.
All righty. Anyhow, folks, that's going to do it for this time. I know there's there's a lot of other stuff going on today and I am running out of juice and I need to take some more medicine and other assorted goodies like that. Thank you all so much for joining.
If I have the energy, I'll be joining Dr. Ben over on his Tik Tok later. He's aiming for 7:30 Eastern, which is just a um about an hour from now. I may try to drop in briefly if I can like refill my energy a little bit. Um but you can catch me again tomorrow evening right here when uh my good friend Mark Reid will be joining me for uh this week's debate review show. We're doing uh Alex Okconor versus Trent Horn about whether there's evidence for the resurrection.
So, I hope you join us for that and I hope to be doing more as I can when I can. Also, trip coming up soon. I wanted to try to get a bonus show in without any particular theme to it because Nanocon is happening at the end of the month. travel is very painful for me and so it takes a very long time and so I'm I'm going to be a few days on the road.
So, thank you all so much for joining me while I'm still here to do that.
[laughter] But we'll see you tomorrow and hopefully a few more times before I hit the road.
Hell, I may even pop in from the road.
You never know with Ember, which is another good reason to subscribe. Make sure your notifications are turned on.
And until next time, try not to die.
Thanks to all our patrons and top level members for June, Miranda, Karen Butcher, Jimmy Tux, Ian Chen, Maya Atkinson, Robin Webster, Lilith, Ember Lynn, the barely bearable atheist, Eric Wander, Jason Jacobe, Lil of all trades, Deviant Outcast, Thrive Scapegoat, Katie Bluebird, Noise Ending, The Godless Engineer, Secular Feelinist, and Ayra the free. And you can add your name here next month by signing up at patreon.com/betanmber or by joining memberships here on YouTube at the Cinder level, which also includes all the custom emojis, tons of member exclusive content, member only live streams, and a bunch of other stuff. I deeply appreciate all the supporters who keep this channel going.
Thank you all so much. Because of you, we're building a wonderful community that I'm very proud of.
[music] >> [music]
Related Videos
8:08
Neuroscience
What is neurodegeneration?
TheSheekeyScienceShow
3K views•2019-08-19
57:35
Neuroscience
IPL - Ruth Empson "Mind the Gap"
otagouniversity
251 views•2019-07-08
14:01
Neuroscience
How our body shapes our mind | Pancho Tolchinsky | TEDxNapoli
TEDx
2K views•2019-12-05
1:00:02
Neuroscience
Impact of Early Life Deprivation Danielle Stolzenberg Marcus Pembrey Bruce McEwen
uctv
4K views•2019-12-01
10:32
Neuroscience
β-Caryophyllene for Parkinson’s: Protecting Dopamine & Easing Symptoms
parkinsonsdiseaseeducation
6K views•2025-08-09
20:44
Neuroscience
New Insights from Inside the Brain with Rodrigo Braga, PhD
NUFeinbergMed
421 views•2025-04-14
9:57
Neuroscience
Highlights for dystonia • 2025 MDS Congress
movedisorder
145 views•2025-10-27
58:17
Neuroscience
Animal Welfare Synergy Series: Dr Tom Smulders on hippocampal neurogenesis
costactionlift
135 views•2025-07-14
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
7:38
Blockchain & Crypto
Bitcoin Social Interest: Dozens of us Left
benjaminjcowen
12K views•2026-07-23
11:32
Business
Tesla Profits Plunge & SpaceX Stock Continues Fall
TheJohnJohnstonLounge
6K views•2026-07-23