Season 2 Episode 5

Episode 02.05 02/11/2018
Hosts: Eric Murphy and Jamie
S2 E5
6:24 Mari atheist discusses the fear of coming out as a new atheist without support
17:33 Adam atheist discusses if it’s necessary to know a religious text before forming an opinion
30:58 Skyler atheist accused of not believing in god because of having a poor relationship with his father
42:40 EF (Evolution Falls) theist caller discusses containment protocols, the possibility of god using reason and logic, and word traps. Caller asks if all belief in god a mental illness.
1:27:10 Josh theist discusses how Jesus would not speak like an apologist. Sees godliness in his newborn child. Godliness is in goodness.
1:38:19 James atheist discussing how religion co-opts politics in America.
1:49:52 Neil atheist responding to Hamish questioning atheistic morals and is donating his kidney to save his friend’s life.
1:53:53 Valentine animation art submitted by Phillip Gunter

Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought library of the Atheist Community of Austin. Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279

One Reply to “Season 2 Episode 5”

  1. Regarding the question “Is it possible or impossible for there to be a creator god…” While it is true that it must be one or the other, it not necessary to know the answer and it may not be possible to know the answer. It’s ok to say “I don’t know, and it may not be possible to know.” While the question goes away as soon as someone demonstrates that it’s possible, until then, the answer must be “I don’t know and neither do you. (unless someone finds a way to demonstrate that it’s impossible) If you think you do know, then demonstrate it.” I think Jamie more or less said this around 1:07, though it was not immediately clear to me.

    Regarding the rational justification for laws of logic etc., I think the immediate response should be that these are tools created by humans to help us discover the truth about the nature of reality. The reason we trust them is that they have been demonstrated time and time again to have power for this purpose. The question of their absolute universality is a red herring. That goes for all tools. Eventually, we find a case where we have to find a new tool.

    The tools of reason, mathematics and science in general allow us to develop models with great predictive power that future experiments will likely support. When future experiments fail to support, we must reevaluate the model. The tools in our tool box can remain – we just add new tools as needed.

    Keep up the great discussions.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.