 When we do the magic sandwich show, it's always a mystery right up in this lab. I don't think I can hear you. You just need to close the camera. Speaking of the microphone. Alright. Okay, well yeah, this is going to be interesting. I guess we never know how this is going to happen until we've heard us. My idea is that we would actually have, and I thought this would be a very small room, that we would have the camera on one side and the audience would have like maybe some wireless mic to ask all these questions. Because that's what we do on the show. We normally take live calls around the broadcasting line here. We like to discuss, rather like Matt does on this show, we like to bring in living opinions and various equals questions. What points or concerns they want to bring up. In this show, in the context of the theme of this event, I wonder what it's going to be, that we are toward the end of the world, one way or another, with either my account or worth the human intelligence. And of course, you know, people want to bring up concerns about that. There's all kinds of things that people bring up on the show, often by surprise. And we try to have, when we first started, we had a diverse field of people that had some specialty and various types of science that we got patients who had it with the interviews questions. This evening I have, beside me, DC Myers, a three-year-old who will have to stand in as our guest at the time, he's been on one of those before in Ireland. My owner had one then and now. And that's something you may not recognize, because he doesn't have a dinosaur head at any moment. And that is our other regular couple that has his concordance. And it's only his concordance? Yes. Because he's all about anonymity and he's a good with the port of diamonds or anything that doesn't look ridiculous in the show. I try. Okay, so I don't know how we're going to do questions, we're going to have a wireless mic is that mobile? That's mobile, we also have one over here, we'll pass around. Okay, good. We have somebody that can run. Okay, well that's going to be a little awkward I think. I think we need a writer. Yeah. We've got a volunteer to run that wireless mic that he creates. We would love to just inverse with the audience because you guys will come up with ideas that we wouldn't turn on. So, all right, do over with. Does anybody have anything to comment on? You expect me to just say something? Okay. You know, this is probably a fairly informal vote with people, isn't it? It's difficult to get to walking questions, but try. How many of you have seen the Magic Sandwich show before on one of our many outlets? All right, so there are a number of you that have probably never seen the show before. It is both a science show and an atheist show and we managed to integrate both of those depending on the discussion and the content. It is a call-in show and some of us are very scientifically motivated, some of us consider ourselves more skeptical than atheists, but it's a fixed panel, some of you may know from the YouTube community, DPR Jones, Thunderfoot, Aaron and myself are fairly regular panelists. Just recently there was a YouTube video by King Gordon talking about Pewdie Byers cutting off comments on the YouTube channel and I noticed that you two are not beating each other up. We're at different tables, I mean that should have been a tip-off. I just wanted to talk about how you're not beating each other up when you're obviously an appointment or if you're supposed to be hitting each other. I tend to be rather vociferous and vocal than what I say, but that doesn't change the fact that I can respect what the court has done and I can respect his opinion. I disagree with it. I disagree very strongly with it and so now I kind of like the idea of somebody coming up and trying to give me a reason to argument even if it's just for the wishes. I think it's very useful to hear those different perspectives. I think there is tension between different communities in atheism. There are a lot of subdivisions within atheism, each of them with a slightly different perspective. So in the case of YouTube atheism, we I think have a very outreach focused message. We go on social media that are open to non-atheists that are not focused on atheism, not focused on skeptical thinking. And we try to take the message out to a very broad audience. Sites like Feringula are all about keeping the atheist community together. They're all about celebrating the core values that we share, the values I think that are shared, things like social justice and also critical thinking. But it's more about the internal community. So my thinking, my complaint about closing off PZ's video was simply that it created a dead spot in our community where that engagement was not happening. It was not an effective way for outreach to occur to non-atheists. In retrospect, I think PZ's use of YouTube has really nothing to do with outreach to non-atheists, appealing to the theists or appealing to the creationists or advancing an argument in that forum. So that's the, I think the origin of the dispute. And I think we actually had a very brief conversation outside and we just agreed that that really was the source of disagreement was that he didn't really, PZ doesn't really need YouTube as an outlet for outreach. It's much more about mirroring his material. Let me disagree. It's a different kind of outreach. If you read for the threads at all, you discover that it is non-stop warfare on the community of people arguing constantly with one another and we actually invite and encourage outsiders to come in and call them chew toys. So that's the reason why I shut down comments on YouTube. Because comments on YouTube are P.I. right? The whole problem is in the system where it's not that I wouldn't welcome those same people who are coming over to my site and arguing with me. I would love it if more people would come over and get into the argument. But what I find in YouTube is I like the argument that there's more shouting and yelling and what I found incredibly tedious is the repetition. That there are a few little memes that got caught from some members of the industry that have absolutely no productive use in listening to them. And also the other problem I have is it's an open forum which is nice and principle, but when you get an open forum with no accountability, where there's no continuity in most of the commenters that they are just anonymously shrieking at you, you are not contributing to the quality that is grossed by the argument. That good conversation requires some limitations on what people can say to do. We know that in the classroom when I run a class from a meeting like this, we don't say okay, I don't want you to start yelling at me, your disagreements, your agreements, your questions. No, what we do is we say okay, take turns. Basic rules like that. And then YouTube lacks that sort of thing. It's a very uncivilized and if I'm very unproductive in terms of carrying on, help me. But of course, these YouTubers, I have a lot to remember what was the group. And of course I do. My first meeting with BZ was competition. My first meeting with Lawrence Browns was an argument. I would have loved when I walked into that podcast with Ben Gillette. I didn't know I could take over her chair and resume her argument. I don't know if it was a good thing to argue with Ben Gillette. But you know, these are people that I respect on a number of points. I'm never going to agree with everybody on every point and it's important to be able to argue certain things. And then there's a lot of people that I disagree with practically. And we have another question over there. I'm encouraged by the fact that Pat Magrum was with me when they didn't raise their hands in response to who was seeing our written magic sandwich show before. So, fairly simple. Why that title? There's not the interesting story there somewhere that I haven't heard it. There it is. The one member of our cast who has never been on any of the live performances managed to skirt that because he got his doctorate and began his practice in the Bahamas where he was obviously too busy to play with us anymore. He's a dentist. I think that should be mentioned in the Bahamas. So, this guy came up with a brilliant argument against a food-building younger generation whose career ended with this argument brought up. What he came up with was the thing about the magic sandwich. If you eat the magic sandwich, the magic sandwich will cure your cancer. If you don't eat the magic sandwich, you're going to have to have faith in the magic sandwich. And there are certain things about the ingredients and all kinds of ridiculous excuses about how to be tested. You had to argue about faith. And he had this boy twisted around where the boy was arguing all of our arguments against God. And you could count the arguments that he was bringing up. The sheer brilliance. You can't repeat it now. You have to look it up. But just listening to it was a statement that he did all of this on the line on a Skype call and it made a video. And it was so inspired that we had to take the name of the show from that. Yes. Yeah, I think we all know what's at stake for the presidential election. But the State Board of Education all the seats are up for election this round. Can you tell us what exactly is at stake with the State Board of Education during the election? Texas no longer has the level of influence that it once did. The reason that the earlier Texas Board of Education was correctly believe it was, was just set up a block deliberately. Because other states would end up buying whatever Texas mandated because Texas bought such a large percentage of Texas and other states, both the publishers would want to run one run for saving money. In a computer age that we have now, it's not possible to do individual printings for every state. And Texas and California no longer have the influence. They do. Texas no longer has the money that it had. So we don't need to worry about that kind of corruption of people being used to that purpose anymore. Plus, the old Board of Education was such an international comparison on such a widespread public scale that that will be attempted again, I think, by any state conservative that has appeared in the previous elections. We had already established that the Board of Education, the people that were still on that original voting block that had the agenda that they were supposed to vote for were on and they were already losing out. They had to vote for science because all the cards were stacked against them and they knew that. And some of the seats had already been replaced. Progress had already been made a year ago. A year to go now, I forget. So it is a chance. So that's a year past, I hope. Can I have one real quick thing first? I think one of the things at stake is the future of science in Texas. If we do have, and it has a trickle out effect of the rest of the nation, but within Texas our reputation as a center for science and research is always at stake when the media covers some discussion of some yokel, some dentist, for example, in College Station who feels he needs to stand up to the experts, the world judges us on that kind of performance. And when a biotech company like the one that I worked for makes a decision about putting in manufacturing, putting in research labs they really are subtly affected by the kind of perception of the environment that a scientific or research institution would be facing when they come to Texas. What kind of local talent we have. Now we have a first class university system. We have two first class university systems in the state. So we have the resources, what we don't have is good PR. So I think that might be one of the most direct costs is Texas is perceived as a science unfriendly state. I have to second that, you know, as the non-Texanal panel I'm more ready to run the Yankee Lane than the Southern. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Yeah, I'm ready now to get a talk locally. And all I've got to say, if you want to be like Texas and be like that. I do a lot of international travel. I do travel a lot and I get a talk on creation. And seriously, Texas is a laugh line. Really. This state has become a joke. And yeah, I know. Concordances to faculty right now are some phenomenal universities here. There are researchers here who are brilliant and who are doing great things. But below that upper echelon of really top level university people Texas has a physical reputation. I hope you can fix it. I'd also add that when you're talking about more of an education thing is that these are things we ought to be doing. They're only just like I've known this for 50 years. This is what they've been doing for 50 years is they knew that their ideas were a little bit on the vacuum side. So in 1950s running for presidency with the baggage of 6,000 year old working in the model that you could run for school board. You could pack school boards. You could pack city councils. You could work on building up the state legislatures. Yes, Texas state legislatures are also another laugh line. But you could pack these places and then all of a sudden there's a talk form so that here in the 21st century we have a nation where people can seriously run for president on a whole set of bullshit ideas like that they are the 6,000 year old in an evolution of focus. You can't do that anywhere else but you can do it here because they have done the groundwork and built that foundation to make it credible. And we need to do that. That means forget about trying to make splashy. That's going to make you president. We should be saying that we want to make you a city council. Work for that. Initiatives where the religious right may try to take us on and they can't take us on. They don't have any time to put a threat to that hand against movement. They wouldn't dare to take what they believe is right. And here's the way it is. What they have to do is the only way that they can win is winning a vacant empty chair. And what I'm looking at is the growth of the secular movement with the nuns with it with the rise of the atheists in America that what they are arguing with is the empty chairs within their own churches. And there's more and more and more of a constant struggle being made there. I'm in the subject of politics. One of the things that I want to say is that you see a lot of the discussion that brought up the issue of wanting to say that it should control the state level. Me it seems like the biggest reason for that argument is the state level is more easily corrupted as you all can see highlighting. Part of that corruption seems to be the relative lack of life in the media as a whole on state politicians, state level things. You're interested in the matter, finding out about what's actually going on in your state and city council level. It takes your average citizen a pretty significant amount of effort to actually find out what happens. And I was wondering if y'all had run across things like that or were starting to see organizations that were starting to want to shed light on. I mean it seems to me that given the amount of the media that we had today I would think that these areas would not be as dark as they actually are. And I'm surprised that people don't get the attention that they do when they may completely back in the state. My son had brought up being in our business where the teachers of his class would have told him creationist things that they know don't make sense and I mentioned these in other talks. But I'm somehow prohibited from taking these people on. It's like the media isn't interested when it's only expressing their religious belief, even when they are not particularly their own text books that they are paid to be beaten from. And then I get an awful lot of back then. And so far, since I've been in the position of F.C.C.P. director for Ameritain, is I haven't had an opportunity to take anybody to court for any of these kinds of interactions. It's all a lot of back then. I was just kidding. When you're talking about people who want to take it to the state level because they're trying to sustain that they're not changing things as a federal level. So if they can allow the states to allow all kinds of contradictions in them among themselves. Which then, this is bad about the federal level, so the federation hasn't come. In this way they can play full size. If anybody hasn't noticed, Mitt Romney really likes to play full size. I really do play media that the media has done an incredibly bad job of reporting on issues. You turn on your television right now and when you look at what's going on, you find that first of all, the presidential election has sucked all the air out of you. Nobody is talking about a little more level candidates. Nobody is talking about the issues actually being brought to hold. It's all the horse race. And as the other part is, look at the presidential coverage and it's not, oh this president, this person has this policy, this person has this policy. It's always constantly the horse race that's there. Who's to have the polls, whether they have the polls saying, and it's like we're supposed to just watch these polls and say, oh we're going to win in the polls we're going to go down. And that's no way to face a reasonable decision about an important political issue. I mentioned that we do appear to be winning, but I wanted to emphasize that we cannot allow that to encourage us to become complacent. We have to keep fighting. The other side and we allow ourselves to become complacent, we can still lose this thing. So we pointed out this morning, there are still places where there are atheists who are afraid to be open about it because they're afraid of backlash from their community. So I just want to encourage everyone, you know, do something even if it's something as simple as putting a flying spaghetti monster emblem on the back of your car, you know, to let your atheist neighbors know that they're not alone. Do something. Be active in some way. And don't, don't, uh... And if they get to do this while putting a great amount of political power and influence at the same time, they don't want to give this up. And while a lot of people aren't getting financial benefits, they're afraid of emotional support by being able to pretend that they are the reason the universe exists and that they will never die, and a lot of other things. And they need to hold on to this with a great deal of emotional need that isn't doing us any practical benefit at all. There's nothing we can teach children with this. And what I can't remember who mentioned it, somebody mentioned, sure that it was Matt who mentioned the truth was that almost... That was you. But yeah, that was the statement that got me. Was it all that really matters? But what we teach is whether or not you can show that it is true and if you can't show that it is true, then it means that might be true to me as well, not me. And it's that philosophy of sketchbooking. When you can grab them down, when people say, you can't do it, it isn't that way. But it needs to be focused on what can you prove, what really is correct, and what we don't really know. And if you can't show it, then you don't know it, and you can't also do what you do. And when we present people with that, we hold accountable and creationism won't be, and religion will largely be, won't be. And it's the only reason we're making any effect at all because of that brasset, that philosophy that if yours do it, it appears true. And here I mean that's the positions of hypocrisy in the way. Yes? So I think that the focus on the election is fantastic and a lot of everybody is kind of speaking at that level. But I think as atheists there's a lot of negativity that comes into the lot of what atheists do is value people's perception that we're using them for the project is true. But it's kind of positive in a lot of ways. There's a platform of candidates that sometimes we just want to say, not only are we inviting things and kind of dissuading people from third and law school and deeply help ideas, but we're also putting something forward in making a positive change or have candidates that work for a very good end up. You got anything on that? Good. I know what you want to say though. Don't get in touch there. Well, I would say we do. We do have positive things to improve. That what atheists candidates don't do is they don't go running for office and they don't get out and learn and say, oh, you ought to be atheists. Reject God, we're done. No, what they're saying is that atheists we rely on reason and evidence. And so when we have a problem we say, okay, our answer to this problem is to do the research to search out alternatives to look for solutions in the real world. Not get down and learn and print. And I think emphasizing that real world practicality of science and technology that's our domain. We own that, okay, that he thinks is right. And that's what we have to we have to more strongly make that connection in people's minds because, oh, yeah, the nerds didn't want to do the science stuff. And also he's got to reject this silly notion of God. While atheists and activists often talk about the importance of treatment, that it is true that there are a lot more atheists in the world that have come to call themselves this and I think many of them are probably worse than dishonest. I think that many, many of them are in clergy and using that as means of making money and looking power. And what people say is that they don't think that Obama is really a Christian and that he's lying about being a Christian so he can be a president and so he can be a president. I don't think Obama is the one who's lying about his atheism. I think we're all atheists. I got to disagree with one thing there. I think I think the majority of those people who are in clergy and have lost faith in God are not sticking with it to split people. They're sticking with it because they see themselves and actually helping people and they recognize they're coming out and rejecting cherished beliefs is going to hurt a lot of people and cause them to do an accommodation. So I assigned a more charitable reason for this. But I still agree they should get over it. While you and I both know people in the clergy both know that there are a lot of people who are in there for a number of reasons. We also know that there are very, very powerful even people who cannot possibly believe what they could say. Absolutely. And they wanted to also go on in a way. There's absolutely no way that had to be the stuff he was talking about. Right. Well, yeah, I agree. There's a number of very prominent elevators in my community. But I say what you mean with the people in small churches right here who are talking about all of their lives who have drifted away from belief. I don't think most of them are there because they're getting rich in this. They're there because this is all they're going to do and they really feel that providing that psychological and social counsel to the community is important. And there are people who believe that if you've said this to me many times that when you believe something that is true, there are people who hold the belief itself somehow towards those sort of benefit of the way people pay for the figure of others. I don't personally share that opinion. There's only practical application where the only accurate explanation of practical applications of what I need to know needs to be very vitally accurate to some degree. And I've done it that way. And I would have been joined a lot and more single than I am. Yes? It was a pretty good talk to just all the numbers coming up. There was a tie-up between this race in the 1880s and 1890s when Robert Eversall was traveling. A lot of people didn't know that Robert Eversall actually traveled from Texas and gave some speeches around some of the cities here. He was George St. Vienna, a free-thinker type who said if we don't learn from our history we're going to do the shit. And so he should listen to that free-thinker. There are some things that went wrong. When Robert Eversall died, he was like a pre-talk boo, but he still kind of died. We've got Richard Dawkins, who's very intelligent and a few others who are well-known that if they're gone, you know, some of the rest of us need to pick up that flap. And one of the things that in my research I've been focusing on history of pre-convictism, and one of the things I found that happened in the newsletter, in the newsletter out of WECO called the Independent Pull-Hit, and they got to argue about the silver standard. You know, and there's some of the political things that we find ourselves arguing about and possibly dividing ourselves about the same sort of non-issues that we could easily put aside and focus on our concerns that would be beneficial to everybody. And one of the things to realize is this variation. You know, there's so many different ways that we can promote our cause, and what is the sense of community just opposing, as opposed to the way to provide alternatives, like secular health care, secular child care secular, you know, can't question a wonderful example of this. And so the fringe, we ought to accept there's going to be some differences in the people, let those differences go, let's focus on separation of state and church, the rights of people to disagree, and that's it. As a community, we are not without our conflicts, and there's been a great deal in fighting all our old conflicts and all this. And I support what you're saying. When we have a common enemy, we can have a common goal. And it's not that hard for us to focus on that and let your opinion fight in 30 hours. It doesn't really matter. I, as I said, I have opposition on certain opinions with certain people. I'm almost completely politically opposed to I'm ran and you can't go out for different reasons. And you know, I respect what they're doing, that helps me make my goal. And that's what I focus on, so I can not support you. Stay. Thank you. Here's the problem, but this has always happened. A few people come along and say, oh, well, you're divided and leaving, that you're focusing on trivial issues. What are those trivial issues? That kind of crucial question, because what may be trivial to one person may be of paramount importance to another one. So, for instance, right now, we're thinking that that's going on because some of us maybe just are saying that feminism is kind of important. And at the same time, there's a group of people saying, I know it's not, which I was saying, okay, so let's just take the fuck off. There's a lot of diverse issues under the umbrella of atheism, and I would say that feminism, for instance, or the solar standard or whatever thing you want to think, is not the whole of atheism. What we have to do is recognize that different individual, different, subconsciously of this movement will prioritize different issues, and that we should respect the people with atheism who are fighting for women's rights, or fighting for minorities' rights. You know, even if you're not going to fight that battle yourself, step back and let them do the work. Because I consider that a legitimate sunset of atheism to apply rational, intellectual, godless values to social issues, and that's one thing that works. Now, the solar standard, I think, okay, somebody could make a case that, yes, we have to apply all these principles to economics as well, there's evidence, and there's a way to apply that. But again, that's a perfect case of, I don't know, I'm not an economic expert, and I'd say, okay, you guys who care about it, we'll battle it out. I'm stuck into that type. But that's what I'm going to do, sort of divide our battles between people who really care about different principles, and people who care about other principles. You mentioned that people need to get involved, right? And that when we lose dogs, we go off to places we've lost, say, and we have to find the person who plays those. They're in the YouTube universe. We already have so many specialists who are so expert in specific fields that make wonderful educational videos, and they're holding to their own criteria of keeping their level of excellence what it should be for proper education, and they are their own coaches. That allows a criticism that will be corrected, because they're trying to hold to this passion, and they want to educate properly, right? And as you said before, the truth matters, and the accuracy of the information matters, and we don't want them to leave people. So there's a lot of people that, when any of us goes, there's five or six or seven more that are going to come in our places, and they're going to all have opportunities in areas where we only have general knowledge. I don't think that's what this kind of time is about, look at it. Three of us sitting up here in the car in the room, pretending to be authorities, right? But what matters is all the view out there, regarding what Aaron mentioned, those YouTube people that talk about education, about teaching people, helping them learn new things, spreading the information that's no longer in the preserve of a few isolated people from the top, that got along with everybody. And that's what we do in the Revolution government, is when you all know this stuff, when this is widespread knowledge, when everybody's got an understanding of the way things are going to work, then we take over, and that's what we do. Alright, come on. You want? We get to be in such a large community, and if the community does grow, there's one skill that we're all going to have to learn, and that's how to disagree with each other. If we hold the line that victory or death is our only to acceptable outcomes, there will inevitably be a schism because no one's ever going to completely win. It's never going to be a matter of converting all the minds. There's always going to be a diversity of opinions. So it's a matter of us, I think, as a community, learning how to accept that, learning to accept that we are a larger group with a number of divisions that can all come together over these commonalities, and maintain the dialogue between each other without breaking off, without forcing the communication to stop, without walking away from the table, even when our most cherished beliefs are being questioned, even when our position is becoming less tenable. This morning, Richard alluded to something about the Kennedy campaign in the political realm that by buying into Christianity, even though he may not have been a representative, it allowed him to be elected. I was raised in Chicago. I've never been religious. I have never been to a Catholic community. The American memory of the Kennedy campaign is historically accurately described as Kennedy's papacy. It's not his goddesses, so in the issue of pursuit of truth and accuracy and something historically relevant, what Richard said this morning was bullshit. How many police are in our community and are about this against that? We, uh, we general criticize each other, and when we have the opportunity to do so face-to-face, uh, and um, during, during not all the Richard presentations, but others, and other conferences, I've thought about a few things that didn't judge my experience or my own, or other people around, who say SSBZ did this morning, so that's not a good argument. Okay, that's right, that's not a good argument. And nobody is about, I mean, I've had to do a lot of video for a couple of really stupid mistakes that I've made in some of the stuff that I've publicized. I hope that, uh, in accordance with my agreement, now that this guy's not perfect either, and we all have differences with, uh, with some of the things that documents this. As much respect as I can. How do we, uh, how do we maintain the truth and accuracy campaign within the realm of our own sort of boundaries, and some adjustment needed to that, it's about truth, it's about truth, it's about truth, when I know that I cannot always be accurate. Um, or I have my own deficiencies to work with. Right, but then there, when, in the specific case, what you're talking about now, right? Oh, that's one example. Yeah, but we'll use it as an example. Okay, we have some of these very golden perspectives throughout the community. He says something that somebody shows to be factually incorrect. It's not going to be based with this group of other people who can say, you know what he said here, that's wrong. But he thinks you're part of the specialty of it, right? So we said, well, we'll use it as an example. Yeah, but what are we using it as an example? Okay, that's our key fundamental point. We say it's about truth, it's about accuracy. When we do that, and yet... Well, what he's asking for specifically, what was it that he thought instead, JFK was a paperist, right? No, no, he said that JFK used it by end of the presidency, or he alluded to, when he was less than exemplary of those beliefs. The American living memory of the Kennedy campaign had nothing to do with his godliness or godlessness. It was his papism versus Protestantism, that was the whole political realm at that time. You know, Kennedy's godliness or godlessness completely out of the picture, in the Maryland role, in that regard. The historical accuracy of what he said this morning was not that well, so, but if we keep saying it's all about truth, we're completely accurate, we pursue accuracy. I think, how do I do that, and acknowledge that he or I, or any of us, will continue to be inaccurate because he's English. He didn't live in Chicago surrounded by Catholics at the time of the Kennedy campaign to see the reality of what was happening. Can we change our tone in such a way that we're more accurate about our inaccuracies, is the question. Can we change our tone? What do you think the question's got to someone's money? The thing is that, for sure, Dawkins is a highly respected figure, right? But he's got the coat, he's got his own question, and so I think what you're doing right now is exactly what he really needs to speak out. The timeout campaign for patriotism has many levels, and one is, yeah, we call our readers our psychologists, we really don't have much hierarchy. We call them out, and they care us. We do this publicly, we do this openly, without fear of repercussions. Richard Dawkins will not be able to throw a thunderbolt at you. He will not be able to say oh, you don't need to ascend in any of the entire argument. He's got no power at all like that, except the power of his intelligence and his persuasion. And he will listen if you say, you know, that wasn't that argument. Here's why it wasn't that argument because he knows this. I'm saying for the audience here, when you say, here's that argument, here's why it wasn't that argument. We're going to listen. Nobody here's going to say, oh, but Richard Dawkins said thunderbolt. Here, but we're done. I made a video where I called up and doubted there was a reason for Darwinism. Personally, I don't know what it's about. Right. So I don't want to use the word Indian in the context that you're doing. The way it gets to the marketing and the other drug markets is that I would understand if I understand that context. But just anybody who does that stuff, which isn't Darwinist, no. There are specific reasons for why that doesn't work. I called up on that point. And you did the same thing with sort of David Attenborough on his speech about Eden and what significantly she had as a glossary in the Ancestry of Humanity. And I had to put it in some corrections. It was just kind of embarrassing for me because if David Attenborough... Oops. Let me take over. Perfect timing, by the way. We don't want apologetics. Is that essentially what we're saying? We don't want to ever come up with an apologetic argument for our own shortcomings. We shouldn't have any kind of... I don't think anybody's done that. I was born in a community that's still alive. And I remember when you were young that you were involved in controversy over that. A pope lover. A pope lover. But I think that atheists in particular, free thinkers, are very good at spawning apologetics because most of us try to live an evidence-based life. We try to start from an evidence-based position and derive our morals and our life-standing and our attitudes from that evidence-based position as opposed to apologetics where you decide in advance that so-and-so is always right. This book is always right. And I'm going to decide that anything that it says is therefore good evidence. And anything that's not in the book is not good evidence. I think that the very nature of our questioning probably puts that as a lower probability of that. Yes, we're running over. The only thing we have else is that after this we do believe in truth. We do believe in the accuracy of information in that one thing alone. We have something to offer. Real knowledge works and will achieve something for some of us. Okay, one last question and one minute to answer. Okay. Okay. Can you hear me? This is Tresman. Are you ready to start? Please. Can you hear me? I teach critical thinking for a living to combat soldiers. And there's one thing that I'm not hearing enough of that is the alternate narrative. In other words, we're talking about the therapist. There's the validity of an idea and there's the utility. When I don't hear very much of the utility of alternative beliefs, we need to talk about humanism at a commanding festival. We need to talk about alternate narratives. I think what we need to do is use the word truth or accuracy. We have so much of the narrative of what we say things mean. So in other words, just to give you a final example of my last 22 seconds, if we say from these ancient shows and suffering reveals character, we might have to wait 2,000 years for the post-traumatic hope researchers to prove that aspect, but still for the first 2,000 years it was a narrative which allows forward professional each and every one else to endure. Or there's worse things than death is what we tell ourselves to soldiers. My question to you gentlemen is what about the narrative we tell ourselves, be it true or not? There's a lot of things we tell ourselves to do today and there's a lot of things we do to persevere through adversity and the thing is though that when we do that and the ideas we should tell you whether they're true or not, is that actually the case? And so for instance, one story that's thrown at us is that religion is only because of the scope of death that you have a narrative, an explanation for what's happened to this person you care very much about, right? But those narratives don't work for me because I value the evidence behind them and there is none. So when you tell me that my great-aunt who died of cancer is now living a happy-living nervousness, that provides no resolution So what about suffering? Not necessarily what suffering itself is meaningful, I can go through my suffering. That's Mr. Frommel, Stoic. We say there's no evidence for that because suffering is suffering and I would rather alleviate it for everyone. But I would tell you suffering itself is a label and a narrative. The word suffering is already the valuation. That's another one of my call to service. What I really would love a scripture to be having a value for the last few thousand years is that so far as I can see it just didn't no part of the pathology that people hold to that they cherish for whatever reason has any value in it of itself. They can't show me where revival is in any way moral or anything like moral. It offers no kind of solace. It offers no promise. There's nothing to love about it. It is the most repugnant home I have ever ridden in my life and I can't understand why people want to believe it much but how can we do it? In a way utility is also a judgment. It's also a statement about what is accomplished and whether or not that has a utility. So in saying that I value for example the truth of a proposition higher than I say would the emotional restoration, my emotional health, I think I would much prefer a bitter truth to a comforting lie and I think that's sort of what has been said but I think it's inherent in the question of is there utility? The utility itself is a judgment. It's a waiting. Right. That's a good point. Very good. Thanks guys.