The Atheist Experience

Due to technical difficulties, we were not able to broadcast the normal live episode of the show. As such we ran previously recorded content so as to not miss a broadcast date. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and invite you to enjoy these great moments from our previous shows. We fully expect to resume our normal broadcast schedule next week. Thank you.

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

This episode includes AI-generated content.

In today's episode of The Atheist Experience, Godless Engineer, Secular Rarity, and Scott Dickie tackle biblical justice, inherited guilt, and the clash between faith and reason!

Michele in NY asks if peace is possible between religion and atheism. Can we respect people while critiquing their faith? The hosts emphasize humanism over atheism and challenge religions to shift toward humanistic values. What would it take for believers to prioritize human well-being over divine commands?

Malik in KS defends God punishing children for their parents' sins, citing biblical examples. Is this justice or divine cruelty? The hosts challenge him on objective morality and whether salvation comes from faith or works. Does his reasoning hold up under scrutiny?

Kelly in MN, a liberal spiritual person, discusses interpreting the Bible morally and rejecting violent passages. The hosts encourage her to own her moral decisions rather than attributing them to God. Is she following scripture or her own conscience?

YeCross Legends on TikTok argues salvation is by faith under the new covenant, not works under the old law. The hosts challenge his claim that God's law doesn't apply to burning witches, citing Jesus affirming Mosaic law. Does the new covenant really erase the old?

Chuck in IL asks where the Bible says God is omniscient. The hosts explain the concept is derived from verses like Psalm 147:5, not explicitly stated. They discuss subjective versus objective morality and empathy as a framework. What does it mean to derive doctrine from implication?

Rob in CA, an atheist married to a Christian, refuses to fund his daughter's Christian college education unless she can provide evidence Christianity is reasonable. The hosts advise researching colleges and making it a joint decision. How do you balance parental authority with respect for your child's autonomy?

Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!

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

In today's episode of the Atheist Experience, Secular Rarity and Jim Barrows put the God of the Bible and Quran on trial for war crimes under international law!

Tron Uprising on TikTok wants to debate whether God is a war criminal. After extensive back-and-forth, Tron eventually concedes that God's command violated the Rome Statute but refuses to engage honestly on the definition of genocide or morality. Why grant that God broke international law but then refuse to call it what it is? If you're willing to admit the statute was violated, why the resistance to the word genocide? The hosts systematically walk through each element of the Rome Statute's definition, and Tron grants every single point yet still won't connect the dots. Is this intellectual honesty or motivated reasoning?

Ad on TikTok, a Muslim caller, attempts to deflect the genocide charge against God by claiming context of war justifies the commands. The hosts confront him with Surah 9:5 and other Quranic passages that explicitly command killing. Ad insists these verses are taken out of context, but when pressed on what context makes genocide acceptable, he struggles to provide a coherent answer. If your holy book commands the killing of entire groups of people, does adding historical context really make it better? The call ends contentiously when Ad refuses to engage with the actual text and runs away.

Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!

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

In today's episode of the Atheist Experience, Godless Engineer, Secular Rarity, and Scott Dickie dissect biblical slavery, divine command theory, and the moral gymnastics required to defend scripture's darkest passages.

Mark in NE, a progressive Christian, insists slavery laws in the Bible are human cultural assumptions, not God's perfect morality. How do you distinguish divine commands from human insertions without an objective method? If God inspired the text, why include immoral laws at all? Your methodology seems designed to rescue God from accountability rather than discover truth.

Papo in Puerto Rico claims whatever God ordains is objectively good. When asked if he'd kill a baby if God commanded it, he says yes. This chilling admission exposes divine command theory's moral bankruptcy. If morality is just "whatever God says," then the word "good" becomes meaningless. Why call God good if good means nothing beyond obedience?

Kelly in MN presents verses she believes oppose slavery but can't reconcile them with explicit pro-slavery passages. She filters scripture through John 10:10 yet lacks consistent criteria for determining God's intent. If the Bible requires external moral standards to interpret it, why trust it as a moral guide at all?

Kell in FL questions why gold appears in Genesis, suggesting the Bible reflects existing values rather than divine revelation. The conversation shifts to his extreme views on militarizing atheism. The hosts recommend therapy resources and emphasize that violence isn't the answer to ideological disagreements.

Thank you for joining us this week! We'll see you next time!

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

In today's episode of The Atheist Experience, Thinker, Fe, and The Beard of Empathy examine whether Christianity is a scam, the problem of divine attribution, and when beliefs become harmful.

Andrew argues Christianity isn't a scam because there are no customers or payments. But believers do pay costs: tithes, sacrifices, obedience, all in exchange for salvation. That's a transaction. When you promise eternal reward for compliance and eternal punishment for refusal, how is that not a protection racket? What makes this different from any other pay-to-play scheme?

Yolanda in MD credits God's voice for saving her life during a brain aneurysm, telling her not to lie down and to call 911. Why didn't God just heal the aneurysm? Why give cryptic instructions instead of preventing the crisis? If God intervened, why did you still need surgery? How do you distinguish God's voice from your own survival instinct?

Heresy in Canada asks whether we should respect comforting beliefs or prioritize knowledge. Personal beliefs are fine if kept private, but they become harmful when imposed on others or used to shape policy. Comfort doesn't make something true. When does your right to believe what you want end and someone else's right to live free from those beliefs begin?

Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!

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