The Atheist Experience 29.07 with Secular Rarity and The Cross Examiner
The Atheist Experience
The Atheist Community of Austin
4.6 • 2.5K Ratings
🗓️ 17 February 2025
⏱️ 125 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Ulrich in Mexico, believes the expanding universe proves The Bible. If everything points to there being a singularity, why do you think it was not always expanding and did not come from a singular point? There are ways of predicting what happened in the past and god moving the goalposts in the past is not a good argument. Why do you not believe the Bible can be wrong about things? Why would we care if you don’t care to read the truth about your Bible that is written directly in your Bible? How important is it to believe things that are true? What chapter and verse claim who the witnesses are? We don’t know who wrote the Gospels and there is no evidence to support the claims you made.
Joshua in AR had it in his heart to say that Christians need to stop thinking that a belief in god is obvious, and god is necessary to remove guilt from sin. How is sin defined and why do we need to remove guilt from it? Is god responsible for removing those bad feelings that we get whenever we do something wrong? Is it appropriate for a third party such as god to alleviate your guilt after doing something wrong and can this be done without god?
Benji in Al has some questions about incest in the Bible. There are lots of examples of these things happening in the Bible. If you take the Bible literally and believe that we came from just two people, do you think that incest is moral? There are a lot of people who believe these stories in the Bible who vote. If a lot of the Bible is not only untrue, but also bad, why hang on to the rest of it?
Dawn Dark-Light in AL is a non-Abrahamic monotheist that believes we are all extensions of the godhood. We have no idea of what you are talking about. This sounds like something that must have demonstrable evidence. Where is the evidence and how did you find this information? How is this different from all other trips that people have? What tool do we have to figure out which claims people are making are correct?
Chris in KT wants to talk about a bill that was just introduced that will conflict with church and state, and how to address it. These bills that are blatantly unconstitutional used to be publicity stunts but now that is no longer the case. This kind of thing needs a broad coalition of people! There are many secular and Christian organizations that are against this.
Kelley Laughlin, our backup host, joins to close us out for this birthday weekend. See you next week!
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | I have a story to tell you. It'll take a few minutes, but it is urgently important. |
| 0:05.4 | 225 years ago, when Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election, Adams was not happy. |
| 0:13.8 | Concerned with what Jefferson would do to the government, Adams and Congress passed a law that created new courts and added judges. |
| 0:20.7 | It was an attempt by Adams and his party to stack the courts before Jefferson could do much damage. |
| 0:26.6 | But Jefferson and his crew had a solution. |
| 0:29.6 | Even though the new judges were approved by the Senate, their positions would not be official until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. |
| 0:38.0 | So when Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, simply refused to issue the commissions. |
| 0:45.6 | A man who had been appointed Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver the documents. |
| 0:53.5 | That man was named |
| 0:55.2 | William Marbury, and thus the most famous constitutional case in our history was initiated, |
| 1:01.5 | the case of Marbury v. Madison. To our eyes, the case seems simple. Congress passed a clear law. |
| 1:09.4 | The executive is bound by both the Constitution and democratic |
| 1:13.7 | principles to carry out the law that the people had passed. Couldn't the Supreme Court just order |
| 1:19.3 | the president to have his Secretary of State deliver the commissions? Here's the thing. The Supreme Court |
| 1:26.0 | does not have an army. I'll say that again. The Supreme Court does not have an army. It has no enforcement power once it hands down a decision. So what was the court to do? If they came in like a bull in a China shop and started issuing blunt orders, they risked Jefferson refusing to obey them. |
| 1:47.8 | In such a case, the country would surely fall because without the court to check an executive, |
| 1:53.8 | Jefferson would be a dictator. On the other hand, if the court rolled over and became Jefferson's |
| 1:59.1 | lap dog, it would be a Supreme Court name only. |
| 2:02.3 | And we would still become a de facto dictatorship. The chief justice at the time, William Marshall, |
| 2:08.5 | came up with a brilliant solution. The court held that, one, the court did have the power to review |
| 2:15.2 | all of the actions of the other branches of government, but two, |
| 2:19.0 | Jefferson still won in this case because the provision of the law that enabled Marbury |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Atheist Community of Austin, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of The Atheist Community of Austin and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.