AS179: Tommentary: 2nd Amendment Needs To Go; Blaming Atheism for Atheist Killers

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:30 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Atheistically Speaking, this is episode 179 and I'm your host Thomas Smith. Alright, well I've got a bit of an action-packed week for you. First off, I'm finally going to be able to Tom and Tate on some key issues that are going on, and then Thursday I've got a guest and it's fully packed. You are getting plenty of bang for your buck this week because I'm not, I would normally do a two-parter on it, but I'm not going to do it. It's just gonna be one, it's gonna be a nice long one-parter on Thursday for reasons that may become apparent then. So action-packed week and, well, let's just get started with that Tom and Terry music, I think. That would probably be the best idea.

0:01:20 Thomas: Well, another shooting, of course. It's no secret that that's what I was going to talk about, but I've got a lot of different things to talk about with this one, stuff that I haven't talked about before. I want to touch on gun control a little bit. Now, I don't know how many of you listened to Sam Harris's podcast.

0:01:40 Thomas: I did, and it was interesting. Definitely made me think about a lot of stuff because I'm very anti-gun. I think I'm not, but I'm not pro full ban every gun. I don't think that's necessary. And I think there are plenty of good uses for guns. Um, but I am anti. Automatic weapon, which is something that actually I don't think Sam Harris is. Let me just, this isn't going to be a Sam Harris show, don't worry. I just want to summarize a couple key points that he made. His basic thesis is that he believes the right for someone to be able to defend themselves responsibly is is strong enough that we ought to be able to own a gun. Now, he also prefaces everything he says with the fact that he'd be for stronger gun control than anyone is proposing, which I actually think is very important because what I want to do is just leave it there.

0:02:35 Thomas: I just want to say I am in favor of stronger gun control than anyone else is proposing. Kind of like Sam Harris did. But then he went on to speak for 90 minutes about guns and stuff. It's like I kind of want to just leave it there. That's, that's where I am, guys. I am pro more gun control than anyone is currently proposing. Like how, how much we should have, that's how much we should have. I don't think wherever, I mean, there's a difference between what's probably possible politically and, uh, you know, and, and what's not. There's, there's a difference between what's realistic and what's not. I don't think we're ever going to get rid of all guns in this country. I just don't. But I do think that we ought to be able to make it difficult, very simple, make it so difficult to have a permit.

0:03:21 Thomas: And by so difficult, I mean as difficult as, like Sam Harris said, a pilot's license or at least a driver's license. At least make it as difficult as a driver's license. Have a test. One fact that he brought up that I wanted to relay to you guys, was he said people with a concealed carry permit have a lower rate of violence, not only a lower grade of violence than ordinary citizens, a lower rate of violence than police officers.

So, there's a lower rate of crime than police officers, which I think is relevant. I mean, I didn't check the source, so I trust Sam Harris enough that he didn't make that up, but if anyone would like to check the source, let me know. But assuming that's true, I think it is relevant because if you make the process very difficult, which a concealed carry permit I think is pretty difficult already, but if you make the whole gun ownership process difficult, but not impossible, I mean, make it like, again, like a pilot's license, like something else where you're controlling the fate of lots of people's lives, you know? I mean really that's what gun owners are doing, especially if you are carrying a gun in public, you are essentially, the lives of others is in your hands. It really is. I mean, just any number of actions you could take, any number of mistakes you could make could lead to the deaths of just people who have nothing to do with you.

Innocent people who didn't even know that you were carrying a gun. I don't know. I think it is that big of a deal, especially when you talk about concealed carry. I mean, that's a lot of responsibility and there should be a very high threshold for that. There should be a very high barrier.

0:05:03 Thomas: So, I don't want to get too mired into that and I definitely don't wanna just do a show about what Sam Harris said, but it's an interesting podcast. He says some things that, I dunno, I don't agree with all of it, but it's thought-provoking. It definitely adjusted my view on guns a little bit to be, like, not as anti-gun as I was, but I'm still pretty anti- gun. Anyway, another thing I wanted to bring up, the Second Amendment. I mean, that's really what I went into when all this happened. I just wanted, I just started reading that amendment and thinking, how ridiculous is it that we have basically a religion in this country, in the US for my, for anyone who can't tell that's where I'm from, we have a religion in this country that is basically the Second Amendment.

0:05:50 Thomas: That is, I mean, there's obviously ties in with Christianity a lot of the time and conservatism and all that, but it, that is a religion for people. The Second Amendment, and if you don't believe me, just go on Twitter like I did and start saying the Second Amendment needs to be looked at. Like, that's all you have to say. Just maybe it's not quite, you know, maybe the interpretation is a little out of date. That's all you have to say. And you will have people threatening death. That's always good. Saying, you know, if one guy told me the reason he needs a gun is for people who think like me, which is amazing. I'll let you guys on a little secret. No one needs a gun to protect from me.

0:06:36 Thomas: I'm never going to be doing anything that will require you having a gun to protect yourself from. That's just not going to happen, unless you are really anti-podcasting, in which case, arm yourself. If you're anti-podcast in general, then arm yourself to the teeth. But other than that... And I'm sure you guys all know this, but I really had never delved into Second Amendment analysis very much because, I don't know, I just hadn't. I'm not sure why, but it's so clear, it's obvious, and it's such a minor thing. Let me read it. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward.

0:07:23 Thomas: That seems to me like someone said, I believe a militia is important to the security of the free state which it's not anymore. I mean, it was back then. I'm not going to doubt that. It certainly was, but nowadays it's just not necessary. If a country wants to take us over, if anyone wants to take this over, a couple of people with a few guns is not going to do anything. It really isn't. You need coordinated military. You need aircraft, satellites, nuclear weapons. I mean, you need, that's what you need. You don't need a couple people with some guns. So clearly that need is no longer relevant. But it just, it's so easy to just read. It reminds me of my Thomas and the Bible project. It reminds me of just reading the book, the Bible, and just saying, here's what this says.

0:08:11 Thomas: Oh, that's not right. Like, it is just so simple. You just read it, and then you get a bunch of people saying, well, I am trying to explain it away. Maybe the translation of the Second Amendment is not right, maybe. Maybe I need to stop reading the King James Version of the Second Amendment, because there's a different version that it all makes sense with context, Thomas.

But it's really interesting what I found out, and I'm not going to dwell too long on this because it's legal stuff, and I would imagine that everyone else out there listening knows this better than I do because I really just started researching this now. But just to quickly summarize what I've found, the interpretation of the Second Amendment was good for a very long time, um, and so there's a pivotal case in 1876 that, uh, ruled, the Supreme Court ruled, that the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, uh, what, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence, was the, uh, quote from that. And it really seems like people got it for a long time.

Oh, no, this just says if you're part of the militia or if it's crucial to the militias or whatever, and then all of a sudden it looks like in 2008 it, the Supreme Court decided, for whatever reason, and again, I just didn't follow the news back then, apparently, that the amendment protected an individual's right to carry a firearm, and it had nothing to do with a militia, so they decided that, like, well, yeah, the militia part's in there, but it doesn't really matter, because what's important is you all can have guns. And, uh, not really, but, it was something like that. And I don't understand that, I really don't, and that's the religion that has come from that.

0:09:55 Thomas: I mean, when you try to interact with these people on Twitter, they fervently believe that the Second Amendment was designed for them to have whatever guns they want for whatever reason they want, and it just so clearly was not written that way, and the militia system is just irrelevant, so we just need, it really needs to be gotten rid of. However... I don't think that means you need to get rid of the ability to own a gun. I was just thinking about this, and I'm no legal expert, but it almost seems like, I don't know, your right to own some sort of hazardous chemicals, or your right to own, I dunno, a knife. Like, is that protected by the Constitution? Is that protected by an amendment? Not really. It's sort of just regulated in certain ways, and certain certain laws are made about it, and that's about it.

0:10:45 Thomas: Guns should be that. I mean, it should be, we need to make, states could make laws about gun ownership and all that. It doesn't, I don't know why it needs to be this protected thing by the Constitution. And it really, the Second Amendment has expired, I think. It's just well past its necessity. The militia system is completely irrelevant in this day and age. So, enough about that legal stuff. I think that it is relevant that almost every mass shooting is with legally obtained firearms, and they're done with handguns, and so to get back to the assault weapons ban thing, I just think there's absolutely no reason to allow them, but something I did learn from the Sam Harris podcast was that that wouldn't really prevent any mass shootings.

0:11:36 Thomas: I mean, almost no mass shootings, and almost a tiny percent of gun violence at all is done with any sort of automatic weapons. I mean, it's all handguns. So that's why I just think we need to make it way harder to obtain a handgun. Still legal, still possible, you just need to make some effort, you know? You need to show that you are completely responsible and make the screening process so difficult to hopefully screen out people who might be prone to violence. I still don't think that'll be a perfect solution. I don't think there is anything we could do that would completely eliminate it, but couldn't that shouldn't that help? I mean, wouldn't that definitely help? That's got to make some impact. There's going to be some amount of crime prevented when you just make it impossible for someone with, you know, severe mental problems or who can't pass the criteria to get a gun.

0:12:27 Thomas: It seems like that could only help. But whatever. What do I know? There's one other thing I want to talk about quickly. This is a point that I am so tired of hearing from conservatives. It really is. I mean... You've all heard it, the phrase stop politicizing tragedies or don't politicize this tragedy, and I cannot help but laugh every time I hear that because that is literally what we pay politicians to do. That's exactly what they should be doing. Every politician should be politicizing everything. They're politicians. We need to just rely on them. I don't know what people expect from politicians. Are they, do you want them to like hold your hand and like comfort you or something?

0:13:13 Thomas: Because I don't, that's not what I pay politicians for out of my tax dollars. You know, that, that's not, that's not what they're there for. They're there to make policy, to try to, I mean, they should be there to try to represent the people. When something comes up, like a tragedy, when a, when a new law comes up when a court case comes, whatever it is, they're there to propose what they think and to carry out the will of the people, etc. I mean, that is what they do, politicize stuff. That's what they're supposed to do. When a building collapses, they're supposed to figure out, is there some regulation necessary to prevent this? Or was it just a freak accident? That's fine. But they still need to figure that out.

0:13:59 Thomas: I mean, they need to look into it, and if they find, like in the case of gun violence, that hey, we could be doing more, we could be doing quite a bit more to keep guns out of the hands of certain people and to reduce gun violence, like, we could be doing more, here's the, here's a tragedy that happened, this should remind us, let's do more. I don't know what you want out of him. It's like telling a mailman, like, hey, don't mailman today, stop mailmanning, because I know that's what you do and that's your job, but there was a tragedy. So don't do it. It's like, no, that's that's what they do. It's their job. I mean, it's in the name of the job. Politician, they're going to politicize anything. That's what they do, I don't care. I don't care either way. I've never complained about that. There's never been a tragedy that, you know, whatever, that conservatives go nuts about that I've said, that, hey, don't politicize this.

0:14:50 Thomas: We need to do what? Sit around and have politicians sing songs to us or comfort us? What function do we need our politicians to fill if it's not to politicize stuff and to at least investigate and produce a course of action and allow us to vote on it or something? That's what we pay them for. Stop politicizing tragedy. I really just don't get it. I don't need politicians for any other purpose. So there you go. That's my opinion.

0:15:31 Thomas: Alright, time to change gears a little bit. Still related, but a different topic. I thought I'd just put in a little intermission there to divide this up. I read a post by Ashley F Miller who posts on Freethought Blogs. I'm somewhat familiar with her. I haven't interacted with her or anything but I know the name and I saw the post and I think it's interesting. It's short and it's worth thinking about and I have a lot of opinions on it so I think I'm going to read it. The title should give away what the thesis is. Atheist tribalism poisons everything. She writes, Atheists, we need to talk. We need to about our tendency to think we are better than other people and better than religious people in particular. We talk about how we think that religion is the reason that bad things happen in the world.

0:16:20 Thomas: We need to talk about our culture of turning a blind eye toward the despicable behavior we see among ourselves. All of those things we do are exactly the problem with the religious institutions we hate, tribalism at the cost of morality. Reason without decency is useless. If it is unreasonable for the Pope to hide rapists, why do we accept it from our organizations? If it is unreasonable to the Catholic Church to trivialize child molestation, why accept it from our supposed leaders? If we don't like Christian politicians peddling untrue stereotypes of Muslims, why are we okay with it when it comes from best-selling atheist authors? Atheists heal thyself. I don't know what that means. But yeah, I wish there was a source on this.

0:17:06 Thomas: I don't what atheist leader is peddling untrue stereotypes of Muslims. But anyway, I have my guesses as to what she means. There's anger and fear from atheists today upon the revelation that the most recent of the mass shooters in America was a non-believer who targeted Christians. They will blame us. They will think this is all atheists. They will think we are all the same as him. Yes, they will. Just like we do to Muslims and Christians. No, we don't. Oh, look, we smirk. Another religious person killing a dozen people. Just goes to show religion poisons everything. Hitchens was wrong. Human institutions and tribalism poison everything, regardless of creed, and atheism is no different. Radical atheists who want to kill people are not different from radical Christians and Muslims doing the same thing.

0:17:51 Thomas: You know, I was going to read this whole thing. I'm about a third of the way through it. I think there's already too much I don't think I can. I need to say a bunch of stuff. I want to say that, first off, I think this is worth thinking about. I am happy this person wrote this because it's something to keep in mind. It really is. Whether or not you fully agree, you fully disagree, whatever, whatever level you are, it's something to keep in mind. And I also saw another response. There was the friendly atheist, Hemant Mehta and others, posted that the shooter didn't really target Christians, and they're trying to say there's some evidence he didn't, or maybe he meant something differently. I think that's the wrong way to go.

0:18:36 Thomas: I really do, and I'll tell you why. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that this shooter targeted Christians, specifically, I'm not 100% sure he did, but I would be a little bit worried about pinning my argument to a very, very tiny point of fact like that, that really could go either way. It really could be that he targeted Christians. Would you be shocked? Would you find it unbelievable if he did actually target Christians and say, well, I'm killing you because you're a Christian? I mean, to me, that could have easily happened. Now, if you want to try to split hairs and say, like, no, he just asked them, you know, if they were going to go to the afterlife or something, like if you're trying to say something like that, I'm not comfortable with that because it's just too close.

0:19:30 Thomas: Again, let the evidence say what it does. I mean, I'm happy to go with wherever it is, but I'm saying I wouldn't put my stock in either way because it is so close. I mean it really, I would not want to put all my eggs in the basket of, oh, phew, it looks like he wasn't really targeting Christians, and then maybe we get another eyewitness account that says he was. Because that really could happen. It really could. So I don't think that's really a wise place to put your eggs. So now back to what we've read so far of Ashley F. Miller. I want, okay, I've got a few points that I think are good ones that I want to try to get out there. Here's some thoughts that I, I I don't know, maybe someone already is saying these things, but I want to say them. First is an easy one that I think people are saying. There's the straw man aspect to it.

0:20:16 Thomas: I mean, Ashley Miller is straw manning. I mean do you know anyone, atheists, we're all atheists mostly who listen to the show except Tyler Vellup apparently if he's listening. Do we know anyone? Do you know any atheists who actually believe that religion is the cause of every evil in the world? That is a trope we have to hear that is an annoying straw man that we have to hear constantly. Well, you atheists, you just believe that religion is the reason for everything bad in the world. This is a classic C.J. Werleman argument. This a classic, just anyone. I mean, Ashley Miller said it right there in the first paragraph. Who believes that? Do you? Show of hands, show of digital hands, do you believe religion is the cause of every bad thing in the world?

0:21:04 Thomas: It's not even close. It's not. However, do you believe it is a cause of a lot of... Here's what I believe. I believe it's a cause a lot unclear thinking. I believe that religion does not help. It can only hurt when you're trying to make decisions about reality. It can hurt when when you start off rejecting reality. When you start off with certain beliefs, maybe to a greater and lesser extent. I know certain religious people barely believe it, certain believe it a lot. When you start off already handicapped, already hamstrung by supernatural beliefs, and you're trying to make decisions about reality, it can't help.

That's what I believe. It can't help, and it hurts a lot, oftentimes it hurts. A ton. That's what I believe. I don't believe it's responsible for every single ill we see in the world. I'm so tired of hearing that. No one believes that. If you believe that, you're an idiot. No atheist I know, and if you are an atheist who believes that religion is the cause of all evil in the world, you are not. You're an idiot. You are an idiot, and you're not an atheist. You're not. It's not. It's the cause of a lot.

It is not all of it. No one believes it. Can we get rid of that? Can we stop having people say that's what atheists believe? We don't believe that. Oh, might as well clear up the second one while we're at it. Atheist believing that all Muslims are terrorists. She even references that.

You know, as useful as I think this writing is, and I actually think there's some good stuff in it to take into account, to take into consideration, this strawmanning does really weaken it, because no atheist I know thinks every Muslim is a terrorist.

0:22:43 Thomas: No atheist I know thinks every Muslim is the same. We don't. I don't know anyone who thinks that. If you think that, you're an idiot. But, okay, so sorry I'm getting a little heated on this. I'm just very tired of hearing these same arguments over and over again. Now to some stuff that I think is a little less strawman and a little just outright annoying and wrong. But something that I is a bit maybe hypocritical. Here's the thing. There's nothing you could say about atheists, and there's nothing that Ashley Miller has said that you couldn't say about Democrats, feminists, Vegetarians. I picked these three things just off the top of my head because they're three things that I think are good. However, there are three groups, and I will say Democrat and Republican probably the biggest offenders.

0:23:32 Thomas: Most Democrats I know and most Republicans I know think that Democrats and Republicans and vice versa are responsible for every evil in the entire country. Why is this any different? It's no different than that. In fact, I would say it's less severe. Can you imagine? Do you know how much, just think about how much you've heard liberals or whoever it is, and myself included, talk about the religious right and how stupid they are and how conservatives and Ted Cruz, whoever it is, how they're ruining this country, how their hateful, how there, whatever, whatever they are, all that rhetoric, just think of all the worst rhetoric. And it's bad. It's really bad. Is there ever a worry? Do we ever worry like, oh, this in-group out-group, this tribalism, it's going to cause gun violence.

0:24:20 Thomas: Liberals are going to be murdering conservatives. Does anyone ever worry about that? No, I never hear that talked about. Sometimes you hear it talked about with conservatives a little bit. I don't know. I think maybe just because most terrorism in the U.S. is actually right-wing terrorism, so that could be why. And there's something to talk about there. But the mere fact, the mere idea that you think your group is right on something, or maybe a lot of things, and the other group is wrong, if that is... Enough to make you culpable for murder that someone else commits who agrees with you, then everyone's guilty. They really are because that's just, that's too weak. I mean everyone is like that, and I don't, I'm not saying it's a good thing.

0:25:05 Thomas: I think it is a bad thing. I think you guys know about me that I try to fight against that as best I can. I mean, I'm subject to biases certainly and I think that conservatives in this country, the religious right specifically, I think are causing a lot of harm. And I do think that they're wrong about almost everything. I really do. I think they're very wrong about a lot, a high percentage of the things. Just like I think that atheists probably feel that way as regards religion. They probably feel that away against Christians, against Muslims, against all that stuff. Yeah, you can call that in-group, out-group. You can call it tribalism, Sure. It's just inherent in every human group. What did I mention? I mentioned feminism.

0:25:51 Thomas: I think feminism is a good example. I consider myself a feminist. I don't want to get into that right now. I think it's a worthy cause most of the time. All that's great. However, that would be the first group of people that I would think of. If someone said, name a group of People who thinks that another group is completely responsible for all the evils in the world, I would say feminists. And I apologize if that's causing anyone offense. I don't mean to, but that's just my honest assessment. Can you think of another group where that's different? I mean, a non-extremist group. Sure, there's going to be extremist anti-Semites who think Jews are ruining everything. There's going to be extremist racists who think black people are ruining everything. Extremists apart, like sort of mainstream groups.

0:26:37 Thomas: I would say feminists think that, and to say nothing of whether they're right or wrong, to speak nothing of whether they're right or wrong, most feminists I read on the internet and talk to and whose rhetoric I hear think that misogyny is basically at the heart of everything. It's in every single, it's everywhere, you can't get away from it, it's in every institution. It's an every, you know, it's it's in government. It's and everything. There couldn't be a group that thinks they're right and the other side is wrong. Probably more than feminists, I would say. And I am making no value judgment on this. I'm actually bringing it up because I think it's fine. I mean, I'm not worried about that leading to feminists killing people.

0:27:24 Thomas: I mean it's just that I'm trying to isolate that variable and say that's not the issue. Here's the issue here. Here's where I can turn it around, and I think I've got a good basis for judging whether or not groups are responsible when someone who is a member of their group commits a crime against someone who's not a member. I think I've got good criteria for that. Here goes. And I'm going to make it easy. I'm gonna make it nice and basic. Okay, so Ashley Miller seems to think that you're somewhat culpable, or at least you need to reflect, and I'm not singling her out. I think a lot of people think this. If you have some tribalism in your group, if you have a belief that the other side is responsible for a lot the evil in the world, that seems to be her criteria.

0:28:15 Thomas: Well, here's my criteria. If someone is taking your ideology and adding a dot, dot, dot, and therefore these people need to be killed to it, that's not your fault. However, now lest you think that, you know, excuses all religions and all whatever, if that dot, dot,dot, and, therefore, they need to killed is already in your doctrine, then you can be held responsible. Doesn't that make sense? Because there's no theory you could have. There's no belief you could have that someone couldn't add a dot, dot, dot, and therefore these people need to be killed. Global warming. There is a good one. Most of us accept climate change, I would assume. Probably not all of us.

0:29:01 Thomas: You could be a very fervent believer in climate change. You can think these idiots who don't accept climate change are ruining the world. People say that. I think I've said something like that. These people are causing great harm on this world. Now, if someone takes that and says, dot, dot, and therefore I need to shoot them, is that my fault? Are we going to get a blog post from Ashley Miller saying, look, you got to address the fact that you think global warming deniers, climate change denialists, that you got to change the fact that you think they're wrong all the time. And you think there are just 180 degrees wrong. You think they are responsible for all these evils. You got to fix that. Otherwise, this violence is going to happen.

0:29:46 Thomas: No, that's not my fault. Because you could apply that to anything. Anyone could say, look, misogynists are just responsible for so much harm. Racists are responsible for so much. Okay, dot, dot dot. Therefore, they need to be killed with this gun that I have. Yeah, once you add that, you're responsible. I'm not responsible. I'm sorry. I am not responsible. Now, I will say, and this is important, and I bet you people would think I'm cheating here, but I think this is a very good, consistent criteria. Criteria. Obviously, we can iron out a few corner cases here and there, but I think when your doctrine says all these non-believers need to be killed, you're not adding a dot, dot, dot, and therefore they should be killed.

0:30:32 Thomas: That's already there. Now, you may be adding a dot, dot, dot, however, look at context, and that's, you know, we don't really read that part, and that's fine, but you're adding that. So, you need to acknowledge the difference, and I I would say that's the key difference between when a jihadist or when any sort of terrorist kills people, shoots people, because of an ideology that already includes that part where they say, you know, dot, dot. Therefore, these people need to be killed. That is different than when someone takes any ideology like atheism, like whatever it is, whatever it is, could be anything. There aren't that many examples of it to really get a good sample size of what these nutjobs who decide you need to add that dot, dot, dot, what things they latch on to.

0:31:20 Thomas: Now, it could be that they latch on to certain things more than others. There could be many reasons for that. But that's not my responsibility. I really don't think it is. So there you have it. There's Thomas's criteria for whether we're at fault. There it is. I think it's pretty simple. I mean, I don't... Seriously, is it any more complicated than that? If... Anyway, I won't need to repeat it, but I What I'm tired of is the mind reading. I'm really tired of that, especially with people like CJ and others who were talking about Craig Hicks and talking about this atheist shooter. I'm tired of the mind-reading, and I'm tired of the mind-reading the other way, where they actually know the Muslim who blew himself up to kill a bunch of innocent people, they know actually he was doing it for political reasons, but then, you know, Hicks wasn't doing anything for—you know, they always know.

0:32:09 Thomas: I'm tired of the mind reading. Here's what I want to know. Is it in the doctrine? Is it not? Did they add that dot dot dot? Maybe it's too simple. I don't know. I don't think it is. I think that anyone who advocates violence or subscribes to a doctrine that has advocated violence and that, and give us some credit, give atheists some credit. Give environmentalists some cred. We don't have a book where we say, oh yeah, the creator of the universe wrote this, but we need to ignore this part here. Don't read that part where it says to kill a bunch of people. Don't read that. We need some credit for that. That is better, Ashley Miller, I will say. That's better than religious people. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to a book and insists that it's been written by someone who knows everything going on in the universe and that, oh, wait, you better ignore these parts here and this part there, we're better than that.

0:33:03 Thomas: In that respect, we may have, you know, maybe worse than a million other respects. I don't know. We're better in that respect. And that's my philosophy about it. I can't believe how the time has flown. I'm going to go ahead and call it a day on this one. And I look forward to what you think about what I've said here. I wonder if you think that's a good enough measurement. Because I really am tired of this blame game. Aren't you tired of it? Maybe, sorry if this was too basic. Maybe this was Too Obvious for you guys. I really don't Know. No, I don't know because I keep hearing these arguments constantly and they get really, really tiresome. So that's Thomas's criterion for whether or not we're at fault. I advocate, and for the record, I advocate no violence against any religious people unless for some reason, you know, self-defense or something.

0:33:51 Thomas: But other than that, I advocate no violence of any kind due to someone's religious beliefs. And there you go. I'm on the record, and there's no book you can point to that I should listen to or that I say is written by the creator of the universe that has violence in it that I actually believe. You can't do that with me because that doesn't exist. There you have it. All right. Thank you, as usual, for joining me. Look forward to a very full, action-packed show on Thursday with a really cool guest. And yeah, that's it. Thank you for listening, supporting on patreon.com/atheist. And yeah, I'll see you Thursday.