AS183: Tommentary Tuesday, Except It's Monday

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. I'm your host Thomas Smith and this is episode 183. I am very excited because I mentioned last week I was thinking about changing up the format a bit and I'm going to do it. I'm tired of worrying about how it might go, I think, and I am using my instincts that have gotten me thus far.

I think it'll be a change for the better and it's not a huge change so don't nobody panic or anything but here's what I'm gonna do so Monday shows will now be a well it'll be sort of like the Tom and Terry you've been hearing except it that'll be the show and it'll related to either it's not going to just be news or anything like that but it could be it's gonna be either articles I've read things that interest me things that are going on or or some sort of current news event could be something that I think I have an opinion on that might be of interest to people, Something that provide kind of not necessarily an atheist perspective, but a perspective that, you know, happens to be from an atheist, and oftentimes that perspective is going to be a lot different than what we tend to hear in the, you know, mainstream media or lamestream media, am I right? Oh, no, it's mainstream media. Sorry, that's how you pronounce it. Yeah, and then I also am going to try to keep it to a consistent time.

I'm not going to reveal what that is just yet, just in case it doesn't work. I'm gonna do my best to keep a consistent and then and I'm also going to dedicate a portion of this time that I'm trying to be very specific about to listener comments that I find that people leave me on either the website, Facebook, Patreon, wherever.

0:02:16 Thomas: I'll try to find them everywhere I can. It's hard. Sometimes it's hard to keep track of what's where, but I'll figure that out. Don't worry. I'm a professional. I can do it. And that'll be cool to have. And I think also with a Monday show, so it's almost going to be like the odd number show is an extended Tomentary. It'll be a Tomentary Tuesday, except one which takes place on a Monday and technically released on a Sunday, my time. So keep that straight, everyone it's that's how you remember it. I'll come up with a jingle. It's Tom and Terry Tuesday, it happens on a Monday, it's released on a Sunday night, yeah, okay, that's the, that's the jingle, official, we're gonna print it up, come on, okay, so that's that's what I think is gonna happen, and like I was starting to say, having a Tom and Terry or extended kind of current events or just opinion part, that's when I receive the most feedback and the most those comments.

0:03:13 Thomas: And I like getting comments. It's fun. It is fun to engage with you guys. I get them on the interviews too, but that's when I really get them. So, I think that'll be cool and then I can incorporate that every show. And then Thursdays will be interviews, interviews, that sort of thing. I'm going to make also an effort to not have two-part interviews. This is something I'm not a hundred percent on because sometimes I just really want to talk to someone for longer and as of right now I don't have a good plan for that. So let's say hypothetically this will be the first thing you guys can give me feedback on. I've already got an interview for Thursday that's a nice one-parter and then I have one scheduled for the following Thursday that should be a nice one-parter. But let's say push comes to shove.

0:04:01 Thomas: For the sake of argument, this is something I can seek feedback on. I have an interview that's just too good, and I definitely need to do it in two parts. What would you guys prefer? Would you prefer I do it that I skip a commentary, like just kind of mess with my schedule and not do a Monday commentary, or the following Monday maybe? Or would it be okay to release part one on a Thursday and part two on the following Thursday? I don't really like either of those so it's probably a question of which is just the Less bad. And that's sometimes how it works when you're making a podcast. So let me know what you think on that. But overall, I'm very excited about this idea because I think it'll give people some consistency. It'll give you something to expect. You can expect that Monday will be sort of like, kind of like John Oliver's last week tonight, sort of, like that.

0:04:51 Thomas: I make no promises to cover every major event or anything, but you can expect kind of a show Monday, and then Thursday you can expect something else, whether it's an interview or what have you. Now, of course, I reserve the the right. If I have a big event or something, maybe if I do another live debate or something like that, that may preempt programming for a week. We'll see. But for the most part, I want to pretty much stick to that schedule. So that's my plan. I hope you guys are in favor of it. I think it's going to be more work for me, but that's good because you deserve it because you've supported me and you listen. And I would like to do more for you guys. I don't want to just have have sometimes a long interview all week. I want to make sure I'm offering you some unique commentary each week, and you can let me know how you feel about that.

0:05:38 Thomas: But as I've discussed before, it's hard to tell. I can't really publicly poll every listener. So if anyone feels strongly, feel free to let me know. But I may not let it affect me. I may just go with this because I think it's better, and I want give you guys the best podcast I can. With that said, let's get to that show I'm talking about. Let's do it. First time.

0:06:07 Thomas: The first item I'd like to talk about today is an article I saw circulating actually amongst more personal friends than atheists, so I'm not sure if it's not gotten there or what, but it's entitled "Guys, Here's What It's Actually Like to Be a Woman," and for some reason I assumed it was written by a woman, and I finished the entire thing, and then I found it was written by two guys, and it's, I don't know, it's interesting to think about. Does that change it? Are the facts the facts? Hard to say. I certainly would rather hear about what it's like to be a woman from a woman, but this article has been highly endorsed by many female friends I have that I actually know, not just that I've seen online, so that's interesting.

0:06:52 Thomas: I'm really curious to hear what people think about this, but I want want to tell you a little bit about what the article says. It's apparently a chapter of a much longer book, of course, on I think just basically information for guys who want to attract women better, but not in like a pickup artist's way. Apparently, it seems to be genuine, like just advice for how to understand women's perspectives better and be a better, I guess, candidate for a boyfriend, husband, etc.

0:07:25 Thomas: It's really long, so maybe I'll just go over briefly the highlights. So the first statement it makes is she is tired of being objectified, so subjectify her instead. And it's pretty obvious it just means don't give the basic, you know, sexual comments or compliments to women because they're tired of that. Instead, compliment different things, subjectify them instead of objectify them. Seems pretty, pretty standard. Seems like good advice, and next thing it says is she is physically vulnerable and she knows it. It makes a lot, the article talks about this a lot. By the way, of course, part of these episodes is I'll link everything I'm talking about, so if you want to read it for yourself, I encourage you to do so, especially my female listeners, and let me know how you find this article.

0:08:15 Thomas: But anyway, to briefly summarize, to continue my brief summarization. It talks a lot about how, well, what if... It's trying to get men... The target is men, of course, of this article. And it's trying to get men who don't normally put themselves in the position of a woman, who don't normally... Take the time to think what from a female point of view or from what it might be like, at least, at least try to put themselves in in that position, and so it talks about, hey, what if you were a gay man and you were pretty small, you're just an average, maybe lower than average size, and you go to a club and it's all NFL athletes, you know, and they're all gay men who are interested in you, and they are looking you up and down, and they could basically do whatever they wanted to you if they wanted.

0:09:02 Thomas: And it talks about this a lot. And this is very interesting. I definitely, I won't say it's eye-opening because it's something I've talked a lot about with my wife. And it's something that, I mean, if you just think about it, it, of course, makes sense. I mean, it's logical that women, as the, it actually, this article references the Louis C.K. bit when he talks about the fact that men are actually the most dangerous things for women. I don't, the bit is something like Lucy Kay. Doesn't understand why any woman ever says yes to any man about anything or agrees to go on a date or anything because it's the number, all they are hoping is that the man won't harm her. And it's, he does it in a way, it's of course a terrible subject.

0:09:49 Thomas: It's a very negative subject, but he makes it funny, and he makes people reflect on it. So it's this article is that same sort of thing, of course, not intended to be funny. But it's making men or trying to get men to think about that fact and think about that's how women are looking at you when you approach them. You know, they don't know, for the most part, again, this is speaking in generalities, but the point of this article, anyway, is that women don't know if you're a threat. They don't know if you are some creep. They don't, you know, for them, and another point it makes that I think is somewhat critical to the argument is that, sure, most guys are okay. Most, maybe, well, that might be arguable, but let's say for the sake of argument, most guys are totally fine, not going to hurt anybody, and it's probably true.

0:10:39 Thomas: But what the article says is that that might not be true for guys that approach women. So, for guys who actually constantly approach women, it's a self-selecting sample. And oftentimes they're more creepy. So women are like, and the analogy the article brings up is like police officers. They see the worst of society because they're always called when something's horrible or, you know, they're fighting crime. They're dealing with, you know, well, again, to reference it again, men battering women. They are dealing, police officers are dealing with the worst kinds of people in society usually. So they will have a negative view about society, unless they, you know, temper that. Similarly, women might have a more negative view of men because the men who actually approach them, a higher percentage of those men might be creepy, for lack of a better word.

0:11:33 Thomas: And that's another point that the article tries to drive home. So it's a lot of stuff like this. It's a lot of statements like, men, here's what you actually need to realize women are thinking, more or less, because it's not what you're thinking. And I agree with most of it. And furthermore, like I said, I had women on my Facebook feed sharing it, or not on my Facebook feed rather, but sorry, on the news feed, I guess, sharing the article saying they endorsed it. And I had my wife read it. I was curious what her opinion was. I just neutrally asked for her opinion on it. She said it was pretty much right on with her experience, true. So, it seems to be pretty in line with most female experience that I have access to.

0:12:24 Thomas: And of course, I'm very, very open to any women listeners I have sharing their opinion on the article. But the point I actually want to talk about is not to just say this article exists, go read it, because that would be kind of boring. I actually have a different point I want to talk about. And that's just differences between the sexes or genders. I guess sexes would be more accurate? I'm not actually sure. In general, it references something that I found kind of funny. One of the major bullet points is she's probably just not that into you and you need to be okay with that. And I'm just gonna read very briefly. The average guy finds the average woman at least somewhat sexually attractive. Think about it. The next time you're walking down the street...

0:13:09 Thomas: Or hanging out in a mall or student union, ask yourself seriously, what percent of these women would I be willing to have sex with right now if it was safe, easy, consensual, no strings attached? If you're like most young guys, the answer would be well over 70%, even including the moms and older women. For some of you freaks, especially including them. By contrast, the average woman finds the average man sexually invisible, neutral, disgusting, or repulsive. Only a tiny percentage of guys inspire immediate lust in women. Most of those guys have already moved to New York or Los Angeles to become actors or models. If you are over 18 and you haven't done that, you're not one of those guys. There is a huge sex difference in initial choosiness documented in both scientific research and online dating data and plays out in every domain of sex and dating.

0:14:01 Thomas: And then it goes on to say, if a relationship develops between a man and a woman, He gets a lot choosier about whether to date her exclusively, move in with her, marry her, but that's a discussion for another time. So a lot of this research, here's what I find interesting. I am, I'm totally on board with that, by the way. That seems to be exactly my experience that I have when I talk to women and from, you know, well, first off, it seems to me my experience is that most women are attractive to me. I find, I find most women attractive is what I'm trying to say. And secondly, that most women are not immediately attracted to me or any other guys, really, except those, like it referenced, those rare few. And I think that's a significant difference between men and women.

0:14:47 Thomas: And I think there are many such differences. I don't know how many or how much it matters. But that's what I'm curious about, because a lot of the women that I know that are sharing this and saying, yes, this is, you know, that this is true and men, please read this. Which I'm totally cool with, are also women who are feminists who, it seems at other times, there's a lot of emphasis on the fact that, oh no, there's no differences between men and women. It's all just a construct. And women are just as into sex. They're just, you know, all these kind of things. And I just, that is, I've never been able to buy that. I think that, yes, there There are some exceptions. There are definitely exceptions to any general rule, except that one?

0:15:35 Thomas: No, I don't know. Including that one. But because of hard genetic, hard biological facts, i.e. women have to carry children and men don't, and women tend to be smaller, and men tend to able to easily overpower women in general. Things that, oddly enough, I do see a lot of feminists emphasizing like, oh, men, you know, men can easily overpower women, blah, blah. But then when it comes to other differences, like I saw a feminist posting the other day about how sports ought to be, like, professional sports shouldn't be. We ought to move toward that being co-ed, as if that could possibly work, as if there's just as many women out there who are about to be able to dunk on LeBron or play quarterback for the NFL.

0:16:29 Thomas: It's just not true. I mean, it's never going to happen unless we really change our genetics. And that kind of thing seems like nonsense to me. So basically, what I want to say with this article is I, for one, because every woman I've talked to about it endorses it, and because it seems to go along with what I've experienced with women, I wholeheartedly endorse this article. I would share it and hope people read it, hope men read it and understand better what women might be thinking, because it seemed to be based on science. It seems to be on good studies. It's not just two guys' opinions. They researched it, and I think two men wrote it in order to reach the male audience. I think that was kind of the point. So I think it's a well-intentioned article, etc.

0:17:17 Thomas: But what I want to say is I don't think you can have it both ways. I think the reason this article exists is because men and women are largely different. And the whole excuse of, well, society does that, well why? Why does society do it? I mean, why does almost every society, except some random one somewhere that's small and, you know, matriarchal very occasionally. That almost never exists. Why is it that this almost always happens? And that's not to say we can't push back against those societal norms. Of course, I'm completely pro anyone behaving or acting, as long as they're not hurting anyone else, acting any way they want. I'm a fan of any women pursuing whatever career they want, all that, I'm totally 100% pro, but I think it can, I think it can be harmful to your worldview.

0:18:09 Thomas: I think you can affect your worldview if you hold an opinion that men and women are exactly equal in every way, or even like most every way, because it informs certain decisions. I mean, I don't know, family leave off, leave for mothers, that sort of thing. I mean, there are different considerations for men and woman. And it's a difficult problem. It's not an easy problem at all. But that's what I want to say. I'm curious, is there anyone out there listening, and because I've met these people, I don't want to just say it's a straw man. I really don't think it is. For example, the feminist I mentioned writing about the sports thing was a major feminist. That was someone who has quite a following. So I want to know, is there anyone out there who disagrees with me? Is there anyone who thinks that men and women are essentially equal and could even maybe compete in sports together?

0:18:59 Thomas: Ronda Rousey aside, by the way. I think Ronda Rousey could almost rank, it'd be close. I'd be very curious to see Ronda Rousey fight another UFC male fighter who was any good. This would be close, she is just absolutely phenomenal. But there's always going to be outliers. Does anyone disagree on that? I don't know. I want to get a sense of my listeners, where in that camp they fall. Because if it turns out that none of my listeners feel that way, then I won't have to address this again. I'll just say, sure, I'll take it as granted that there are many documented differences between the sexes. They're not a big deal. I'm not trying to make a big deal or a political statement with them or anything. I just don't like it when there are people I read, major people, pretending they don't exist and trying to alter that reality.

0:19:50 Thomas: That's all I don't like. I'm not trying to say anything else about it. So that's what I'll say about that. And let me know. Give me your feedback on that one.

0:20:10 Thomas: All right, item number two for my inaugural commentary Tuesday, which takes place on a Monday but is technically released on Sunday. Great. You know what, that's a that's an absolutely perfect slogan. I'm going with it. An article that I was given about political correctness. I thought it was interesting. It was written by Rebecca Carroll for The Guardian. It's brief. I think I might try to charge through it real quick. Quick. There's a theory about political correctness, one hewed to by Donald Trump and his legions of fans, that is based on the assumption that everyone is actually racist and sexist, but that they're too cowed by women and people of color to say what they really think. The conceit is that no one really believes the political correct things we all say, but somehow arrived at a tacit agreement not to say them.

0:21:01 Thomas: The reality, though, is that the term political correctness has been co-opted and redefined, eroded in meaning to the point that the kindest interpretation merely implies being oversensitive, which is still dangerous and stunted. If we are living in a time when racial, cultural, and gender awareness is synonymous with being oversensitive then we are in pretty big trouble. And if the antithesis of some dreaded oversensitivity is spewing vile, hateful, and venomous rhetoric about people who are leading movements both big and small to strengthen and and enhance all of humanity, then at a bare minimum we are going to need a little more sensitivity. But there is the fear of political correctness, and then there is the reality of what's considered politically acceptable. It So now she goes on to mention a few things that are not political correctness, she thinks, but are things that are actually just reality that we all should subscribe to.

0:21:55 Thomas: For example, it is not politically correct to object to the gender pay gap. There's a whole conservative cottage industry dedicated to proving there is no pay gap. It's not politically correct to highlight the fact that black and brown people are violently profiled, discriminated against, and underrepresented in government and industry. Young black activists who have protested on our streets and rallied on social media have been arrested and had their patriotism and motives questioned, even in the mainstream media and even shouted at by crowds of liberals. It is not politically correct to ensure that transgender people are the arbiters of their own experience and believe that they should be deferred to on matters of their safety, livelihood. Students with their parents' support have been applauded for trying to restrict a transgender classmates' access to the bathroom, and liberals and conservatives alike feel free to openly question transgender people's right to exist at all.

0:22:53 Thomas: It is also, I'll just, I'm about halfway through, that's good enough. It's also not rocket science that we ought to be sensitive to these issues. It's being a decent human, it's shifting paradigms, it is working to change our culture so that there's equity and equality for everyone. So that's about half of it and it's pretty much all that. I think this is pretty much on, but I want to find a slight, I won't say middle ground.

I don't think it is a middle ground, so this is an interesting article. I like that it's talking about there is this knee jerk reaction on the part of conservatives. I know all about it. I have family who are like this. I know people who are this where there are totally modest, reasonable claims, and I almost said demands, but just requests, sometimes demands, on the sake of progressive people and others to make reasonable accommodation for things like getting rid of the Redskins as a team name. Things like that. They're pretty reasonable, in my opinion. It's basically an ethnic slur as a as a Team mascot. It's not the best thing. In the world. I think it's pretty reasonable to want to end that. And then there are times when the political correctness, in my opinion, can go a little far. But what happens is the other side has a knee-jerk reaction, and she's exactly right. This author is exactly right about Donald Trump is really playing to this knee-jerk reaction.

0:24:34 Thomas: It's fascinating to see. He's playing the slippery slope fallacy. It's all slippery slope fallacy. It's the same thing with the NRA with guns. Guns, it's the same thing. A little bit was done with gay marriage. It's the, well, what's next, you know, with the guns. If you, we want a little bit of gun control, then what's next? You know, take away everyone's guns. If we let gay people get married, what's next? Then, you know, you can marry someone who's under eight. You know, just that kind of thinking is the same thing with this political correctness. And the concerns go from something reasonable to something not at all reasonable. So they jump from like, well, let's get rid of the Redskins. Conservatives see this, it seems like. And it seems to be pretty much a right-left thing.

0:25:20 Thomas: I don't know if anyone disagrees with me on that. Let me know. But it is pretty, there aren't a lot of, I don't know a lot of liberals and it doesn't really make sense, but I don't know a lot of liberals, for example, who are against getting rid of the Redskins, you know, as a team name or a lot of conservatives who are like really pro getting rid of, it's, it seems to line up pretty evenly, not a hundred percent, which is, which is odd. And I think it all comes down to, I mean, the word conservative, I think I've talked about it before. They just want things to stay exactly the same. There's a camp of people, simplistically, now I'm not getting into fiscal policy at all. I just mean social. I'm speaking now only about social conservatives, so I'll limit it to that. I don't, I know I have a lot of Republican listeners.

0:26:06 Thomas: I don't think I have a ton of socially conservative listeners, I will say. People who are against gay marriage, people who are, that sort of thing. So, it's an effort to keep things the same, they're so scared of things changing. And I want to say that for the most part, they're totally wrong. I mean, we need to do things like allow for For transgender people to exist and to have reasonable accommodations to, you know, there are a lot of very reasonable things we need to allow for, and yes, they are change, but they're not bad. However, there is one thing I want to put to you. Now, I heard a clip on Bill Maher's show, which I'm starting to like more and more. The weird thing is, I've never really liked Bill Maher. I don't get it. I've never liked the guy. I didn't like Religious very much. I thought it was kind of ridiculous.

0:26:55 Thomas: No, I thought it was, I don't know. I don't know why I didn't like it. I've never, let me just put it this way. I haven't been a huge fan of his tone. It's a very arrogant tone. It's a very, you know, smarter than everybody tone. However, lately I have been really enjoying his show Real Time with Bill Maher because he just, Again, I don't agree with him on everything, but I do like that he's willing to have the conversations and he's willing to talk about anything. He's not shutting down conversations, which is one of my biggest causes, is just engaging in discussions rather than shutting down. Regardless, I mean, I want to hear, and he'll have a Republican on his show who will say whatever he says, and then they engage about it.

0:27:40 Thomas: I really like it. And he'll engage with liberals that he disagrees with on things like Islamic terrorism, that sort of thing. And I heard him make a joke, which actually went really well with the crowd, you can hear. But I thought, you know, is this something that, are we to the point where this is too politically incorrect to make what I think is a great joke? I think it is a hilarious joke. I just do. And I'm curious if anyone disagrees. The audience loved it. I haven't heard anything about this, by the way. This was just me hearing this and thinking, I wonder if people don't like that he made this joke or if it gets a pass for the context. So let me play that for you. Let me play the clip. Oh, I'll set it up. So he set up the segment by saying, Republicans are just not hearing Bernie Sanders.

0:28:28 Thomas: He says one thing and then Republicans hear a totally different thing. And that, of course, opens up for the premise, the comedy premise of he's going to play something that Bernie Sanders says, and then he's gonna play his Republican translation of it. So that's the setup for the joke, and I'll go ahead and play the one that I'm talking about here.

0:28:47 Clip: On American exceptionalism, Bernie said... And I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished. And they heard... I will not rest until every single American is driving a faggy little car with three tires. You will watch soccer and you will like it. It's too bad.

0:29:13 Thomas: So maybe I'm imagining this, but I don't know. Is that acceptable? Because that's using a very bad word, a slur, that we've now decided in society we should not use for good, very good reason, I might add, but using it to great effect because he's saying that's what Republicans hear when they hear Bernie Sanders. And I think it's hilarious. I laughed pretty hard at it, actually. I don't normally laugh at loud at many of these things because I usually I see the jokes coming from a billion miles away, but something about the three-wheeled cars just, that's pretty funny to me, because it would be a Republican nightmare. But I thought about it, then I was like, is that the kind of thing that maybe is a legitimate concern of political correctness?

0:30:00 Thomas: And I ask, I'm going to turn it to you. One, here are my questions for you. Do you think that that joke is acceptable? It's okay. It's not offensive. If there, if I have any gay listeners, do you, are you offended by hearing a joke like that? I mean, is it okay because of the context? Now, I don't know that I get a vote because I'm not gay. I'm Not Affected. But if I were to vote, I would say, that's fine. In the context, it makes total sense. He's saying that's what they hear. You know, he's saying that's wat Republicans hear. And it's kind of accurate. It's a little bit accurate in some ways. That's what makes it funny. But imagine the same thing, but with the N-word. This is is always the comparison that everyone goes to. Well, imagine that, but with the N-word. And And of course, it changes it. It makes you think like, well, no, I wouldn't be okay with that.

0:30:48 Thomas: But isn't that just because we're not ever okay with using the n-word for some reason? We can't use it at all. Well, for good reason, but I've had this discussion with no illusions, of course. I don't mind saying the word when I'm reporting that someone else said it, but I'm obviously not going to use it for any reason. So, that's my overall thing with this political correctness. Because I do hear a lot of people going crazy. And I myself have said from time to time that I worry a little bit about us getting too politically correct. But what I don't mean is what Trump means. I don't mean that. I do not mean, well, we all want to say really racially insensitive things all the time, and we just are resisting the urge. I do not believe that. I actually do not have an urge to say those things that I know of, for the most part.

0:31:34 Thomas: And so I don't really feel that way. However, if it came to this, if it came to the fact, to the point where people were protesting Bill Maher's use of this word in this joke, and we're saying this was just tasteless, it was offensive, it was horrible, then I, all of a sudden, things might swing the other way for me because I'm very pro jokes, I'm pro freedom of expression, I'm bro all that stuff, and I think that you can see the intent there, and I think the more we analyze jokes, the worse it is for for any comedians and audiences. It's just not worth it. A joke should be, think about it real quick. Is it funny? Sure. Good. Done. It should really, we really shouldn't be dissecting it for hours. So with that in mind, I'll go ahead and stop dissecting this joke. But I, that, I know there are people out there who would say that joke is unacceptable.

0:32:25 Thomas: You can't make that joke, or they'd be afraid to say it, or they wouldn't want to hear it. And that might be where I would say maybe, yes, maybe that is political correctness going too far. However, I'm not gay. So I, you know, I think it's different if you're gay. You, of course, get more of a vote than me. So I'm curious what people think on that as well. And with that, I think I will try to go to some comments, even though this is my inaugural commentary Monday, Tuesday, whatever. I'm going to go through some comments from past shows just to fill that same void and to set up how it's going to be going forward. Now, next Monday, I'm hoping that I can talk about the comments from the previous Monday show. So we'll see how that goes. But with that said, let's go to some comments. So back in my Marx episode, my Marxist days, I talked about the fact that I didn't think religion was invented as a way for the rich to keep their money.

0:33:20 Thomas: Well, you probably remember. Well, Samir commented, Hello Thomas, thanks again for an interesting show. I wanted to address the issue you had about religion and poverty. Firstly, I am assuming by religion we are referring to an religious institution. Institution. Historically, the priest class and rulers have been the same or intimately linked. From the ancient Egyptians to the French and now Saudi monarchs have claimed a divine right or divinity. This has allowed them to claim ownership of resources, the land, to get benefit of the work without doing it. As an aside, I see this now in the pay of CEOs that say success is due to them them, and failure would have been worse without them.

0:34:06 Thomas: Also, as you mentioned, there's a strong correlation between poverty and religiosity. This is similar to superstition and sports with high variability. As to the church getting money from the rich as a counterexample, and by the way, my counterextample was the selling of indulgences, so it's a little different than the church getting the money from rich. I disagree, Samir says. Again, as with Saudi Arabia and other historical situations, the rulers slash wealthy ensure that the priest class receives sufficient funds to ensure the continued support. So I'm not saying the Marxist view is totally correct, but to my view, it's more correct than you indicated. Right. I think there's some interesting points there, but I still think largely that the relationship is more symbiotic.

0:34:53 Thomas: It's not a question of... and from what I got from Marx, and maybe I've misinterpreted, but what I largely got is that religion exists in order to facilitate, in order, to trick poor people into believing that it's okay that they're poor because they'll get stuff in the next life. That and also with a little bit of, of, well, rich people or leaders historically have been blessed. They've been, you know, blessed by whatever God or religion we're talking about. And that's why they get to have so much. And that'S why you get to HAVE so little. So that's the characterization by Marx. Now, in fairness, I don't know that that means that's his entire point of view. I don't know if he'd put any finer point on it, but that's what I was presented with in the reading. So what I said was, well I think there are a lot more purposes that religion fulfills for people than that.

0:35:45 Thomas: I really think it's about worrying about life after death. I think that's a huge worry people have. And you have to put your mind into a religious person's body if you can. Think about the religious people you know. For me, it's family. It's that kind of thing. They all just, for me anyway, in my experience, they want to believe that they're going somewhere in heaven. They're going to see their loved ones. They are going to do all that. That's mainly it. It. Now, as far as, okay, so there's some points that Samir has raised that I think are valid, but I think what you've described, Samir, is more of a symbiotic relationship. I think religious people, sorry, I think Religious Leaders and people who sort of invented religion figured out a different way to gain power than having material wealth.

0:36:32 Thomas: I don't think it was rich people who decided, you know, I need to trick the poor people into thinking it's okay that they're poor. I think religion was almost invented in a way, kind of organically, but was invented as a way of also gaining power. You may not have material power, you may not have land, you might not have all that, but you can sort of exercise a spiritual power over people with these miracle claims and that sort of thing. And I think that religious institutions have risen as sort of parallel power structures to say just the plain old power structure of wealth and land and all that. And as a result, they're symbiotic. They live off each other. They trade with each other in a way.

0:37:19 Thomas: Religions have endorsed certain leaders and the leaders have made sure the religions, the churches were taken care of, that kind of thing. But that to me is different than the religion being created for the express purpose of making it okay that there are rich people. So I hope you see the distinction there. And I don't want to say it's 100%, like you, and I appreciate Samir, you said you didn't seem like, you were just trying to say, it's a little more correct than I indicated. I certainly respect that. It may be some percentage, but I just think that it's not the origin of religion. I think the origin of religion is very specific to dogmatic claims. And metaphysical claims and people believing those metaphysical claims. So that's what I think. And as far as my example, I want to emphasize my example was the giving, was indulgences, which there's a very key thing.

0:38:12 Thomas: It's not just, oh rich people gave churches money. It is not just that. It is that wealthy people felt so compelled by their beliefs that they paid the church for the sale of indulgences. So I, again, I want to emphasize that. It's not just, it's not just like I presented a counterexample of, oh, you know, rich people give money to the church and therefore, you know, that's not, they believe it or something. It is, they specifically gave money to the church for, because of specific beliefs that they were going to stay in purgatory or they, they were going to stay in purgatory longer if they didn't buy these indulgences. And that's powerful because that's not just, you know, rich people supporting the church.

0:38:57 Thomas: Oh, I want to give money so that the church can continue to lie to the people for me and convince them that it's okay that they're poor. No, that's giving money, like assuming they're sinning and paying for indulgencies. That's very specific and that's very beliefs driven. So that's what I wanted to say on that. But I want to thank you for the comment and I hope that clarified what I was saying. Maybe you still disagree. Let me know. And I really welcome comments from this show as a whole and and I want to talk about them next Monday at this same time. So I've pretty much hit the time limits and thresholds and all that, more or less, that I was going for, so I like that. So I want take the last few minutes to say thank you so much to all my patrons at patreon.com/atheist.

0:39:44 Thomas: You especially can let me know how you feel about this because, you know, you get two votes to every one of anyone else. So thanks patrons. Go to patreon. Com slash atheist if you'd like to support the show. And I suppose I'll still, should I thank the patrons today? Should I thank them on Thursday? I don't know. We'll still go with Thursday for now, but maybe, maybe I'll want to cut it from Thursday to save more time for the interviews that I'm pledging aren't going to be two-parters now. So, all right, please give me your feedback. I think this will be a cool thing going forward because I can comment every week on something new, something different, and I can get your reaction as well. Thank you so much for listening to Atheistically Speaking, and I will see you on Thursday.