The Atheist Experience

In today’s episode of The Atheist Experience, hosts Justin (Deconstruction Zone) and Richard Gilliver seek evidence for God, diving into philosophical arguments, biblical contradictions, and the flaws in theological defenses. The hosts challenge callers to step up their game, urging them to drop the evasions and present solid justification for their faith.Joe in OR, an atheist, asks how to debate various denominations about unfalsifiable claims without being antagonistic. Richard stresses the importance of gaining experience and being humble enough to say "I don't know" rather than risking incorrect biblical arguments. The hosts agree that avoiding errors maintains trust for future dialogue. Is experience the only way to refine the subtle skills needed for secular discourse?Jim in MO, an agnostic, presents Homer Simpson's classic rebuttal to Pascal’s Wager. The argument fails because it ignores all other gods, potentially sending the wagerer to an Islamic or Greek Hell instead of the Christian one. The hosts agree this standard counter-apologetic is effective for exposing theological hypocrisy. Why do theists assume everyone defaults to the Christian god concept?Adam in NC, an agnostic, asks why Stephen was martyred for the same ideas Paul later preached, noting that Paul was at Stephen's execution. Justin explains Paul’s ministry focused on Gentiles outside Jewish strongholds, minimizing conflict with elites. Adam also questions Paul’s conversion story due to contradictory accounts in Acts. Do internal biblical contradictions undermine Paul as a reliable source?Good Question in WA contends atheists incorrectly concede that all morality is subjective, arguing objective morals are based on objective causes. Justin pushes back, arguing that morals are mind-dependent; if all minds ceased to exist, so would morals. Objective means and measures for adhering to a subjective framework do not make the framework itself objective. Why insist on transcendental objective morality if the system relies on conscious receivers?Patrick in FL claims atheism is nihilism and just another faith, as atheists cannot define what evidence for God would be. Richard challenges Patrick on why he uses a different name every week and dismisses his assertion that he neither believes nor disbelieves as dishonest. The hosts demand Patrick present evidence for his God-belief, which he fails to produce before the call is abruptly ended. Why do some theists conflate atheism with nihilism?The Supreme Leader in CO asks, hypothetically, if God's existence (the first mover) was proven, why atheists wouldn't follow him, citing his tyrannical nature. Justin focuses on failed biblical prophecies, demonstrating how quotes are taken out of context (e.g., Isaiah 7's "virgin birth"). Richard applauds the caller’s maturity for listening to the context. Does belief in a God compel moral submission to that God? Thank you for tuning in this week! We will see you next time!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

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

In today’s episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Godless Engineer dismantle claims regarding prerequisites for end-times prophecy and critically analyze an English teacher's grammatical objections to using singular "they/them" pronouns.Anson in gerrymandered anuses asserts end times prophecy required the 1948 rebirth of Israel, arguing Paul was mistaken about Christ's imminent return. Hosts critique this "going out of business" scheme, asking why God is constrained by geopolitics and human evil. They reject the claim that atrocities like the Holocaust could be "worth it" for salvation. Why must suffering precede divine intervention?Jason in misanthropic orangutans, an English teacher, objects to singular "they/them" usage on rigid grammatical grounds, preferring "one" or "we." Hosts note that singular "they" has been standard since the 1300s, citing the Oxford English Dictionary. They argue that refusing a requested pronoun in favor of using a person's name is unnecessarily difficult, dismissive of their identity, and driven by personal comfort. Is linguistic conformity more important than human respect?Thank you for watching this chaotic episode. We are back next week, Sundays at 4:30 p.m. Central Standard 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 Godless Engineer tackle the pervasive threat of Christian nationalism and the historical evidence (or lack thereof) for Jesus. They also dive into challenging calls questioning whether intellectual inquiry is necessary for belief and celebrate a caller's successful deconstruction into secular community.Robert in WI argued intellectual inquiry is useless for finding God, claiming belief is primarily emotional and universal. The hosts questioned why objective truth regarding God's existence should exclude rational methods used everywhere else. Is intellectual honesty only reserved for non-religious claims?Mary in NC updated the hosts on her long deconstruction, noting that realizing the creation story was a myth finally clinched her atheism, ending 17 years of guilt. She now enjoys freedom and thriving secular community through painting classes and events. Does community without indoctrination offer a better foundation for life?Gigi in NC questioned why preachers avoid discussing harmful Bible content, asking if they are ignorant or intentionally deceitful. SR and GE explained that many religious authorities lack deep theological knowledge, sticking only to scripted, surface-level narratives about Jesus. Are preachers equipped to address difficult biblical passages truthfully?Thank you for joining us this week! The Atheist Experience will be back next Sunday at 4:30 p.m. Central Time.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

In today's highly charged episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Jimmy Jr. dive into the concept of learned helplessness and the vital need for resistance and defiance against systemic injustice and trauma. They challenge callers on the evolutionary origin of meaning and morality, and wrestle with the difficulties of engaging in rational debate with those who redefine terms to avoid definitive answers.Jeff in LA believes human curiosity is an evolved trait that explains the search for meaning and the rise of religion. The hosts agree that early religion was a "first attempt at science," offering quick answers and evolving into a societal "domestication tool" for control. Can curiosity drive meaning without dogma?Anatoly in NY posits that people leave religion due to misunderstanding biblical definitions. The hosts found it impossible to debate, as he offered confusing, constantly shifting definitions of God (e.g., "social structure" plus "physical world"). They challenged him on God's immorality, specifically citing biblical commands for slavery. Forrest criticized his profound inability to answer simple, direct questions. Why does he avoid defining his belief clearly?Thank you for tuning in this week! Jimmy Jr. encourages believers to "do better" and challenge them with substantive arguments next time. Thank you to the crew, producers, and mods who make the show possible. 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, Dr. Ben and Scott Dickie of Talk Heathen stage a friendly takeover, fielding calls on the nature of reality, mathematics, and divine revelation! From philosophical deep dives into *a priori* knowledge to the challenges of grappling with infinity, this episode puts logic and the burden of proof center stage.Zeno from the International Space Station begins by mentioning intelligent design but quickly pivots to telling the hosts they have faith. Identifying as agnostic, he insists atheists claim God's non-existence. Dr. Ben and Scott challenge him to state his own beliefs rather than misrepresenting theirs, but when he fails to engage productively, what will become of the conversation?Donald in LA presents a complex philosophical argument for God, blending concepts from Aristotle, Plato, and others, suggesting that the effectiveness of mathematics points to a prescriptive cosmic consciousness. Scott counters that math is merely a descriptive language humans created to model observed universal patterns. With the conversation delving into *a priori* knowledge, can Donald defend his premise without relying on observation?Ken in MI struggles to comprehend an infinite past and future, and the concept of a universe without time. Scott simplifies infinity as the consistent existence of a "yesterday" and a "tomorrow." Ken then asks if it is wrong for an atheist to find comfort in reading religious texts, leading to a discussion about appreciating literature without accepting its claims. Where does one draw the line?Jim in MO proposes that the atheist's burden of proof is analogous to a defense attorney's: simply demonstrating reasonable doubt in the theist's claim. The hosts largely agree but refine the analogy, emphasizing that the burden lies solely with the claimant, and the non-believer has no obligation at all. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden, what is the correct verdict to reach?Miller in MI expresses that religion can lead down a dark path and shares a personal conflict: he holds a belief against having children before marriage, a value from his religious past that now causes friction in his dating life. The hosts differentiate between personal boundaries for a partner and imposing universal moral rules on others. How can one navigate personal values rooted in past dogma?Sheldon in NY shares his personal testimony that Jesus is God, based on a voice he claims has spoken to him for over 50 years, providing guidance and predictions. The hosts challenge the reliability of this subjective experience, highlighting auditory hallucinations and conflicting claims from other religions. Faced with a contradiction between his claim to value truth and his unfalsifiable belief, what will he choose?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.

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

In today’s Atheist Experience, Justin and Jim Barrows dissect the flimsy foundations of faith, critique the peculiar "design" of the human body, and explore the logical leaps required to uphold belief in the face of scientific understanding. They challenge callers on everything from deconstruction guilt and family relationships to questionable links between Kabbalah and quantum physics.Mary Cate in NC is working through deconstruction and feels guilty, missing her religious community. The hosts suggest building new secular communities and emphasize that maintaining family relationships without endorsing beliefs is not dishonest. What steps can one take to navigate these complex social dynamics?Ben in KS, an agnostic, questions if science’s inability to explain "spirituality" or deeper layers of existence leaves room for God, citing particle-wave duality. Hosts challenge him to define which God and argue that naturalistic explanations, supported by Occam's Razor, remain the most coherent approach. If a God is added, how does one explain that God's grounding?Daisy in WA asks if dogmatic religions can be disproven, unlike deism. Justin and Jim provide numerous examples of internal contradictions within the Bible and the Quran, highlighting scientific errors and failed prophecies. How do these internal inconsistencies challenge the claims of divine inspiration?Hannah claims that modern physics, specifically the concept of ten dimensions and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, provides evidence for Kabbalah and an unknowable Godhead. The hosts dismiss these as coincidental numerical matches and misrepresentations of scientific principles without testable evidence. Why do such parallels, without supporting evidence, often amount to pareidolia?Benji, a theist, discusses the point of converting atheists if worship is subjective and brings up the "terra fallacy" regarding insufficient evidence. The hosts clarify the distinction between belief and worship, stating that objective evidence of God's existence would be compelling, unlike failed prophecies. What kind of evidence would be universally convincing for existence, but not necessarily for worship?Jim in MO asks if free will truly exists with an omniscient, omnipotent God. Justin and Jim explain that while omniscience alone doesn't negate free will, combining it with omnipotence creates a problem of predetermination and the problem of evil. Does God's ultimate power mean our choices are merely part of a divine plan?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 thought-provoking episode of The Atheist Experience, Forrest Valkai and Deconstruction Zone Justin dive into the persistence of bad arguments, the misinterpretation of scientific findings, and the profound impact of beliefs on personal and societal well-being.Rook in NY posits that belief in God isn't inherently bad, suggesting that in a "perfect world," individuals could hold such beliefs privately without negative consequences. Justin and Forrest counter that religious beliefs inevitably influence behavior and policy, citing historical examples of religiously motivated oppression and arguing that even private beliefs can hinder personal growth and societal progress, as beliefs don't stay in a vacuum. Rook ultimately acknowledges his point's shortcomings upon deeper scrutiny. What are the broader implications of beliefs that remain unchallenged?Simone in United Kingdom presents a syllogism, arguing that if thoughts are part of reality and we think God exists, then God exists as part of that reality. The hosts challenge this, asking if imagining a creature means it truly exists, and if this is a genuine reason for belief or a fear of hell. Simone reveals she is still in the early stages of deconstructing her Christian upbringing and has more questions than answers. How does one navigate a deconstruction journey when fundamental beliefs are questioned?Brisbane in AZ questions satanic atheism, claiming an AI overview suggests it promotes self-indulgence and a rejection of altruism. Forest refutes this by reading the Satanic Temple’s actual tenets, which include compassion and justice, and critiques Brisbane's reliance on inaccurate AI summaries over primary sources. The discussion highlights the dangers of trusting AI for complex information and the importance of critical thinking in evaluating belief systems. What role should AI play in informing one's understanding of complex philosophical or religious concepts?Robert in GA challenges the hosts on Jesus's fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and asserts that the complexity of life necessitates a creator, claiming the Big Bang violates thermodynamics. Justin explains how Robert's cited prophecies are taken out of context and not messianic, while Forest refutes the scientific claims, pointing to evolution and the accurate understanding of thermodynamics. The hosts urge Robert to engage with actual scientific and biblical scholarship rather than relying on misinformed arguments. How do individuals overcome ingrained misinformation when seeking truth?Hindu in India argues that consciousness, rather than emerging from the brain, is an ultimate reality of the universe, aligning with the Vedic concept of Brahman. Justin and Forest press for empirical evidence, pointing to how brain modifications alter personality, contradicting the idea of consciousness as an external driver. The hosts emphasize that materialism offers an evidence-based framework for consciousness, while idealism often relies on presuppositions. What scientific breakthroughs would truly bridge the gap between materialist and idealist views of consciousness?Robin in FL shares a family claim that a "spark of life" at conception, supposedly visible during horse breeding, proves the existence of a soul. Justin and Forest clarify that this "spark" is a scientific observation of zinc release during fertilization, not a visible soul, often misinterpreted from studies on mice. They question the logical extensions of this argument, such as mice having souls, and the implications for asexual reproduction. How do scientific findings become distorted and adopted into religious or spiritual narratives?Chris in KS raises the question of circular reasoning in Old Testament prophecies applied to Jesus, particularly Isaiah 7. Justin affirms this circularity, explaining that such prophecies often require secondary interpretations not supported by their original context, challenging the criteria for true prophecy. Forest then discusses gender, distinguishing it from sex as a fluid, socially constructed spectrum not bound by a binary, and encourages self-reflection for deeper understanding. How can an individual reconcile deeply held religious beliefs with evolving scientific and social understandings?Thank you so much Richard for being here thank you Forest and thank you crew we'll see you again next week uh same time same place 5:30 uh Eastern time 4:30 Central time bye!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

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

Believe in God? Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-991-9242 or use your computer 💻 http://tiny.cc/callaxp and tell us what you believe and why!We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: https://www.patreon.com/theatheistexperience►Podcast versions of the show may be found at: https://www.spreaker.com/show/theatheistexperience► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: http://bit.ly/aenmerch► Become a YouTube member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCprs0DXUS-refN1i8FkQkdg/join► Join the ACA Fan Discord: https://tiny.cc/acadiscordVISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITE http://www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin) TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA. The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.Opening Theme: Shelley Segal "Saved" http://www.shelleysegal.com/ Limited use license by Shelley Segal Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal Copyright © 1997-2025 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Forrest Valkai, Secular Rarity, and The Cross Examiner, later joined by JMike and Objectively Dan, dive into complex discussions on the nature of evidence for God's existence, the reliability of personal experience in validating supernatural claims, and the logical coherence of philosophical arguments for a divine being. They confront callers with critical analysis, aiming to clarify the distinctions between belief, reason, and empirical reality.Orrick in Mexico argues atheism is fallacious, ignoring human experiences, citing a prayer-answered "blue line" guiding him. Hosts assert personal anecdotes are unreliable, suggesting natural explanations like the brain's problem-solving. How do we distinguish genuine divine intervention from subjective interpretation in stressful situations?cCaleb in "Wallaby Armpits" (WA), a Catholic, presents the argument that God is "existence itself" and the "unmoved mover," influenced by Thomas Aquinas. Hosts critique this philosophical approach as conflating concepts and lacking empirical basis, highlighting the need for real-world evidence. Can complex philosophical arguments for a necessary being truly lead to a specific, interacting God?Our Executive Producer Greg James asks the hosts some fun and insightful questions.Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!Believe in God? Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-991-9242 or use your computer 💻 http://tiny.cc/callaxp and tell us what you believe and why!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

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

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

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 JMike dive into various arguments for belief, including personal, historical, and philosophical claims, challenging callers to define their terms and defend their positions against logical scrutiny and internal contradictions. They also explore the practical applications of critical thinking in constructing a secular moral framework.Marianne in NJ calls in to present personal experience, scientific, and historical evidence for Christianity, focusing on the Bible's supposed singular narrative written over 1500 years by 40 writers. The hosts challenge this idea with the Documentary Hypothesis, noting the Bible's internal contradictions, and quickly identify her reasoning as circular. They question the utility of her "Google this" approach and dismiss her car crash analogy as not representative of the Gospels' discrepancies. Why does the God of the Bible continue to be described as loving when his actions are anything but?Sam in AZ initially seeks to discuss scientific and historic arguments for God, but quickly pivots to advocating for a "general theism" and then the ontological argument. The hosts challenge the coherence of arguing for a God about whom nothing is known, using a "bare designer" analogy to highlight the lack of predictive power in such a vague concept. They press him to provide a specific version of the ontological argument, which he struggles to articulate clearly. What distinguishes a "general theism" from other unsubstantiated claims?  Unable to actually carry on an intelligent conversation, Sam resorts to racial and anti-lgbtq+ slurs before rage quitting, but thanks to the magic of editing, you won’t hear the slurs! We did however leave in the hosts justified ridicule of this immature tactic.  You're welcome!Rich in CT questions the Council of Nicaea, believing it's where "the whole Jesus bullshit started" and wonders why it isn't discussed more. Hosts explain that while the Council does not inherently disprove Christianity, its historical context should invite skepticism. They note that many self-professed Christians are not knowledgeable on this history and recommend Bart Ehrman's work for deeper insight. Can historical skepticism lead to a more honest understanding of religious origins?Watcher in PA presents life, love, and goodness as evidence for God. Focusing on "God is love" from 1 Corinthians 13:4, the hosts construct a modus tollens argument, contrasting this definition of love with God's actions in the Bible, such as commanding the slaughter of innocent infants. They highlight the special pleading involved in Watcher's justification of such acts as "judgment," challenging him to admit the contradiction inherent in his definition of love. Does the Bible's portrayal of God align with any consistent definition of love?Lord in CA introduces his secular moral framework called "compression logic," which aims to ethically remove contradictions from systems by focusing on reducing suffering, recognizing all variables, preserving existence, and allowing mobility. The hosts question the foundational basis for these four moral pillars, discussing the long-standing debate between moral realism and anti-realism. They also push for a more precise definition of "collapse" in his framework, differentiating between tangible and conceptual failures, and suggest exploring the works of Immanuel Kant and constructivism. Can a moral framework truly avoid collapse if its foundational principles are not universally accepted or clearly defined?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, Forrest Valkai and Jim Barrows dive into heated discussions surrounding the definition of God, the complexities of biblical morality, and the human search for purpose, challenging callers on logical consistency and the practical implications of their beliefs.Will in the UK claims that if God isn't real, nothing is, defining God as "that which has authority of all things" and later equating it to "truth" or "objective reality." Hosts challenge the idea of "truth" having "authority" or "governance," pointing out the vagueness and the caller's confusion between a map and the territory. Can an abstract concept dictate reality?Patrick in "Flying Lemurs" (FL) suggests atheists can't go wrong by following Jesus' command to love one another, referencing 1 Corinthians. Hosts question the practical application of this vague definition of love, asking if kindness can sometimes be impatient. Why should one rely on a book that also condones slavery and genocide for moral guidance?Watcher 215 asks about "information" in biology, hinting at Stephen Meyer's intelligent design argument. Hosts dismantle Meyer's flawed definition of information, explaining that random processes can produce information and arguing that DNA, if designed, is "horribly bad." They also highlight the logical contradiction in God simultaneously keeping and not keeping a record of wrongs.Mike in "Scuttling Crabs" (SC) disagrees with Jim's interpretation of "love is not proud" from 1 Corinthians. Hosts reiterate the biblical verse's vagueness, arguing it's uselessly general for practical life. They also critique the King James Version for deliberately misrepresenting words like "slave" as "servant," questioning the Bible's reliability as a moral guide.Joshua in Arizona asks if we need God to be moral, leading to a discussion on the problem of evil and God's condonation of slavery and genocide in the Bible. Hosts press Joshua on how an "all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing" God can exist in a world with immense suffering, suggesting such a God is not worth worshipping.Owen in Canada questions how atheists find purpose without eternal life or intrinsic meaning. Hosts explain optimistic nihilism, where individuals create their own purpose, and attribute the drive to survive to evolution. They challenge the caller's argument from ignorance, asserting that personal meaning does not necessitate a divine source.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.

Show notes will be posted upon receipt.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Welcome to The Atheist Experience 29.25 with Jmike and Seth Andrews @TheThinkingAtheist and Special Guest, Godless Engineer! This week, your hosts dive into some thought-provoking discussions about morality, belief, and the challenges of open dialogue.This episode kicks off with a powerful monologue about the very nature of good and evil, challenging the idea that everything, even atrocities, could be justified as part of a "greater good" or a consequence of free will. The segment questions the coherence of concepts like sin and atonement if all events are ultimately part of a divine plan. Guest host Seth Andrews then shares insights into his background and experience, including a look back at his past as a Christian radio broadcaster. He also reflects on the importance of extending grace to those with differing beliefs, advocating against demeaning or superior attitudes towards religious individuals.Drew from California calls in to discuss the challenges of managing temper and emotions when engaging with people who hold opposing views. The conversation explores a specific incident where a friend, despite knowing Drew's skeptical stance, sent him astrology content, leading to a breakdown in communication and a feeling of disrespect. The hosts and caller delve into the dynamics of setting and respecting personal boundaries in conversations about deeply held beliefs.Jim from Missouri raises questions about the resurrection story, presenting arguments that it is a complete fabrication. He challenges the traditional biblical narrative of Jesus's burial, positing that crucified individuals were typically left unburied or thrown into mass graves, rather than being placed in tombs. The discussion extends to the broader lack of contemporary historical evidence for Jesus's existence and the reliability of biblical accounts when proving biblical claims.A theist caller, Shabbaz, asks where atheists get their morals and why they often seem disrespectful or condescending. Seth answers the first part by explaining evolved ethics and pro-social behaviors as a basis for morality. The conversation then delves into Shabbaz's reasons for believing in Allah, including a "falsification test" from the Quran and supposed "scientific miracles" related to bees and honey. The hosts challenge these claims, questioning the criteria for such tests and highlighting historical knowledge that predates the Quran regarding honey and bee behavior. The discussion also unpacks why some atheists might express frustration or disrespect in such conversations, often stemming from repeated, vague arguments.Finally, John from New Hampshire calls in to discuss the historical existence of Jesus, prompting a nuanced conversation about what kind of evidence is sought for such claims. The hosts and caller explore the idea of a "minimal historical Jesus" and the challenges of relying on common names or biblical accounts for historical proof. The call culminates with the hosts sharing their own "pause moments" – instances where their beliefs were genuinely challenged, leading to deeper inquiry and a strengthening of their skeptical positions, including Jmike's pivotal experience with Flat Earth theory.Thank you for watching and listening to The Atheist Experience!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

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