September 28, 2016

Truth Jihad radio with Kevin Barrett 2016.09.28

Greg Felton argues with Kevin Barrett about religion

Greg Felton is a former mainstream journalist who made the (career) mistake of looking too closely at "third rail" topics like Zionism and 9/11. He is the author of The Host and the Parasite: How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America.

I agree with Greg on most political topics; but since he is an atheist, and I am Muslim, we obviously disagree about religion. Do we ever! Listen and see if you don't agree.

Bonus: This interview features some hardcore rants against the technological matrix that imprisons us. Let's hope NSA/CIA/DHS doesn't turned over its "kill list" authority to an AI program, since any decent AI kill-list program that "listens" to this show will quickly send in the death drones.

Kevin's blog

24k CF Download

Download From


Sketchy 1 said...

Typical religious nonsense. Kevin the religion guy argues as all religious morons argue the same crap all

the time my god is better, my god is the best ect. Thanks Greg for putting LOGIC into the equation.

One more time, get rid of all religion then and only then will this planet ever move toward reality.

micktherighteousgentile said...

Wow ! A conversation between Kevin who ignores the history of Mohammad and Greg who believes in his own absolute wisdom.

Erik Paul said...

...almost as entertaining as the Barrett/Fester tussle.

Greg Felton said...

Mick: I never professed absolute wisdom. I just pointed out that Kevin's claim of God's existence was entirely circular and subjective. I have no problem with someone saying "I believe that God exists" but I cannot accept someone saying "God exists." God cannot exist, as I pointed out, because the Big Bang, which is sui generis, created space and time. It is impossible to speak of anything before the Big Bang, and that includes God or "consciousness" because by definition they do not "exist."

God is a derivative, metaphysical postulate that has no causal quality whatsoever.

Erik Paul said...

OK, so we can say the "Big Bang" created the world but we can't say "God" did. I guess all we need to do then is re-name the "Big Bang" "God."

I resonate with Joe Campbell saying "God is a mystery beyond all human research."

Greg Felton said...

Sorry, Erik, but that doesn't work. The Big Bang is a physical event. "God" is not a physical entity. Also, there is no morality associated with a purely mechanistic event like the Big Bang. Those who invoke "god" do so to claim moral purpose or "design".

I am a big fan of Campbell, too, but he makes the error of making a positivistic claim about "god," thus placing him in a position that is logically superior to "god." He is also wrong in another sense because human research has successfully shown that "god" cannot exist. It is better to take Campbell's statement as a commentary on the wonder of existence. In short, "god" is an empty concept that cannot advance our understanding of anything.

It is up to believers to prove that "god" exists, but to do so would strip "god" of any divine qualities. Therefore, it is a losing proposition.

micktherighteousgentile said...

Greg. . I have no problem with someone saying I cannot believe that God exists, but I also cannot accept someone saying 'God does not exist' or 'God cannot exist' !.

Erik Paul said...

Actually, Greg, I was being facetious with that first comment.

One problem is that there has never been and there can never be a consensus as to the definition of the term "God." Is God some sort of corporeal entity?, some rarefied plasma?, or how about the sum-total of all that is. It has a different meaning for everyone. You can't have any kind of meaningful discussion if you can't even agree on what the hell you're talking about...and you certainly can't say that the undefineable cannot exist. Like Campbell says, its an unknowable mystery.

As for the Big Bang, its theoretical, not an incontrovertible fact.

Each of us lives in his own Platonic Cave and all he will ever apprehend are the shadows. External reality, whatever it may be, is in the last analysis, unknowable. I think a little humility is in order.

Greg Felton said...

To some degree I can agree with you but you fail the logic test. The burden of proof is on those who allege that "God" exists. To date no evidence has been advanced. Instead, all we have are airy-fairy metaphors like "the sum total of being," "consciousness" of something equally undefinable.

I can state that "god" does not exist and prove my case logically. You may not accept it but that doesn't matter. The very act of "proving god" disproves its divinity.

There is much we don't know and may never know, but postulating "god" id at best useless and at worst arrogant. It is a synonym for ignorance.

The best you can do is appeal for tolerance, but I have no tolerance for false arguments.

Finally, your dismissal of the Big Bang is inadmissible. It has been found by examining evidence. You cannot finish it withdrew the same blithe smugness ax Christian zealots denigrate evolution.

micktherighteousgentile said...

I inhabit a planet which exhibits intelligent design everywhere I look, however, when I conclude that therefore, there must be an intelligent designer I'm told I must be a religious nutjob who believes in ancient fairy tales, and that science has disproven such nonsense. When I then ask what do these scientists believe, I'm told, 'There was nothing, then there was a big bang, then there was everything !. It seems to me that both options require 'faith'. The old saying seems appropriate "Worldly wisdom is foolishness to God". I could be wrong though about all this !.....

Count Folke Bernadotte said...

Mick, your mistake is in your first sentence: "I inhabit a planet which exhibits intelligent design everywhere I look." This is a fallacy because it begs the existence of an intelligent designer, which cannot be proven. Your post is a tautology: using an assumed effect to prove a cause. Sorry, but the idea that the world looks AS IF it were designed does not prove god's existence.

hew concept of the Big Bang does contain an element of faith, but it is a rational faith, not a religious one.