jookerson

Meg is quite interesting. I was worried at first when she had trouble contributing but it's always nice to hear an introvert speak out so you can learn about their unique inner monologue.

Richard was an excellent guest but I have to counter a few points on sovereign (govt) debt. First of all, Kyle believes that we owe the majority of our debt to China when in fact they have only 8% of our debt (Link). We owe the vast majority to ourselves. Second, personal debt is not like sovereign debt for a number of reasons; 1) if collectors want to collect, they have to go through our military. An individual has no such protections. 2) We can print money temporarily. This can drive up the debt further, but it can also deflate the value of the US dollar, and since other countries hold our debt in the dollar it reduces our foreign liabilities. This is also a temporary measure, and temporary inflation is utterly harmless. 3) A debtor's CREDIBILITY is the most important factor when it comes to sovereign debt. The US isn't at risk to collapse at any moment, we're still the richest and most powerful country in the world, so lenders have faith in us. It's the difference between lending to Bill Gates and the average american. Greece is a great counterexample where they LIED about their debt for years so creditors lost faith and their economy collapsed.

Is David's girlfriend Christina Ochoa? Did I call it?

Here's a link to the Nerdist episode with Cara. She's a neuroscientist and atheist so she could talk to a number of interesting topics.

Negatory. Womp it up.

David Silverman seems open to coming on the show.

To sort of settle some of David's questions about atheism since he seems to think about it a lot, you should have David Silverman on either in person or over the phone. He's the president of the American Atheists and he's very smart and has a sense of humor so I think it would be one of your best episodes.

Sorry for hijacking this thread but wow Sisapis made so many errors in a statement directed specifically at me, so I'll keep it as short as possible: Since you didn't listen to the episode much of your comment doesn't even make sense. David said that atheists tend to 'have a limited knowledge of science', that why I linked to statistical evidence that at the very least, a solid majority of the people who have the most in depth knowledge of science are atheists. I never said being an atheist makes you a scientist. The Dawkins 'scientific approach' to atheism-which you are obviously unfamiliar with-just means that you are not a '7', or 'dogmatic' atheist- just as science never fully proves something, it only builds evidence that can always be contradicted by new evidence. Nothing to do with 'being a scientist,' it's about the willingness to change your mind. Dawkins is an eminent biologist from Oxford, take five minutes to read through his wiki since you don't know his work. But you're referencing the person rather than their argument, which is just poor argumentation. I know that the BBT and Evolution were developed by deeply religious people (and Newton wrote more about religion than science.) This is not evidence for anything. If you think it is, again that's just poor argumentation since good science depends on the methods and the evidence not, bizarrely, the religious affiliation of the scientist... As for the rest of your comment, you didn't actually listen to the episode so you didn't hear them specifically talk about believing in 'God' and a 'creator.' that's why I reference a patriarchal figure. Next time listen to the episode before you comment.

Also as for David's point about atheists not being scientists, over 72% of the National Academy of Sciences express disbelief in a god, and another 20% express agnosticism (link). I and I think most atheists take the view put forth by richard dawkins of disbelief at a level of 6 on a scale of 1-7. The evidence for a god is poor, and theories like the big bang and evolution show the tendency for things to develop from simplicity to complexity, not the other way around. But if convincing opposing evidence were discovered I would be enthralled just like anyone else and I know that there is an infinite amount of things that we don't know. But simplifying that vast realm of the unknown into a simplistic patriarchal 'god' figure-a concept that was conceived of during more primitive times-just doesn't make sense to me.

Wow Christina was really impressive, and she's only 26. She had all the answers and explained them really clearly, so much so that she clarified a few concepts that I had read about but never really understood. Also David and Christina make a good couple *wink*