103.9 FM, WZO Radio, Knoxville. Ladies and gentlemen, Digital Freethought Radio Hour. Hello and welcome to Digital Freethought Radio Hour on WZO Radio 103.9 LP FM, right here in Knoxville, Tennessee. Today is October 4th, 2020, on Larry Rhodes or Dowder 5. And as usual, we have our co-host Wombat on the phone with us. Hello, Wombat. The roses are red. Violets are blue. Trump has COVID. My thoughts and prayers to you. Oh, especially prayers. Yeah, all my thoughts and prayers. Every single last drop. Just squeeze it out. And I guess today are Dread Pirate Higgs, George, and Red Leader. Welcome. Digital Freethought Radio Hour is a talk radio show about atheism, free thought, rational thought, humanism, and the sciences. And conversely, we also talk about religion, religious faiths, gods, holy books, and superstition. And if you get the feeling that you're the only non-believer in Knoxville or each Tennessee, well, you're just not. There are several atheists, free thinking, and rationalist groups that exist right here in Knoxville. And we'll be telling you how you can connect with them right after the mid-show breaks. Also, did you know that there was a streaming atheist calling video show broadcasting here from Knoxville? It has been for over 10 years now. Yeah. Yeah.  And I'm like, you have some of the best martial artists using all the different fighting styles. Yes, they're fighting in a cage. But like, listen, it's really, really hard to do that punching and grappling and jiu-jitsu and all that stuff. It's really cool. So I would check it. I would recommend to check it out. We need to put them on zero boxes. I will. But it's not the show that we're talking about. It's not an atheist calling streaming video. But we'll tell you more about how you can watch that after the mid-show break. And even maybe get involved with it. If you'd like to interact with us during the show, go to Facebook, search for a digital free thought radio hour, and use the messaging function to send us any comments or questions. Wombad, what's your topic today? I don't need evidence to believe in God. That's a topic today. But before we jump into it, how about we lead it to our own Dred Pirate Higgs for our weekly invocation? Well, I haven't been working on Limerick lately. I just got back from up north. But I do have a quote from Christopher Hitchens, which is kind of related to what we're talking about today. Religion is not the belief in a God. Religion is the belief that God tells you what to do. Now, deism isn't really a religion, per se. And that's a belief in God. It's not the theism, per se. But Dale has more experience in that than I would. He might be able to speak to it. Speaking of which, why don't we go around the table? Oh, I forgot to say, we've got to lead us on the final ramen, Dred Pirate. Ramen. Okay, okay. So how about we do a walkthrough? Dale, you might want to help us out for new listeners. What is deism and is it a religion? Yes, it's a religion. It's a recognized religion is classified as one. It has some differences to it. For example, we do not embrace tax-free religious privileges. It's a belief that there is a God, but he doesn't do anything. And we, well, as a matter of fact, I guess I should announce it now. And I know this is going to disturb Larry because he's really worked on me for years. We must have had, what, one or two conversations about deism versus atheism. One or two whole conversations. Oh, my gosh. I doubt I'd get upset. Go ahead. So, I'm afraid I've got to disappoint you with what with everything going on. I've realized that during the founding of our country, there were a lot of deists of which I turned my back on in recent weeks. And now I'm beginning to miss my friends. And now I realize that our democracy is in huge, huge trouble. And, in fact, we may lose it. And I would really hate for this fine deist experiment to go down in flames without there being at least one of us there to go down with it. Therefore, I am officially returning backsliding to deism. And when the country goes down, there will be at least one of us. It was either that or change your name to John Hancock.  George, how are you feeling? I've never had a problem with deism. I mean, they don't have any dogma. They don't cause any real problems in the country. So, welcome back. Thank you. George, you're looking splendid. You're at a higher frame rate and better clarity than I've ever seen you before. What's going on with you? Well, my former computer has crashed. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I went to a website that attacked my system. And so I'm back on a real computer this time. The one that I used to be on is my beater computer. It's the one that I really beat around. And this is a more serious machine, so everything is different. I just got it running now. I mean, just for this meeting. Nice. So everything is strange. Everything is a brand new setup, basically. Well, it's a brand new used computer. I never used new computers anymore. Okay, okay, okay. Fair enough. Yeah, it works. Anyone who's watching the video play of this, Joe, we're just coming in at near 4K quality. Like, I feel like I can reach into all the textures on his forehead and just dip my fingers into them. Really, really nice. So we got some new folks here. Eric, you just joined us. How you been for the last week? Hey, pretty good. Yeah. Welcome, Boudreau. Yeah. Welcome to our Boudreau. Looking good. Also, Jake, with the face mask on and everything. Man, it's good to see you. How you been? I've been fantastic. Cool. How is the life of coffee shops? Is it like a bustling business? Super busy back there. It looks like everyone's enjoying themselves. Yeah, it's super busy. Thank you very much. Yeah, I ordered brunch toast. It's a little bit more than a coffee shop I found out. It's a brunch and lunch place. Nice, nice, nice. Wow, look at you. Okay, that is the... Being in a digital free thought radio hour podcast while in a brunch lunch place is the most...  Yeah, how do you do that? Slowly. I'm eating it on for a little while until I get my food. What city are you in, Jake? Where are you coming from? Missouri. What Missouri? Springfield, Missouri. Okay. I just wonder where our reporting was from. Isn't that where they filmed The Simpsons? Sure. It was one of the contenders. Sure it was. All right. So now I'm moving it up to our own Judd Pirate Higgs. How have you been? What's the legal turnaround? How are you feeling? So I showed up at court but had failed unbeknownst to me to file what was called a notice of hearing. And so the master was not even aware that the case was at hand. And so I've had to reschedule to sometime in November, week of the 16th of November. So... Okay. But a part of finding that out is that the lawyer friend that I've been consulting with, I can request of the master to have him sit at my table as a consultant, who can whisper in my ear and shuffle papers, can point his finger at different things on the table. He can't speak, but as a retired lawyer, he can certainly intimidate. Yeah. So I'm looking forward to that. Yeah. November is not too far away from here either. It's not. Yeah. That's not too bad. That's not too bad. You also said you went up north, which I thought was funny because it's like, how much more north is there after Canada? North Pole? Like Alaska? Like where else can you go? Where else can you go? Halfway up. So I'm at the very bottom of British Columbia. I'm just giving you a bad... I'm giving you a bad time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't mean that seriously. Tyrone, he's right. He's right at the Montana border. I know. I know some geography. I could do that good. So... Okay. Sorry. I just wanted to hear Dred Pirate say reschedule again one more time. Yeah. Reschedule? Yeah. I love it. I love it. I like saying schedule sometimes, too. And we say roof is not rough. I don't agree with that. Oh. Okay. You've lost your privileges, Dred Pirate. Larry, how you been? It's good to see you. Oh, no. His volume is out. What's going on? Okay. So there you go. No, I'm doing fine. Everything's cool. Just spending a lot of time on Facebook and playing World of Warcraft. I'm retired now. Speaking of Facebook, I heard you saw some really interesting comments made on Facebook that you might be wanting to talk about. Yeah. It kind of got this topic started. A guy said, I made a post that said science says that never once has the answer been magic. And I posted the meme. Guy came back to me and said, yeah, well, that's a claim. The claim that there's never been magic is a normal. And I tried to go back to him several times saying, no, it's just they can't claim that they cannot investigate magic because there's never been any instance of supernatural entities or things that they could investigate. Right. And he started coming back to me. And no, I went back to him and said, okay, well, what about all these claims of Christianity? And I, I listed 27 claims that I have on another meme. And he says, I don't make any claims about Christianity. I just believe. Yeah. So like basically he's saying like, hey, I'm not saying Christianity is true. I'm just saying I believe in Christianity or I believe in the Bible. I'm not saying anything Bible is true. Yeah. And the thing about it is, you know, he might be the one person who says that or maybe even 10 or 12, but every preacher makes these claims. Every authority of Christianity makes these claims that a soul exists, the heaven exists, the hell exists, sin exists. One thing after another that God can mate with a human and have a hybrid child. Just one thing after another, all these claims, supernatural extraordinary claims. And he's saying, we don't make any claims. Yeah. That's just dumb. So I want to clarify the delicious part of what he said because he's not saying the Bible doesn't make claims. He's saying the Bible does make claims, but being a Christian doesn't mean that you have to believe that they're true. You just have to believe the claims. You don't have to say that you don't have to repeat the claim. Yeah. You just like, hey, I'm not saying whether or not it's true. I'm just saying as a Christian, I believe whatever this book tells me. And that is an interesting thing. I find it to be potentially dangerous because what if the Bible said something really, really bad? Or what if a person had a holy book that says some really horrendous things about how to deal with it? Like you should kill Gaze or something? Oh, well, I don't think anyone would ever write that down in a holy book. But yeah, in the grand hypothetical sense, yes, yes, possibility.  Equally improbable. I want to go around the table. I want to think about I'm trying to format like a really easy question. But like, can you be a Christian and not believe and and and also not believe anything that's in the Bible? But just no, he does believe it. He just doesn't claim that it's true. He doesn't claim that it's true. So can you be a Christian and and say you believe the Bible, but also not believe that it's actually true? Or there's something here. What do you what do you think? I'm going to throw this to Boudreau first. Maybe you can help me format a question we can go around with. But do you feel like what I'm trying to ask? Like it seems like he's trying like this invisible line. We're going with this. This sounds a little bit like the the notion of her where you have someone who's a great scientist, you know, five, six days a week. And then on the, you know, Sunday, they go to church and then they just kind of they ignore. Like there's something in their brain where they separate, you know, the evidence based work they're doing here. And then on Sunday, they just kind of take it all on faith. Yeah. So I'm wondering if that's kind of part of it. It's like a schizophrenia almost or some kind of cognitive dissonance. Maybe. Yeah. So OK, you, yeah, you, you, I think, I think there are plenty of Christians out there that believe the Bible, but they don't actually literally believe the claims in there. They don't live like the claims are true. They're like somebody's watching their every move because they do. Yes. They're illegal or immoral all the time, even though they say they got a morality is watching them 24 seven. I think that's very true. I don't think Christians, both for the most part, do act as if they believe the Bible or true, or else we would see a difference there. I wonder, Jake, you're about to put food in his face and he's put himself on mute. You don't want to talk right now. Do you think Christians believe or act in a way where they actually literally believe the Bible is true? Man, I don't know. I don't know anyone that acts as though the Bible is literally true. There are people, of course, that, you know, make the claim that they believe that parts or the whole Bible is literally true. But I think it's actually impossible to act like it's literally true. What do you mean by impossible? There was a claim. I want to know about that. What do you mean by that? Well, because it would be inconsistent with one's own behavior, wouldn't it?   So the idea that you can believe in the supernatural or act like the Bible is true in that supernatural respect is not consistent with how people actually behave. So it's like people still go to the doctor. People don't buy, people don't invest in running shoes when they need to fly across the ocean in the plane. They're just like, no, I'll just walk across. I'll just really believe on this day and then just run right across. It won't be a problem. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. There's some, there's some merit there. So it seems almost like you can't say, well, none of this is true. I'm just saying I believe it, which is two separate things. It seems like there is some like cross section there. George, if you're available, do you think Christians actually, act in a way where they take the Bible as a literal truth? When you say, if you're available, what do you mean? Oh, because your video wasn't showing up and I didn't know if you, Oh, can you see me now? No, sir. Am I visible? Yeah.  I just, one of our viewers says fake it till you make it. Fake it till you make it. I hear that a lot too. Well, to answer your, to answer your question, I don't have an answer. I don't know what Christians believe. That's true. I, I, but you can tell from their actions of whether or not it's consistent with what the Bible promotes. I don't know if you're familiar with the Bible even as a lifelong atheist, but it, are you seeing a drill every time? Every time I try to read the Bible, I fall asleep. I've, I've tried many times. I just, but the language it's written in is insane. It's not English.  Yeah. There's a lot of versions of Bible that are hard to get through. Also numbers is really hard to get through worse. Third Genesis, worse. Third chapter of all times. Second chapter of all time. Deuteronomy is second, right? So it has to be third. Anyway, Dale, I'm throwing the question at you. I'm going to try to format this. Feel free to change it if you need to, but do you feel like Christians actually act in a way that is consistent with someone who believes the Bible as a literal truth from cover to cover? I understand your question. Well, I'm back. George, you might want to try the new international version of the Bible or the contemporary English version if you would like more contemporary language. And you might get through it a little bit better. Wombat. Yeah. Or yes. I don't know. Or yes. I'm sitting here with this question. But back to you, Wombat. Fair enough. Fair enough. Jake, I'm going to put you on. I know you're enjoying some delicious pancakes right now, but I got to figure out this from you. In fact, I'll throw out a specific example. I believe there's a verse in the Bible where Jesus is saying, hey, I stood on top of a mountain and I literally saw the entire world, which seems to me like an impression that like the world's flat. And we've been having some conversations about this a while back ago, and I'm wondering like, OK, there are Christians who believe in a younger that is also flat. That is part and parcel that comes with it sometimes. But do they actually behave in a way that the world's flat? Like are they cognizant of the fact that there's, even if you don't think planes are actually flying around the world, there are still planes that are doing it. There are still satellites that are doing it. You have a cell phone. Your clothes fabric had to come from somewhere. This lettuce wasn't grown in this country. How do you think this all works? What's going on? When you call someone and they say it's not 3 p.m. here, it's blank, blank, blank time. Like how do they compartmentalize it? Have you talked with flat earthers who maybe believe things that are in conflict with reality but are consistent with the Bible? Like how do you go about that, Jake? You don't need to have the answer to the question that you have. You just need to question it. And so it's not so much that the earth is flat. It's that it's not what they say it is. You think it might be flat. You think that's our hypothesis. It's not what they say it is. And you know that. That's our starting point. I don't need to know how planes work. Just that they're probably lying. They cover something. They're lying about how big the blueprints are on the fuel tanks to say how much fuel they can carry. Yeah, it's worldwide conspiracy with 90% of the people. Yeah. And just to provide some context before we get to George, Jake and I have been talking about flat earthers and their arguments for flat earth. And some of them are biblically based. And I'm wondering like what are the logic that flat earthers are using to compartmentalize clear, obvious evidences versus the idea of maybe it's just a conspiracy. And it seems like what Jake was saying is you start off with the premise of you can't trust science. Something fishy is going on. And then from there, you just throw in some very comfortable half truce that fit the conspiracy model, but also don't meet half the necessarily answer all the questions just enough to be like, hey, it's good to be skeptical, right? Great. Let me tell you about steel beams and jet fuel. George, I'm throwing it up at you. You want to say something? Well, I've been, you know, I've been looking at the issue of science being under attack in the United States recently. You know, we have what a quote, alternative facts. Sure. From the mouth of somebody famous. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, a woman who works for our president. Yeah. But anyway, so I was having an, yeah, I was having an imaginary conversation with my neighbor about COVID-19. Okay. The statistics from my county have been going up and up and up in terms of infected people. Oh, yeah. And, you know, a lot of people, when I talk with a certain person in my neighborhood about COVID, he always discounts the statistics in different ways, you know, by saying oh, they're not considering all the people who have recovered from it or the people who are, the people who have died from other causes that are included in the statistics. There's always a way of discounting it. So my imaginary comeback to him is, what's that? Moving the goalposts. Yeah. Yeah. So my, my response is, well, you had stents put in your arteries. Did you go to your mechanic to have the stents put in? Did you go to your minister to have him put in the stents for you? Or did you go to an expert, a scientifically trained person to put the stents in your arteries? Did you go to a doctor? Did you pray them away? To have the stents put in? Yeah. Yeah. Dale, what do you got? I see you raise your hand. That's my imaginary conversation. Yeah. Dale. What if you're wrong? Wombat. And the Bible is right. What did I say that I could be wrong about? Well, what's the claim that I could be wrong about? Well, you were, you were casting doubts on the idea of Jesus flying to an exceedingly high mountain and seeing all of the nations and all of the kingdoms on earth, right? Okay. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know that you are not thinking out of the box or not using your elastic thinking. Okay. Perhaps what the Bible is saying is actually true. And I think I figured out the way it is. Oh, is there a book that we can figure that out that you'll plug at the end of the show, which is the best time for us to look at this? Well, it's my book, but I don't need to be plugging it. No one's looking at it anyhow. However, the largest mountain in our solar system is Olympus Mons. Now, if you stood on that an exceedingly high mountain on Mars, you would effectively be able to see all of the nations on earth, or if you No, you wouldn't. No, you wouldn't. Yes, you could hang on, buddy. If you stood on even a small mountain on the moon that faces the earth, then if you sat there for about 24 hours, you would see all of the kingdoms on the earth. But not at the same time. Maybe you should look at some of these things in the Bible as being a brain teaser for riddles and maybe see if there is a way by which it may become true. Back to you at Freethought Headquarters, Wombat. Sure. Actually, now I'm going to have to do my math on this, but Neil deGrasse has to probably argue that it'd be more than 24 hours because the moon Actually, it'd be less. It'd be 11. 12 will do it. But the same face always faces the moon. Not more, less, 12. Anyway, Wombat's right. There's a far side of the moon. Yeah. I said on the side facing earth, the moon does not rotate. One side always faces us. OK, OK. It's all about location, baby. OK. Class over. It's flat. Doubt fighters have been waiting patiently. Doubt fighters have been waiting patiently. Doubt fighters have been waiting patiently. Doubt fighters have been waiting patiently. Doubt fighters have been waiting patiently. Do you have to be more cautious? When I was younger, I said, hey, I'm not sure that I would say this, but I think the Bible is other than one person who is a Christian who, when confronted with claims that the Bible is making, said, hey, I'm a Christian. But I don't have to believe that the Bible's true. I just have to believe the Bible to be a Christian. I know. And so we were talking about like one of the replications of a person who has that sort of mindset and is his life consistent with someone He can't believe the Bible is true without believing the Bible is true, which is Bible is true to other people. I don't know. Yeah, he's saying belief isn't a question. He's saying like, I don't need evidence to have this belief. I'm just saying I believe and it's like, okay, okay, later I get your point is but the question still is is like, why not believe in things that are true? And what are you really saying when you say, well, I don't believe. I don't I'm not saying I agree with these claims. I'm just saying I believe them. So it's like, what are you really trying to say about the Bible at that point? That far I'm going to give you some time to authenticate on this. What do you think? Okay. That sounds like some sort of presuppositional type of position. So it seems like a lot of people that say stuff like that, and I've talked to a lot of Christians lately about that very thing. And they'll say, well, you presuppose that science is the best way to know things. And or I may state that or someone say, well, science is the best method to know things are true. And they and you know, the question would be then, well, how did you figure that out? Science? If science is the best way to know that, how did you know that? And so you kind of it's kind of a circular argument. And they'll say, well, just as you're being circular about science, why can't I be circular about my Bible beliefs? So it kind of gets philosophical. So for me, I can just kind of briefly tell you what I think about that whole thing is that, well, first of all, I know, what do I know? Well, I know that I experience an existence. So I exist. And from that, I can figure out, well, I can infer things, right? That's part of my experience in logic, cause and effect seems to work. And so from there, I can kind of do inference to the best explanation of things. Science seems to work when it's done right. And we seem to build on that. And so that's evidence, you know, we can make predictions. And those predictions can, you know, be verified. And if they are in their repeatable, then I think we have justification to believe things. As far as the Bible presupposing that, well, can we make predictions on the Bible? Can we say, well, if this Bible thing is true, can we verify it and repeat it and everybody can observe it? And we can all kind of share in that verification. And so then we have a problem because we have over 6,000, or really over 10,000 Christian religions that all have a different interpretation of the Bible in itself. So we're kind of, you know, and everyone's free to believe what they want, in my opinion. I mean, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't know, for me, just speaking for me, I would want something that that I could verify, you know, predict and see repeated over and over and over. Not sure that's going to improve. Yeah, I think that it proves over time. Dred, you raised your hand. I'm wondering what you think. Yeah. So I was just thinking about the comparison of faith to science and that there's a tautology being employed by science in the same way as being employed by faith. And I would disagree because science is a methodology. Yeah, it's it's, you know, faith is not a methodology. There isn't a prescribed path that you take to faith. It's just belief in the absence of evidence, whereas science relies on verifiability and methodology in order to determine what's real and what's not real. Yeah, I can summarize faith in one sentence or one verse. I can't do that with science. Science is a much more complex set of tools to figure out how the universe works as best as we can. It's by definition, a methodology. All right. Hey, we're going to take this to the break and then come back with some really cool things. Larry, why don't you take us out? Hey, this is digital free thought radio hour and W O Z O radio 103.9 LP FM right here in Knoxville, Tennessee. We'll be right back after this short break. 103.9 FM W O Z O radio Knoxville. Hello and welcome back to the second half of the digital free thought radio hour. I'm doubter five. We're on W O Z O radio 103.9 LP FM right here in Knoxville, Tennessee. Today is October 4 2020. The free thought groups that you can join here in Knoxville while there's the main one is the atheist society of Knoxville. We've been around for 18 years or 1000 members. You can find us online at KnoxvilleAtheist.org or you can go to directly to meet up and just search for Knoxville Atheist. By the way, if you don't live in Knoxville, you should still go to meet up and search for an atheist group in your town. Don't find one. And with us on the show today, we have dread pirate pigs, Jake, George Dot Fire and Boudreaux and Dale, our red leader, excuse me. What were we talking about there? So we were going over the classic Shakespearean play Romeo and Juliet, which I found to be very impressive from all the poetry that Shakespeare's ran. I think this is the epitome of true romance. And the classic line that I love the most is like when Juliet's sitting there on the balcony, she's like, Romeo, Romeo, where throughout the love? Where is the love? Where is the love, the love? So we're going to go over from our audience. We're going to get some love from our audience. First one comes from our already. So this is after our last week's topic, which is, hey, you know, what do I get if I leave religion? What do I get out of it? And on Reddit, constant variation says one less pattern of thought amongst other things, which I thought was like a very concise way of saying that. Nathan Matthews adds, what do I get if I leave religion? I cannot overstate how freeing it was leaving my religion that had an in and out group. As Doubtify said, I don't have to hate anybody anymore. So much time and effort focused on being in the right group and judging the wrong group, I don't have to worry about that anymore. I am free of the inner conflict over how to treat others and how to treat myself. I think that's a real true state. Really, very good sentiment. Thank you, Nathan Matthews. Really great quality comments, man. Thank you. Dada's Trading Room says, Hey, I had some trouble hearing Doubtify on his last broadcast, but I am subscribed to Let's Chat, which is my channel right here. And I get notified about the reposts. By the way, Dred is coming in loud and clear on the video playback. So you have a fan, Doubtify, who's who's who wants to just hear you and that's great. I love that. Thank you, thank you. Loma says, I want to say that I hope Dred loses the legal action because I don't find religion to be a valid argument for any legal case, but I'm not certain whether he wants to win or lose. Can he elaborate more about his goals and does winning or losing have any bearing? Dred, why don't you fill us in on that? Sure. I think the idea here is to draw a very stark attention to the fact that there's institutionalized religious privilege in government, in court, in law, and essentially in practice right across the board. And this is what we're trying to draw attention to. So in trying to establish arguments for religions that are non-Christian or non-Muslim or non-Islam is really to demonstrate how ridiculous the whole thing is. And so if we can, you know, make a sound argument that one judge eventually says, you know what, you're right. And let us have at it, then that just gives us the platform upon which to draw attention to the fact that the whole, the whole institutionalized religious privilege thing is, is ridiculous. It's going to stop. You're spending putting an effort to normal, to normalize the idea that there's a silly thing afoot, because right now not a people are exposed to this standard that government has to say, you're a real religion, you're not a real religion. And so whether they approve it or disapprove it, you're shedding light on an issue that most people don't even concern themselves with at this point. Larry was also pointing to what you just said about the government should not be in a position of pointing to a particular religion and saying, this one's valid. This one's not. The governor should not be in that position. It was stated in the Constitution, there should be no establishment of the of any religion by a government. And it's it's unconstitutional on its face. So pointing out what dread pirate points out with the flying spaghetti monster is doing just that. So exactly. And the idea. So the in Canada, we of course, we have a kind of constitution, but it does pretty clearly state in in the Charter of Rights and freedoms that the freedom to express one's religion is guaranteed there. And in practice, it's not. So, you know, again, as long as you conform to one of the 10,000 sex of Christianity, you're in. But if you don't, well, then you're not. And one of our viewers actually says, I guess we have 10,001 Christian religions now because Moon Jesus has entered the arena. So we got big energy and Moon Jesus. Oh, I'd love to see a fight between those two in the US. That would be fantastic. Okay, so here's a quick little SC tips. I mean, we are, we do a lot of SC socratic examinations, street epistemology, whatever you want to call it. I think it's good to just remind ourselves that we can talk to anyone about anything. And there's there's good means of doing it. And a lot of people on this call themselves have tried to learn how to incorporate SC a bit into how they talk with people and found some really good productivity from it. And my small tip for this SC corner today is you can summarize a lot of SC down to just three questions that you can repeat over and over again, or in any order you want. The first question I like to ask is, what do you mean by that? And I find that that is a great clarification question to figure out what someone means when they say things that obviously means a lot to them, but never really had a chance to think about critically, like try to get them to define that in their own terms, not from someone else's words, but from someone else's words. So, what do you mean by that? Second, how can I test that? Or how can we test that? Don't make it a group project. And that is more of a question that doesn't match with the way on their claim that they're making or on them personally, but really about their methodology that they're using to get to their conclusion. How can I test that claim? How can I know if it's true? And then the last question is, is that test reliable? Because if it is, that's great. But if it's not, that says a lot more than you telling them that their own terms are wrong. And so if you just do variations of those three questions just by themselves, you need to do some marvelous progress on your SE. What do you mean by that? How can we test that? Is that test reliable? Fantastic way to go about it. And everything else is improv and your own personal input. Jake, you've done some SE before. I've seen you do some, we've done some talks before. What do you think about those three questions? What do you mean by that? How can we test that? Is that test reliable? I think you nailed it. I love summaries like that. Etsy, it can be kind of hard for me to wrap my head around sometimes, like where we're going. So little summaries like that really help jog a conversation in the right direction. And yeah, those three points, what do you mean by that? How can we test that? Yes. It's excellent. I use that when I'm having difficult conversations with my family members. Yeah. And I think it helps because they're talking about what they believe in rather than me questioning it so much. It's just, you know, where are you coming from? What led you to where you are right now? Yeah. I also want to emphasize that it's not about playing dumb when you ask what you mean by that. It's trying to understand what they mean by a word that you have an impression of because you guys might be using the same vocabulary, but completely different dictionaries. And so it's worthwhile to understand what they mean when they say words.  I'll leave one more last question before we get to our main topic. Boudreau, you've done Etsy with me before. We've gone out and done it before. You have a really great friend who's busy flipping houses that I'm sure you have a lot of deep conversations with. Have you ever asked him, what do you mean by that? How can we test that? Is that a reliable test? You know, that's an excellent point because my buddy Chad and I have had a lot of conversations around this whole area of topics and we generally agree on most everything, but there are topics where we kind of bounce ideas off each other because I'm not certain. I believe it's the same way he believes, you know, particularly he's a little more Buddhist in some of his thinking. But I've never thought of actually trying to use SE on it, but I think that would be really interesting and a good exercise. So I'm going to take these three, you know, canned questions and give it a spin on our next talk. Ooh, I'm excited. Maybe record it. Yeah, maybe record it. Anyway, so thank you so much. Oh, Del, feel free to weigh in. You're muted right now, sir. Very good. There we go. I'd like to say that your SE stuff, while it seems to be very, very modified from what the ancient Greek philosophers were doing, it's very, very similar to what you would have in a psychiatric environment where all you're doing is you're asking questions in order to get the person to pull out and examine his feelings or whatever else he needs to be examined. You ask questions in order to get for them to look at some different aspect. How did you feel when you stabbed your wife? What was going, was there anything that was happening between your wife and you before you stabbed her? And why didn't you invite me to the wedding? And the whole idea is you get the person talking by asking him questions rather than challenging him, and that's been, we've been using that for a long time, and it's pretty successful, but that's not what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about Moon Jesus. Okay. That offends me. Hey, nice transition. It just so happens that the Moon has been claimed already by the deists. We were the first religion to put set foot on the Moon, and it is ours. Is that how that works? Is there a documentation or a military to support that? Yes. There's a flag there. There is a national flag there, but I'm telling you, the first religion on the Moon to set foot on the Moon was a deist. All you have to do is look up what religion is Neil Armstrong. But it was him, even Christians, that put them on the Moon in the first place. And that's all I have to say about that. Good. Can I ask what he means by that and maybe how we can test it? He's using that. Oh, damn.  I'm melting. Yeah, what it means about that is Neil Armstrong. We've got to show it to do it still. Neil Armstrong. We are going back to the idea of, do you need to, is there a difference between having a belief and needing evidence for that belief? When I hear someone says, hey, I don't care if the Bible is true. I'm just letting you know that I believe whatever it says. I feel like that's an admission on their part that they don't actually believe that the Bible is true. I feel like that is a clear, implicit statement about the lack of a recid, what's the right word that I'm looking for, lack of coherency in the Bible and that it just feels better to believe whatever it says. They're making like somewhat of like an argument from comfort. As long as I don't have to think about it, and as long as I get to still be called a Christian, I get to reap all the benefits of having a Christian card. And it doesn't matter whether or not I actually take it literally or not. Hell, I can't even tell you what chapters in the Bible or what books are in the Bible. I just feels good to me to believe that there's a God looking out for me. That's such a lack of intellectual honesty, my part. Dredd, before I get on my rant, please stop me. Make me feel, make me feel peaceful. What do you think? Well, just a comment from a man who's been a regular believer here. You know, he suggests that, you know, learning about other religions is a good way to combat religious privilege. That being one thing, how familiar is anyone here with anything other than Christianity? My mom's Jehovah's Witness, my sister's... Well, I'm familiar with nothing. Okay. Hey, that counts. That doesn't count as anything. One thing we need to clarify is that which Christianity? I mean, there's Catholicism, there's Protestantism, there's a thousand or 10,000 different sects of Protestantism and Orthodoxy. I mean, there's not just one Christian. There used to be different versions of Catholicism, but they killed all the other competing versions. And you didn't even ask about Jewishness or... Okay, but those are all Abrahamic. Those are all Abrahamic. I mean, there's Sikhism, there's Buddhism, there's Buddhism. You know, are we just talking... Are we just trying to... Are we just discounting and talking about Christian religions? Or are we also talking about religions generally speaking? I'm talking about all theist space religions. All theist space religions, because there's even religions that don't have a God principle to them. Well, there's some atheistic religions as well, right? Yeah, the Eastern religions that don't worship a God. Sikhism. Buddhism. Buddha wasn't a God. I'm going to throw out a quick little analogy that I've been using that I'm working on whenever I hear someone say, when they realize that there are other religions, that, well, they're basically all believing my God in a way. It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, there's other people, but it's basically all just my God with different hat, or they're just seeing it wrong. It's like when you go to the zoo and you have a deep and personal relationship with zebras or something like that, and when you take it to the giraffes, and you're like, oh, those giraffes, they're basically zebras. I mean, their necks are longer, but they're basically zebras. When we take them to a lion, we'll take them to the lion. I get that a lot of time. Ah, go for it. All the other religions are also worshiping the same God, but they're doing it in their own way. Well, that's a kind of a kumbaya approach to the whole thing, but they don't, in their next breath, they'll tell you that those other religions are going to hell. Yeah. You know, they don't have, through morality, they're playing both sides of the field. And what I say to that is I have a sticky bit of analogy, but I found that I would be better off not using it, because whenever someone says all those other gods are basically my God with a different hat, or they're just being worshiped differently, go immediately to, well, what do you mean by that? And how can we test that? Because now they have all the burden of evidence to demonstrate. I don't have to come up with an explanation. They made a claim. They made a claim. What do you mean by that? How did you test that every other person's God is your God? And is that test reliable or not? Because if it's not, that does more work on my part than for me to come up with a crafty flow chart to show you it's an unreasonable thing for you to say. What do you mean by that? How can we test that? Is that test reliable? Fantastic way to immediately do some quick SE. Doubtfire, we've been talking a lot about do you need evidence to support your beliefs? Now I'll throw it out at you. Do you need, as a non-Christian, do you need evidence to support your beliefs or would you like to have those? Yeah, I would like to have as much as evidence that I could that base my beliefs on personally. Trying to think of an example of something I believe that isn't just obvious. What's wrong with an obvious belief? Yeah, I mean, of course. And that makes a good example for people, I guess, when you speak to them. I can say, well, I can claim I believe that the earth is round and then we can talk about the science behind that or we can talk about really anything. But it comes back to how can we test it? How can we know it's reliable? Is it repeatable? Is it verifiable? But at the same time, those type of conversations can get tricky, right? You may be speaking to a flat earther who thinks it's just obvious that the world is flat, right? And then that's when you get into the whole thing. So I don't know. It gets kind of tricky. I'm going to throw out something that touched on what Dale was saying. Yes, people have been asking people questions to figure out what they believe since Greek times even before that even. But the difference between that and say like Socratic examination or SE is that it's not a teaching technique, it's a conversational technique. My goal isn't to show someone why they're wrong. I'm trying to understand how they're right. They have all the burden of evidence to bear and I'm not assuming they're right by default. So they have to get me there to the claim. And so it doesn't really matter what the claim is. It's the path that they're leading me towards to the claim and if that path is reliable or not and all the focus is on the path. And if the path is reliable, I'll follow into whatever conclusions there. We stop at every dead point.  We can't go any further from here. We still can't get to your conclusion. Oh, then I was trying to help you to get there. I'm asking these questions. I'm trying to find out how we can test this. I'm trying to figure out how reliable it is towards believing it as well. But if we can't get there together, that says way more than Mr. Me's saying it's wrong. And I'm not teaching you that. I'm just trying to understand it with you. And it turns out that we both can't get there together. So why are you saying you're there and how confident are you really? I feel like there's worth in that. It's a conversational technique, Essie. It's not a teaching technique. And because of that, you don't have to worry about someone saying the earth is flat and trying to prove them wrong. Can you just be like, oh, the earth is flat? Maybe it is. How did you test that? What do you mean by that? Is any of the tests that you're doing reliable convince me because you have that burden? And we can talk about values. People can say, hey, how do you prove this is valuable to me subjectively? You can't. That's for each person to decide. But say someone says, well, I believe in God. And you start going down that line of questioning and then they start giving you a description of God or a definition of all their own. What do you mean by that? What do you mean by God? Well, I mean just the universe. Or I just mean nature or reality. That's God. And then you can always ask, why would you use a different word for reality or a different word for universe? And they may say, well, I have some utility with it. I find some subjective value in that. How is that wrong to do? No, is that a reliable thing to do? Find useful in a word and then just say it's the word? Like is that a reliable way to apply labels? And could someone do that in the wrong way? You're still asking the three main questions. Is that test reliable? But you're just using different words. Dr. Green, I'm sorry.  I apologize, sir. I'm so sorry. He's only in the classroom. I got a question for you. Since you do the summit, have you found value? Have you ever found a time where you want to ask someone like a list of questions that are like really, really long but you don't have the time or the capability of doing it in a big crowd? And do you see value in maybe just like a three? Like what do you mean by that? How can we test that? Does that test reliable? Like is there room for that even in the summit setting? Summit, by the way, is... Yeah. You might want to describe what summit is ahead of time. Sure, sure. And so summit is a gathering that we used to have indoors. Now we're having it outside and spread out in fewer people. But just a group of 10, 15 people sometimes, some food. Yeah. And everyone sits around and we kind of take turns talking about different topics similar to this. But it's in-person, somewhat moderated. But it focuses on religion and science and things like that. A lot of fun and it's something I love to do. It's interesting because Ty, I'm sorry, Dr. Wombat.  And it didn't go over well, I think, because it was so different from what we normally do. That was years ago and that was before I knew anything about SE. It could be something we can kind of incorporate into like a phase. We usually meet for three, four hours. The first hour is just kind of chatting and getting maybe a topic here or there. But then maybe stop and say, all right, for the next 30 minutes, we'll do a little kind of one-on-one with an audience. Maybe something worth trying. Yeah. Or I'm thinking of like, if the question, if you're dealing with what I found with SE or the summit is it has the tendency to, if one person thinks something as an outlier, everyone sort of gangs up on that one person. And they ask a lot of series of questions of this one person that go off on different trails of thoughts and like different flow charts and different arguments trying to get to some sort of logical trap. And it would be nicer if it was just, if we all agree as a team that if anyone's, if we're ganging up on anyone, but if we formatted a question suggest, what do you mean by that? Could you just be clear? And then someone else can follow up with, how can we test that? And then someone else can follow up with, well, is that test reliable? Like I think you guys could get to more productive grounds than the independent paths, which could be a little, could be, I wonder if that could potentially to a blowback effect to the person who still believes it. Because I imagine Paul's still very much a Christian even after multiple summit trips. Oh, yeah. No, I think you're right. And well, summit is different than what we're doing here and what you guys do on panels. And one of the nice things about it is maybe we don't take it as seriously. And that's, I don't know, for better or for worse there, I leave a lot of summits going, man, I really wish I could have drilled down on that question, but I want that person to come back. So I don't, you know, kind of want to corner people too much, but it's interesting. I think elements of it could be tied in to parts of summit. So I think it might be worth trying and I can report back. Yeah. This was a fantastic conversation. Thank you for everyone for coming. This is a full house. I don't know if my screen can handle any more tiny little screens of dudes talking to me. But we're more or less near the end of the show. I'm going to ask for some plugs. How Jesus did it dot com by Dale. Find out all you need to know about moon Jesus. Isn't that right? Oh, it's not in that book. Okay. Which one should we check out? Moon Jesus. Moon Jesus is not in how Jesus did it. Okay. Oh, which I go to how Jesus did it dot com and read for free online. Yeah, I get it. You can get that book for free online anyway. Eric, what do you got on the table? What do you think that we can look forward to in the future? I hope to have my bad religion cover ready next week. We're waiting on vocals and lead guitar, but we got everything else tracked. So nice. It should be fun. Very cool. And then I want to I want to leave with the moon is actually atheists now because Neil Armstrong was an atheist. So checkmate. I need another different show. All right. All right. All right. All right. Okay. So doubt fire. What do you got? Oh, man. Nothing much. I can't really say much that's going on. Hopefully we'll be back next week. You can plug something. You got George already know you got nothing, but I'd still say check out New York. Well, if I had something, I would say something. But yes, I want to plug early doctor who episodes with Tom Baker. I really like them. Nice. Very cool. Jake, do you have anything that you'd like to plug or recommend anyone check out over the next week? Oh, man. Well, you asked what's on the table. What's what's on the future in front of me?  Yeah. No, no, I appreciate you guys very much. You tie. You've taught me a lot about S.E. personally. And yeah, just I appreciate your content on let's chat. So I'll plug you, man. Thank you, man. I appreciate that, dude. Thank you so much. Dred Pirate. I'm wishing you for the best in November. It seems like either way, you're going to have some great stuff. Because if you get really told to go home, it's like, oh, that's perfect material, baby. And if you said, OK, you're right. It's like, ooh, that's perfect material, baby. No matter what, you're going to win. You just need to show up. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's a win-win. Yeah. It's a win-win. And everyone knows it. So it's just like, ooh, come back later. You get your win-win. I just want to plug the fact that we are live streaming on YouTube right now. It is. We do that Sunday mornings at 8 AM, PST, or Piss of Extender Time or Daylight Time, depending on where it is. And we've got the sound working. So please come on. Have a listen. And you can find me at Let's Chat. Feel free to leave a comment. We'll go over them in the next week's show. We'll also post of this broadcast on Reddit at r slash 3, the epistemology. Feel free to leave a comment. We'll go over them on the show as well. And you can check out more of my stuff in Let's Chat. I'm releasing more videos from Politicon. Just released a guy who thought we should all have universal health care, really good bid, and I'll be putting out more stuff very soon, too. They're all ready to go. Larry, all to you. Hey, this has been the Digital Freethought Radio Hour. Be sure to visit our website at digitalfreethought.com and our blog. We have our radio show archives there, Atheist songs and many articles on the subject of atheism. My book is called Atheism, What's It All About, and it's available on Amazon. I want to welcome all the old and new guests back to the show anytime. You're welcome back. If you're having trouble with your leaving religion belief behind, go to recoveringfromreligion.org. They have help for you. If you have any questions for the show, you can send them to us at AskAnAtheist at KnoxvilleAtheist.org, and we'll try to answer them on future shows. If you're watching this on YouTube, don't forget to like and subscribe, and to be notified of new episodes.  The time to worry about it is when they prove that heavens and hells and souls are real. Until, don't sweat it, enjoy your life. Say goodbye, everybody. That's it. Goodbye, everybody. That's it. Bye-bye.


This is covering the spread part of the Fandall podcast network. I Hope you all had fantastic weekends on this Memorial Day and a lot of sports going on We had games seven last night between the heat and the Celtics the heat coming out on top We're gonna talk about that series between them and the Nuggets coming up later on this week But for day we're talk some golf the Memorial Tournament is coming up this week. It is an elevated field once again We're gonna talk to Branden Goodula to break down that event talk about his favorite pets at Fandall Sportsbook And I'll go through some NLB. That's for today as well. Welcome on into covering the spread That's right here on the Fandall podcast network and number fire calm My name is Jim Saunders. I am a senior writer and analyst for number fire Joined here as mentioned by Branden Goodula check him out on Twitter at Goodula 13 You can find his work over at number fire calm where he is a senior managing editor Brandon Happy Tuesday to you. I didn't love that for once. How you doing today? You did a great job, Jim good work. I was petrified this morning. I would forget that it was Tuesday because Had a very weird work schedule yesterday given that it was Memorial Day I tried to plan my schedule around plop myself in front of the TV during the two NASCAR races Which meant that I didn't start work until 11 and then worked until 1230 is like a little bit of an odd schedule for sure. So it does not feel like a Tuesday to me So there are two races on Monday Yeah, there's a lot of rain this weekend, which meant that I got two races on Sunday and two races on Monday And personally I am in favor of that going forward I just prefer that the NASCAR ones not be Monday because it messes up my schedule as far as Logging data and getting models ready for the next week. Yeah, that makes sense. I had a had some more day plans and They they were in the evening, but of course Monday night Game 7 had to catch up on that and of course can't go to bed without knowing what happened on Monday night raw So there's a late night for me as well So did you DVR raw and watch the heat Celtics game live or what was the configuration for you? They were both DVR'd because we were out pretty late. So it was a late night But so you DVR'd both at day So you DVR'd both and watch them back to back. Yes What time do you go to bed? As your life manager, I feel like I need to too too late. Let's say, okay So we're both we're both operating a hundred percent right now is what you're saying. I mean My my analysis is all done.  They don't do betting and insights Just kind of general, you know based on your feel for those two teams not betting just Brandon What are your thoughts in that series first look? Yes, I'm just I'm the kind of person who if you ask me that I'd rather have like three minutes to think and then have Like a good answer Yeah It's it's gonna be It's gonna be tough I think for the heat to hang offensively because the Celtics They had some horrendous three-point shooting in the series Jason Tatum rolling his ankle early In game seven clearly not a hundred percent Jalen Brown just I don't know Shrunk in the moment or something and it was weird because he was he was good in the finals last year Yeah, whenever they needed him I don't know if they're if the heat are gonna get that many opportunities where the opposing offense kind of lets them stay in the game Unless you know, they Get another Incredible showing from Caleb Barton. So I don't know how you don't go into this thinking that the heat are the clear underdogs Which you know, it's not a surprise, but right hasn't really stopped them before so I think it's gonna be fun It's one of those it's it's sometimes it's sometimes tough with underdogs where you feel You want the underdogs to win, but you also want the best games possible So in the back of my mind, I was like, I think I kind of want the Celtics to win for a better the a higher probability of a competitive series, but I Think it's time that we all just quit doubting the heat anyway, so The market is because their money line to win the series is plus 330 So I'm sure that they will not use that for motivation at all as they have definitely not had a chip on their shoulders entire time We'll talk more about the series as mentioned later on this week to get the insights on the NBA finals and the Stanley Cup finals and more Make sure you're subscribed to covering the spread wherever you get your podcast We'll be breaking down all that later on this week plus more as always So go subscribe your plot podcast platform of choice and also check us out over on the Fandle YouTube page To get all the insights there as well Let's kick things off now Brandon though by talking about this week's PGA tour event It is that Muirfield Village is the memorial tournament and we know what to expect at this course They had to redesign a couple years ago, but a lot of data here from this course So what should we know about Muirfield before we fill out our bet slips for the memorial? Yeah long par 72 over 7,500 yards and Despite that length The fairways are they're not they're not narrow per se, but missing them is problematic so you don't want to miss the fairways here and So that kind of makes driving a really strange combination for for the week because yes the distance helps But you can't just be spraying it I Data golf has a pretty pretty lowered importance on driving distance and a much higher relative importance on driving accuracy For this week as a result now what we do with that information That's always a question that we have Anyone who's ever listened to us on the heat check or you know me at a course where like driving accuracy matters It's gonna sound familiar, but what that tends to do is bring more golfers into play Because more accurate hitters Kind of close that gap, especially in the case whenever distance itself is not enough For the longer hitters to keep that separation that being said you don't just have driving accuracy Ranking in your spreadsheet or something like that and give it a ton of weight because there's a lot more to golf than just hitting the fairway You know a lot of these golfers could hit the fairway if they clubbed down and had no you know no need to hit it far as well We're not you know They're not gonna be hitting irons off the tee just to hit the fairway doesn't work that way So I think whenever driving accuracy comes into play it can get really convoluted for it for you know For people trying to break things down So what I like to do in these instances is look at stroking it off the tee and have like a slight emphasis on driving accuracy So like five to ten percent at most not something absurd with the driving accuracy numbers Which is and driving accuracy itself is not a great stat to begin with but not only do we have like Troublesome fairways to miss we have small greens the greens on average here 5000 square feet PGA tour average is around 6000 square feet So that's gonna put an emphasis on stroking it around the green where they're gonna miss greens They're gonna have to get up and down stroking it around the green is important so You know iron play always super vital at any course, especially at a course with those small greens and you know Whenever you're gonna be hitting stuff out of the rough. So It's important to be really good with all three of your T degree in areas just to different degrees for this week Stroke getting around the green is a key stat for me So that kind of means that if a factor in putting it's all around golf, but I mean this course plays tough winning scores on average over the past five years have been like 11.8 under par and We've had like a lot of Multi-shot winners. So like the sort of hypothetical, you know First place you need is gonna be even lower than that. So it's gonna be somewhat similar to the scoring conditions we had last week and so That then does re-raise the the stakes For the better golfers because when things play tough for better golfers Tend to separate with a designated field. I mean, we have a lot of great golfers. So Basically, you know, there's not a key stat that I think is the key stat this week It's more having a good all-around game and a good enough all-around game to beat a Lot of great golfers in the field. So I want I want driving a little bit of driving accuracy Irons and wedges for the week. Okay Now you mentioned how the fact that it's a non-distance course does put more golfers in play But as you said, it's a tougher course too, which kind of has a push and pull here where you think it would gravitate towards the top guys Let's take a look at the odds board here over at Fandall Sportsbook Scotty Schaeffler is the favorite at six to one John Rom 7 to one now Roy McElroy kind of came back a bit at the PGA championship and showed some life once again But he's down at 14 to one To you Given the macro is behind Xander Shafley and Patrick Cantlay did Roy do enough to you to like Spark some interest in buying low on him, especially now with his eyes lengthening out to 14 to one Or is it still really Schaeffler and Ramas being like a two-horse race at the top here? Yeah With Rory he's not really in that tier for me just yet My model looks at long-term form so over the past year and gives more weight to recent rounds So obviously he's not gonna look quite as good as Scotty Schaeffler and John Rom in particular, but I have him also behind fittingly here Patrick Cantlay in Xander Shafley. So I think that 14 to one is Reasonable for Rory in terms of You know, they're not gonna make Rory 25 to 1 right even though maybe that's where my model says he should be I'm just saying like I don't think that we're we're ever gonna see massive amounts of value on on Rory But you know for me, it's Schaeffler and wrong They both have at least 11% Odds to win Roy's under 4% for me and then that tier 2 of of really good friends Patrick Cantlay and Xander Schaeffler. So I think the odds order is right, but boy, it's it's really tight this week 6 to 1 and 7 to 1 And then also 10 to 1 and 12 to 1 it's not leaving a whole lot and you know the thing is those guys aren't Substantially according to my model like overvalued by any means sure So they suck up win equity, but don't give you betting value. Yeah, that's the war there You know, and if we're not being using that word ironically, it's it's really the worst because It's not enough to get there with these guys But it doesn't really leave a whole lot else Down the rest of the odds board. So for me this week, unfortunately, it's it's shaping up to be a little bit more of a That's gonna be more like finishing positions some matchups Any special things that we can get our hands on because I'm not seeing a whole lot in the outright market anything in the outright market for you or nothing at all so With Patrick Cantlay at 10 to 1 It's justifiable. I'll say it's close enough. Can't lay has Like with an asterisk here Was it to win over the past four years One of those where John Rom withdrew due to the COVID test Like a four-shot lead after seven or after whatever I can't do math, but whatever three times 18 is 54 54 sick, you know the first time I benefited from that personally. So it's it's fine by me but yeah Just something to keep and keep an eye on with that that win I mean, you know that you should ever make your decisions based on who's won here in the past. I look at You just sort by wins Well, I'm very harshal at 12 to 1 for this week Yeah, back the back-to-back narrative tends to work out a lot, but I mean if you're if Inseriousness like if you're Factory and course history a lot it's John Rom in Cantlay very specifically those two guys to kind of stand out But you know can't lay at 10 to 1 I Wouldn't really argue. I haven't been 11 to 1 so again It's just a lot of those like one or two points away and it's not enough for me to want to You know, just because I don't always trust the model Sometimes it comes back to bite me, but I think it's close enough where you could justify it other than that with Cantlay like Sung Jae M is Currently 35 to 1 He's accurate off the tee his form overall has been Fine not not a standout. So I see the case for Sung Jae sure, but boy it's a really tight field or a really tight board at the top of the field and I see some like sprinkles of value on guys and I am I might get Wyndham Clarked where I say It's just a sprinkle and then I don't actually get the full full credit for it on the show But it's not the kind like that you look at the designated event winners and Clark is Clark and Kurt Kiteyama Are basically the two outliers. So you don't want to be throwing a lot of units. Yeah on any of these Any of these longer shots, but you know instead of betting a ton of guys at the top of the board You can do partial units on some of these longer shots, which I'm all right with in that event The names I'd be looking at a Russell Henley at 55 to 1 Tom Kim at 60 Keegan Bradley Keegan Bradley at 90 And even Matt Kutcher at 100 to 1 If I just took a unit and kind of put a quarter unit on those four guys I don't at least feel like I was getting some expected value But with you know, it's tough whenever there's not a whole lot at the top of the board and it's it I mean, it's a it's a list of it's like murderers row up there at the at the top of the board So it's always tough going against them and it sounds like based on your sentiment that that am at 35 is not someone You would bet personally. It's more so you say he's justifiable I'm gonna bet him out of fear of missing out Okay, cuz I have met 37 sure, okay, and at least at that rate. I'm like, you know But it's different whenever it's I have someone at 7 in their 6 that feels different. So yeah, yeah, that's a huge difference. Yeah So that makes a lot of sense. Okay. So the ones you like the most sounds like our Russell Hemley 55 to 1 Tom Kim 61 Keegan Bradley at 90 and Matt Kutcher at a hundo What about the non-outrights? What are you seeing there this week? Yeah, so this is where I'm really gonna jump in Again, Patrick can't lay first-round leader 22 to 1 slight value there in my first-round leader model Also, get you some coverage if he gets out to a good start You know, I don't I don't like this is not always the case But I don't mind again Partial unit on guys you like or are close to and just go in first-round leader because those odds are a lot different And then you kind of get that like peace of mind and generally things correlate quite well with those odds But can't land my first-round leader model does look Does look solid Xander Shafley top 10 plus 160 He's in great form. He's been top 10 or sorry top 20 in four straight years here You asked me if like Rory McElroy was on on par with John Rom and Scotty Schaeffler and He's not and Xander isn't either, but he's pretty close. He's really really good right now His irons are great. That's kind of one of the knocks is someone who's loved Xander over the years He wasn't as good of an iron player as some of the best guys The iron stats for him right now are pretty phenomenal. So Top 10 for him. I like that Tom Kim top 20 plus 220 Really accurate off the tee irons are still there puttings a bit up and down the putting stats from five to ten feet Not particularly great or bad. So I'm alright with that. I think this is a gen You know generally an overall good course fit for someone who will gain some leverage based on being accurate and then kind of a stab here, but it's more to do with the the Rest of the the players in this in this prop group top South African Garakiego plus 300. Hmm. He's really going up against Christian Bezadenhote Who is deservedly the favorite of plus 135 in that market? MJ Duffy is he can kind of pop here and there but This almost feels like a glorified head to head and so there my model shown a slight value on Garakiego And three to one there you can get that the prop market over if annual sportsbook top South African He go a plus 300 there all the ones Brandon mentioned again Can't lay first-round leader 22 to 1 and Xander top 10 plus 160 and Tom Kim top 20 Plus 220 did want to go briefly back to the Rob discussion about Robin Weirfield Looking back at the COVID year where he tested positive mid-events If you look at the first three rounds there data golf's true strokes gained if you want to guess His true strokes gained per round the first three rounds before he had to withdraw because of a positive COVID test What number are you putting on John Rob per round above the field? After accounting for course their difficulty and stuff so Outlier like an elite number, you know for is like elite like that's like not John wrong at the Genesis was 4.67. That's a bananas event He was probably like a four and a half seven point four three no really Absolutely unreal on the hinge. It was a three-round sample. So it's like, you know a small But like that's what he was that far out. He was eight. He was 18 under. Yeah and It's sick Can't they want it in a playoff at 13 under yeah, yeah, I had no right winning that that ticket, but yeah I mean We all get lucky sometimes we remember the bad beats. We don't remember the bad wins But you know sometimes they do happen. So by the way excited for this week's event We're talking more about that on the DFS side of things later on today We talked about that over on the number fire daily fantasy podcast So you've been for today here on the podcast Brandon want to thank you for coming on as always Good luck to you with the memorial. Have fun with the NBA finals. We'll talk to you once again next week Sounds good looking forward to it. All right. Check out Brandon on Twitter at Cadula 13 find his work in simulations for golf over at Number fire dot com we're gonna dive in to tonight's baseball slate here in just one second But first make a fast break to fan duel during the NBA playoffs because right now new customers get a no-sweat first bet up to $1,000. That's but $1,000 back in bonus bets if your first bet doesn't win There's no better place to bet all the playoff action than America's number one sports book fan duel Official sports betting partner of the NBA must be 21 plus and president select states first online real money wager Only $10 deposit required Refund issued is not on the trouble bonus bets that expire in 14 days We're strict to supply seafold terms at fan duel dot com slash sports book Fan duel is offering online sports wagering in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas Star Casino LLC gambling problem call 1-800 gambler or was a fan duel dot com slash RG in Arizona 1-800 next step or text next step to 533 42 in Connecticut 1-888-789-7777 or was a cc PG dot org slash chat in Indiana 1809 with it in Wyoming in Kansas 1805 to 240 700 in Kansas KS gambling help dot com Louisiana's 18077 770 stop in Massachusetts gambling helpline MA dot org or call 800 3 2 7 50 50 for 24 7 support in Maryland MD gambling help Org in New York 1 8 7 78 hoping wire text open Y and West Virginia go to 1 800 gambler dot net I'll take a look now at tonight's MLB slate where I've got two money lines and two strikeout props Where I'm showing value right now over at fan duel sports book. Let's begin things off with the money line That is for the Orioles and the Guardians. I like the Orioles money line here at minus 142 my model is the Orioles went off 62 percent implied odds here 59 percent and I I'm guessing there are a couple reasons why that is the case The first one is the offense is here because the Guardians offense last year Got by as being like the scrappy team not a lot of power But because they never struck out they wound up having pretty good numbers Despite that that is not carried over into this year. They're wrc plus against righties in the current active roster 79 Power is still crazy low at 116 for the ISO there So they've not been a good offense Second, I'm kind of skeptical Cal Quantrill their starter will be as able to outperform his peripherals as he was last year He did that by having a very good hard hit rate. So you look at stuff like skill interactive era I think it undercounts the value of a low hard hit rate personally and it can It can I think that be that haven't be its biggest weak spot So Quantrill last year out performed a skill interactive era Because he did such a good job of suppressing hard contact This year he has not been doing that and as a result his expected era, which I think does a better job Looking backward at quantifying stuff like hard hit rates. It doesn't it's not as good a forecast I don't think a skill interactive era, but does a better job looking backward and His expected era is 5.54. So almost a full run higher than his actual era at 4.75 So Quantrill this year hasn't been the same picture as he was last year Is now facing an Orioles offense that I respect quite a bit and they could do pretty well here So i'm not super high like Kyle Gibson the Orioles starter, but given the offensive differences here and given the fact that I do think that um Quantrill Probably not going to live up to what he did last year. I think there is enough to justify Buying into the Orioles here at minus 142. So the Orioles money line to me a good bet at minus 142 Over at vandal sportsbook I have a money line in the strikeout prop into the same game right now That is for the cubs and the rays and the money line is going to be on the cubs at pulse 168 The strikeout prop is going to be kyle hindricks over three and a half at minus 126 I don't want to pair those together personally. We can look at what that looks like if you want to in just one second But first let's talk about the cubs money line here It's not fun to bet against shame the clan hand and the rays that has not gone well for People who have done so so far this year. So I go in knowing that's the case But clearly the market knows that because the cubs money line their win odds here under 38 percent despite the fact they are at home here That's pretty low. Kyle Hendricks making his second start here for the cubs this year He's had ups and downs or had ups and downs in his debut, but increased strikeout right there His velocity is better than it was last year and we saw that increased strikeout rate in his rehab stints as well I think that's kind of interesting, but it is potentially not sticky That cubs offense. I think is stickier. They've been very good against lefties so far this year And you look at the composition of that lineup. There are a lot of good righties in that line So I think like Logically it makes sense. They'd be good against lefties It's a small sample don't want to buy in fully to what they've done so far this year But I think they had the components to be very good against lefties. So mclanahan Is a very good pitcher his era is sub 2 this year and he's deserved that he has earned that good strikeout numbers Pretty good bad at ball data as well. But pretty tough test here for today Now it's plus 168 for a reason. So the odds this bet caches are pretty low The implied odds there are 37.3 So you have to keep that in mind as always when it's lower probability bets Keep in mind the odds that that bet hits are lower So account for that within how much money you put into this bet But i'm higher on the cubs in the market I think it's a worthwhile investment personally and do want to take the money line at plus 168 Now I think one way you can do that Is to scale the money line bet with the hendrix strikeout prop over three and a half where If one of them hits you profit, they're pretty easy ways to do that Uh, so let's take a look here at the hendrix strikeout prop over three and a half of currently minus 126 right now Fandals sportsbook talked before about the increase velo talked about the increase strikeout rate His swinging strike rate in that game was 9.3 percent now I was actually on hendrix under in that first arcs. I didn't think its pitch count would be very high You look back to the rehab stints and they kept his pitch count pretty low But in that game 86 pitches for hendrix So i'm okay projecting him around 90 fourth night another step forward here as he gets one step deeper one start deeper into his return And again the strikeouts were there in the rehab stint too So it's a very good offense, but they're not a low strikeout offense They are better than average in that department the rays are but Not like a crazy outlier in terms of the strikeout rate So how i'd play this personally is i'd scale these two bets where If you win one of them you can get a profit for the night. I'm giving the comes the money line is plus 168 That's pretty easy to do Again, hendrix over three and a half minus 126 if you wanted to pair them together via the same game parley or fandals sportsbook the over with um the money line at plus 168 That gets you plus 301 odds. I don't think that's good enough to tempt me given the money line is plus 168 So I need a bit a bit steeper than that personally to go at this one That's why I want to go with separate selections With the hendrix strikeout over and the money line at plus 168 Scaling them where if one of them does hit I profit for the bet overall Let's finish up here with one more strikeout prop four tonight That is in the reds and redsox game seen some movement on this game right now So we'll see where the strikeout prop is right now Ben lively over three and a half is still minus 102. It was plus 106 this morning So there's bets moving towards the over even at minus 102 I still think that's good enough to take because lively is getting a lot of leash right now It's now minus 104 as we are talking here right now, but uh still think there is some value there Once it gets to minus 115. I think it's minus 106 now. It's moving in real time once it gets to minus 115 I'm probably out of lively So if you're if you check this after I'm done recording, you see it's minus 115 I probably would stop if it's longer than minus 115 I'm okay with lively right now the reason I had interest here and lively to begin with was because I don't think this number reflects how much leash he got in his last start He went 103 pitches last time out and he got eight strikeouts there It was a second consecutive start with eight strikeouts He was not doing this in the miners. So I don't expect lively to do that again But I'm also not projecting him to do that again I've gotten projected for more than four strikeouts for today Closer to five action than four, which is why I'm okay getting to minus 115 and over three and a half I have a hard time projecting fewer strikeouts for a guy who Is getting that much leash can go over a hundred pitches It is on the road against the red sox and they are a low strikeout offense But I do still think there is value here So lively over three and a half strikeouts as long as it is minus 115 or longer I'm okay with it minus 106 right now as we record here I think that's okay, but getting closer to where I would jump ship. So better recommendations for today in baseball Ben lively over three and a half strikeouts minus 106 Kyle Hendricks over three and a half strikeouts minus 126 The Cubs money line of plus 168 and the Orioles money line at minus 142 all available Over at Fandall sportsbook now before you close up shop for today Do you got to go back to last week and recap the better recommendations here from the show? An overall pretty solid week for our guests here on the show first one Brandy can do let's start things off here with PGA for the Charles Schwab challenge Emiliano Grillo won that event and Grillo has been our favorite of ours over on the DFS side of things for a while So fun to see him win no outrides are brand on Grillo outrides there We're Denny McCarthy 55 to one Brendan Todd 90 to one and then Andrew put him at 100 to one First round leader bets of Brandon were Russell Hamley 45 to one and JJ spawn 80 to one Harry Hall shot a 62 in the first round. So He was three shots clear for everybody else. So no wins there But we'll see if we can bounce back at the memorial good week by Austin Cass our epl guy For the final weekend of epl check out awesome on twitter at Austin Cass and find his work over at number fire Austin was heavy on arsenal this past week and he liked over two and a half goals of plus 128 He liked their first half money line at minus 130 and both those hit because arsenal Was up 3-0 in the first half and they won 5-0. So very easily hitting both votes pretty much right away He also liked Bakae Osaka to score our assist and he notched that goal Got that that bet via a goal in the 20 seventh minutes So all three arsenal bets did wind up winning good call by Austin there Arsenal very good to him Over the weekend One of the other bets was full ham to win or draw a plus 155 against Manchester United They lost two to one They did score in the 79th minute to get it close to the draw there But couldn't quite get the equalizer So they did lose there couldn't quite get that one a plus 155 And the final one was dimari gray to score or assist at minus 110 They did score but gray was not involved in it. So overall still a great day for Austin via the arsenal bets Hopefully, uh, those were enough for you to profit and again check out awesome on twitter at austin cast Our guest to preview the indy 500 and the coke 600 was dr. Nick giffin check him out on twitter at roto doc Fight his work at the action network and on the stacking denny's and running hot podcast in the indy 500 Tough one here for nick because cal kirkwood was running well and running sixth I believe at the time But got caught up in a wreck not of his own doing and flipped and he was his tire who almost went in the stands Outrides for nick were alex polo six to one sentino ferrucci if you give him a 20 to one and then ryan hunter ray as a fun one 65 to one Winner there was joseph new garden finally getting that first win for him getting win for team penske at indy He talked about hunter ray top chevy at 30 to one But uh new garden was a chevy there. So couldn't get that one Nick though had a great read on the cup series race He liked ross chest 8 11 1 as did I which would have been my better recommendation for the show If we had done those to last week didn't work ross Had some issues or was gaining track position then got caught in a thing on pit road and kind of ruined his race, but Nick said to find markets to bet bubble wallace who finished fourth I had a wallace over chase elliott head to head So there were good bubble markets out there top five bet cashed the elliott head to head cashed I think there was a group at the cash too So if you were looking for bubble markets giving you finished fourth probably did pretty well there But the big thing by nick was He said he liked the penske cars on joey legato and ryan blaney because of the weather we'd see this weekend He'd said it helped the forwards quite a bit and blaney went out and won in I would say pretty dominant fashion Blaney was 22 to 1 f anduel. He was as long as 30 to 1 other places and his car was sick so Good process by nick great bet by nick great win by nick with ryan blaney Check him out on twitter at roto doc check out his podcast stacking denny's and the running hot podcast and find his work at the action network Good process good results. You always love when that occurs I had just won bet for f1 at monaco for the monaco grand prix I had shown value max for stappen to win at minus 120 But I was worried about qualifying because I thought if first stappen couldn't get the poll It'd be tough for him to get the win. So to account for that I took uh first happen to win both the poll and the race which was plus 220 in that instance The two bets were highly correlated because of how tough it is to pass monaco. Whereas I think they're being treated as effectively as like a traditional parlay not straight up because it was a kind of or a bit But I think the correlation should have been much tighter between those two markets First happen won the poll saturday had a final uh, his third sector time was fantastic to get the poll away From fernando alonso and even with rain on sunday for stappen won That cashed. I don't know if my handicap on first happen was right given how close Fernando Alonso was given. I benefited from Sergio Perez wrecking and qualifying two I probably got a bit lucky in the handicap But I think that the process of finding that market specifically was correct So I feel great about that part of it. I'm glad it worked out as well as it did I think that's always something we should be mindful of is finding the proper market for Betting our assumptions and I think that one worked out really well. So nick hitting the ryan blaney outright I got for stappen plus 220 to win the poll on the race austin cast via the Arsenal stuff good week overall in the show hoping to run it back once again this week with another good week of recommendations That's all we got here for covering the spread of four today We're going to preview the nba finals coming up later on this week though So make sure you're subscribed to the covering the spread podcast feed wherever you get your podcast and while you're there I like what you hear leave us a five star rating as well or on youtube Give us a thumbs up over on the fandom youtube page. Thank you once again to brandon gandula for swinging by breaking down the thoughts on the Memorial tournament checkout brand on twitter at gandula 13. I am on twitter at jim saunas j i m s a n n e s You can also follow the fan dual podcast network at fan dual podcast want to thank you all for tuning in for today Good luck to you with your bets across baseball for tonight. We'll talk to you once again later on this week This has been covering the spread right here on the fan dual podcast network