Send us a text

Start with a simple question: when your world divides you into teams, how do you stay friends across the line? We stress-test that question by putting our own friendship on the table—a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist—and then follow the thread from art museums to ancient theology to modern Stoicism. The journey is winding, but it holds together: what you focus on, how you practice, and which stories you trust will shape the way you live.

We trade museum stories first, including a “headless” dog in a Dalí painting that was there all along if you looked closely enough. That becomes our metaphor for interpretation: certainty can be a costume for inattention. From there we dive into discipline—early mornings, 500 lines, writing before scrolling—and why Stoic ideas like temperance and craftsmanship help us create instead of perform. Social media exits and anxiety have their place, but we talk about building sustainable habits rather than chasing extremes.

Then we go deep on belief. Does faith evolve because God reveals more, or because humans understand differently? We track the arc from henotheism to monotheism, exile to meaning-making, and how cultures borrow from neighbors—Persian influence on Sheol included. Along the way we question whether development always equals progress. Maybe some changes are side steps. Maybe monotheism gained moral focus and lost mythic nuance. We argue for intellectual hospitality: diverge to gather, converge to decide, then repeat. Science, philosophy, and theology are not rivals but lenses that help us see reality from complementary angles.

If you’re tired of being told to pick a side, this conversation offers a third way: rigorous curiosity with good faith. Listen, reflect, and tell us what belief, habit, or assumption you’ve reframed lately. Subscribe, share with a friend, and drop a review—help more people find common ground without dumbing anything down.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Division sells, but it doesn’t solve much. We sat down—one progressive Christian, one conservative atheist—and stress-tested whether two people who disagree on faith and politics can talk through fear, foreign policy, and identity without turning each other into enemies. The short answer: yes, if we swap hot takes for honest motives and keep the relationship above the scoreboard.

We start with a spiral: news about Venezuela and saber-rattling around Greenland sparks late-night dread about drafts and war. From there we unpack how negotiation theater, “naked empire” rhetoric, and shifting justifications fuel anxiety, and why history makes it hard to pretend this is all new. We explore restraint in leadership, what bluster sometimes hides, and how much of our outrage is really about signaling who we are to our tribe rather than changing anything in the real world.

The heart of the conversation is cognitive, not partisan. We break down the dance between divergent thinking (opening possibilities, examining assumptions) and convergent thinking (deciding and acting). Wisdom requires both, whether you’re weighing environmental policy or parenting a teenager you fear is headed for pain. We borrow from stoicism to set a practice: prepare for what you control, stop rehearsing disaster, and guard your attention from feeds that mistake repetition for importance.

By the end, we offer a model for disagreement that keeps human dignity intact: name the actual outcome you want, surface everyone’s motives (including your own), and commit to one action in your control this week. If you’re tired of debates that win points but lose people, this one’s for you. If it resonates, subscribe, share with a friend who votes differently than you do, and leave a review telling us where you found common ground.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Feeling squeezed to “pick a side” on every issue? We pull the lens back and ask a deeper question: what is a right, and what do we owe each other to make it real? With Elena joining the table, we test our friendship across belief lines—a progressive Christian, a conservative atheist, and a listener who pushes hard on language and policy—to map the territory between personal liberty, social duty, and the state’s role.

We start by sorting fundamental rights from civil and social rights and examine the claims-and-duties framework that underpins them. Does calling something a “right” add moral gravity or muddy the waters by demanding other people’s labor? We explore charity and taxation through the “Forgotten Man,” consider whether a fair trial is a state construct we traded for order, and question the costs of outsourcing care to impersonal systems. The theme keeps returning: rights can protect us from each other, but responsibilities connect us to each other.

Education becomes our test case. Alayna argues that free, quality public education is both a moral obligation and a safety measure that strengthens communities and competitiveness. We separate the goal of raising the floor from the means of public versus private delivery, and we debate the language of “deserve” for children versus a clear duty owed to the vulnerable. Along the way, we unpack social contract theory, individual autonomy, and why entitlement grows when we export responsibility to the state.

By the end, we land on real common ground: claims must be matched by obligations, and outrage needs to become action. Alayna’s fight against a third-grade retention law—paired with hands-on support for families—shows how to move from critique to care. If you’re tired of rights talk that never leaves the page, this conversation offers a practical path back to community: feed the person in front of you, teach the child across town, and rebuild trust one responsibility at a time.

If this resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to help more people find Living on Common Ground.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Feeling tugged to pick a side—left or right, secular or religious, old school or ultra-online? We start the year by stress-testing a simple idea: friendship can thrive across deep differences. On one mic, a progressive Christian. On the other, a conservative atheist. What keeps us laughing, learning, and listening when the world rewards outrage?

We warm up with Rose Bowl nostalgia, family fandoms, and New Year travel plans, then get practical about resolutions that stick. One of us lays out a straightforward system—write “I will” goals, set dates, build a strategy, revisit often. The other leans on Stoicism’s clean rule: discipline today is love for your future self. That shift turns willpower into care and makes everyday choices—like what you reach for in the kitchen—feel purposeful, not punitive.

From there, we swing through a stack of book recommendations that jump from Vonnegut to Postman, from Orwell to Bart Ehrman and Robert Wright, plus a detour into Cormac McCarthy. Reading logs help us gift by taste, not trend, and we share a favorite memory of trading Clueless for Bollywood during a quiet college break. Then we face the present: 2025’s creators, K‑pop universes, Roblox worlds, and the “reads Reddit stories” genre. We’re honest about what we don’t get and curious about why it works.

Finally, we rewind to 1995—Windows 95, Seinfeld and Friends, Braveheart, Seven, the OJ verdict, Oklahoma City, Jerry Garcia’s passing, and even Mississippi’s late ratification of the 13th Amendment. The comparison sparks a bigger question: which AI-era startups are today’s eBay, hiding in plain sight? Along the way, a playful riff on bizarre laws reminds us how systems and habits calcify—and why pruning matters.

If you like thoughtful conversation with warmth, candor, and a little chaos, you’re in the right place. Follow Living on Common Ground, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us one resolution your future self will thank you for.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

What if Christmas isn’t magic from far away, but matter aligning with love right here? We open with holiday greetings and step into a reimagined Nativity that holds science and faith together. Starting from the Big Bang and the birth of consciousness, we explore the logos as the universe’s deep pattern—energy organizing toward truth, beauty, justice, and love—and we ask what changes when that pattern takes on skin.

Mary’s yes and Joseph’s courage become more than pious moments; they are human choices that create room for alignment. With no space in the systems built for power and wealth, the birth happens on the margins, making a claim about where the sacred shows up. Night-shift shepherds notice first. Magi read the sky and bring gifts that hint at self-giving love. Herod feels threatened, as domination always does, and the holy family flees as refugees. The point isn’t exemption from pain; it’s solidarity within it. Energy transforms, not disappears; the light persists where people let love flow.

We share why this story matters beyond nostalgia. The incarnation continues when we choose service over grasping, courage over fear, and community over isolation. The beloved community is not a closed circle but an ecosystem where resources move to places of need, where every life has room to breathe and belong. Following Jesus becomes an embodied practice: align with the pattern he reveals, make space where systems won’t, and let your daily work turn into a site of incarnation.

Walk with us through a Christmas that honors the cosmos and the crib, the science and the sacred. If this reframing stirs you, tap follow, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review. Where do you see the light refusing to go out this week?

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Every December, something in us softens. The traffic is still bad and the lines are still long, yet we wait with a little more patience and offer a little more grace. We wanted to understand that shift without scolding or sanctimony, so we sat down to unpack holiday joy from two very different angles: a progressive Christian’s lens on incarnation and an atheist’s take on seasonality, nostalgia, and community.

Our conversation starts with a sermon in progress and a question that keeps getting louder online: why do people try to police other people’s joy? We explore how connection, generosity, and hope can be real whether you name them in religious terms or not, and why attempts to gatekeep December often mask an inner dread that we ourselves are “doing it wrong.” Instead of fighting culture wars about red cups, greetings, or decor timelines, we reach for stoicism’s simple compass: focus on what you can control, notice your reactions, and choose the action that makes you more humane.

From there we dig into the psychology beneath holiday flashpoints. Anger at “Happy Holidays,” complaints about commercialization while shopping, or the urge to rant on cue often reveal grief for lost villages and childhood rituals. We don’t dismiss that grief; we honor it and harness it. Traditions—sacred liturgies, goofy movie marathons, familiar songs—are loops that steady us in a fragmented world. Keep the ones that make you kinder. Retire the ones that turn you into a hall monitor. If you’re a person of faith, consider how incarnation might name the same goodness you see when neighbors help neighbors. If you’re not, notice how winter gatherings and shared rites still draw out your best self.

By the end, we offer a practical map: drop the joy police badge, ask why a small thing triggers you, and answer with self-honesty. Change yourself first; your street may follow. If this conversation sparked something—curiosity, pushback, or relief—hit follow, share it with a friend who loves a good December debate, and leave a quick review so others can find the show.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Feeling cornered by purity tests and tribal litmus checks? We’ve been there. As a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist who happen to be close friends, we trade quick outrage for slow curiosity and ask a tougher question: are we building bridges or policing borders? From social media habits to Stoic clarity, we unpack how certainty hardens into fundamentalism and how to interrupt that slide before it fractures our families, feeds, and neighborhoods.

We start with small, practical habits that shift conversations: a simple list of guardrails to use before posting online. Is this building understanding or reinforcing contempt? Would I say it to someone’s face because it’s right, not just brave? Am I treating people as complex or as caricatures? What emotion am I trying to spark—compassion or outrage—and what do I really hope to gain? These prompts turn performative signaling into meaningful dialogue and help detox your timeline without losing your voice.

Zooming out, we explore the radical flank effect, pluralistic ignorance, and the way groups punish 90 percent agreement as betrayal. Then we reach back to the early environmental movement as a blueprint for coalition: hunters, scientists, clergy, executives, hippies, and suburban parents stood shoulder to shoulder because polluted rivers didn’t ask for party IDs. Cooperation came before coherence, and progress followed. That big-tent energy can return if we stop treating neighbors as proxies for distant enemies and start rewarding nuance over noise.

Along the way, we share personal confessions about the dopamine loops of snark and the pride of being the “different one,” then offer practical ways to replace those hits with longer-lasting wins: clearer thinking, repaired ties, and a wider common ground. If you’re ready to trade certainty for curiosity and contempt for understanding, you’ll leave with language, tools, and hope for the next hard conversation.

If this resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves a good debate done well, and leave a review telling us which guardrail you’ll try this week.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

What if a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist could argue hard topics, laugh at themselves, and keep choosing friendship? That’s the spirit of this conversation as we map common ground without sanding off our edges—tackling public education, healthcare, and the blurry line between rights and services.

We start by calling out how split life feels and then test our labels. Music sparks a detour to Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and why compatibilism appeals to people who dislike rigid binaries. From there we build a case for a limited social floor: tax-funded public education as a baseline that raises opportunity and reduces chaos, with clear guardrails to avoid mission creep. We face the tradeoffs head-on—property tax stability vs sales tax fairness, indoctrination fears vs the costs of ignorance—and keep the focus on equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.

Healthcare gets the same blueprint: a minimum viable layer that covers preventive care and urgent needs without promising the cutting edge to all. We wrestle with the claim that “a right cannot require someone else’s labor,” exploring what society should guarantee, what markets should deliver, and how to be honest about costs. The debate widens to central planning, zoning, and the reality that dense cities need coordination even as we guard against bureaucratic creep. Along the way we poke at shifting labels—how yesterday’s revolutionary becomes today’s institution—and admit where each of us would freeze or push change.

If you crave smart, good-faith disagreement that still lands on shared principles, you’ll feel at home here. Hit play, subscribe for more thoughtful clashes, and tell us: what single baseline—education, healthcare, or something else—should every society guarantee? Your take might shape our next episode.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com