Calling In To Evangelist Guy’s Show.

Someone asked me to call into an evangelist guy’s show tomorrow, I mentioned it in the blog comments and several people asked for the link/time I’m calling in.

http://www.aomin.org/articles/webcast.html

That’s the link to the webcast page, I intend to call in tomorrow afternoon, which is 4pm their local time, make sure to adjust the time for your local time (they have a clock of the local time on the webpage, just figure out the difference).

Enjoy : D

Mark

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Calling In To Evangelist Guy’s Show.

  1. Good for you.  I hope you find some answers to your questions.  

  2. trunthepaige says:

    Dr. James White.  I know him. I have not heard his show but I have talked to him and read some of his stuff we have a mutual friend. Saw him in a debate once as well.   I have no idea what you are going to talk about, but if you plan on debating him he is going to have you for breakfast. So be readily, he is an extremely intelligent man. 

  3. QuantumStorm says:

    When it comes to Protestant apologetics, James White is a moron. I hope you give him a run for his money regarding sola scriptura.

  4. The comments above are quite interesting. Two Christians having diametrically opposed opinions about the same person. I’m no fan of QuantumStorm,  but he at least displays *some* ability to recognize and form logical arguments. Paige on the other hand…if she’s praising that guy’s intelligence, he’s very likely a moron, like QS says. Even if Dr. White was intelligent, apologetics by its very nature is about defending the indefensible. You have enough brain cells to have him for breakfast. Even the best apologists I’ve seen are quite defeatable. I have never seen one that really made me go “wow, he might have a point there.”  Not once.

  5. agnophilo says:

    @LifeNeedsProtection – Thank you, that’s very patronizing.@trunthepaige – Judging from the video I saw of him he didn’t seem terribly intelligent.  But be sure to toon in, we’ll see.@QuantumStorm – We’ll see if it comes up : D@In_Reason_I_Trust – I agree, I’ve never been “wowed” by an apologist.  They usually use the same arguments that have been refuted to their face dozens of times.

  6. This should be very interesting.  Good luck!!  Hope you knock em dead.  šŸ™‚

  7. agnophilo says:

    @awakeningthesoul – Will do.  Have called into these sorts of shows before, nothing new.

  8. @In_Reason_I_Trust – well if you do want a good exchange between two philosophers who both make good points, you should check out William Lane Craig’s debate with Quentin Smith; i think they had similar tastes of philosophy and capacity for argument.. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard01.html

  9. agnophilo says:

    @nyclegodesi24 – The atheist’s shpeal about the universe created itself seems retarded and totally un-neccessary. 

  10. How could anyone loose a debate with somebody who believes a walking talking snake stole the universe? Impossible!

  11. @agnophilo – it may not be necessary, but it’s one of a finite number of alternative explanations, so it’s certainly not dumb.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @ChevalierSeingal@datingish – Stole the universe?@nyclegodesi24 – It did seem dumb.  What does the beginning of the universe have to do with atheism?  And unless you’re about to get or have just gotten a nobel prize, you haven’t figured out how the universe began.I could see it as a refutation of some bogus “the universe had to have a creator because you can’t have an infinite blah blah blah” argument.Maybe it was pre-emptive?

  13. @agnophilo – well his form of atheism is called naturalism, (a thing which can be considered an alternative to theism, which atheism is not) and naturalism is definitely involved in accounting for origins of the universe. it’s a positive claim as much as theism is a claim. much of the arguments were abstract and a priori; science won’t help in proving or disproving any of them, and the arguments are consistent with any possible scientific finding. in other words, no matter what we know about the origins of the universe, smith’s and craig’s arguments can be applied. and yeah, it was probably a pre-emptive thing against the cosmological argument (which Craig makes, anyway, haha).

  14. @agnophilo – how so? what makes it silly?

  15. agnophilo says:

    @nyclegodesi24 – Claiming to know things you by definition cannot and do not know.

  16. @agnophilo – but unless you’re presupposing some sort of scientism (which you should support), why should a priori truths not be counted as knowledge? what definition are you referring to here?

  17. agnophilo says:

    @nyclegodesi24 – Well you can’t logic your way to an understanding of physics because physics has shown us numerous times that it defies our common sense.  Our brains were not built to understand it.

  18. @agnophilo – i’m not sure what your response had to do with what i said… are you equating logic with common sense? if not, then what does that have to do with a priori knowledge?

  19. agnophilo says:

    @nyclegodesi24 – I’ve stopped caring.I don’t think we’re using the terms to mean the same thing.

  20. @agnophilo – Yes, the Adam and Eve story with the snake. That is the presupposition the entire bible can be summed up in. A walking talking snake stealing the world. Anymore that is all I need to debate anyone. And I know the bible better then 95% of all pastor’s. When you put it in that terminolgy it makes it sound as silly as it really is.

  21. MC_Shann says:

    @trunthepaige – I listened to the program (it’s available on iTunes). AgnoPhilo was having trouble understanding what Dr. White was saying. Thus a good debate failed to develop.@QuantumStorm – Agnophilo’s call was prompted from a video on my page. Your wishing him luck against another brother in the Lord makes me sad brother. Rooting for another catholic against his is one thing but rooting for an Agnostic? if the Agnostic wins no matter the topic… We (of the faith) lose.

  22. QuantumStorm says:

    @MC_Shann – The merits of agno’s arguments are irrelevant with regards to his personal beliefs. As far as I’m concerned, the Protestant positions on the Bible, formal vs. material sufficiency, sola scriptura, etc., are lacking in logic and coherency. I’ve encountered White’s arguments in the past on numerous occasions and they are poorly-conceived. I’m sorry you find it “sad” that I was supporting the dismantling of a series of poorly-built apologetics arguments. 

  23. agnophilo says:

    @ChevalierSeingal@datingish – Yes, it does.  I enjoy describing the bible in scientific terms too.  A powerful extra-terrestrial came to earth and manufactured humans so that he could…Makes it seem as silly as it is when you stop speaking in thus’ and thou’s.@MC_Shann – Actually he consistently said he didn’t understand where I was coming from, but you only see me not understanding his position.  Again with the whole anti-reality filter.@QuantumStorm – Well said.Ideas should survive only if they deserve to live.  And that goes for atheism, agnosticism, catholicism and so forth.

  24. @agnophilo – lmao! Your funny! Thanks for fighting the good fight! We need more people like you!

  25. agnophilo says:

    @ChevalierSeingal@datingish – Thanks : D  It wasn’t a particularly good “debate”, it lasted only a few minutes and didn’t go anywhere.  But it’s nice to get encouragement.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s