2007 in review for secular humanists.
This didn't surprise me much, given my experience with Todd Friel. And FYI, it's the latter, Todd.
Another unsurprising news item: Ron Paul is from Texas and is a...drum roll please...CREATIONIST.
Showing posts with label friel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label friel. Show all posts
Friday, December 28
Monday, October 15
Thursday, March 29
Tabash-Friel Debate at Daytona Beach 3-26-07, Talk at UF
The debate bode very well for atheism, and very poorly for any future hope for Friel at a career in philosophy. I think Eddie won handily. Friel basically sermonized and waxed emotive all night. His only arguments were from incredulity and ignorance (something I expected, from personal experience with him and the general creationist style). He honestly sounded more like a guy trying to convert a bunch of teenagers than someone attempting to make a rational case for theism. But...make up your mind for yourself, and leave a comment.
I really won't go any further than that, because I swear I don't think Friel is worth the analysis. He had nothing new, and what older arguments he did have were mangled versions (e.g., the first cause argument), which Eddie was able to refute, as he was met only with more personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.
I was unable to tape Eddie's opening because I was limited by lack of equipment, but his arguments for naturalism were almost identical to what he presented (see below) to AAFSA last Sunday, albeit abbreviated, since he had 15 mins instead of 45 -- Eddie opened with arguments against the supernatural along Humean lines: miracles, the argument from physical minds, arguments against an afterlife, the argument from divine hiddenness, and the problem of evil. It was typical Eddie -- cogent, precise and clear.
The Center for Inquiry - Daytona came off looking great, from their representation to the graphics and banners and the ACLU table. Props to them for their hard work -- they were all really nice and appeared to have taken this project quite seriously.
My seat for part 1 gave me a poor angle to begin with, and the issue of quality was compounded because I was only able to post this in low-res as the shitty Google Video Desktop Uploader for large files wasn't working earlier (no matter what I tried) with the hi-quality versions. I have DVDs (hi-res, 3.0Mbps) burned, and if you want a DVD, email me and we'll negotiate the $***. I also have Eddie's talk at UF encoded and burned to DVD, and am uploading it to GV right now.
Here is part 1 of 2, which I recommend watching below as GV stretches it out and makes it look even worse at their site:
Here is part 2 of 2 of the debate:
Here is part 1 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF on 3-25-07:
And finally, here is part 2 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF:
Please leave thoughts and comments below.
________________
***To cover my time and media/shipping expenses -- I think $10, including S&H, is fair. You can pay me via mailed check, but I would prefer using the PayPal function on my own webpage, it will expedite the process and make record-keeping easier. Go down to the bottom of the left sidebar, where it says "Austausch", and use it there (I prefer it over Amazon). Again, email me and we'll negotiate.
PS: I'm always amazed by how differently two eyewitnesses can report the facts about an event -- see here for someone who thinks that atheists were "humiliated" by Eddie's performance...
You be the judge.
_________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy, AAFSA
I really won't go any further than that, because I swear I don't think Friel is worth the analysis. He had nothing new, and what older arguments he did have were mangled versions (e.g., the first cause argument), which Eddie was able to refute, as he was met only with more personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.
I was unable to tape Eddie's opening because I was limited by lack of equipment, but his arguments for naturalism were almost identical to what he presented (see below) to AAFSA last Sunday, albeit abbreviated, since he had 15 mins instead of 45 -- Eddie opened with arguments against the supernatural along Humean lines: miracles, the argument from physical minds, arguments against an afterlife, the argument from divine hiddenness, and the problem of evil. It was typical Eddie -- cogent, precise and clear.
The Center for Inquiry - Daytona came off looking great, from their representation to the graphics and banners and the ACLU table. Props to them for their hard work -- they were all really nice and appeared to have taken this project quite seriously.
My seat for part 1 gave me a poor angle to begin with, and the issue of quality was compounded because I was only able to post this in low-res as the shitty Google Video Desktop Uploader for large files wasn't working earlier (no matter what I tried) with the hi-quality versions. I have DVDs (hi-res, 3.0Mbps) burned, and if you want a DVD, email me and we'll negotiate the $***. I also have Eddie's talk at UF encoded and burned to DVD, and am uploading it to GV right now.
Here is part 1 of 2, which I recommend watching below as GV stretches it out and makes it look even worse at their site:
Here is part 2 of 2 of the debate:
Here is part 1 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF on 3-25-07:
And finally, here is part 2 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF:
Please leave thoughts and comments below.
________________
***To cover my time and media/shipping expenses -- I think $10, including S&H, is fair. You can pay me via mailed check, but I would prefer using the PayPal function on my own webpage, it will expedite the process and make record-keeping easier. Go down to the bottom of the left sidebar, where it says "Austausch", and use it there (I prefer it over Amazon). Again, email me and we'll negotiate.
PS: I'm always amazed by how differently two eyewitnesses can report the facts about an event -- see here for someone who thinks that atheists were "humiliated" by Eddie's performance...
You be the judge.
_________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy, AAFSA
Thursday, March 15
A Little Feedback on My Talk with Todd Friel
As I mentioned, I talked to Todd Friel on "Way of the Master Radio," and he aired my segment. Well, I got some feedback.
A nice fellow, a college student at Boyce College in Louisville, KY, has edited the segment down to the relevant portion -- about 15 mins worth, and you can listen to it here on Odeo or download it here. After reading his feedback, I left a comment on his site.
Todd thinks it's "all about deconstruction" -- he seems blissfully unaware that many (if not the huge majority of) atheists are not post-modernists. For me it is quite simple:
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy
I am the atheist who called in to talk to Todd, and as I explained on my website, I used a pseudonym. You can read what I had to say about it already here if you like.I hope he replies. Upon listening to a little bit of the clip, I smiled at Todd's belief that atheists equivocate over the term "atheist". Todd is blissfully ignorant, it appears, that atheists have been arguing amongst themselves for years about what "weak atheism" versus "strong atheism" is, and whether someone can be an agnostic atheist, etc.
He extensively edited our talk, but I understand why -- we talked for about 40 mins. He cut out the parts about evolution and cosmology (the Standard Model, or the "Big Bang" if you prefer), and he cut out some of the end.
Now, I'm a little confused by what you wrote:It also shows that Atheists can deny God, but when it all boils down to it - you still have to deal with that “Sin” thing.Atheists don't "deny God" per se, they don't believe in God.
People do not always behave as they ought. Now, how do we go from there to "however, there is a God," or even, "however, there is a judgment"?? Please, feel free to show me how that is an inevitable (or even a logical) conclusion...
Todd thinks it's "all about deconstruction" -- he seems blissfully unaware that many (if not the huge majority of) atheists are not post-modernists. For me it is quite simple:
- I cannot disbelieve, or claim to know, anything about a concept which is not defined
- Therefore, define "god" for me, and then I'll explain whether I claim to believe or know something about it
- I am thus an agnostic about god-concepts that are vague or undefined, but an atheist about many defined and well-known gods, like the Christian god and Allah and Thor...
- If "god" = "the Western God, omni3: all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving", then I will unequivocally not only admit to disbelief, but also I will claim that such a God doesn't exist, because of arguments like these and these
- If "god" = "the power of love" or "the grounding of existence", then I'll roll my eyes and walk away.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy
Tuesday, March 13
On "Way of the Master Radio" with Todd Friel
Out of boredom and curiosity, I called in to Way of the Master Radio on Friday evening. The host, Todd Friel, will be debating Eddie in Daytona Beach on 3/26, and I'm hoping he'll be able to come here the day before to do our debate. He's one of the last on my list as potential opponents.
I called in as "David" from Tampa, 23, at UF studying chemistry. I simply used a pseudonym because I wasn't sure how the show would go -- if he would be hostile, if he would even air my segment. I was also a little insecure about being live on air, and I've never debated live on-air before, so I wanted to see how it went. Only the beginning of my call was captured at the very end of the second hour of Friday's show, but he taped the rest of it and promised to air it later (on Monday, I suppose). You can listen to the last 2 minutes of the show here and catch me being welcomed on.
___*UPDATE*___
He did indeed put it on Monday's show, hour 2. You can listen to it here. My segment with him starts about 40 minutes in. He did a lot of editing of the show, which doesn't surprise me very much, and it is hard to tell, but he is actually jumping in and out of the show with explanations, and cutting out parts, rather than just letting it all play.
For instance, he completely omitted the part about cosmology and how the Standard Model = "something from nothing," where I corrected him and called him on equivocation.
One big thing that Todd messes up badly is the idea that atheists are "suppressing knowledge of God" in order to deny the judgment. I've dealt with this at some length before, and the problem with this argument, as I tried to point out, is that I don't have to deny a god's existence in order to deny the Christian God's existence, or in order to deny the Bible's inerrancy, etc. It is a non sequitur of the highest order to say, "If God, then judgment," yet Todd seems to take this leap in logic for granted and as if it is self-evident! The God of the Deists is only one of thousands of completely accessible theistic beliefs that avoid the whole notion of orthodox Christian judgment, along with Islam and Hinduism and etc. To say that atheists "just disbelieve to avoid judgment" is thus laughable.
At the end of the show, notice that he dodged the issue of mercy vs. justice entirely. Like many Christians, he can't seem to comprehend that you cannot both be merciful and just at the same time:
The argument is that because God punished Himself, an innocent Person, in order to give mercy, it is still just, because someone "paid for" what I deserve.
So, in this twisted view of justice, an innocent person can be punished for a guilty person's crimes, and this is still just!! No. That is complete rubbish. Instead, this would be barbaric and injust. Now, if the person who is punished volunteers to be punished, then you have mercy, not justice. And if God can be merciful to whomever he pleases, and accept their wrongdoings by forgiving them for those wrongdoings, then of course God can arbitrarily decide to be merciful at his own whim! As Paul said in Romans 9:15-31ff, this sort of God just decides who to have mercy on, and who to judge justly, and can make some people for hell, and some for heaven ("vessels fit for destruction, vessels fit for mercy").
Of course, the question of how the whole "hell = just punishment for sin" argument follows, even if God does put people in hell, is a completely separate, and even more difficult, issue.
DagoodS from DC has dealt with this issue at some length: God gets to make the rules, and one of the rules can be that he doesn't have to enforce them at all times, and thus God gets to decide what justice is and what mercy is. The whole idea that God is "bound" to throw sinners into hell is thus laughable and absurd.
*****
One other thing to highlight: Exapologist points to a new and useful resource on the Christian apologetic commonly known as "presuppositionalism". I have covered this issue at some length here and elsewhere, and Prof. Witmer's intro to the subject, and his interview with Gene Cook, is always a good place to start.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism
I called in as "David" from Tampa, 23, at UF studying chemistry. I simply used a pseudonym because I wasn't sure how the show would go -- if he would be hostile, if he would even air my segment. I was also a little insecure about being live on air, and I've never debated live on-air before, so I wanted to see how it went. Only the beginning of my call was captured at the very end of the second hour of Friday's show, but he taped the rest of it and promised to air it later (on Monday, I suppose). You can listen to the last 2 minutes of the show here and catch me being welcomed on.
___*UPDATE*___
He did indeed put it on Monday's show, hour 2. You can listen to it here. My segment with him starts about 40 minutes in. He did a lot of editing of the show, which doesn't surprise me very much, and it is hard to tell, but he is actually jumping in and out of the show with explanations, and cutting out parts, rather than just letting it all play.
For instance, he completely omitted the part about cosmology and how the Standard Model = "something from nothing," where I corrected him and called him on equivocation.
One big thing that Todd messes up badly is the idea that atheists are "suppressing knowledge of God" in order to deny the judgment. I've dealt with this at some length before, and the problem with this argument, as I tried to point out, is that I don't have to deny a god's existence in order to deny the Christian God's existence, or in order to deny the Bible's inerrancy, etc. It is a non sequitur of the highest order to say, "If God, then judgment," yet Todd seems to take this leap in logic for granted and as if it is self-evident! The God of the Deists is only one of thousands of completely accessible theistic beliefs that avoid the whole notion of orthodox Christian judgment, along with Islam and Hinduism and etc. To say that atheists "just disbelieve to avoid judgment" is thus laughable.
At the end of the show, notice that he dodged the issue of mercy vs. justice entirely. Like many Christians, he can't seem to comprehend that you cannot both be merciful and just at the same time:
Mercy: Not giving someone what they deserveAccording to Todd, at the end of the show, God is always just. He always gives people what they deserve. However, with the same breath, and in complete self-contradiction, he claims that all sinners deserve hell, but that some do not receive it, because they "repent and trust"...
Just: Giving someone what they deserve
The argument is that because God punished Himself, an innocent Person, in order to give mercy, it is still just, because someone "paid for" what I deserve.
So, in this twisted view of justice, an innocent person can be punished for a guilty person's crimes, and this is still just!! No. That is complete rubbish. Instead, this would be barbaric and injust. Now, if the person who is punished volunteers to be punished, then you have mercy, not justice. And if God can be merciful to whomever he pleases, and accept their wrongdoings by forgiving them for those wrongdoings, then of course God can arbitrarily decide to be merciful at his own whim! As Paul said in Romans 9:15-31ff, this sort of God just decides who to have mercy on, and who to judge justly, and can make some people for hell, and some for heaven ("vessels fit for destruction, vessels fit for mercy").
Of course, the question of how the whole "hell = just punishment for sin" argument follows, even if God does put people in hell, is a completely separate, and even more difficult, issue.
DagoodS from DC has dealt with this issue at some length: God gets to make the rules, and one of the rules can be that he doesn't have to enforce them at all times, and thus God gets to decide what justice is and what mercy is. The whole idea that God is "bound" to throw sinners into hell is thus laughable and absurd.
*****
One other thing to highlight: Exapologist points to a new and useful resource on the Christian apologetic commonly known as "presuppositionalism". I have covered this issue at some length here and elsewhere, and Prof. Witmer's intro to the subject, and his interview with Gene Cook, is always a good place to start.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)