Hey Rook
Offline http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2928
I just received an e-mail that quoted Rook Hawkins of the "Rational Response Squad" as saying the following:
"RationalResponders.com: White was supposed to contact me ages ago about a debate and he chickened out."I would like to make it clear that Mr. Hawkins has never contacted me about a debate, hence, I can not "chicken out" of a debate he has never contacted me about. In fact, I was the one who contacted them to let them know I was going to critique some of his comments on an edition of The Dividing Line. In essence I was told that if I wanted to contact him, I should post on their web board. I have no interest in web boards and their incessant silliness, so I did not. That was the end of that. So what Mr. Hawkins, the self-proclaimed historical expert of the "Rational Response Squad" is talking about, I have no idea. But if his grasp of ancient history is as slippery as his grasp of recent history, well, that says a lot.
Wow, willie.. you sure nailed him. Rook tells a guy how to get in touch with him, the guy never does, and um...
So.. yeah... what's your point?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Thank you for posting this. It has shown me once more how completely dishonest theists really are. He was told to contact me personally (not come on this message board, that's silly). I had given The Dividing Line all of my information and have yet to receive any email from either party (of the Dividing Line or the elusive White). I do find it rather amusing that White would suggest that my grasp of ancient history is slippery, considering White believes in all sorts of fantastical things like resurrecting people who ascend to heaven on clouds, faith-healing, and the historical reliability of the Gospels as a whole. If anything, what this can tell us is just how out of touch Mr. White is with not only ancient history but reality.
As if this little pros here couldn't bring about more jocularities, White acts as if his theological credentials (in apologetics and fairy tale) mean something when compared to my autodidactism (in real subjects and actual history). If White wants to debate, he has my information and knows where to find me. I do not want to lend credence to his delusions; he is not a serious threat to me or my work in the field of ancient history. I just don't take him that seriously.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
I posted it because I thought Rook would be interested in what someone was saying about him. Which he was.
And I posted it if he might want to add a clarification. Which he did.
If I have misunderstood your motives, you have my apologies. Thank you for keeping us updated.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
No problem. I just didn't have an email so I thougth this was the best way to bring it to Rooks attention... though now I realize I could of pmed him.
For future reference, willie, it's good to be sure you've said exactly what you mean. There are a lot of theists who come on here and just quote somebody's argument instead of using their own intellect. When you just post something without any indication of your intent, the default assumption (especially since you're a theist) is going to be that you're trying to argue.
Rook has a particularly short fuse on this issue because, well, he argues rather well that there was no Jesus, and pretty much every Christian who's heard of him hates his guts. When he sees a theist posting something about how he's dishonest, or lied about this or that, the default assumption is that it's an attack.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
If I remember correctly, we didn't find out about James White talking about Rook until after he had already recorded his show. My recollection is that James White didn't offer Rook a chance to come on the show that he used to criticize Rook. My memory may be wrong though as I don't care much about James White, seeing as how he's a presuppositionalist.
For those that aren't aware, we refuse to talk with presuppers as they don't meet the minimum honesty/intelligence requirement.
Want more activist minded atheists to join you here at rationalresponders? Donate to this advertising campaign to help support our outreach.
Am I just stating the obvious when I say James White is an asshat?
Could you elaborate on that? Or if it's been explained somewhere else just shoot me an URL.
It's very simple. Presupposition is so inherently absurd as an intellectual position that it's impossible for anyone to hold it while being both honest and reasonably intelligent.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
That didn't really clarify anything. You just restated in slightly different words. What about presup is inherently absurd? Why is it inherently absurd? Why would it require dishonesty to hold to it?
For clarification we are talking about TAG here?
I guess this probably should move to another forum.
Your guess is my command.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
You're right. James White recorded his show without ever informing me or giving me a chance to respond. I only found out about it from another Christian internet-radio talk-show host after the fact who was supposed to be coordinating a debate event. After we agreed to the event (me specifically, that is), James was supposed to contact me and give me the details of the discussion. He seems to have vanished off the face of the earth, along with the other Christian talk-show host who has decided not to contact me since we initially accepted the debate.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
He's referring to the act of presupposition, not the user Presuppositionalist.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Dr. White has posted more of his side of the story:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2929
What a dillhole.
Dear James White (since I know you're reading),
Please provide a means to verify or prove that your presuppositions are correct. Please provide a means for all of us to test or prove that the believing your God exists before the conversation gets started is more accurate or logical than to presuppose that a giant anteater that hates Jesus exists and that created all of existence. Please actually answer the question instead of coming off like a hustler who ducks, jives, or diverts from my test.
Please feel free to do so on your aomin site or on a radio show that I would not be interested in appearing on as I find you and anyone who thinks like you far too stupid to warrant any of my time (in fact, this was far too much time already). I will be glad to eat those words should you show that your presuppositionalist logic actually holds some weight.
Thanks,
Sapient
Want more activist minded atheists to join you here at rationalresponders? Donate to this advertising campaign to help support our outreach.
James White,
Please accept these two threads as the official RRS position in regards to your theological beliefs:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15733
http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag
We welcome a response to any of the above material. For the record, the correspondence you posted on your site from our site is an automated response. Additionally, real evidence would be a print screen showing the date your email to Rook was sent and then showing the date you recorded the show. Had you sent an email yesterday, you'd have gotten the same response, hence your "evidence" merely proves a letter was sent to our automated box at somepoint in time, but not necessarily with enough time to garner Rooks attention. Not that giving him enough time would've mattered, I still would have advised him to not give you the time of day.
Want more activist minded atheists to join you here at rationalresponders? Donate to this advertising campaign to help support our outreach.
I'm not quite sure whether you understand what Presuppositionalism teaches. Although I don't want to speak directly for Dr. White, I think he would say that he does not assume nakedly the existence of God or the truth of the Scriptures. Rather, he would likely state that taking the Bible as a foundation for all knowledge is the only worldview that is internally consistent. Thus, the Christian God would be a bit more accurate presupposition than the anteater, because such a being did not present a consistent worldview to mankind, like God has.
To preempt your possibly asking how Dr. White came to know this truth to begin with, he will answer that it is due to the irresistable grace of God. From an outside perspective (i.e. from an atheist presupposition, to give those Reformed reading this a bit of a chuckle here) this is why I think Presup and Calvinism go hand-in-hand: as Dr. White says himself on his presentation of the double-predestination Calvinist reading of Romans 9, "I know that the only way anyone can believe this is by an act of grace."
First of all, I have not met a single Presuppositionalist who lacks in intelligence, or ignores the application of his or her intelligence. Although I think some self-proclaimed Calvinists seize the system and tout themselves as some sort of haughty, God-chosen Elect with the power to refute all wordviews (Kelly Tripplehorn, of the Texas intern email scandal fame, is a prime example of such an alpha-male chest beater who happily took up this role to make his belittling nature Godly), I have seen much more calm scholarship rather than this type of behavior from Dr. White in his Dividing Line broadcasts.
Although I am a little disappointed in Dr. White's treatment of this subject in recognizing that the "middle man" radio host that mediated between the two of you is the actual one at fault, you've done the same thing. Although your next post (I thought you said you had spent too much time already in this one) contains Martin's decent but incomplete refutation of TAG, not all Presup uses or even agrees with TAG, so you can't assume that on Dr. White; the other link does not provide a sound refutation and would be chicken feed for Dr. White to demolish in comparison to the level of scholarship and thought with which he is engaged.
Presuppositionalism is worth your time, and if you're interested in ancient history, you should be willing to at least calmly discuss this matter on Dr. White's show. Bart Ehrman, who (I hope) you at least know about so far in your studies, is to meet Dr. White in a debate this January - if a nonbeliever who has already spent an academic career on the subject of Biblical history is willing to debate Dr. White, this should tell you the level of respect fellow skeptics give him. Besides, if he is stupid, as you say, then you should be able to jump on his program and rout him pretty soundly, although if you do in reality go about it with that attitude you're going to get smashed to bits.
Kind of strange that the guy with an upside down Calvin as his avatar is defending one of the top modern Calvinist apologists out there, but if you're going to be serious in your future studies, scholarship, and debating, you can't make an assertion that he is stupid without checking the scholarship and testing your theory first. That is, after all, the very thing you criticize them for not being able to do
"When the Lord Jesus Christ in His own words describes in some little detail that great drama that's the most important event in all human history, time, and eternity - this event, the great general judgment - the Lord Jesus Christ, then shall He say unto them on His right hand, 'Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for when you had opportunity at one of Billy Graham's campaigns you went forward and took good ol' Jesus as your very own personal savior.' NO! GET REAL!" - Fred Phelps
So basing your world-view on a collection of stories that are riddled with internal inconsistencies, and inconsistent with many aspects of external reality that have been solidly established since those texts were written, is 'pre-supposed' to lead to a consistent worldview????
I suppose that is consistent, if only in being 'inconsistent' at all levels and from all angles...
Sapient's case is proven.
Seriously though, probably demonstrates something I have always held, that there is a class of religious world-view that actually requires a lot of intellectual ability, to devise and maintain a line of argument sufficiently convoluted to effectively mask, even to the person themselves, the inherent absurdities in the ultimate conclusion.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
But it is you who does not understand.
White does assume god exists. He does not consider "god" to be a naked assertion!
What god?
A presupposition is the assumption that the naked assertion "god" is a fact that needs no proof. The proof presuppositionalists provide is a circular argument! White is trying to prove 'god' with the assumption that 'god' exists (which hasn't been proved).
Why can't those who hold to an 'intelligent designed fine-tuned universe' see that the universe was designed to kill us?
Mind the Machiavellian theists and taqiyahs who masquerade as atheists.
I presupposed it, so I must be right.
Want more activist minded atheists to join you here at rationalresponders? Donate to this advertising campaign to help support our outreach.