CHALLENGE FOR KELLY
Posted on: August 8, 2007 - 1:30am
Offline
CHALLENGE FOR KELLY
I heard it said today that Kelly is the philosopher of the RRS. If this is true, I invite Kelly to call professor Craig Hawkins on his radio program which airs every Sunday night between 10 PM -- 12 AM, pacific standard time. Craig is an expert in logic and epistemology. He has taught logic for 13 years. He is a strong theist and a philosophical and evidencial apologist. You can hear the program on www.hischannel.com every Sunday at 10 PM. The show is called "Living by the Word," and the number is 866-livebyword. Infact, I invite any atheist to give him a call. I also request that the RSS invite him on their own radio show. Call him Kelly. I challenge you. Lets see how well your atheistic "logic" stands the scrutiny of a real logician.
- Login to post comments
It doesn't matter if Craig Hawkins is can use logic. If his initial assumptions are irrational, logic or no, his Christians belief is still irrational.
Anyway, there's much, much more to philosophy than logic.
He has taken philosophy up to the doctoral level. Believe me, there is nothing you can teach him that he doesn't already know. If theism is "irrational," then call him Sunday and tell him why it is. Lets see how well your argument holds up.
By the way, I heard that several real apologists challenged the RSS to debate, but the RRS declined every one of those offers. Instead, the RRS chose to debate Ray Comfort, an ordinary pastor, and actor Kirk Cameron. They chose them because they knew they were light weights in apologetics. I challenge, and infact I dare the RRS to debate Craig Hawkins, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Platinga, J.P. Moreland or Norman Geisler. But they won't. If atheism is so defensible, argue it with the best. If God does not exist, you should be able to prove it to anyone. What is the RRS afraid of? The fact is that these philosphers and scholars would shred the RRS. And the RRS knows it.
Sorry, I meant RRS not RSS in my previous post.
Once again, those making the claims ('I believe in god'- evfimy) are the ones with the burden of proof.
If your god does exist, evfimy, then you should be able to prove it to anyone.
Number of people on this site who you've conviced: 0
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Heh. You give way too much credence to Ph.D.s. I'm sure Dr. Hawkins can school me in the narrow field he did his dissertation in, and in whatever field he does research in if he's a researcher. I'm sure he can take me to task in the field of philosphy. But, getting a Ph.D. doesn't mean you crap gold.
Me calling him would prove nothing. I'm sure he can talk circles around me. I'm not a great speaker, and he would most certainly trounce me in a debate. That doesn't mean he's right and I'm wrong though, I'm just not a verbal debater.
I didn't say that theism is irrational, but Christianity. Many Christians themselves will say that reason is secondary to faith/intuition, i.e. Christianity isn't based on reason. They think reason has its uses, but it is limited. At most, reason informs faith. Hence, by their own admission, Christianity doesn't have a basis in reason. It's irrational. Yes, I know there are some Christians who put reason first, but they tend to be very liberal. I was a Christian who put reason first, and I became an atheist.
[Edit: Clarity]
Oh, but Comfort & Cameron choose the RRS. They're the ones who invited the Brian & Kelly to debate.
The RRS has debated decent apologists. One was the president of Liberty University. You should be able to download it free to see for yourself.
Regardless, atheism (or for that matter theism) doesn't stand or fall based on the outcome of an oral debate.
Oh, and for the last time...we don't need to prove god exists. Stop repeating that.
In other words, you're saying that these guys (who do apologetics for a living) are so desperate for credibility that you feel that they need to take on a bunch of young people who do this (for the moment) as a part time venture?
People in the forum have shredded the works of some of these "luminaries" you mention - do a search.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Wow,Evfimy, you've got minerals. That's for sure. You will excuse the rest of us if we don't take this sort of thing seriously. You are a geocentrist. So do you also believe fire comes from phlogiston? I have offered to prove to you that we revolve around the sun with simple observation and maths. I await some response from you.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
You are placing this man on quite a pedestal. If he is as strong in philosophy as you say, I suspect he would object to this characterization on philisophical grounds. Usually, as people atttain higher levels of education the begin to recognize that there is more that they don't know than they do know. And what they do know is subject to a large amount of uncertainty and change.
My Artwork
Meaning the show is broadcast from 1-3 AM on the East Coast? No way in hell am I going to stay up until 3 to listen to some asshat talk about his friend Jesus.
Craig Hawkins is the founder and President of Apologetics Information Ministry (A.I.M.). For numerous years professor Hawkins has hosted his own radio call-in, interview, and teaching programs, such as "Open Forum," "CRI Perspective," “AIM for the Truth,” and co-hosted "The Bible Answer Man" broadcast for the Christian Research Institute with the late Dr. Walter Martin. Currently he co-hosts "Living by the Word" which airs in Southern California on Sundays from 10 PM to 12 AM on KKLA, FM 99.5 (and on the Internet at www.kkla.com).
Professor Hawkins specializes in researching and answering questions regarding religious movements and issues, such as cults, the occult, world religions, general and philosophical Christian apologetics, and biblical theology. His studies in the occult include extensive research into satanism, witchcraft, and neopaganism. In addition to published articles, he has written two books: Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca (Baker Books), and Goddess Worship, Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism (Zondervan).
Professor Hawkins has extensive experience and training in apologetics. He received a B.A. in philosophy, graduating with honors, from the University of California Irvine, an M.A. in apologetics from Simon Greenleaf University, and an M.A. in Faith and Culture, graduating summa cum laude, from Trinity International University. He was a Research Consultant for Dr. Walter Martin, has served as the Assistant Dean of the School of Apologetics at Simon Greenleaf University, and as the Director of the Simon Greenleaf Institute of Apologetics at Trinity International University (California Campus). He has appeared on numerous radio and television programs. Professor Hawkins has taught at Biola University, Concordia University, Simon Greenleaf University, with the Talbot Institute of Biblical Studies (TIBS), and other institutions, on apologetics, cults, logic, the occult, theology, worldviews, and related issues. Presently he is an adjunct professor at Trinity Gaduate School (California Campus) and teaches in the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University.
Source: http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/aboutcraig.html
Wow, an M.A. in apologetics. From Simon Greenleaf U, no less. Impressive.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Are you being sarcastic? I've never heard of Simon Greenleaf U so for all I know it's a diploma mill. Or some tiny, well respected institution.
My Artwork
No, of course I'm not being sarcastic. I was being sarcastic just then, though.
A degree in apologetics, no matter where it is from, seems very much like a degree in being brainwashed. Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith, so its not like one is taught to think and examine and discover, but simply to defend. It requires a special mindset to consider that education.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Mr, if you knew anything about logic and epistemology, you would know that Christian theism is the most rational and logical belief system in the world. You people really have no idea about anything.
Atheists are cowards. I once challenged Brian in chat to call Hawkins when the show was on, but obviously he was afraid of looking foolish in front of all the chat members so he didn't call. I have invited numerous atheists in other chats to call Hawkins when the show was on. They won't. Only one, of the dozens I have challenged to call the show actually called. And he was put in his place real fast. I applaud him for his courage though.
Enlighten us, please.
Actually Christianity is not the most logical theological belief, buddhism is, it uses logic (for the most part), reasoning (For the most part) and spirituality. Christianity does not, it uses blind faith for the most part. Buddhism asks that you prove it's teachings true, Chrsitianity tells you it's true and never to question it. Of course we can have this discussion on and on and on, you could debate with various buddhist philosophers on this and christian philosophers and never get a proper consensus on it because it a matter of BELIEF, not fact, BELIEFS.
Tell us, in your own words, what makes "Christian theism is the most rational and logical belief system in the world."
There is something irrevocably pathetic and sad about someone claiming to be the paragon of "rational" & "logic", whose ideology uncritically accepts:
- Dragons, unicorns, satyrs, talking snakes and talking donkeys.
- People that lived to over 900 yrs (Picture if u will a 90 yr old & then times that by 10).
- a human living within a fish
- stars falling to earth...(I guess they're not just little dots in the sky, huh ?)
- An animal/human sacrifice religion w/ a deity's virgin birth as somehow....."true"..even though it mimics a great multitude of primitive religions before it which somehow you have no problem dismissing quickly as "false".
Your "coward" ad hominem is something learned humans call..."projection". Trading fiction for reality is never cowardly and is something that very few humans seem to have the courage to do.
If I were to receive a PhD in the mythology of Zeus, would this prove his existence ? So who gives a crap about your hero Hawkin's PhD ?
The RRS receives challenges to debate on a daily basis. Multiple hundreds of theists come here every year w/ their best arguments. The # of those I've seen w/ a compelling argument? : 0
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
evfimy is in the "I've been refuted so bad I need to start insulting their intelligence" stage.
I find it cowardly that after having your posts soundly refuted, that you try to deflect away from your failure by having us call in to some second rate apologist's radio show.
"My pastor said it was and he's a really nice guy soooooo..."
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
actually christian theism is one of the most laughable belief systems in the world. part of what makes it so is people like you who are so enthralled by it that you've become blind to the hilarity of your own statements of faith. perhaps you should give your bible a more thorough reading, because your comments seem to say that you read the words but completely failed to process them in any meaningful way.
atheists are cowards? yet you're the one who's scared of the guy with little horns and a pitchfork? is calling out atheists to go debate SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU, and mocking them when they don't play along with your silly game an example of your christian bravery?
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
There must be a whole lot of people who have no idea about anything, considering the fact that this issue has not been resolved for...oh...2000 years.
Because the ONLY possible reason that we wouldn't call him right then and there is because we are cowardly and afraid of his infinite wisdom. Get over yourself.
Atheist Books
This should be in trollville I think.
One problem of many of todays theistic philosophers is their "account for reason" argument coupled with their presuppositionalist stance. If you can confirm that Craig Hawkins does not hold to such elementary logic, than he'd pass the minimum theistic logic test to have a conversation with us, and we can proceed.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
For your reference point (helping you avoid the lies from your camp), none of the names referenced above have ever challenged us to a debate, several have been contacted and no response has been received. If you are so interested in seeing those debates occur have them contact us.
It's bad enough I have to deal with libel on many other sites, if you continue to engage in libel here (on my dime), you will no longer be welcome.
On the show in the past have been:
Matt Slick Masters in Theology www.CARM.org
Reverend Fred Klett Masters from Westminster: http://www.chaim.org/bio.html
President of Liberty Theological Seminary Ergun Caner
2 Hosts from: http://www.thewordfm.com/programGuide.asp
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Matt, for future reference (and the knowledge of everyone here), it would be helpful if you left mod duties to mods, especially when the mod duty is all you have to offer in your post.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
This is what you say to yourself.
This is what you should be saying to yourself, in the mirror.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Then he can't be an expert in logic and epistemology.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I've just eyed through his site. I can't see any "logic" and "arguments". All I can see is him using bible references as a foundation to everything, without bothering to establish that bible is any more true than star trek.
Atheism is not a religion for the same reason "off" is not a TV channel
If that is his attitude, I'm already unimpressed.
I know who Hawkins is. I listen to his show every week. The people at Rational Responders wouldn't stand a chance with him. He has a genius level IQ, is a member of Mensa, has taught logic for 13 years, and is a specialist in general and philosophical apologetics. He also has the best memory I have ever seen. I've never heard any atheist call him. They're all cowards.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
I would strongly hope that the good proffesor woul disagree with you here. I do not know of single philosipher who would claim to not be able to be taught anything.
I hope they do.
The problem is that one can get caught up a load of mental masterbation when discussing these matters. A skilled philosipher can, especially on a radio show formant, present apparently convincing arguments that sound very clever. They can normally baffle the audience with so much mental jism.
The question of whether God exist or not or whether theism is rational is really very simple.
If God exists present your evidence. If it stacks up then its a rational belief if it does not then it isnt. Thats all there is to it.
I know about logic and epistemology and I have a degree to prove it. I know that Christian theism is not rational or logical. You may now applogise for your error.
The problem with radio shows is that they are a very poor forum for a technical philsophical debate. The person who hosts the show has all the power. It is not moderated for starters. Its a very poor place to have a philsophical debate of the type you propose. Its a good place to have a general debate but when one gets down to some serious philsophy people tend to need to take their time to formulate their arguements mainly so that they can't be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Radio's shows really are not the place to do this.
You know I seriously considered calling in. I mean it'd be late here (2-4 am) but I'd stay up to do it. Unfortunately, and it was addressed in a post or two aboue this, they would be easily able to talk circles around anyone. Not due to intelligence or any type of understanding of the subject but because it's their show and they can gang up on callers. There is an audio clip of someone calling into Kent Hovind's show and Kent and the other host on air said something to the extent of "It's our show and we can say what we want and should have more air time". So right there it doesn't really qualify as a debate because it's not an even playing field.
I thought I might try e-mailing in a question to read on air or something though. I'll keep anyone interested posted on what happens.
This quote is full of win.
I think that a more fundamental question can be asked of the christian: why does your god need any human to defend its existence to begin with? Why do atheists need to resort to people you hold in high esteem to make logical arguments on your behalf (and god's behalf)? Oh wait, the bible is the word of god, yeah - that's right... I guess god's "own words" (the bible) need clarification from humans to convince rational people of the irrational. Obviously, your god has trouble doing that.
Crocoduck - A missing transitional link that theists have been hoping does not exist...
I am a genius level IQ and a member of mensa as well.
It's not that special...
Tell Craig to submit his proof for God's existence to these forums. Using your own logic (rather, lack thereof), if he does not submit the proof then is a coward. I'll be waiting patiently for Craig to prove he is not a coward.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Here's the thing about Mensa: Nearly half of the criteria they use to root out "geniuses" concerns knowledge that can simply be memorized. For example, vocabulary. So, because you've memorized the meaning of a collection of obscure words, you have a higher IQ? Okay, I can accept that, but only if it then follows that one's IQ instantly increases the moment one increases their vocabulary.
And then, there's math. So, you'd have two people who are equally capable of solving a math problem-- provided they memorized the method for doing so-- and the one who has memorized the method is determined to have a higher IQ. Once again, is Mensa a society for high IQs or a society for better educated people?
With that said, I wouldn't say that just because someone has a high IQ that their beliefs have a magical shield of absolute truth around them, nor does it necessitate that those with high IQs always make the best decisions (Marilyn Vos Savant has been married three times). Nor can it be said that IQ determines how well a person handles their own emotions, learns from mistakes, or how honest they can be with themselves (Note the study of EQ). These factors are important when it comes to accepting or rejecting religion-- it is more of an emotional issue than an intellectual one. Christianity, for example, appeals far less to intellect than it does to emotion, relying on arguments based on fear of punishment or the offering of reward, the illusion of security and universal justice, and even the notion of rejection by one's society.
What relevance does Hawkins' IQ have? His IQ is primarily of use in attempting to rationalize or expand upon the writings of the Bible. Is he so brilliant that he has proven the existance of his god with verifiable evidence? Nope. So what's the big deal? Hawkins is the kind of guy you would debate with concerning the inerrancy or meaning of a particular book of the Bible that you already believe in.
This is most likely why atheists do not appear on his show.
Furthermore, the ad hominem bearing theists in this thread don't realize that Hawkins has more in common with atheists than most Christians do. We at least agree on this point, and I quote Hawkins:
On another point, how is it that these theists are calling atheists cowards and then referring them to someone else? If the theists are not cowards themselves, why don't they debate with the RRS instead?
I get the idea that the theists in this thread are simply looking at Hawkins' credentials and drooling.
Hmm, how many times have I heard this before? Why would they die for it if they knew it was untrue?
It's not that they knew it was untrue, it's that they simply believed in it sincerely, whether it was true or not. Believing in a thing does not make it true, and we're obviously capable of citing other instances where people of different faiths died for their beliefs. I am not impressed with this Hawkins guy so far.
If anything is irrational, its atheism. Atheists expect us to believe the absurd and highly irrational tenent, that the universe came from absolutely nothing. This is a scientifically, logically and metaphysically impossible proposition. "From nothing, nothing comes." Being cannot come from non-being. Atheism is irrational and just plain silly.
I know who Craig Hawkins is. In fact, he just started a Masters Degree level Seminary course on "Christology" (the study of Christ) every Wednesday night at 9 P.M. pacific standard time at www.hischannel.com. It's free and very educational. It's only half an hour every class. A must class for anyone intersted in learning who Christ is. Hawkins is a well-rounded theologian and philosopher. He will also deal with the "pagan-parallel" theory held by some modern atheists, the historical Jesus and the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Atheists are just not theists. That's it, it doesn't say anything about belief on the origins of the universe, but since matter an energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it could be that the components of the universe have always been there and always will be. Only theory, but a fairly consistant one, and not terribly important anyway. And who are you talking about what is and isn't "scientifically, logically and metaphysically impossible" given you hold that magic sky man did it all for no reason. What science goes into the mechanism by which he is meant to have done it? What logic went into why he is meant to have done it? You claim understanding on the matter, but when asked stuff like this, the answer is always "It's not for us to understand God"
*snicker*
Sticking "ology" on the end doesn't make it not retarded. See also: Scientology, Truthology
You should pick up the Star Wars DVDs, essential viewing for anyone who wants to know who Darth Vader is. I already know who a lot of far better fictional characters are.
Given that he has already picked a favourite side, I imagine his view somewhat in favour of Christianity. Shall find time to give it a look though, but I expect most of the "arguments" have been called up here and destroyed many times, not that you guys ever seem to notice.
To you and all fundies reading this:
I'll try and make this simple.
Let's start at the beginning, the book of Genesis--a book written by "the elders" of a middle eastern meandering group of sheep herders several thousand years ago.
In it they state that their god, Yahweh, created all that is in 6 days**and then** rested on the seventh.
I would like for you to read that above sentence over & over until it becomes abundantly clear how absurd that is. And therefore, so is everything else that follows.
PLEASE!! Educate yourself!!
Cheers!
(edited clarity)
EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!
Hmmm as opposed to theism which says god created the universe from nothing. cos that really makes a whole lot of sense.
BTW atheism does not say anything about the begining of universe other than it pretty damned unlikely that a God magicked it into existence. How the universe came to be is a mystery, we really don;t know how it happened. But can be fairly certain how it didn't happen. I'm fairly confident that it was not farted out of the arse of a pandimensional hyper goat. But the pan dimensional hyper goat fart theory of origin is still far more likely than the "big all powerful bloke with a beard and magic omnipotent powers" theory it is just totally insane to think a big bloke with a beared waved his hands and magicked it into being thats just crazy talk!
Mensa actually uses a variety of methods to assess IQ. They accept IQ tests designed for cultural differences, and they accept the results of any official IQ test (you know, the kind administered by a psychologist) taken at any point in your life. I got into Mensa when I was 5 based on my score at that time, and although I dropped out because sitting around in a room of intellectual blowhards stroking our egos wasn't my thing, I could still use that 24 year old score for re-entry. So, it's not all vocabulary, although the ability to use analogies and multisyllabic words does tend to have some correlation to intelligence in the educated, adult population.
Most of the math questions are word problems and not something like a quadratic equation or geometric proofs. Only a basic knowledge of mathematical processes is generally necessary.
I totally agree. I put very little stock in the "I have an IQ of 10 gazillion" people.
On another point, how is it that these theists are calling atheists cowards and then referring them to someone else? If the theists are not cowards themselves, why don't they debate with the RRS instead?
They clearly don't understand that no matter what his formal logical training or massive IQ is, debating with a presupper is an absolute waste of time. All their credentials only show that they are more adept at lying and subverting the fact that their belief is the exact opposite of logical.
Atheist Books