It was just brought to my attention that Rhology, a contributor at Triablogue, was interviewed on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast. This can be listened to here for the edited version, and it can be downloaded here, uncut. I am told that the language gets rather rough at the end, so listen at your own risk.
Rhology on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast
5 responses to “Rhology on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast”
That was probably the most hilarious (tho always somewhat sad) Atheist meltdown I have ever heard. Rhology did a great job being patient amidst the adversity and ad hominem.
Only one really major beef I had was the answer Rhology gave when he was asked what our “common ground” was and he answered it was in man, in the self (or something to that effect). Which could have been pushed to a more Biblical or Van Tilian answer if he had explained that it the common ground was in that we are all creatures made by God and have knowledge of God both internally and externally (Romans 1). For a good explanation of this see the recent Journal article by Joshua Whipps on the subject.
Good point taco. That was just a mistake on my part.
I was trying to say “since you don’t know anything if atheism is true”…
Good job Rho,
I can’t imagine listening to anymore Fundamentally Flawed podcasts after the two with you and Sye/Hovind. They are obviously unprepared and can’t handle challenges. Their immaturity throughout was revealing of their ability to defend their position.
They kept mishmashing rationalism and empiricism and failed to see the critiques these two perspectives have of each other, which leads me to believe that they understand neither. They showed that they think there is such a thing as “neutral evidence,” betraying that they have never thought deeply about the nature of facts. They also showed that they were in fact pragmatists (i.e. this works, so we’ll keep using it), but were unwilling to accept the critiques you put forward of pragmatism. In fact, I don’t think they understood them. The entire “you use evidence and are therefore borrowing from my worldview” section at the end of the discussion simply showed that they were incapable of even understanding your argument, and didn’t realize how their parody fails miserably.
This week it’s SyeTenB (again) and Dusman. I recommend at least one more listen.