Dr. Lee Basham comes on the program to demonstrate that it is very difficult, but not impossible, to nail Jello to the wall. Is this a new breed of Atheism? It goes like this, "If I don't commit to a position then the Christian will have a hard time proving me wrong". It's called "Aloofianism". The atheist tries to remain "aloof". But notice the term "aloof" contains the encrypted message, "a fool".Enjoy.
If you want to download this show for free you will
have to subscribe to the podcast from our homepage.
(Click here if you want instructions on how to subscribe to podcast)
The CD quality files are available for .98 each at Unchained Radio
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
23 comments:
I know it is just audio, but you need to put this one on Youtube. Great ending.
He's a professor???
I can't remember who originated this saying, but in this day and age, it is a noble thing to seek after truth, but a pretentious thing to claim to have actually found it.
Aloofness is NOT the same thing as humility. .
I am amazed that he appealed to past observation of uniformity to claim that he had an answer to the problem of induction!
As Bahnsen had demonstrated in his lectures and debates, that is just to beg the question because it also assumes that the future is going to be like the past. He put it in terms like...
At T3 we know that T2 resembled T1. We project that at T4 T3 will have resembled T2. So it still assumes uniformity.
I also wanted to gag when he brought up Platonic dualism as a viable alternative explanation for the origin of life since Plato had a myriad of problems. Namely, how do you get the Phenomenal and Noumenal Realms to intersect. It was a strong critique of Aristotle that Plato never really overcame.
Bahnsen spends a lot of time on that in comes of his lectures, and I think does a great job at refuting that worldview.
Keep up the good work Gene.
One word to describe this show...Filibuster. This "Public Intellectual" has nothing more to offer than any 14 year old atheist on the internet. "What if you're just in a comma?" This is the solipsist trap that is unavoidable for rationalists and empiricists. But can you live consistently with that view? Of course not. Everyone must live as if the world is not an illusion. And if you can't live consistently with your world view, then you've defeated the whole point of having a world view. Besham is a joke.
I think Dr. Basham is actually a Christian trying to make atheists look bad.
This show was a depiction of the atheist mindset, that being self-centered, inflated and confident in their delusion. Were Mr. Basham to have some respect, dare I say love for his neighbor there may have been a rational train of thought to get a fix on. This was like dropping a jar of jellie bellies and keeping an eye on the green one.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Eph. 5:6
For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness. Rather, fear God. Ecc 5:7
thanks for trying Gene
IMHO, atheists cannot be happy... as they are ALWAYS angry (at who?) and happiness and anger are (for most of us) exclusive of each other... (unless the atheist is happy being angry).
When one rebels against G-d, all that is left is ego... and ego has an insatiable appetite... must ALWAYS be fed, and is a fearsome merciless master! This is why most atheists deceive themselves into "presenting a superior intellect on every topic under the sun” because that is ALL they have! They are so pathetic!
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once... "He who dies with the most toys wins" (wins what?) It should read "He who dies with the most toys… is still dead!"
"Atheism shows strength of mind. But only to a certain degree."
~ Blaise Pascall
My mother language is not English but Basham sounds like an intellectual coward to me.
Paijo (Indonesia)
tixylix, Basham did say that he hadn't noticed Gene kicking ass and taking names and doesn't think that anyone else has either. But if one person agrees with Gene, then that one person simply refutes Basham's statement. However, let's look at the actual arguments presented by Basham. What arguments did you think were good on his part?
Dear Tix,
If you want to offer a negative criticism then you will have to offer some substance. Simply saying things like "Basham dominated Gene" won't do it.
Also,since you have accused me of being dishonest maybe you could explain to me why being dishonest is that is a bad thing. After you do that maybe you can define "bad".
Also, we open the phones every Saturday morning. You are free to call in to the show.
Gene
Eternal Justification and Hyper Calvinism..It bothers me when the label "Hyper" is again so easily thrown out there.
Spurgeon was a Calvinist and he said,
"But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God's predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time.
Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, "Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification?"
My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity.
He went further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.
Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it.
However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity.
For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God's everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness.
So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled—in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe.
"Being justified by faith," I am told "I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ." I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer.
I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine.
But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time,—so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other."
Man, what a Hyper Calvinist eh?
Mark
Mark,
Yep, that's hyper Calvinism.
Gene
Em, regarding the Atheist. Man, what to say! He has no ability to hear, as we already know right?
In his case, he not only cannot hear spiritually, but physically he has no time for it at all.
Mark
Here's a blog article I wrote showing how Dr. Basham contradicts himself: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2008/05/nailing-jello-to-wall-critiquing-aloof.html
Gene...Johnathan...I'm eagerly awaiting the download of the last episode! Please!!! Our addicts want it FAST!
...
Concerning Dr. Basham;
Can Dr. Basham be able to tell us why a Dr. Basham would think the way he does? Hard question eh?
We need to rename the debate and call it;
Can Anyone Know Dr. Basham's Personal Worldview?
Because if I'm correct, he lied to everyone that he was an atheist even before the debate had began. I personally don't believe he's a vegetarian either (just my opinion)... Although it's pretty darn hard to stay aloof from staying aloof (Aloofiansim)!
I have only one word to describe such a man.
A LIAR. A consistent one too.
So Spurgeon was a Hyper Calvinist eh? Glad to see your becoming narrow again Gene!, but sadly unbalanced.
Mark
I have rarely heard someone so full of himself as Dr Basham here.
Can anyone leave a comment here or is it private? Is it too late to comment on this episode?
Thanks
I am stunned at how smug and pejorative both Gene and those of you who have posted comments are. I really cant believe that Gene, as an emissary of God's grace and love would make the statement "We hope that the Lord will be gracious to you and save your soul as well as your intellect". How condescending and downright rude. This is why those outside of the Church has such disdain for Christianity. You all are part of the problem. Your radio show as well as this blog is a total farce. You are only convincing the converted. I can assure you that those who do not share your foregone conclusions are not impressed with the cogency of your arguments. The world of professional philosophy has grappled with this subject, perennially -with no clear victor. If the best minds in Philosophy of Religion cannot produce deductive arguments that prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of their academic peers, neither can you. In fact, your acquaintance with the literature on this subject is embarrassing. There are many respectable ways to argue for your thesis, but all you did was chase your tail. It was amusing, but from the standpoint of professional philosophy, sadly amateur and jejune. Finally, consider this: the positions that you repudiate with such smugness and certainty such as atheism, evolution and big bang cosmology often represent the consensus among professional scholars and scientists. Expressions of these positions frequently take the form of some of the most sophisticated and respectable arguments known to the academic world. To wade into these waters and ridicule professional scholars and scientists on the basis of such scant erudition is infantile and intellectually irresponsible. Outside of the Church, they are all laughing at you. The fact that you are all convinced that this debate was a victory for Gene represents how far your have your heads up your asses. Scarcely anyone who is not a Christian would commend Gene's arguments. This is precisely why the church is quickly receding into irrelevance. Shame on you; shame on you all!
Cory,
We would all love to hear a "sophisticated and respectable" defense of Atheism. The problem is it doesn't exist. We have Open Phones Today. If you would like to call in, I am curious to know what is so "laughable" about my position.
Gene
Post a Comment