Is there an audio? I'd really love to hear it.

There's a mp3 download link at the 'War on Easter' link.

Reading about right-wing whackjobs losing it is fun. I wouldn't want to do it. I can't stand those freaks.

Speaking as a Christian (who loves your site, btw) I find it really sad when these whackjobs feel the need to defend religion in the public sphere. There is no way to do it, and it always sounds stupid. Garry Wills's article in the NYT last week said it best, that if Jesus were alive today he would have nothing to do with politics left or right, any more than he did in his own "human" day. He was too busy helping the poor, sick, downtrodden, etc., and his kingdom was not of this world.

If Carlson, or any of us, want to give our lives to Jesus, it requires our deepest humility, and perhaps even a removal from the public sphere. It saddens me that so-called Christians use their energy to try to "promote" God as if He needs us. The worst kind of hypocrisy.

"Speaking as a Christian (who loves your site, btw)" Well, thanks I'm glad you like the site, I thought I'd probably scared off most the Christians by now. I suspect that the ones remaining are the ones with a good sense of humor. There are many bits of wisdom written in the Bible. I take what I consider useful and discard the rest.

"Cafeteria style"'s about the only way a logical person can hope to manage adherence to any religion with an established set of dogmatic traditions.

Take the chocolate pudding (do unto others) and leave the asparagus (stone your wife for eating cheese and bread in the same sammich).

Zealots of any stripe (atheist, religious, or otherwise) are irritating, because they're intellectually lazy. The world isn't black and white. Faith is neither cure-all nor useless. Logic is most often the most useful solution, but it doesn't address the entirety of the human experience.

Refusing to explore grey areas and exceptions is a refusal to test rules themselves, and that's just weak minded.

Creation is a process still running, every kid who see a duckling climb out of an egg would tell you that, but my best pic of 'God'(?) 'the maxifier in the blue'(??)-the highest unknown(!!) is a window.The point with a window is that it is empty. Cliche ? Im not so SuRe.

I didn't find the audio for the Carlson/Flemming debate on the website. Do you have a direct link to it or can you post the file?

The audio isn't available yet you can get the details here

I found this audio the other day and posted it. Not sure if this is what you're talking about.

Go here for the first half of the interview:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/KOMOWaronEaster.mp3

And go here for the second half of the interview.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/WaronEasterThePatriot.mp3

"FLEMMING: Name one thing God does that I can observe."

Maintains the usual laws of physics we all know and love?

^LOL. Good one!

"you are articulate"

Even Carlson had to admit that (while constantly repeating his "medication" joke, haha). Brian is a really clever interviewee, fast and cool. I'm impressed.

I was being serious, though, Erick. Flemming's question only makes sense when you presuppose that the usual laws of nature are self-sufficient. What reason does Flemming or anyone else have for thinking that they are, other than that they seem to work pretty consistently most of the time? And just how good a reason is that?

Actually, it is you who has made the presupposition. It is not the case that Flemming presupposes the the laws of nature to be "self-sustaining", but merely that we consistently observe them to be in existence, regardless of what "sustains" them or not.

The notion that these laws require "sustainance" of any kind is a bold assumption in and of itself, and is something quite apart from a discussion about what is observed within them. Besides, anyone who would make such a claim about the laws would, in doing so, have certainly placed the onus upon themselves to prove their assertion that god is responsible, and NOT the other way 'round.

Perhaps it is the easter bunny who makes sure those sub-atomic particles are well-behaved, and not god.

Who was the poster the other day who spoke of "Artsy Fatsy" shit? What makes Ken Miller, Feynmann and Brian Flemming so charming for me is that they speak clearly, they don't hide the ball, they don't decorate their thoughts in deceptive flowery, unctuous concepts which cloud the issue rather than promoting understanding. I never trust anyone who hides the ball.

Canadian_Rower,

In a conversation about observable natural phenomena, proving or disproving claims by means of a physical experiment, or the like, there is an implicit assumption of philosophical materialism being the correct worldview, or at least the worldview that should serve as the basis for said conversation. Thus, in any such conversation, it does not make sense to demand that your opponent prove claims that fall outside the scope of philosophical materialism. That's the difference between God and the Easter Bunny. The Easter Bunny, if it were to exist, would be composed of cells and molecules, would be visible to the human eye, and would go around hiding eggs which are similarly visible to the human eye. God, at least in any sort of sensible belief system, does not have any properties of this sort.

If I understand it correctly, your demand that I prove that God sustains the natural laws of the universe is similarly meaningless. The sort of proof you're asking for seems to be a physical experiment of some kind that contradicts an atheistic materialistic theory of the universe while being consistent with a theistic materialistic theory of the universe. However, the mere idea of satisfying this demand does not make sense, simply because of the nature of materialistic descriptions of the universe. All such descriptions do is give predictions for what objects in the universe will do and when, so whether God exists or not would not effect them in any way. Either way, there are particles, those particles behave in some way, and we can write down equations describing their behavior.

Granted, this isn't a proof that God exists by any stretch. If I expect you to agree with me, you're right that the onus is on me to produce more evidence. However, that's not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that you cannot use philosophical materialism to address points which lie strictly outside the scope of philosophical materialism. Flemming claimed to be able to disprove God just as someone might disprove the Easter Bunny, and then asked a question which is meaningless in the context of trying to do so.

Ed,

Flemming did not outline any criteria which he deemed appropriate for disproving somethings existence; rather, he merely used Carlson's reasoning. Hence, what you say about philosophical materialism does not serve as a criticism of Flemming's comments.

Indeed, this confusion highlights a typical tension between people of (religious) faith, agnostics, and/or atheists: What exactly is an appropriate criteria for determining somethings non-existence?

Atheists subscribe to ontological Materialism and hence say God cannot exist by definition, agnostics (generally) subscribe to Methodological Naturalism and hence say 'we cannot know', while people of faith reject Materialism and assert God's existence.

Flemming's point, I believe, is this: Any reasoning which can be used to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny can also be used to disprove the existence of God, or, at least, it is difficult to envision reasoning which would not do this.

I will offer one more slight correction. One does not 'use' philosophical Materialism, rather, it serves as a limit to the devices or arguments one can use.

if you want proof of god then look no further than the bible - it offers none.

confused? as long as youre not scared off .. please continue.

the bible offers no proof for god. it simply opens up with god creating everything we know. this is in itself the proof, if you can see something then that is because god created it.

obviously one is free to accept or reject the claim of the bible. that is why the bible must remain in perfect sync with the rules it created for the universe by asserting god as real. all that means is that god has to be part of the world in order to be part of it.

awfully redundant of me to say so.

the bible must claim that god is part of this world and it does so by telling the story of jesus. all wisdom recorded in the bible is attributed to god. any claim that there is wisdom in the bible is acknowledgement of god or an acknowledgement of an inconsistent reading of the bible.

if one wants to make sense of the world one must start with an external theory on it. we all have one of those. the only external theory that can explain the existence of anything is the one that includes the existence of the bible.

the ball is now in your court, it may be an overhead smash while youre attempting to regain your feet, but its not hidden in any sense of the word. you can either accept the reality of god or you can reject it.

I received my "The God Who Wasn't There" video a couple of weeks ago and just go around to watching it this evening. Thank you, Norm, for recommending it. Informative and enjoyable. Brian Flemming is a good narrator. (Warning: if you are not an atheist, you may not enjoy it as much as I did :)) This information may make the foundations of your beliefs feel somewhat unstable, and is thus not recommended if you want to hold on to your faith.

lol if your faith can be broken down by a video then it wasnt very good faith ...

but for those who might be concerned about the contents of that video, please read the following: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87

Warning: if you are an atheist, you may not enjoy it as much as I did. This information may make the foundations of your video analysis feel somewhat unstable, and is thus not recommended if you want to hold on to your video card.

Wow Stipe, what an incredible analysis. And yeah, it was very important that "Flemming did not bother to straighten the tilted lampshade in his interview with Price" lololol...

Using the Bible as evidence for the Bible was really convincing.

Oh, forgot to mention how disappointed I was to read "The dating of the four Gospels is a very involved discussion and beyond the scope of this review. Arguments for particular dates for the composition of the Gospels can be found in New Testament Introductions." Wow, was that ever lame.

are you trying to tell me you read that whole thing?

i am impressed :D

as far as im concerned, the film and the review (and the review of the review for that matter) deserve each other.