Name: ron mckay
Email: rlmcr@mountaincable.net
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Time: 03:50:16 PM
While I appreciate the effort to find common ground and a civil relationship between theists and non-theists, I'm coming to the conclusion that people like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins are right in identifying faith as a dangerous impulse in the modern world, and the religious(even moderate religious) should not be encouraged by a forum that implicitly legitimizes their views as being on an equal footing with skepticism. Maybe I'm getting a bad attitude lately after spending the last two months trying to reason with christian reconstructionists on the Ann Coulter discussion forum, but I see both christian and muslim believers becoming more fundamentalist, while the moderates or liberals of both religions decline in number. The fundies of both religions are threatened by science and new technology and want to maintain a static, unchanging culture. The moderates who embrace reason, rationality and progress don't have a valid reason why it's better to hold on to part of their religious belief system than to just embrace a humanist philosophy. The danger of liberal islam or christianity is that holding on to even a limited faith in their god and religious texts can quickly be turned into extreme fundamentalism during times of economic or social turmoil. For example, look how wahabbi clerics from Saudi Arabia setting up schools in Pakistan changed it from a secular muslim nation into a taleban state in less than 25 years. Most of the experts I've read on the subject of belief, feel that it is such a primal force that religion will be with us indefinitely in some form or other. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be encouraging the religious with idea that their faith in God or the supernatural is anymore valid than belief in ghosts or UFO's. It may get an angry reaction, but now's the time to stop feeding the beast and tell them that their faith is based on incredulity, pattern seeking and fear of the unknown. BTW keep the evolution101 podcasts coming!
Name: William Isham
Email: wpisham@earthlink.net
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2006
Time: 07:24:14 PM
Hi all: I thought everyone was bending over backwards to be respectful... and it's the goal of the podcast, so I understand it. Still, the christians on the show were able to say some outrageous things that were let slide out of a fear of impoliteness. That's taking things too far. For example, at the very end, a christian got in his claim that atheists can't prove that gods don't exists; an old saw that is intellectually lazy and should not have been allowed to stand. It's great that everyone is friendly, but no one should ever censor themselves because of it. PS: Can anything be done about the poor sound quality of some of you? The podcast "Filmspotting" has guests on frequently and the guest is on a phone line, but you would never know it, so I know it's possible....
Name: Lorne Ipsum
Email: lorne@geekcounterpoint.net
Date: Monday, September 11, 2006
Time: 10:59:31 AM
Hi there... Do you accept "guest" episodes? I have a podcast on science issues, and was planning on doing an episode for my own show on the nature of belief. It seems like this would be a good fit for Apologia as well, if you'd entertain the idea of an outside source for an episode. Anyway, just a thought... Lorne Ipsum Chief Geek, Geek Counterpoint Podcast http://geekcounterpoint.net
Name: Lawrence McFarland
Email: afarbourn@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Time: 12:02:29 AM
Hi, Zach. I work as a psychotherapist. The discussion of evidence failed to fully take into account the enormous power of the mind to convince itself of fantasy. Almost everyone has had the experience believing something that is patently absurd. This can only be explained through ignoring evidence apparent to others. One school of psychotherapy pays particular attention to the way in which human beings create a narrative out of our experience (both self-perceived and shared within our communities). And by its nature, the power of this cerebral narrative is so strong that humans unconsciously ignore or reinterpret events and objects that fall outside or compete with it. Coincidentally, practitioners of this school of therapy use a mental trick to help clients. It is called "externalizing the problem." The idea is to discuss the problem as separate from the self, e.g., "the anger monster sneaks in and takes you over," "depression comes in and convinces you to return to bed," etc. When clients allow space in their narrative for them to have "a relationship" with the problem (separate from themselves), there is usually an increased capacity to notice what they can do to diminish the "power of the problem." They can respond to questions about what they can do to keep the anger monster out of their house, to argue with their depression, etc. In theory, externalizing the problem changes the narrative enough to allow for alternative outcomes. I cannot help but think the same can be true for an external source of strength. When people feel powerless within their current narrative, finding strength within themselves can seem impossible. However, if they posit that there is an external spiritual source that, in the words of the 12 steps, "can restore us to sanity," then suddenly it unlocks them from the traps of their narrative. They then can experience renewed energy and possibilities, much as your guest who found his unremitting depression suddenly lifted. This guest's discussion of his "shift in presupposition" from agnosticism to theism also fits entirely within this framework. Both the naturalist viewpoint (which I largely share) and the supernaturalist viewpoint must find ways to take into account that the brain (with its consciousness functions) operates in ways that, for now, remain mysterious. And for me, there is a beauty in those functions only if the brain operates naturally. The supposition of spiritual intrusion turns the brain into nothing more than a radio receiver taking in signals from on high, while naturalism allows the brain to exist as an entire creative studio, stage, talent, and even critic, but most importantly, as playwright.
Name: Julian Keith
Email: keithj@uncw.edu
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2006
Time: 09:38:55 AM
Zach, First I want to say thank you both for producing Apologia and Evolution 101. I really enjoy listening to them each week and I have urged my students (I am a neuroscientist and a university professor) to check them out. I am writing to suggest a podcast that I think that you and the Apologia discussants may find thought provoking. It is a lecture by Michael Persinger, a behavioral neuroscientist. His lecture topic might be termed "neurotheology." The lecture is part of the TV Ontario Big Ideas program and can be downloaded on iTunes (subscribe to Big Ideas) or at the the TV Ontario site: www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa/wo/Jqs7Fbt08YTWryFaxi6mlw/5.0.0.79.45.26.5.19.4.1 Persinger presents some experiments and data from the field of neuroscience that seem to go a long way toward providing a natural explanation of certain kinds of subjective religious experiences. I hope that you have time to listen to it. warm regards, Julian
Name: John Miller
Email: beachboys@mac.com
Date: Monday, September 18, 2006
Time: 09:07:12 PM
A question for you all, If you suppose there is no afterlife, it is possible for God to exist? (In other words, would theists bother believing in God if there was no afterlife?)
Name: Lawrence McFarland
Email: afarbourn@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2006
Time: 10:43:14 PM
I'm a bit confused about why you are limiting the theistic argument to Protestant Christians of the largely evangelical frame of reference. Why no Roman Catholics? Why no more liberal Christians? Personally, I'm definitely in the athestic camp, but I think that the notion that Evangelical Protestants hold the definitive perception of theism is fairly narrow.
Name: Nick
Email: nick@72pixels.com
Date: Sunday, October 01, 2006
Time: 11:50:38 PM
Great show - one of my absolute favorites. Hope to see more.
Name: P Manata
Email: presuppositionalist_70@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, October 09, 2006
Time: 11:59:02 AM
I felt that presuppositonalism was misrepresented a bit on the show. For example, someone claimed that Van Til denied his presuppositionalism because he used evidences at some points. But this shows a misunderstanding of presuppositionalism. The problem isn't evidenCES but evidentialISM. One is acceptable within presuppositionalism, the other is not. There were some other complaints but I'm just jotting down this one. ~PM
Name: Julian Keith
Email: keithj@uncw.edu
Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Time: 10:31:48 PM
Today's show was a little frustrating until near the end of the podcast when you (Zach) said what we were all thinking. It seemed patently obvious that both Kile and James were trapped in circular reasoning about the relationship between logic and the necessity of a divine being. Fish (if they could podcast) would no doubt use the hydrodynamic properties of water to argue for the existence of a designer who had them in mind when he/she/it constructed their watery world. I wonder if Kile's God sees the universe by detecting patterns of photons that strike his divine photoreceptors? If not, according to Kile's logic, how is vision even possible? That is, if human logic only works because it maps onto a system that is essential to divine thought, does vision only work because it maps onto divine vision? There is a certain logic involved in vision; neurologic. Like vision (and all senses), the system of reasoning that we call logic is an adaptation that has been selected over the course of a chain of evolutionary steps that has unfolded in a universe (or region of the universe) that has particular properties. This world is a good fit for us for reasons that Darwin laid out very nicely. But our aptitude for logic doesn't make a strong case either for or against a god. Cognitive psychologists like to point out, as James touched on momentarily, that humans are really not impressively logical in everyday life. And it's not just that we operate off of false premises, we simply don't reliably follow logic rules when we think (Tyversky and Kahnemann won the Nobel Prize in economics a few years ago for demonstrating this fact). Cognitive psychologists call logic the "Achilles heal" of human thinking. Finally, if I am not mistaken, logic is a branch of mathematics. I wonder how one could possibly construe the god of the old or new testament as a logician or a math wizard? My reading of both suggests a god who is nothing if not illogical and generally disinterested in the abstract.
Name: Nick
Email: nick@72pixels.com
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Time: 07:17:36 AM
The last show "Special - with James Lazarus and Kile Jones 1" is not downloading from itunes or from your site. Bad link?
Name: Paul Arends
Email: parends@prismquality.com
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2006
Time: 03:21:15 PM
I've been trolling podcasts on philosophy, theism, and skepticism for months now and I've just struck gold. You guys are producing an amazing thing here, and I commend you for it. Imagine: debate as a cooperative search for understanding rather than an excuse to bludgeon one another! I have a substantive contribution, but I'll post that separately. Congratulations and thank you.
Name: Paul Arends
Email: parends@prismquality.com
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2006
Time: 04:06:57 PM
I've been trolling podcasts on philosophy, theism, and skepticism for months now and I've just struck gold. You guys are producing an amazing thing here, and I commend you for it. Imagine: debate as a cooperative search for understanding rather than an excuse to bludgeon one another! I have a substantive contribution, but I'll post that separately. Congratulations and thank you.
Name: RubeRad
Email: RubeRad@gmail.com
Date: Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Time: 10:28:04 AM
Hey, Derek Sansone left a link to Apologia on my blog: http://ruberad.wordpress.com/2006/10/22/tag-youre-it/#comment-2213 I'm trying to listen to episode9, which I found over at http://feeds.feedburner.com/apologiapodcast/ but Windows Media Player 10 can't play the mp3, the More Information error complains somehow about the ID3 tags or something. Please let me know when I can point my (few) readers to the direct URL to the mp3. thx, r
Name: RubeRad
Email: RubeRad@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Time: 03:32:25 PM
Just to let you know, I downloaded Winamp (Lite) 5.3.1, and that handles the mp3 just fine. Don't know what could be wrong with Windows Media Player 10...
Name: Chris
Email: chalaimo_135@hotmail.com
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2007
Time: 07:25:36 PM
Hi Dr.Zach. I'm a student at a Catholic Secondary School in Ontario, Canada. I'd just like to mention how intriguing and compelling your podcasts are and that I really enjoy your simple explainations, debates. Also I like the format of your cast, it's well organized. School isn't a real intellectually stimulating place for me so I look forward to your podcasts each week, rather than doing homework. Keep the podcasts coming!
Name: Fred Bremmer
Email: fredb@vcn.bc.ca
Date: Sunday, February 18, 2007
Time: 04:21:04 PM
Hi Zach, I just listened to your latest Apologia podcast. I enjoyed your discussion, but I think you could have raised a few more points to show problems with most religious views on the issue. One is the case of identical twins. As you know, blastocysts can divide into two embryos which develop into two human beings. In the arithmetic of souls, do they each get half a soul because one soul entered at the "moment of conception"? Similarly, there are cases of human chimeras. Sometimes two separate blastocysts with unique DNA fuse into one embryo and develop into one human being with different DNA in different parts of their body. Does this person have two souls? Could this person then go to both heaven and hell? That reminds me of a very interesting video of V.S. Ramachandran at last year's Beyond Belief seminar, discussing a split brain patient with different religious beliefs in each lobe of his brain: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_DCSJdhy3-0&mode=related&search= One thought experiment that can clarify people's true moral intuition about the status of blastocysts as human beings is this: Imagine that you are in a fertility clinic lab. In the room are a two-year-old child and a liquid nitrogen storage tank containing thousands of blastocysts. The building is on fire, and for the purpose of the thought experiment you know for a fact that you are the only person who can save either the child or the blastocysts, but not both. Which do you choose to save, why, and how do you justify your choice after the fact? Personally, I would save the one child, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over the loss of the blastocysts. I would be shocked if even the staunchest pro-life activist would really choose to let a screaming child go up in flames for the sake of some frozen clumps of cells, no matter how many there are. Could you please ask your other Apologia panel members what they would do? If you ask them, please don't let anyone duck the question. I also wanted to point you to a website containing a collection of Bible references that may be relevant to issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc.: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm I read that site when I was still a Christian, and it helped me on my path to becoming the atheist and skeptic I am today. Thanks for your podcasts (I listened to all the Evolution 101 and Apologia shows). Keep up the good work. -Fred
Name: John Jacobson
Email: jacobson@salk.edu
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Time: 04:39:41 PM
Very nice podcast. This is hard work, glad to see someone do it.
Name: Ryan Oppel
Email: Ryan_Oppel@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2007
Time: 07:59:34 AM
I have just recently discovered the Apologia podcast and admit that I have neither listened to even a minority of the subscription’s episodes nor fully researched any of the sources in the podcasts, but am attempting to stay within the context of the discussions, and further, within the context of each point made so as not to be accused of taking anything out of context and thus altering the original meaning. If any of my comments are expounded upon further in subsequent episodes, I will do my best to alter my comments accordingly, but I can not help but make the following observations in my brief experience thus far. In the August 20, 2006 podcast on faith, Derek (I believe) made the following comments in response to Kevin’s example of the Arkansas farmer with a 6th grade education accepting the Christian faith and following response to relativity being only “one factor” of propositional acceptance. “I don't know if that's correctly applied. What I'm telling you is that faith, or acceptance in the biblical propositions are based solely and completely on one's own personal position at the time of them hearing the proposition.” The belief in Christianity as a transcendent absolute truth provides a consistent foundation against which all personal experiences can be measured. To reject Christian faith is to accept a different foundation, or different absolute truth, against which to judge personal experiences. I defer my argument for this primarily to C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” where he defines the term “quarrel” and extrapolate a parallel argument in which the term “judge” must be defined as appealing to a measure by which experiences are subsequently “judged” with any sort of “value.” Without a common agreement on absolutes, there can be no agreement or interuse of the ideas of judge, value, good, bad, right, or wrong. On the topic of deduction; without omniscience, there can be no conclusions as defined in the discussion. Christians can not therefore be discounted as the only group guilty of making empty deductive conclusions. A dismissal of Christian claims because their conclusions are based originally on faith is itself a conclusion based on another individuals personal beliefs. Even the "fact" of evolution is based on a fundamental belief, equally presuppositional, in the beginning of life. For an atheist, or evolutionist, to make any deductive conclusions, even reached by relative personal experiences, is to accept the belief that life began at some moment. Life exists and even evolution can not and does not dismiss the significance of explaining the beginning of life. In the same way that a mathematical asymptote approaches, though never reaches a limit value, evolution claims explain the existence of life from a theoretical limit value of zero without explaining the discrepancy of when, where, or how the first step was taken from zero to the first infinitesimal value which could be defined as life. In this regards, Dr. Zach was incorrect when he stated in “What is NOT Evolution” dated 2/9/06: "The fourth concept refers indirectly to the concept of abiogenesis, which is the process by which life is formed from non life. Now this concept is biochemical in nature, and although it’s of tangential interest to evolutional theory, it has nothing to do with biology per say, biology is the study of things that are alive, not the study of things that become alive. Although evolutionary theory assumes that life arose at some point in time, it is unnecessary to the theory to posit a mechanism for how that life came into being.” My “quick” response has already exceeding its original, intended length and complexity and I will stop here with the hope that this will either generate a direct response or will be expounded upon in later episodes. If it is the latter, I would appreciate a response nonetheless if only so that I may more easily reference the information. If I have not made it apparent thus far, I am genuinely interested in and appreciative of the contributions from all participants, especially Dr. Zach, who I only serendipitously realized was active in both the Evolution discussions as well as the Apologia discussions. As a Christian, I strive to be neither ignorant to, nor turn a blind eye to, the apparent controversies surrounding my faith and am excited to find a platform such as Apologia where respect is paid to all sides.
Name: Norm Olson
Email: norm.olson@mindspring.com
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007
Time: 06:25:48 PM
Your podcast is fantastic. I just listened to the Rational Response Squad show. I'm 41 yrs old; was brought up in the "nurture & admonition" of the Lord; and been a critical atheist since age 19. I’m obviously excited about the “new” atheism, but it’s not really new to me – the rest of the world is finally catching up! I really admire your ability to dialogue with Christians. I am intensely curious as to how Christians can be intelligent, honest, and exposed to skeptical arguments, and yet still remain believers. It does not seem possible to me. Is this particular issue addressed in any of the podcasts? It's hard to ask this question in a sincere fashion without coming off as arrogant, but the evidence seems so overwhelming and the apologetic responses so lame... Have you read Robert M. Price's new book "Jesus is Dead"? I HIGHLY recommend it. It's his best work yet (IMHO), and he does direct frontal assaults of the apologetics of William Lane Craig, Glen Miller, N.T. Wright, etc. It's the best refutation of apologetics I have ever read. Do let me know if any of your shows address the "how" question. Thanks for the great show! Best Regards, Norm Olson norm.olson@mindspring.com
Name: Rich O
Email: toad8642@aol.com
Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007
Time: 11:08:34 PM
Hey! Good seeing you tonight! Thank you kindly for buying my books. Is there another email source I can use to write to you more directly? the old man :-)
Name: Rich O
Email: toad8642@aol.com
Date: Sunday, August 19, 2007
Time: 01:29:21 PM
Hey, Zach! I went to put your email address in my own and deleted it by accident. Please send me another email when you get a chance. Sorry. Rich
Name: Sarah
Email: sarahdragonsbane@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, October 20, 2007
Time: 11:36:17 AM
I generally enjoy this podcast very much. However, I was wondering why there are no women on the show. Also, the panelists you have representing Christian theism are all of the same theological persuasion (conservative Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals). Why aren't there any panelists representing a Catholic viewpoint, a liberal Protestant viewpoint, or maybe even a Jewish or Muslim viewpoint? It would also be interesting to have a theologically literate agnostic on the show. I think many of us listening might fall into that camp, and it would be nice to have someone who represents our perspective.
Name: Ron Hartikka
Email: hartikka@gmail.com
Date: Monday, October 22, 2007
Time: 06:20:40 AM
Dear Dr. Zach, Just listened to the Harris & Hitchens podcast. Great choice of topic. I hadn't heard about these talks. Number of good points made. I think I heard a couple of things that sounded incorrect, though. Pe First, I think I heard someone say that Hillary Clinton is a fundamentalist Christian. Although there's a case you can make it's still an odd thing to say. At one time she described herself as agnostic: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/politics/29letter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4 Other fundamentalists don't seem to think she is one. And I don't think she would say so either. Second, I think I heard someone imply Stephen Cobert is a an atheist or agnostic. He said he's Catholic on Fresh Air recently. Thanks so much for what you do, Dr Zach. I really enjoyed the Evolution podcast. Ron
Name: stands2reason
Email: tnf333@alltel.net
Date: Sunday, November 25, 2007
Time: 01:56:05 PM
Hey, love the show. My biggest complaint is that you don't do the show often enough. As far as I know, you guys have never done a show on the arguments for/against the existence of God/gods. Maybe a show like this would be good. I would like to see how the theists best explain the arguments against God's existence, and vice versa for the atheists.
Name: Norm Olson
Email: norm.olson@mindspring.com
Date: Monday, November 26, 2007
Time: 01:39:01 PM
Jesus Myth Series. While the atheist side made a good coherent case for the Jesus Myth, the Christian side did not address the specific arguemnts at all. Is there going to be a follow-up show or shows where the Christian apologists get to address the arguments as outlined in the first three episodes? Not just the Carrier questions, but the various arguments. There were many instances where the Christian (John? from Dallas Theological?) just put off the questions, and said there was further research. Are you going to give the Christians a chance to do research and make their case? (I don't think it's possible, but I would like to see them try).
Name: Joe Schmo
Email: jschmo@email.com
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2007
Time: 08:35:43 AM
THis is great!
Name: joel
Email: endirfiend@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2007
Time: 10:37:13 PM
I'm a fan f Dr. Zach's Evolution 101 podcast. Is there a way to download the Apologia podcast discussions in mp3?
Name: joel
Email: endorfiend@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, December 09, 2007
Time: 10:39:15 PM
OOPS! sorry, it's past my bedtime. The last email I sent had the wrong address for me on it. I was inquiring about how to download the Apologia podcasts, maybe in mp3?
Name: stands2reason
Email: afluriach@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, December 22, 2007
Time: 10:27:37 AM
I noticed some audio problems with your host about 25 minutes in. Was that just a telephone problem?
Name: Marco Klein
Email: marco_klein@t-online.de
Date: Sunday, December 30, 2007
Time: 02:23:52 PM
Hello Dr. Moore. In your last Apologia podcast it was mentioned that Germans have to pay a 10 percent tax to the protestant church regardless of their personal beliefs. That seems to be a common misconception among Americans, but it is simply not true. A church tax does exist in Germany, but it depends on a person's mebership in a religious organization. The money is collected by the governmental tax agencies, but the state's involvement ends there. The only beneficiary is the religious community of which the taxpayer is a member, so that a protestant's chuch tax goes to the protestant church, a catholic's tax to the catholic church, a jew's tax (in that case it's called a "Kultussteuer") to the jewish communities. Germans who are not members of a religious organization which collects taxes, or not members of a religious organization at all, don't have to pay church taxes. Membership in those organizations is entirely voluntary. That being said, I absolutely love your shows and would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to listen to such intersting discussions. Marco Klein
Name: Steven Graf
Email: stevengraf2010@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, January 03, 2008
Time: 12:46:02 AM
Zach, Great job on the Barnhart interview. I hope you bring him back to discuss his book "search for first century christianity." I think it is about how St. Paul borrowed from Greek mythology (but I haven't saved up the ninety-nine dollars to buy it and read it yet.) He might have examples that efectively further the Mythicism hypothesis. Keep up the great work. --Steve
Name: Steven Graf
Email: stevengraf2010@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, January 03, 2008
Time: 12:46:55 AM
Zach, Great job on the Barnhart interview. I hope you bring him back to discuss his book "search for first century christianity." I think it is about how St. Paul borrowed from Greek mythology (but I haven't saved up the ninety-nine dollars to buy it and read it yet.) He might have examples that effectively further the Mythicism hypothesis. Keep up the great work. --Steve
Name: Ryan Ridenour
Email: unklebonehead@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Time: 01:30:51 AM
This is an awesome show. While I am not an Atheist, nor am I a biblethumper I do belive in god. I can sit and listen to this show literally all day long. The discussion is never outrageous or deceitful. It is all conducted very mature and intellectual. Kudos to you Dr. Zach. My only wish is that there were more Athiests like you. Seems like the ones who are the loudest are just as bad as the some of the bible thumpers! Cheers and may your show grow into something great for us all.
Name: Allan Michael
Email:
Date: Saturday, March 29, 2008
Time: 03:17:26 AM
Name: Allan Michael
Email: al.michael101@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, March 29, 2008
Time: 03:26:12 AM
Do we risk becoming a society of scientific dullards if we do not teach our children to embrace the philosophy of the Scientific Method?
Name: James Trewin
Email: kruulus@hotmail.com
Date: Saturday, April 12, 2008
Time: 04:18:45 AM
Please tell me you're going to do a reaction to "Expelled." I know it seems more like something you'd do for Evolution 101, which you no longer add to, but I just want to hear some sort of collected counter argument to the films claims (although, if ID hasn't changed it's claims much lately I probably alreayd know them).
Name: Joe Hernandez
Email: chief_mojoriser@msn.com
Date: Sunday, April 13, 2008
Time: 12:07:51 PM
Hey Zack, I could not contact you through this page a couple of days ago, so I sent you a message via myspace. Please check when you get a chance. Thanks. Joe
Name: John Heck
Email: hypnotoad3@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Time: 05:18:57 PM
Dear Zack, I would like to read a book on the Jesus Myth hypothesis. What do you consider the best book on this subject. Price's book sounds like it might be a bit dry. Does Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle make a thorough argument? Thank you! John
Name: Brad
Email: brad@apostaz.org
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Time: 12:00:53 PM
Hey there I wanted to drop ya line, let ya know that I have linked to ya page due to my enjoyment of ya podcast, and blog. If you have a spot to link back to our page, please check out our podcast and link to us if you like it. Thanks Sincerely Brad ApostAZ.org 602 570 6179
Name: Jason Kilburn Evans
Email: mesun1408@yahoo.co.uk
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2008
Time: 10:08:22 AM
Hi, I'm a regular listener to Tom Barbalet's Biota Live and was interested to hear him talking about Artificial Life from a slightly different angle on your show. I have developed an evolutionary computing toolkit called libMendel. Coincidentally I am also a Quaker.
Name: Quixie (Leon Santiago)
Email: quixotic_infidel@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Time: 10:32:54 PM
I love the podcast, particularly the care you guys take to be fair and balanced (though it may sound like a cliché) and the lengths you go to to be comprehensive. peace be with you Ó
Name: Aaron Allison
Email: aallison@my.stlcc.edu
Date: Friday, September 26, 2008
Time: 04:30:17 PM
Dr. Zach, Are you still looking for panel members for Apologia? If so I am interested in participating. Regards, Aaron Allison
Name: Cory Windorff
Email: cory.windorff@uwrf.edu
Date: Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Time: 02:21:02 AM
Hi Dr. Zach I have just started listening to your pod-cast i think it wonderful i wish everyone should listen to it. You have answered so many questions I have wondered about. But I have been wondering about something else, and that is why do human women bleed out during their period. I haven't seen any female animals going around with blood comming out their crotch. Is this something to do with evolution that is uniqe to humans? thank you
Name: Patrick Pricken
Email: post@p-pricken.de
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Time: 11:47:20 AM
Hey there! I just discovered the podcast (great, by the way) and listened to "Arguments against God". The argument from scale (or insignificance) was discussed (among others), and I have a point to make against it that I didn't hear on the podcast. I don't know whether it has come up since, but here goes. To recap, the argument states that the universe is too great for humans to be at the center of God's creation. While I am an atheist, I would counter that God made the universe and all its underlying rules so that human intelligence could explore it and grow from it. The universe is as large as it is so that even 2,000 years from now, we will still have things to discover, borders to cross and ways to go. The magnitude of creation means that humanity will if not forever, then for a very long time stay in its infancy with plenty of room to grow and learn. Basically, the larger our playground, the greater God's love. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that in case it hasn't come up yet. Maybe you find it at least worth considering.
Name: David Hastings
Email: stamp@kickmuck.co.uk
Date: Sunday, November 02, 2008
Time: 04:41:36 PM
I would like to comment on your current podcast "What the Devil". As an avid listener, I thoroughly enjoy the exchanges between the contributors. Normally. On this occation I found Kevin (Harris) frustratingly slippery and evasive in explanation of his position/s. I felt he was particularly unclear on the following: Why, if afflictions can be attributed to naturalistic/organic processes, why would the case for demonic causes still stand? This was put to him but I fail to see any real response to this important point. The recording of the Emilly Michelle was used (I believe) as an example to demonstrate what may be -depending on your theological position-, as either demonic possession or a mental disorder of some sort. Kevin did not make at all clear what he believes is taking place in such a case. He did, however, say that he believed that the voice was in some way supernatural in its nature. That claim is clearly unsubstantiated and when called on it he replied with "I'm sure we could a conjure up. Here's another thing..." I am being nit picky here because he (seemed to) believe that the voice was somehow of supernatural origin due to the sound/tone etc. but again failed to deal with what was put to him and justify his comments. Re different/non-western cultures. When it was pointed out that many non-western cultures are or have been steeped in the sort of mythology associated with demonic possession he replied with, "It would make sense that they would know...and he's another thing...". Again , I stress I'm not trying to nail (sic) him to the wall for every slip of the tongue, however he simply did not respond to what was put to him. A couple of minutes later, again re culture, he skipped over what I feel was being put to him. And that is (to paraphrase) demonic possession is more prevalent in cultures steeped in superstition and possibly -a supposition on my part- less developed technologically/medically and therefore have needed to create (as we do so well) explanations for what for them is otherwise unexplainable. Re the actual evidence for existence of the devil. What is spiritual or theological evidence? And how would Kevin expect this to be measured? I know this is not a new can of worms but on this occasion he used it as some sort of counter argument but with no qualification. There are a few more issues I would raise with Kevin's input in the podcast but I those are the ones that really niggled me. As an non-theist I find this sort of mental gymnastics common amongst theists. I frustrates me because it is very difficult to find what common ground we share, if one party is unclear on what beliefs they hold and positions they take either to the other party or to themselves. I hope that this feedback has come across in the spirit of Apologia and would very much regret if my comments have offended Kevin personally in any way. Best Regards, David Hastings Vancouver Island, Canada
Name: Enrico Indiogine
Email: hindiogine@gmail.com
Date: Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Time: 05:35:05 PM
I have been listening to your very interesting podcast for some time now. I have noticed that you consider this an open table between atheists and theists, but the only theists on the show are Christians. I am wondering whether you would be interested in having a Baha'i on the show sometimes? My interests are history, epistemology, and comparative religions.
Name: Jacquelyn Anderson
Email: jaxand@qatar.net.qa
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009
Time: 02:27:19 PM
Hi Dr Zach, I am really missing your podcasts. I'm concerned and hope there's nothing amiss with you.Did I miss out on an announcement.
Name: Aaron
Email: aaronebauer@gmail.com
Date: Friday, January 30, 2009
Time: 08:40:27 PM
Your show is amazing! I think I've listened to almost every podcast, and I wanted to let you know that your honest, respectful look at the questions of faith has been absolutely instrumental in my own journey of self-discovery. Your podcast has turned me on to Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Dawkins, etc - and caused my unsuspecting brain to swim with tough questions about my faith. Where I am today is miles from where I was, and I am very grateful for your part in that. And give my best to Dan and Kevin. To me, (bear in mind that I'm just coming up with as I write it) you three are like the STAR TREK of religious debate and honesty. Kirk (Dan), Spock (you), Bones (Kevin) all seeking the truth... "where others fear to tread." Corny as my Star Trek analogy may sound, I have immensely enjoyed your show. I want to sincerely thank you for the hours of pure, raw awesome that you have produced - and for setting the barometer with regard to intellectual honesty and respectful argumentation. Best Regards, Aaron Bauer