Sapient interviewed by Laura Ingraham (Official thread - downloads - commentary)

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient interviewed by Laura Ingraham (Official thread - downloads - commentary)

Updated thread on Sapient vs Laura Ingraham

 

The best damn atheist radio show that has ever been made, Rational Response Squad disected the Laura Ingraham interview.  This was one of the best shows we did.  Laura gave me enough material to unload and we were all livid at her.  This show is full of raw emotion, but with tons of humor.  If you have a problem with Laura being referred to as a "retarded cunt" then you should not listen to this broadcast.

(right click save as)  Download the whole show for free now!  <-- this is the file you are looking for

Here is the download to my appearance on the Laura Ingraham show. I was muted during much of the interview, it started right off the get go.  It was not a result of being boisterous.  It definitely throws you off as you have to skip over 5 big topics, because you have to summarize everything into 5-15 second clips.  You can hear how my volume is being turned up and down.   

Two other noteworthy stories from the week I was interviewed with Laura Ingraham:

Here is a 4 minute segment on the Penn Jilette show in which he talks about the Blasphemy Challenge and the Rational Response Squad.  He basically recorded a commercial for us.

Christian Science Monitor did a story on the Blasphemy Challenge within a bigger story.  The portion she wrote about me was accurate.

 

Views about the Laura Ingraham interview from other threads on this site....

Laura Ingraham what a stupid bitch

Truatheist wrote:

My e-mail to Ms. Ingraham

Laura,

I will begin this letter by stating that I have never e-mailed any radio or T.V. program until now. After listening to your “interview” with Mr. Sapient, it was easy to see that you were out of your league. Your constant ad hominem attacks, in conjunction with the numerous strawman arguments you presented against atheism were appalling. Not to mention constantly cutting his mic and endlessly interrupting him, all the while he kept his cool. A person who holds a position of theism such as yours really has no choice but to resort to these tactics. A logical argument cannot be constructed that proves a supernatural being created the universe and then sacrificed itself to itself in order to save mankind from itself.

It was easy to discern that you were simply angry that many people do not believe in the fairytale that dictates your life. You are pathetic … I feel sorry for you, I truly do!

 

Laura Ingraham hypocrite

rab wrote:

I just listened to the podcast discussing Brian Sapient's guest appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show.

Morality are commandments? Laura hasn't really read the bible. God's commandments are retarded! We get along with each other for survival and empathy.

About Mother Teresa, Apparently, Ingraham she never read Christopher Hitchens's scathing tome about her. If Teresa had been a secularist working with them, the people she cared for would have had clean facilities, food, clean clothes, and sterile needles. Millions of dollars that poured in to the charity went to the church and other missions. In Ingrams world, missionaries are there for "a reason." Mother Teresa's reason was to glorify the poor's suffering because they were suffering for Jesus! One major reason we have missionaries, especially in Africa, is because people have been missplaced because of religious intollerance and genocide.

I remember listening to Ingraham's show the day Terri Shiavo died. She went on and on about how the liberals killed this poor woman and how conservatives are about "the culture of life." Of course, that "culture of life" doesn't include the poor children that fell victim to mortar shells that her conservative president chose to drop on them. I liked it when she asked Brian what bible he reads. Pssst,, Laura, he read the same one you claim to know! "What about the women's sufferage movement?" She actually used that as an argument for theists activism! She needs to do some research on Elizabeth Statton and Susan B. Antony and what their beliefs were.

 

My views on the Ingraham vs Sapient faceoff

God-Bane wrote:

Greetings,

Before I listened to your debate with Laura Ingraham I had never really heard of the woman, so I googled her. I must admit that I found her career resume quite impressive but she is obviously lacking when it comes to the art of argumentation. Here are just four of the diverting and idiotic tactics she used:

1 - She tried to use the work of Christian missionaries as proof that there is a god and as justification for the continuation of Christianity. In my opinion, Christian charity isn't altruistic since they're only doing it because a book tells them that they have to do it in order to make it into Heaven. If a million Christians do charity work based on what a book tells them it's still not as noble as the charity work of ten atheists who do charity work without being nudged by religiosity.

2 - She asked you if you were ever going to get a job, which was a low blow and indicative of the way that Christians will desperately lash out (I thought they weren't supposed to judge people?!) when they find themselves inevitably backed into a corner.

3 - She asked you why you're up at night thinking about Christians, which was another low blow. Christianity got where it is today because Christians WERE up at night thinking about what non-Christians were doing. Christianity is where it is today because they were persistently gaining converts and voicing their views, or when that didn't work, they just killed people. At least atheists aren't killing people wholesale because they won't agree with our view

4 - The name-game was the most pathetic in my opinion. It had absolutely no relevance to the argument at hand. Naming intelligent people who believed in God, or APPEAR to have believed in God does not establish a correlation between intelligence and religion. Laura named Galileo but also left out the part where the church banned his "heretic" works, allowed him to speak to no one at religious festivals, put him on house arrest, and denied him burial at the Basilica of Santa Croce (he wasn't allowed to be buried there until almost a hundred years after his death)! She named Leonardo da Vinci but fails to realize that he was also a man of science and did not believe in the Biblical flood based on his scientific observations. If anything, they've contributed to the atheist movement because they were two great men who successfully challenged the Bible (although they didn't live to see the fruits of their success). PS: Is it really any wonder that many intelligent people during the Italian Renaissance professed to believe in God when you could be jailed or burned at the stake for not agreeing?!!

I initially sent this message via Youtube but I realized that nobody had visited the account in quite some time so I decided to send it here. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,

God-Bane

 

A host of a business talk show decided to host me because he was disgusted with the way Laura Ingraham treated me on her show.

The story behind Brian Sapient with Saul Albom and downloads to the interview that connects atheism to the stock market... somehow.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
60 new posts and at least

60 new posts and at least one banning. Things sure got active and insulting all of a sudden. But I'll respond anyway, in kind.

Trout wrote:
Vastet wrote:

And yet it is conclusively proven that missionary work is more often harmful than good. Aids in africa and multiple issues with native north americans are two perfect examples.

I'm a native American, please explain how missionaries did more harm than good.

How amazingly pathetic that you would even need to ask such a question. It's like a black person asking how slavery by whites was harmful 70 years ago. However, I'd be happy to educate you.

http://missions.bgmm.com/sanfran.htm

There is an example. Another is the theft of children from family structure in order to indoctrinate them. In combination with refusal to let them speak their own language, amongst other things.

Quote:

Vastet wrote:

That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Shame on you.

Why? You seem to be against the missionary who does humanitarian work. The LDS church has done a great deal of charity work, more than you I'm sure. Yet you sit around and bad mouth them while people starve, it's you who should feel shame.

So you are too stupid to think. Go figure. You actually think to expect that a solitary person can come anywhere near to matching an organisation of millions? You are the definition of idiot.

Quote:
Tell me, what have you done to end hunger or prevent AIDS? Do you think that by angrily typing away at your keyboard you're actually making the world a better place?

I know I am, because I'm defeating morons like you who would see our species crumble into dust. What have you done to end hunger or prevent aids? Not even that much.

Quote:

Vastet wrote:

Human compassion.

What has your human compassion lead you to do?

A great many things. Why are you trying to change the conversation to make it about me? This is about Sapient on Laura's show. Not me. *Shakes head* Stupid theist deflections....

Quote:
Vastet wrote:

Theism itself isn't so much the problem. If you really want to believe there's a god, and need it to explain things for you, fine. It's the viral influence of religion and the tendancy to cause extreme cases of harm in the name of a god that's the problem.

What ignorance. Tell me, how much harm did Moa cause? Pol Pot? Stalin?

Yes, you are full of ignorance. How about the crusades? The romans? The al-qaedites(yay, coined a new phrase!)?

Quote:
Vastet wrote:

The only way to bring about a theism free society would be through Orwellian tactics. Extinguishing imagination. There's a difference however between spreading lies and keeping them to yourself. I should be able to walk around my whole life without any religious influence should I desire to. But I can't. Religion by it's very nature seeks to invade. So I fight it.

Are you for real?

Yep. Are you?

Quote:
Let me see if these changes will help you understand how goofy your above statement was:

The only way to bring about an atheism free society would be through Orwellian tactics. Extinguishing imagination. There's a difference however between spreading lies and keeping them to yourself. I should be able to walk around my whole life without any atheistic influence should I desire to. But I can't. Atheism by it's very nature seeks to invade. So I fight it.

Remember what the purpose of Brian's website is:

Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism.

Ha ha ha ha ha. I should have known you'd be dumb enough to try that. Guess what though? Atheism isn't a religion, therefore it CANNOT affect you. It CANNOT influence you. It doesn't invade by it's very NATURE. It is a constant. Not an influence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TakeCashToChurch
TakeCashToChurch's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  I just heard that

Wow.  I just heard that and I am actually pretty damn upset about what I heard.

 I'm torn between being upset about the content, or the waste of time it was.

Sapient, it took balls to do what you did. Plain and simple.

I'll start by pointing out that Laura is a c-nut.  I probably don't need to say much more than that, but I will anyway.

 Why is it when the religious are confronted or their ideas, they rip into the person doing the confronting on a personal level?  She was very hung up on your career, wasn't she?  Her god, when I heard it, I could almost picture the orange tweed basement sofa you *must* sleep on in her world. 

THAT'S what religion gets you, folks:  The ability to render judgement on someone you've never met in a manner absent of all facts.  I didn't hear you criticising her for her propoga...er, I mean, show.  She's awfully proud to be another marionette, isn't she?

She's never read the bible.  If she had, she would have been repulsed by the violence and underage softcore pornography.  Yet she feels that you must not have read it because you read ALL the books.  Point and preach on Sunday is *not* reading the bible.

 But to the average Christian it is.  I often wonder if they read their Danielle Steele novels the same way... 

 This Sunday we'll look at page 234, paragraph 21:

"As I ran my fingers thru his manly chest hair, I let them seductively creep towards his jeans.  He grabbed my neck and kissed me with such great force, that my hand was suddenly motivated to unbuckle his belt.  He threw me on the bed and unwrapped me like a present on his birthday."

 If only the bible were that stimulating.  And I don't mean stimulate to murder in the name of God, of course. 

Every step I took in faith betrayed me

-Sarah McLachlan


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I missed all the "fun"

Wow, I missed all the "fun" with the troll who wanted to live life free of atheistic influences. Smiling I wish my life had been free of theistic influences, but alas! 'Twas my misfortune to be raised by fundies.

I would like to say have my say about equating atheism and totalitarianism (in particular, Communism). Atheism is a simple lack of belief in god(s). It isn't dogmatic by nature. My brother, for example, is an atheistic Ayn Rand Objectivist who worships Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush. He calls anyone slightly to the left of him a "commie." I'd also like to add that he's a coward in some ways. My mother raised two children and both of them became atheists, but my brother won't admit his atheism to Mom. Guess who bears the brunt of the fallout? I was particularly sickened when my brother actually prayed over our Christmas dinner. Maybe he's really the smart one for pretending to agree with Mom. I don't know. At least they share the same politics. Me? I'm completely on my own.

I've always been sensitive, so when I was able to admit I was both an atheist and a liberal, it was freeing. I don't necessarily follow any political party dogmatically, but I pretty much dislike Republicans across the board. They are a bunch of heartless bastards and they disgust me.

I think the main reason Communists wanted to get rid of religion was because it was a competing dogma. Communists wanted total allegiance to the state. Christianity wants total allegiance to god (read: whomever speaks for god). The Communists believed that in order to gain full allegiance, they needed to take out the whole "god" factor.

Our current crop of neo-conservatives are going about gaining control in a much smarter way. They're using religion as a tool to rein in the gullible.  Neo-conservatives, many of whom really do believe, have attempted to marry church and state. Because religionists are often trained to blindly accept authority, it wasn't too hard to sweep them into the Republican fold. I watched my religious family trot into the fold like a bunch of bleating sheep. At the time I was among them.  When Reagan was president I was too young to know better.

I believe Sam Harris said that too much rationality could never hurt when it comes to government. That means we think instead of follow dogmatic positions like Communism, fundy Christianity, Ayn Rand Objectivism or any party line.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
You could have said

You could have said something like the following to Trout before you banned him.

something like "Above all, we support rational thought and promote the advancement in rational thought through dialogue, in making decisions about religion, government, ethics, etc.
Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin may have arrived at their personal religious views rationally; they may have not. They never wrote anything about their personal spiritual journeys. However, their decision to kill millions of people makes me question the soundness of the way they arrived at their personal religious views. In fact, you can easily view the fascistic antireligious doctrines they imposed as a strategy to obtain and maintain power, which they in fact achieved. Without any higher authority except the government figurehead there is no way to question said figurehead's authority. Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were not proponents of rational thought and dialogue. In fact, this rational intellectual tradition, (lead by either an athiest or a religious person) would have been viewed as a threat to their authority just the same as a religious doctrine. Education in the Soviet Union was under strict ideological control. Hitler (said by some to be an athiest; I have no idea) killed intellectuals. Pol Pot also targeted intellectuals, buddhist monks, and people who appeared to be intelligent- like people with glasses(!), among other population groups in Cambodia (without regard to whether these people were athiest or not). These people were a challenge to their power. So, while Pol Pot, etc. may have arrived at his personal religious views rationally, the manner with which they indoctrinated their subjects, obtained power and destroyed life does not reflect a rational approach to government; Pot, Stalin, etc. did not appeal to rationality in their decision to kill millions; their history is a reflection of why such an approach is so dangerous. 'The slaughter of millions done by atheists' is decidedly not in harmony with a rational worldview."

Sorry for misrepresenting rational responders if i did;


On a different note, I was disappointed that Trout was banned, even if he was trolling. (I learned a new word!) I fear this will have implications for openness of discussion on a site which promotes rational dialogue. I don't know if his actions were consistent with the definition of trolling, perhaps he was just thickheaded and could not understand the opposing arguments, perhaps he was intentionally causing disruption.  But of course, you would probably know this better than me. I'm new to forum cites, so I don't have a clue. Personally , if I was annoyed with the course of discussion I would have left the forum alone, but I know a moderator has to play a different role.


Whether or not he was intentionally causing disruption, I have questions about this course of action so maybe I can better understand this decision; is there a "banning policy" written somewhere? was Trout referred to this policy and showed his offences specifically before he was banned?

Also if these questions belong on another forum/ were already addressed, sorry/please direct me to where they're addressed.
thanks.

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: On a

hello wrote:

On a different note, I was disappointed that Trout was banned, even if he was trolling. (I learned a new word!)

The moderators will have to respond more fully, but from my understanding, "trout" has been on other forums, causing problems.  

The definition of a troll is one who causes disruption on purpose.  In other words, a troll is banned for "trolling," not for espousing unpopular beliefs.  I have a feeling more was going on than just this thread. *shrug* I could be wrong. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: On a

hello wrote:

On a different note, I was disappointed that Trout was banned, even if he was trolling. (I learned a new word!) I fear this will have implications for openness of discussion on a site which promotes rational dialogue.

I was disappointed, and I have the same fears.  A mods job is never easy.  As you can see from the site however there are quite a few theists here, many that are far more outlandish than Trout, but that don't break down into a zone of trolling.  We don't want to have a reputation of banning people either, which is why I think the number is at 4 people that have been banned from the site total. 

You should know, I said goodbye to him in the most courteous way I could, under the circumstances. 

 

 

Quote:
 I don't know if his actions were consistent with the definition of trolling, perhaps he was just thickheaded and could not understand the opposing arguments, perhaps he was intentionally causing disruption.  But of course, you would probably know this better than me.

He could easily just be thick headed, however he had a history at the InfidelGuy.com community.  We get people who have been banned from other communities that we are close with from time to time and to this point every one of those people has gotten a fresh start.  However they had strikes on their record in our mod minds, Trout was given quite some time and eased himself in.  However he stooped to his old trolling ways here and had to go (partly on his old record).

 

Quote:
I'm new to forum cites, so I don't have a clue. Personally , if I was annoyed with the course of discussion I would have left the forum alone, but I know a moderator has to play a different role.

Yes, as a poster it's your role to post, the mods however need to read everything and make sure that an environment condusive to open discussion can occur. 


Quote:
is there a "banning policy" written somewhere?

Here are the rules. (up top menu bar) 

 

Quote:
was Trout referred to this policy and showed his offences specifically before he was banned?

He was asked to move on several times, however he should've known better based on past experiences.  We don't have a policy to warn before a ban.  Sometimes we'll warn, sometimes time out, othertimes it's just ban.  In this case several mods conferred to simply ban.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: hello

Sapient wrote:
hello wrote:

On a different note, I was disappointed that Trout was banned, even if he was trolling. (I learned a new word!) I fear this will have implications for openness of discussion on a site which promotes rational dialogue.

I was disappointed, and I have the same fears. A mods job is never easy. As you can see from the site however there are quite a few theists here, many that are far more outlandish than Trout, but that don't break down into a zone of trolling. We don't want to have a reputation of banning people either, which is why I think the number is at 4 people that have been banned from the site total.

You should know, I said goodbye to him in the most courteous way I could, under the circumstances.

 

Quote:
I don't know if his actions were consistent with the definition of trolling, perhaps he was just thickheaded and could not understand the opposing arguments, perhaps he was intentionally causing disruption. But of course, you would probably know this better than me.

He could easily just be thick headed, however he had a history at the InfidelGuy.com community. We get people who have been banned from other communities that we are close with from time to time and to this point every one of those people has gotten a fresh start. However they had strikes on their record in our mod minds, Trout was given quite some time and eased himself in. However he stooped to his old trolling ways here and had to go (partly on his old record).

Quote:
I'm new to forum cites, so I don't have a clue. Personally , if I was annoyed with the course of discussion I would have left the forum alone, but I know a moderator has to play a different role.

Yes, as a poster it's your role to post, the mods however need to read everything and make sure that an environment condusive to open discussion can occur.


Quote:
is there a "banning policy" written somewhere?

Here are the rules. (up top menu bar)

Quote:
was Trout referred to this policy and showed his offences specifically before he was banned?

He was asked to move on several times, however he should've known better based on past experiences. We don't have a policy to warn before a ban. Sometimes we'll warn, sometimes time out, othertimes it's just ban. In this case several mods conferred to simply ban.

In Brian's defense he gives tons room to people, including atheists. He does not take the same approach in diolouge as other atheists and vice versa. But I am quite sure if he or the mods saw a sever disruption by an atheist, they would do the same thing to them.

My history as a mod on other boards is that you end up being damned if you do and damned if you dont. So you end up just doing the best you can. No site owner, be they Christian or atheist is going to please every single member. It is impossible.

I think the main concern is merely something becoming a repetitive distraction and not so much what the person is saying. Once something is adressed and replied to it should progress not stagnate. Or people should just move on to other topics.

Trout has had a history. Thats why we warn people comming hear that we dont mind you being here, we welcome it but please dont preach. Present your case, but dont spam condesending quotes especially after we have adressed them. Take what we say, mull it over and if you have something new to add, do so. But repeating the same thing over and over is a waste of our time and theirs as well. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cynicastoic
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-09-01
User is offlineOffline
Where's the Transcript?

ahem, is this thing on??? what is all the lip flapping about?  I put the internet aside for just one little holiday and damn, a lot happened...is there a transcript of this exchange?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I just updated the first

 I just updated the first post here and made the RRS show in which we tore up Laura Ingraham a free download. 

 The update and free download are a result of seeing Laura Ingraham pop up in Jon Stewart's War on Christmas.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tree Fighting Ceremony - War on Christmas
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

War on Christmas Jon Stewart

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Check out the picture on the

Check out the picture on the desk on the right. Stewart with the kids from "Different Strokes".

I also liked him pointing out that the anchor was wearing a cross.

But I did not know, but it doesn't surprise me, that the founders had no intent on treating December 25th as a special day. 67 years after the ink dried, the Congress held session.

The idiots who claim that the settlers  came here for religious freedom. NO they came here to set up their own sectarian clubs. People like Paine and Jefferson and the founders set up a government to put a leash on the tribalism they were surrounded by at the time.

I simply think once the new car smell wore off the Revolution, the citizens didn't really understand the freedom the founders set up for them.

The war is not on religious freedom. The war is against absurd claims AND to keep government neutral.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37