Who has the guts to debate an expert? [Trollville]

god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Who has the guts to debate an expert? [Trollville]

I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts. [mod edit from Sapient: WE ALREADY WERE ON HIS SHOW. READ MY POST BELOW]


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Let's turn it around. Does

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I'll do it for an appearance

I'll do it for an appearance fee.

 

1 Timothy 5:18 Parallel Translations
NASB: For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." (NASB ©1995)
GWT: After all, Scripture says, "Never muzzle an ox when it is threshing grain," and "The worker deserves his pay." (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: I don't

god rules wrote:
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts.

 

1) I've noticed that anyone who references 'guts, or 'courage' or 'having balls' in the initial debate challenge is probably not likely to be a source of civil, philosophical discourse.

2)  I've also noticed that every other christian debator is bad, except for the guy we've not met yet....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if this guy is an

I wonder if this guy is an asshat like that Laura Ingraham that talks over people, cuts their mike off or edits it to make themselves look good.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
So, 'the BEST' is some

So, 'the BEST' is some unknown local radio show host from Michigan? He doesn't have a Wikipedia article but his radio station does:

Here

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Here's his bio -

Here's his bio - http://www.toptenproofs.com/aboutbob.php

A website that he supports/owns (not sure which one)  http://www.toptenproofs.com/

And some blogs about him.  Looks like not even the Christians like him very much.

http://bobdutko.blogspot.com/2007/02/news-hour.html

http://bobdutko.blogspot.com/2007/02/bob-bashes-liberals-ignores-facts.html

Just from what little I've read, he sounds like a real gem.

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
You know what I've

You know what I've noticed?  All these "Master Debaters" we hear so much about apparently don't have the "guts" to come to RRS and put their masterful proofs of god into print.  I wonder why that is?  Could it be that they want the "debate format" because it gives them the chance to use "win" the audience over if they're more charismatic?  Debate, after all, is often about who is better spoken.  Print is print.  It can be analyzed, disected, commented upon, quoted, and, in the case of Master Apologists, defeated soundly.

How about this, mister guts, how about if your debater comes here to the board and we'll make a dedicated, moderated thread for him to give us his best argument.  If he's so good, it'll be a chance for you to be responsible for shutting down the RRS.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I see he's not interested

I see he's not interested in my offer. Msybe the irony of getting owned by a heretical theist scared him.

Contemporary Christianity is a blight on humanity. It is promoting un-truth in the name of god. It is increasingly the bigoted tool of Satan (to borrow their terminology) for keeping people compliant towards authority, arrogant towards non-believers and ignorant about reality. It is rapidly becoming an evil scourge.

 

There.  I said it. What you gonna do about it? Or haven't you any balls?


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Wave, if you happen to get

Wave, if you happen to get on this i may have to see if i can listen to it. It would be utterly hilarious hearing you own this guy,espesically sense you are a theist. I hope he accepts you to be on dude.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I see

wavefreak wrote:

I see he's not interested in my offer. Msybe the irony of getting owned by a heretical theist scared him.

Contemporary Christianity is a blight on humanity. It is promoting un-truth in the name of god. It is increasingly the bigoted tool of Satan (to borrow their terminology) for keeping people compliant towards authority, arrogant towards non-believers and ignorant about reality. It is rapidly becoming an evil scourge.

 

There.  I said it. What you gonna do about it? Or haven't you any balls?

This would be perfect!!!  I'd love to see you thump this guy!

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: I don't

god rules wrote:
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts.

 Kelly was already on Bob Dutko.  He was extremely dishonest in how he set up the discussion.  He purposefully ambushed her on topics of thermodynamics  when we specifically stated in the preinterview that our science expert was Mike Yellow #5.  During the interview she stated her expertise was not science, but philosophy and psychology... she did so several times.  Each time he continued to force issues of thermodynamics that she specifically stated were not her area of expertise and then claimed victory in that she wasn't informed of the topic.  If you happen to see the dishonest twat bag, feel free to spit in his face for us.

He hasn't accepted or returned the email to receive an appearance on our show.  Dishonest pussy is all I can say for him.

 

In addition our RRS partner Brian Flemming was on Dutko twice. 

- Brian Sapient


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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: god rules

Sapient wrote:

god rules wrote:
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts.

Kelly was already on Bob Dutko. He was extremely dishonest in how he set up the discussion. He purposefully ambushed her on topics of thermodynamics when we specifically stated in the preinterview that our science expert was Mike Yellow #5. During the interview she stated her expertise was not science, but philosophy and psychology... she did so several times. Each time he continued to force issues of thermodynamics that she specifically stated were not her area of expertise and then claimed victory in that she wasn't informed of the topic. If you happen to see the dishonest twat bag, feel free to spit in his face for us.

He hasn't accepted or returned the email to receive an appearance on our show. Dishonest pussy is all I can say for him.

 

In addition our RRS partner Brian Flemming was on Dutko twice.

I see. He's an expert because he takes on amateur debaters in areas out of their chosen field and changes the rules. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13599
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I dont care if it were the

I dont care if it were the Pope. Not him or this guy has any evidence of a spirit getting a girl pregnant or how exactly human flesh surives rigior mortis. He could have the entire bible memorized but it still doesnt make hocus pocus real.

"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


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
anton levey

jcgadfly wrote:

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert? 

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: jcgadfly

god rules wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert?

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.

 Whether it's stupidity, or just a horrible attempt at a joke, nothing less should be expected from someone who considers Bob Dutko an expert on anything.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
iNTELLIGENT RESPONSE

Roisin Dubh wrote:
god rules wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert?

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.

IS THAT AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU GET?

 Whether it's stupidity, or just a horrible attempt at a joke, nothing less should be expected from someone who considers Bob Dutko an expert on anything.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: I don't

god rules wrote:
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts. [mod edit from Sapient: WE ALREADY WERE ON HIS SHOW. READ MY POST BELOW]

Sure... I'll debate Bob Dutko... I've owned my share of theists here... and I'm ever-so-much more charismatic and demanding in person Smiling

I have so many questions for Bobby boy... I simply don't know where I'd start... hmm... perhaps I'd ask him why god commands his followers to rape and molest little virgin girls (Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20) ... or maybe i'll ask why god created plants before he created a sun to feed them and keep them from instantly freezing to death (Genesis 1).... or maybe why the bible portrays Jesus as already being born before 4BC (Matthew 2) - and then back in Mary's womb again by 6CE (Luke 2) ... or why god hates Christmas trees (Jeremiah 10)

on top of this... i have a fairly good grasp of thermodynamics... in fact... thermodynamics are an underlying solidification for why a god CANNOT exist.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13599
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun wrote: god

NarcolepticSun wrote:

god rules wrote:
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts. [mod edit from Sapient: WE ALREADY WERE ON HIS SHOW. READ MY POST BELOW]


Sure... I'll debate Bob Dutko... I've owned my share of theists here... and I'm ever-so-much more charismatic and demanding in person Smiling

I have so many questions for Bobby boy... I simply don't know where I'd start... hmm... perhaps I'd ask him why god commands his followers to rape and molest little virgin girls (Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20) ... or maybe i'll ask why god created plants before he created a sun to feed them and keep them from instantly freezing to death (Genesis 1).... or maybe why the bible portrays Jesus as already being born before 4BC (Matthew 2) - and then back in Mary's womb again by 6CE (Luke 2) ... or why god hates Christmas trees (Jeremiah 10)

on top of this... i have a fairly good grasp of thermodynamics... in fact... thermodynamics are an underlying solidification for why a god CANNOT exist.

Yea, but the theist has their chechi trump cards that delude them into believing that they haven't been pwnd.

1. "God did it"

2. "God can do what he wants"

3. "God works in mysterious ways"

4. "God doesnt have to explain himself to you"

5. "Out of context"

That is quite hard to shake them out of once they have baught it, the mental gymastics kick in and they use anything and everything of psuedo class to prop up their myth. 

"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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I see

wavefreak wrote:

I see he's not interested in my offer. Msybe the irony of getting owned by a heretical theist scared him.

Contemporary Christianity is a blight on humanity. It is promoting un-truth in the name of god. It is increasingly the bigoted tool of Satan (to borrow their terminology) for keeping people compliant towards authority, arrogant towards non-believers and ignorant about reality. It is rapidly becoming an evil scourge.

 

There. I said it. What you gonna do about it? Or haven't you any balls?

Leaving aside the last statement, I find theist vs theist on matters of theology interesting... a well informed, reasoned theist refuting a rabid/irrationalists is likely to win over both theists and atheists - the atheists will be more likely to side with you, and the theists will be more likely to accept a refutation coming from a fellow theist. You're in a position to help a lot of people.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: Roisin

god rules wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:
god rules wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert?

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.

IS THAT AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU GET?

Whether it's stupidity, or just a horrible attempt at a joke, nothing less should be expected from someone who considers Bob Dutko an expert on anything.

Well, are you either the world's worst comedian, or are you stupid enough to think that satanism and atheism are the same thing?

Give me your best shot, chuckles. 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
haha, everything about this

god rules wrote:
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts.

 

[mod edit from Sapient: WE ALREADY WERE ON HIS SHOW. READ MY POST BELOW]

haha, everything about this post, from the username to the thread title to the message body is hilarious. is anyone really taking this guy seriously?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm lead to belive that

I'm lead to belive that Kelly appeared on Bob Dutko and Bob won the debate.

 Here is why I believe this. Sapient Claimed Bob ambushed Kelly about thermodynamics, but didn't mention why. This leads me to believe that Kelly said something that forced Bob to bring up thermodynamics. To me it sounds like Bob was refuting something Kelly said and this is why he brought up thermodynmaics and why Sapient didn't mention the reason the topic was brought up. Sapient then starts insulting Bob Dutko without providing any evidence to support the claims he is making.

If someone would be kind enough to explain what actually happened, I may change my statement above and agree that Kelly was ambushed, however as it stands right now, I think Bob did no such thing. 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I'm

simple theist wrote:

I'm lead to belive that Kelly appeared on Bob Dutko and Bob won the debate.

 Here is why I believe this. Sapient Claimed Bob ambushed Kelly about thermodynamics, but didn't mention why. This leads me to believe that Kelly said something that forced Bob to bring up thermodynamics. To me it sounds like Bob was refuting something Kelly said and this is why he brought up thermodynmaics and why Sapient didn't mention the reason the topic was brought up. Sapient then starts insulting Bob Dutko without providing any evidence to support the claims he is making.

If someone would be kind enough to explain what actually happened, I may change my statement above and agree that Kelly was ambushed, however as it stands right now, I think Bob did no such thing. 

I have heard the show, and Bob essentially ambushed Kelly from the beginning on topics she is not well versed in - I DON'T think that was acidental. Kelly can pretty much rip anyone to shreds on logic and her other areas of expertise, but Bob pretty much began the show making scientific claims Kelly was in no position to confirm, deny or counter.

If Bob wanted to talk about that, he SHOULD have been talking with me, he should have asked for me. Just like if he wanted to talk ancient history, he should have said so and asked for Rook. Brian and Kelly excel in logical refutation, and it seems to me, Bod wanted to take on one of us and put him or her out of their element. Thing is, even when he did do that, Kelly didn't do half bad.

It would be like arguing with me on the historicity of Jesus. I know the basics, but I'm certainly not the person who should be on a show about that - you would want Rook. And if you intend to talk science and thermodynamics, you should ask for me.

This is why I get pissed when people complain that it's always 4 on 1 when then come on the show. It really isn't. We formed the squad by making sure we had all the major bases covered: philosophy (we're all decent at that, but Brain and Kelly excel at it), psychology (that's all Kelly and we'll call in todangst on occastion as well), history and texts (Rook is simply phenomenal in that department), and science (I feel I'm a damn good jack of all sciences and rather knowledgeable in such regards). No ONE person can be an expert in all subjects.

In geneal conversation, you can go with any of us.

There is MORE than one of us for a reason. We all have our own areas of expertise. When the arguments for the devine range from ridiculous interpretations of natrual phenomena or outright lies about such, to logical fallacies, to historical distortions and misinterpretations - it really DOES take a team to tackle all of it.

Anyway, I frankly feel Bob was disengenuous and attempted to trap Kelly. I Bob wants a rematch on the subjests he brought up, he can contact me.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
simple theist wrote:

I'm lead to belive that Kelly appeared on Bob Dutko and Bob won the debate.

Here is why I believe this. Sapient Claimed Bob ambushed Kelly about thermodynamics, but didn't mention why. This leads me to believe that Kelly said something that forced Bob to bring up thermodynamics. To me it sounds like Bob was refuting something Kelly said and this is why he brought up thermodynmaics and why Sapient didn't mention the reason the topic was brought up. Sapient then starts insulting Bob Dutko without providing any evidence to support the claims he is making.

If someone would be kind enough to explain what actually happened, I may change my statement above and agree that Kelly was ambushed, however as it stands right now, I think Bob did no such thing.

I have heard the show, and Bob essentially ambushed Kelly from the beginning on topics she is not well versed in - I DON'T think that was acidental. Kelly can pretty much rip anyone to shreds on logic and her other areas of expertise, but Bob pretty much began the show making scientific claims Kelly was in no position to confirm, deny or counter.

If Bob wanted to talk about that, he SHOULD have been talking with me, he should have asked for me. Just like if he wanted to talk ancient history, he should have said so and asked for Rook. Brian and Kelly excel in logical refutation, and it seems to me, Bod wanted to take on one of us and put him or her out of their element. Thing is, even when he did do that, Kelly didn't do half bad.

It would be like arguing with me on the historicity of Jesus. I know the basics, but I'm certainly not the person who should be on a show about that - you would want Rook. And if you intend to talk science and thermodynamics, you should ask for me.

This is why I get pissed when people complain that it's always 4 on 1 when then come on the show. It really isn't. We formed the squad by making sure we had all the major bases covered: philosophy (we're all decent at that, but Brain and Kelly excel at it), psychology (that's all Kelly and we'll call in todangst on occastion as well), history and texts (Rook is simply phenomenal in that department), and science (I feel I'm a damn good jack of all sciences and rather knowledgeable in such regards). No ONE person can be an expert in all subjects.

In geneal conversation, you can go with any of us.

There is MORE than one of us for a reason. We all have our own areas of expertise. When the arguments for the devine range from ridiculous interpretations of natrual phenomena or outright lies about such, to logical fallacies, to historical distortions and misinterpretations - it really DOES take a team to tackle all of it.

Anyway, I frankly feel Bob was disengenuous and attempted to trap Kelly. I Bob wants a rematch on the subjests he brought up, he can contact me.

FIrst thanks Yellow #5, The way you posted it as compared to Sapient does make me seem to trust you more. However I would still llike someone to post proof that Bob ambushed Kelly instead of their opinion. A basic summary of how the thermodynamics statements came up would be nice. Of course also pointing me to the transcript or copy of the show woudl work. I'm not asking for much, just something other then Bob ambushed kelly by talking about thermodynamics. I must admit I"m not sure what this has to do about Chrstianity to begin with, however I can assume Kelly said something was not true and then to refute Kelly's statment, Bob had to mention thermodynmics. I'm really mostly concerned with how the topic got on Thermodynamics and would like that explained instead. Before I agree Bob ambushed kelly, I want to make sure that Bob didn't have to bring thermodynamics into the conversation based on something Kelly said.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I would debate with this so

I would debate with this so called "expert". Bring it on.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Wow in Trollville. Well I

Wow in Trollville. Well I gave RRS an opportunity to defend their statment, however now I must admit that Bob did not ambush Kelly and Kelly probably did something to set herself up. Hence why RRS has not posted any support for their claim and moved the thread to trollville.


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
God or the Devil

Roisin Dubh wrote:
god rules wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:
god rules wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert?

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.

IS THAT AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU GET?

Whether it's stupidity, or just a horrible attempt at a joke, nothing less should be expected from someone who considers Bob Dutko an expert on anything.

Well, are you either the world's worst comedian, or are you stupid enough to think that satanism and atheism are the same thing?

Give me your best shot, chuckles. 

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan. 


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
HERE IS YOUR ANSWER

simple theist wrote:
Wow in Trollville. Well I gave RRS an opportunity to defend their statment, however now I must admit that Bob did not ambush Kelly and Kelly probably did something to set herself up. Hence why RRS has not posted any support for their claim and moved the thread to trollville.

It's almost funny to read the claims of people like this. As always, I will deal specifically with the facts and  leave the insults and name calling to the other side. Here are some facts for you.
1) There was no "pre-interview" and definitely no "ambush".
2) When the on-air interview started, she specifically said she was disappointed with the Ray Comfort debate because ....(her words) "I was really hoping to talk science". I then said to her "great, I won't talk faith or Bible at all, how about we just talk science?" and she said "that'd be great" (so much for "ambush&quotEye-wink
3) It wasn't until she started losing the debate so miserably that she started complaining about not being and "expert" on science, after which I reminded her that SHE was the one who first said she preferred a discussion on science.
4) She was the one who attempted to make scientific claims about possible origins of the universe. She just didn't like the fact that I was able to explain how the Laws of Thermodynamics made her suggestions scientifically impossible. When a debater has a scientific answer for your scientific hypothesis, you can't whine and cry "ambush".
5) I have never received an e-mail from them asking me to appear on their show, nor have I ever received any kind of invitation in any communication format of any kind.
6) As for my not having the "guts" for tough debates, I have debated Dr. Michael Shermer (very skilled national atheist debater), the Publisher of Skeptics magazine multiple times, American Atheists, The Infidel Guy, evolutionary scientists, etc. Just last month I debated the well respected atheist Astrophysicist Dr. Victor Stenger (Ph.D.-Physics) and author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis", in which he attempts to prove there is no God according to science, physics and cosmology. I could go on and on obviously, but I thought I would at least give you a factual response to my supposed lack of "guts" to debate some guy from an atheist website. (If you're wondering if my eyes are rolling, yes they are)
Take care and God bless, Bob

TO SIMPLE THEIST AND SAPIEN;

I emailed Bob about this thread and sent him Sapiens comments. This was his INTELLIGENT response, NOTICE he did it without any name calling or insults, just facts.

 I guess this is the kind of reaction you get when you confront Atheists with the truth. They move your thread, maybe hoping out of sight out of mind. How unfortunate they don't realize that the truth sets you free. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you god_ruels. I

Thank you god_ruels. I pretty much guessed thats how it really went when no one explained how Kelly was ambushed. I'm still willing to hear the RRS side...


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
free for all friday

hey Yellow Number 5,

I have a challenge for you. Why don't you call Bob on his show 3:00-4:00pm EST on any friday to challenge him on thermodynamics since you feel Kelly was allegedly put on the spot. Put your money where your mouth is.


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
your'e welcome

You know,

It is one thing to have a belief in something but it is another thing to be able to back it up. Actions speak louder than words. It takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a creator.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:

god rules wrote:

You know,

It is one thing to have a belief in something but it is another thing to be able to back it up. Actions speak louder than words. It takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a creator.

 

You have had several people accept your challenge. But you want to dictate the terms. Who in their right mind would simply call up and start blasting away? If the true intent is the exchange of ideas, then this is the method least likely to promote any understanding. All it really provides is a good opportunity for Bob to make his listeners happy. If you REALLY want a debate, here are MY terms:

 

1) I have a busy schedule. I can fit you in in October. December is actually better. Why so long? I would never enter such a challenge without being fully prepared.

2) It must be broadcast in real time. No chance for editing allowed.

3) I will not phone in. This creates a disadvantage as Bob will be using broadcasting equipment which electronically enhances his voice. A person on the phone sounds tinny and nasally. This creates a perceptual difference to listeners that effects their reactions to the conversation. I will not give that advantage to Bob. Arrangements would have to be made for equality in audio presentation.

4) The subject of the debate would have to be clearly defined. No blindsides allowed from either party.

5) I get an appearance fee. Why? Why the heck would I help Bob build his listener base for free? Why would I help him sell his CDs? I would be willing to have the fee given to a charity of my choosing.

 

Of course, none of this will ever happen. Your "challenge" as stands is a sucker bet so Bob can promote his agenda to his cadre of supporters. Structuring a debate so that there is an even playing field is not in his best interest. Even if his opponent is some unkown internet denizen such as myself.

And the fact that none of this will happen is why you are now in trollville. You are not serious in your challenge. You are trolling for a sucker to come on the show and get "humiliated'.

 

edit:

It would have to be made clear that I am not a representeative of the Rational Response Squad. I am just a loose cannon stirring up trouble. I hang out here because there are some intellectually honest people around.  


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:You

god rules wrote:

You know,

It is one thing to have a belief in something but it is another thing to be able to back it up.

It certainly is. Let's see how you do. 

 

Quote:
Actions speak louder than words. It takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a creator.

Tell me how a creator creates something from nothing. You seem to think this is a reasonable scenario so you must be privvy to the mechanisms by which such a thing can happen.

There are hypothesis by people who are actually qualified to hypothesize about such things that address subjects such as universal origins but as far as I know there is no one who can answer the question of what method a god uses to create a universe from nothing. In other words, to state that a god must have created the universe says nothing. it is a resounding non-answer, nothing more than an appeal to an answer all token. What's more, not only does it not answer the question of universal origins, the pseudo-answer token it interjects is fundamentally incoherent and thus not even acceptable as a token. I might as well say that the universe must have come from the natural process of bloinky which is defined as the natural process that makes a universe. 

I am almost certain you will either not understand that this is a serious problem that renders your appeal to a god as creator a non-answer or that you will simply ignore it but you really should put more thought into such things if you plan on discussing them. If this is the method used by your friend Bob I would rather spend my free time playing golf than involved in refuting such ridiculously speculative and unsubstantiated apologetics. This argument is pathetic at best. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:Roisin

god rules wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:
god rules wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:
god rules wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Let's turn it around.

Does your expert have the guts to debate someone who we might consider an expert?

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.

IS THAT AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU GET?

Whether it's stupidity, or just a horrible attempt at a joke, nothing less should be expected from someone who considers Bob Dutko an expert on anything.

Well, are you either the world's worst comedian, or are you stupid enough to think that satanism and atheism are the same thing?

Give me your best shot, chuckles.

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan.

 

No. That's ridiculous. Atheists serve neither 'god' nor 'satan' mainly because we see absolutely no evidence that would point to the existence of either one.

To compare atheism to satanism is proof of your complete ignorance about atheism in the first place.

[EDIT - QUOTES]

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
These Christians are using

These Christians are using Christ's admonition to be highly aggressive and rude.  We should be happt that they are following at least one of the tenets they claim to believe.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:

god rules wrote:
It takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a creator.

This doesn't prove anything. Both are UNPROVEN scientific and religious THEORIES.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty/ineptitude that plagues religion. Simply reminding people that a scientific theory is a theory is in no way a victory of any kind LOL.

You're also applying Occam's Razor incorrectly. Whichever theory requires more faith has no relevance, thus your argument is a straw man.

 

Bottomline: If you are indeed popular, it's only because you appeal to emotion rather than to logic.  You're no different than a propagandist or a shady politician. 

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This asshat would totally

This asshat would totally get PWNED on the show!


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
what is rude?

Nero wrote:
These Christians are using Christ's admonition to be highly aggressive and rude.  We should be happt that they are following at least one of the tenets they claim to believe.

Is rude making statements about an individuals beliefs(me) or is it calling names and slinging insults(sapien)?


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: god rules

Vessel wrote:
god rules wrote:

You know,

It is one thing to have a belief in something but it is another thing to be able to back it up.

It certainly is. Let's see how you do. 

 

Quote:
Actions speak louder than words. It takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a creator.

Tell me how a creator creates something from nothing. You seem to think this is a reasonable scenario so you must be privvy to the mechanisms by which such a thing can happen.

There are hypothesis by people who are actually qualified to hypothesize about such things that address subjects such as universal origins but as far as I know there is no one who can answer the question of what method a god uses to create a universe from nothing. In other words, to state that a god must have created the universe says nothing. it is a resounding non-answer, nothing more than an appeal to an answer all token. What's more, not only does it not answer the question of universal origins, the pseudo-answer token it interjects is fundamentally incoherent and thus not even acceptable as a token. I might as well say that the universe must have come from the natural process of bloinky which is defined as the natural process that makes a universe. 

I am almost certain you will either not understand that this is a serious problem that renders your appeal to a god as creator a non-answer or that you will simply ignore it but you really should put more thought into such things if you plan on discussing them. If this is the method used by your friend Bob I would rather spend my free time playing golf than involved in refuting such ridiculously speculative and unsubstantiated apologetics. This argument is pathetic at best. 

God operates outside the law of physics. He created it. If he can manipulate a donkey to speak, raise lazarus from the dead, surely he can create the universe. There is an element of faith in believing this, just as there is believing that the universe came from nothing. So you have to have faith to believe what you do, just more of it.

 

g


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: God

god rules wrote:
God operates outside the law of physics. He created it.

 Again, how does one operate outside the laws of physics? What does to operate mean removed from physical laws? How does one create outside the laws of physics? Isn't what we define as 'creating' a physical act?

Surely you can see that you aren't saying anything here. Yu have provided no answers. You are simply claiming 'it is possible because it is possible' without addressing the manner in which it is possible which is what my question deals with.

You aren't answering the question of how the universe came to exist you are simply making an unsubstantiated claim that a non-defined something is responsible.

 

Quote:
If he can manipulate a donkey to speak, raise lazarus from the dead, surely he can create the universe.

What does that even mean? This shows a serious breakdown in reasoning skills. Even if one was to accept the unsubstantiated claims that a being could raise a man from the dead, or talk out his ass (so to speak), that would by no means lead one to believe it was possible for said being to create the universe.

Anyway, again, you aren't answering how your 'god' can create the universe from nothing, so, you aren't answering how the universe was created at all. You are simply saying, god therefor universe and universe therefor god. It is a non-sensical argument that is not only circular but completely uninformative. I might as well just shout chocolate therefor universe.

Quote:
There is an element of faith in believing this, just as there is believing that the universe came from nothing. So you have to have faith to believe what you do, just more of it.

I don't have faith in any scenario for the beginning of the universe. I personally don't even see it as a lefitimate question as I see no reason to think there might have been a pre-universe (encompassing the singularity) state. 

If, however, I did find one of the many universal origin hypothesis compelling, it would at least be an answer to how the universe came to exist. God created it is not an answer. Even with faith that a god created the universe from nothing you still haven't answered how the universe came to be from nothing. Your answer not only requires faith it requires that one admit they have no answer which means that god is just left hanging out there with no causal relationship to the universe and becomes nothing but infinite excess baggage. He becomes something that was envoked as an answer, couldn't be tied to the question, but is, regardless, kept as an answer while the original question simply gets ignored.  

 

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
moment of conception

The moment of conception cannot be explained. Meaning what made that life begin. The process can be explained but not exactly what causes that life to begin. So should we say that life doesn't really exist. Is it just an illusion? Things that happen all the time our supernatural. Otherwise known as miracles.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:

god rules wrote:

The moment of conception cannot be explained. Meaning what made that life begin. The process can be explained but not exactly what causes that life to begin. So should we say that life doesn't really exist. Is it just an illusion? Things that happen all the time our supernatural. Otherwise known as miracles.

just because you don't understand something or don't know how to explain something means it's divine. this the modern day equivalent of people in the dark ages explaining everything as magic that otherwise wouldn't be explainable.

 

you also didn't address my last post. it's not long but really short and simple. are you avoiding my post?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:

god rules wrote:

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan.

LOL...a debate with someone who believes this would be very entertaining...almost as entertaining as nightmare bananas and crocoducks.

Jacob or wavefreak or whomever, if you debate this doofus or his masturbator...I mean, master debater, I wanna watch! You should sell tickets and call it a comedy.

(Yeah, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this was funny. Smiling

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


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: god

Iruka Naminori wrote:
god rules wrote:

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan.

LOL...a debate with someone who believes this would be very entertaining...almost as entertaining as nightmare bananas and crocoducks.

Jacob or wavefreak or whomever, if you debate this doofus or his masturbator...I mean, master debater, I wanna watch! You should sell tickets and call it a comedy.

(Yeah, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this was funny. Smiling )

 

Won't be me. (S)He hasn't responded to any of my posts. Maybe afraid of the crazy theist?


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: You can

god rules wrote:

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan.

i bow my head to no master, human or supernatural. that's slavery, and it's bullshit, regardless of whether or not you believe in "god".

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:

god rules wrote:

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan.

"Master of puppets Im pulling your strings
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams
Blinded by me, you cant see a thing
Just call my name, `cause Ill hear you scream
Master
Master
Just call my name, `cause Ill hear you scream
Master
Master"

 

 

No masters for me thanks, like djneibarger said:

Quote:
"i bow my head to no master, human or supernatural. that's slavery, and it's bullshit, regardless of whether or not you believe in "god".

(edit for clarity)


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Maybe

wavefreak wrote:

Maybe afraid of the crazy theist?

Yeah, but we're not wavefreak.  We like you very much!

 

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


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
First, wavefreak, its clear

First, wavefreak, its clear no one is going to pay you to debate them. I don't go around saying that I'll appear on the RRS, only if I can go to their studeo and if they will pay me. Wantig to be paid is just stupid in my opinion.

 Also insulting God_rules, it just as stupid. It appears all of you are ignorant to Christian beliefs and therefore not qualified to debate a money. How can you say something is wrong when you know absolutelly nothing about it?

God_rules comments come from if you don't serve God, you therefore serve Satan. Has nothing to do with you guys actually worshiping Satan.

Also no one has refuted anything God_rules has mentioned about the debate with Kelly, so it appears that Kelly brought up the universe (a mater of science) and then complained because Bob tried to refute her with science.  


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
freedom

djneibarger wrote:
god rules wrote:

You can only serve "one" master God or Satan.

i bow my head to no master, human or supernatural. that's slavery, and it's bullshit, regardless of whether or not you believe in "god".

Actually if you were to ask jesus into your heart and experienced his presence in your life, you would find freedom. You would be free from the bondage of sin. Meaning you would no longer be a slave to sin. Break the chains and set yourself free. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world but to save the world from sin. I would encourage you to accept the free gift of salvation.


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

First, wavefreak, its clear no one is going to pay you to debate them. I don't go around saying that I'll appear on the RRS, only if I can go to their studeo and if they will pay me. Wantig to be paid is just stupid in my opinion.

 Also insulting God_rules, it just as stupid. It appears all of you are ignorant to Christian beliefs and therefore not qualified to debate a money. How can you say something is wrong when you know absolutelly nothing about it?

God_rules comments come from if you don't serve God, you therefore serve Satan. Has nothing to do with you guys actually worshiping Satan.

Also no one has refuted anything God_rules has mentioned about the debate with Kelly, so it appears that Kelly brought up the universe (a mater of science) and then complained because Bob tried to refute her with science.  

Thankyou simple theist for the encouraging words. Your are definitely a light in our world of darkness. It seeems as though almost all the responses i get from the atheists on this forum are either name calling or insults. Is this what atheism teaches their folowers. When confronted about your belief in atheism sling as many insults as you can to avoid defending why it is you believe, what you believe. I have to say vessel is an exception, He has actually been respectful in our conversations. This,to me, does not show a confidence in a belief system but resonates insecurity in something their not really sure about.