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]


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: Nero

god rules wrote:

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)?

 

It is rude to come into another man's house and shit on his coffee table.  This is precisely what you have attempted to do.

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


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

god rules wrote:
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.

Okay, see this is the problem.

Both of you are projecting.

For one thing Simple_Theist, so very many of us were christian at one time, your assertation that none of us understand christianity is patently false. There are many members here that were very fundemental christians. Read some of the intro threads from members and you will find your assumption to be misinformed.

Secondly, God_Rules, there are no teachings of atheism and no belief in atheism. Atheism is simply defined as, lack of belief in a god. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. The members here disagree on many issues and you can see in the discussions here that there is not a central 'dogma' of atheism.

I assert that it is the theists who are afraid, it is the theists who do not understand atheists. It is the theists who are insecure about the magic they believe in. It is the theists who deep down realize mythology is not a sound worldview and therefore have trouble defending their beliefs.

Do us all a favor, before both of you continue on the forums, take the time to learn what it really means to be an atheist. Take the time to actually learn where some of the members came from, what beliefs they previously held and why they no longer believe in god. It would serve you well to learn a little bit about the people here and then you may not receive insults from some members. 


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

Sodium Pentothal 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. 

Religion is man made. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. The victory takes place when you ask jesus into your heart. Satan is defeated and eternal life begins.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote:

god rules wrote:
Religion is man made. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. The victory takes place when you ask jesus into your heart. Satan is defeated and eternal life begins.

Hmmmm.  A personal relationship with domething that is inside your head.  I am pretty sure that people who have relationships with entities that are not present that it is called schizophrenia.  I don't want anything in my heart except blood.  Do you think this jesus is what causes arterial blockages?  Finally, you are fighting Satan, another imaginary entity.  I saw a man on the street recently fighting with a non-existant giant bug.  Perhaps, you could recruit him to help you in your pretend war.

I see something like the quote above and wonder when I fell into the Mad Hatter's tea party.  "How is a raven like a writing desk?"

 

[ed. quote]

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


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

god rules wrote:
Sodium Pentothal 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.

Religion is man made. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. The victory takes place when you ask jesus into your heart. Satan is defeated and eternal life begins.

If a child claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's cute.

If a theist claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's a life affirming relationship.

If any other adult claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's considered delusional.

Am I the only one who is confused?

 Oh, and god rules, my question still stands, If Dutko is such an expert, why does it seem that he only wants to take on people who don't have much experience in broadcast debate or are not recognized in their fields of expertise? 

 

"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


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Actually if you

Quote:
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.

 I think this sounds much more accurate (and better):

 Actually if you were to rid jesus from your heart and experienced atheism in your life, you would find freedom. You would be free from the bondage of nonsensical rules, a "street gang" mentality, and organizations hellbent on controlling every aspect of everyone's lives. Meaning you would no longer be a slave to anything. Break the chains and set yourself free. Jesus didn't exist. Christians condemn the world, and think only they can save the world from sin. I would encourage you to accept the free gift of educating yourself, thus reducing the level of ignorance that no religion can operate without.

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
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.

You apparently don't understand how a business works if you think people don't get paid for their appearances. 

Having a debate would probably generate more listeners.  More listeners means more money for Butko, unless he's doing this radio show non-profit, which I highly doubt.  Why would someone want to come on a show and make someone else money?  That would be stupid.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
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.

 

First, my time is valuable. I can charge $100+/hr for IT consulting because I know what I am doing.  I have a hobby doing portraits in graphite. I charge anywhere from $100 to $500. If Bob wants a whipping boy for his radio show, I'm not going to just line up for the slaughter with a stupid grin. I'm a busy erson with an actual life.

 

Second, let us be clear. It would not be a debate in any real sense of the word. Bob's intent in something like this is NOT to gain understanding. His intent is to speak to his listeners biases and affirm whatever belief system he promotes. He doesn't want anything more than to look good in front of his audience and make his opponent look bad. I'm not going to assist him in that without getting something in return. 


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

BGH wrote:

Secondly, God_Rules, there are no teachings of atheism and no belief in atheism. Atheism is simply defined as, lack of belief in a god. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. The members here disagree on many issues and you can see in the discussions here that there is not a central 'dogma' of atheism.

I assert that it is the theists who are afraid, it is the theists who do not understand atheists. It is the theists who are insecure about the magic they believe in. It is the theists who deep down realize mythology is not a sound worldview and therefore have trouble defending their beliefs.

Do us all a favor, before both of you continue on the forums, take the time to learn what it really means to be an atheist. Take the time to actually learn where some of the members came from, what beliefs they previously held and why they no longer believe in god. It would serve you well to learn a little bit about the people here and then you may not receive insults from some members.

I respectfully have to disagree. To believe there is no god is a belief. The "central" dogma is a god does not exist. I am not afraid but i do fear GOD(respectfully). It is not magic i believe in, it is a REAL person Jesus Christ, who lives within my heart, who i experience in a REAL way everyday i'm alive and who is the owner of my soul.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
god rules - There is no

god rules - There is no 'central dogma' to atheism.  There are no particular tenets we all must follow.  There are no specific rituals or rules that an atheist must abide by.  We are not even a unified group of people.  In fact, the only thing we share is that we lack a belief in god and even that varies to a degree.

Not believing is not a belief, btw.  There's no getting around that. 

I strongly suggest you read up on what atheism is really about.  It might help you on the forums.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


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

wavefreak wrote:
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.

 

First, my time is valuable. I can charge $100+/hr for IT consulting because I know what I am doing.  I have a hobby doing portraits in graphite. I charge anywhere from $100 to $500. If Bob wants a whipping boy for his radio show, I'm not going to just line up for the slaughter with a stupid grin. I'm a busy erson with an actual life.

 

Second, let us be clear. It would not be a debate in any real sense of the word. Bob's intent in something like this is NOT to gain understanding. His intent is to speak to his listeners biases and affirm whatever belief system he promotes. He doesn't want anything more than to look good in front of his audience and make his opponent look bad. I'm not going to assist him in that without getting something in return. 

This is just a long list of excuses or a cop out.


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

god rules wrote:
I respectfully have to disagree. To believe there is no god is a belief. The "central" dogma is a god does not exist. I am not afraid but i do fear GOD(respectfully). It is not magic i believe in, it is a REAL person Jesus Christ, who lives within my heart, who i experience in a REAL way everyday i'm alive and who is the owner of my soul.

Lack of belief is not a belief.... really it is that simple.

 

It's not magic? You just told me a god/man lives in your heart. You told me this same being owns your heart. And you told me you are afraid of god.

.....maybe you are right, you don't believe in magic.

Rather you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed to fear a myth. You sold your soul to a story in a book written thousands of years ago by men who DID believe in magic, and you hold this mythology to be true. I am sad to see mythology rule your life, I am sad to see you fear that which does not exist, and I am sad that you think cavemen 3000yrs ago somehow understood the world better than we can today.


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

jcgadfly wrote:
god rules wrote:
Sodium Pentothal 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.

Religion is man made. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. The victory takes place when you ask jesus into your heart. Satan is defeated and eternal life begins.

If a child claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's cute.

If a theist claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's a life affirming relationship.

If any other adult claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's considered delusional.

Am I the only one who is confused?

 Oh, and god rules, my question still stands, If Dutko is such an expert, why does it seem that he only wants to take on people who don't have much experience in broadcast debate or are not recognized in their fields of expertise? 

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"Eye-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

Do you think maybe Dr. Michael Shermer or Dr. Victor Stenger are recognized in their fields or expertice?


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

god rules wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
god rules wrote:
Sodium Pentothal 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.

Religion is man made. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. The victory takes place when you ask jesus into your heart. Satan is defeated and eternal life begins.

If a child claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's cute.

If a theist claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's a life affirming relationship.

If any other adult claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's considered delusional.

Am I the only one who is confused?

Oh, and god rules, my question still stands, If Dutko is such an expert, why does it seem that he only wants to take on people who don't have much experience in broadcast debate or are not recognized in their fields of expertise?

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"Eye-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

Do you think maybe Dr. Michael Shermer or Dr. Victor Stenger are recognized in their fields or expertice?

Has Dutko debated them (if so give me links)? Or did he hit them with questions outside of their field as seems to be his wont? 

"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
god rules wrote: wavefreak

god rules wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
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.

 

First, my time is valuable. I can charge $100+/hr for IT consulting because I know what I am doing. I have a hobby doing portraits in graphite. I charge anywhere from $100 to $500. If Bob wants a whipping boy for his radio show, I'm not going to just line up for the slaughter with a stupid grin. I'm a busy erson with an actual life.

 

Second, let us be clear. It would not be a debate in any real sense of the word. Bob's intent in something like this is NOT to gain understanding. His intent is to speak to his listeners biases and affirm whatever belief system he promotes. He doesn't want anything more than to look good in front of his audience and make his opponent look bad. I'm not going to assist him in that without getting something in return.

This is just a long list of excuses or a cop out.

No. It is real life. I can do whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, too bad. 


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

jcgadfly wrote:
god rules wrote:
Do you think maybe Dr. Michael Shermer or Dr. Victor Stenger are recognized in their fields or expertice?

Has Dutko debated them (if so give me links)? Or did he hit them with questions outside of their field as seems to be his wont? 

Exactly. There is a precise and highly dishonest and unethical formula to every one of these debates between an apologist and an actual expert that I have ever seen.

The apologist challenges the expert to a 'debate' scheduled for some future time. The expert who has spent years studying in his field to acheive his status and receive his credentials accepts.

The apologist then spends the time leading up to the debate. not studying the actual science with the intent of being informed, but looking for places in the experts field where either scientific understanding is incomplete or where the layperson average spectator won't have the required understanding of the topic to be able to discern between a legitimate objection and a straw man. The apologist then constructs a series of questions that deal with these areas and insists that if the expert can't answer with absolute certainty, or if the apologist simply doesn't understand the answer, it must be god. The expert is then bombarded with these questions without being allowed the time to answer adequately, and the apologist plays this as his winning the debate to a crowd of believers who are only too willing to nod their heads in approval at the triumphant crusader of their blind belief.

It is sad that one would use such dishonest tactics in what should be an attempt to educate and discern truth, but truth is never the apologist's intention. Its all about playing to the audience. You don't want to start overturning the rocks of ignorance whe they form the sole support of the pedestal on which you make your stand.

“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


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

Susan wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

Maybe afraid of the crazy theist?

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

 

wavefreak defies categorization.  That's pretty cool. Smiling  Always keep 'em guessing, eh? 

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
god rules wrote: wavefreak

god rules wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
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.

 

First, my time is valuable. I can charge $100+/hr for IT consulting because I know what I am doing. I have a hobby doing portraits in graphite. I charge anywhere from $100 to $500. If Bob wants a whipping boy for his radio show, I'm not going to just line up for the slaughter with a stupid grin. I'm a busy erson with an actual life.

 

Second, let us be clear. It would not be a debate in any real sense of the word. Bob's intent in something like this is NOT to gain understanding. His intent is to speak to his listeners biases and affirm whatever belief system he promotes. He doesn't want anything more than to look good in front of his audience and make his opponent look bad. I'm not going to assist him in that without getting something in return.

This is just a long list of excuses or a cop out.

 

Let's change the parameters.  I'm wiling to go ten rounds with this guy, but not unless there is skin in the game. Hence the appearance fee. He is risking nothing as long  he dictates the environment for the exchange.  So, I'll be kind and assume that Bob is really interested in an intelligent exchange of idea that results in increased understanding for all parties. If that's the case, then surely he would not object to an arrangement that is neutral ground?  So let's make it real.

We'll find a neutral website that will host a debate. They will create a forum so that Bob and I have a place to exchange our thoughts. The primary thread in this forum is locked to everyone except Bob and me. Registered forum users can create threads for commentary and general cat fighting. This way we can go at each other for months and entertain the denizens of the internet at the same time.

 

You made a challenge. I accepted it. Instead of dancing around the issue, negotiate terms acceptable to both parties.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Out of curiosity, does Bob

Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this?  Are you putting out the debate at his request?  If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
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.

Why the emphasis on debates?  I know its a hallmark of punditry, radio commentators and the RRS, but debates don't create consensus on topics, esp. in the scientific arena.  One cannot adequitely represent complex scientific data, and their theoretical implications, in an oral debate or even a typed debate.  And a skilled debater can win a debate defending a discredited view. 

To me, this all sounds like a pissing match or like comparing whose dick is bigger ... The scientific consensus around evolution, an ancient universe and earth - and the emerging consensus around topics like evo-devo, no need for an uncaused first-cause, the impossiblilty of a god, etc. are developed through the processes of peer-review, experimental verification and implementation .... this is why what we believe is dominant in intellectual communities  around the world - becausde it is a result of a self-critical, self-correcting process that works off of our competitiveness and our cooperation ... NOT because someone went on a Christian radio show and debated a silver-tongued populist. 

So seriously, grow up and let go of that big swinging dick around town routine, "god rules" - write a paper providing evidence for your assertion (for instance, that there is a god that rules) and see if it passes peer review in any respectable journal ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm sad that nobody's

I'm sad that nobody's noticed my little post a while back.  If this dude's so awesome, then he can come here, to this website, and put his arguments into print.  If they're good, we won't be able to defeat them.  If they're the same worn out shit that we keep hearing, we'll point it out with footnotes and references.

If he can prove god exists, he shouldn't be afraid of doing it in print.

Is he...chicken?

 

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

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


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'm sad

Hambydammit wrote:

I'm sad that nobody's noticed my little post a while back.  If this dude's so awesome, then he can come here, to this website, and put his arguments into print.  If they're good, we won't be able to defeat them.  If they're the same worn out shit that we keep hearing, we'll point it out with footnotes and references.

If he can prove god exists, he shouldn't be afraid of doing it in print.

Is he...chicken?

 

I noticed Hamby, I just couldn't find a way to reference it in the same breath as "big swinging dick around town" ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


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

god rules wrote:
Sodium Pentothal 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.

Religion is man made. Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ. The victory takes place when you ask jesus into your heart. Satan is defeated and eternal life begins.

Yes, those are your beliefs, but you've yet to prove to me that your beliefs are not just a religion/theory. You've already made your assertions; where is the evidence now?

"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
BGH wrote: god rules

BGH wrote:
god rules wrote:
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.

Okay, see this is the problem.

Both of you are projecting.

For one thing Simple_Theist, so very many of us were christian at one time, your assertation that none of us understand christianity is patently false. There are many members here that were very fundemental christians. Read some of the intro threads from members and you will find your assumption to be misinformed.

Secondly, God_Rules, there are no teachings of atheism and no belief in atheism. Atheism is simply defined as, lack of belief in a god. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. The members here disagree on many issues and you can see in the discussions here that there is not a central 'dogma' of atheism.

I assert that it is the theists who are afraid, it is the theists who do not understand atheists. It is the theists who are insecure about the magic they believe in. It is the theists who deep down realize mythology is not a sound worldview and therefore have trouble defending their beliefs.

Do us all a favor, before both of you continue on the forums, take the time to learn what it really means to be an atheist. Take the time to actually learn where some of the members came from, what beliefs they previously held and why they no longer believe in god. It would serve you well to learn a little bit about the people here and then you may not receive insults from some members.

I'm simply going by the posts I've read on this site. It appears the atheist on this site don't know anything about Christianity. If there are exceptions, I haven't noticed any, except perhaps Rook. By the posts I've read, I can only assume that while they may have been Christians before, they still never really studied Christianity. This is what it appears by reading posts on this site. 

 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Wavefreak, if you were

Wavefreak, if you were Richard Dawkins, then perhaps you could suggest getting paid to appear Bob's show. However, as far as I know, your not even an expert in any field related to the debate in question. You've never appeared on any other show...Your appearance would generate no new viewers. If Bob is going to spen money on anyone then it will be on someone qualified to debate him. Thats how a business works, you don't pay someone who isn't going to give you anyhing in return.

If your going to demand money, then don't complain that Bob hasn't asked you to be on his show. It's that simple. Bob would probably loose viewers by having you on his show.

If you have any experience or degrees in any related field, or perhaps have debated on shows before...that would change my opinion of whether you should be paid or not...as it stands, having you on the show isn't worth paying you.

I don't speak for Bob...I don't even now him.  


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA

Conn_in_Brooklyn 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.

Why the emphasis on debates?  I know its a hallmark of punditry, radio commentators and the RRS, but debates don't create consensus on topics, esp. in the scientific arena.  One cannot adequitely represent complex scientific data, and their theoretical implications, in an oral debate or even a typed debate.  And a skilled debater can win a debate defending a discredited view. 

To me, this all sounds like a pissing match or like comparing whose dick is bigger ... The scientific consensus around evolution, an ancient universe and earth - and the emerging consensus around topics like evo-devo, no need for an uncaused first-cause, the impossiblilty of a god, etc. are developed through the processes of peer-review, experimental verification and implementation .... this is why what we believe is dominant in intellectual communities  around the world - becausde it is a result of a self-critical, self-correcting process that works off of our competitiveness and our cooperation ... NOT because someone went on a Christian radio show and debated a silver-tongued populist. 

So seriously, grow up and let go of that big swinging dick around town routine, "god rules" - write a paper providing evidence for your assertion (for instance, that there is a god that rules) and see if it passes peer review in any respectable journal ...

The only thing that is dominant is the media or the brainwashing we received being educated in a public school system that only taught evolution. If you are so convinced that atheism is truth why don't you check out some of Lee Stroeble's material, specifically "The Case for Christ". He is an ex atheist because of the evidence he discovered interviewing the experts you speak of.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

Wavefreak, if you were Richard Dawkins, then perhaps you could suggest getting paid to appear Bob's show. However, as far as I know, your not even an expert in any field related to the debate in question. You've never appeared on any other show...Your appearance would generate no new viewers. If Bob is going to spen money on anyone then it will be on someone qualified to debate him. Thats how a business works, you don't pay someone who isn't going to give you anyhing in return.

If your going to demand money, then don't complain that Bob hasn't asked you to be on his show. It's that simple. Bob would probably loose viewers by having you on his show.

If you have any experience or degrees in any related field, or perhaps have debated on shows before...that would change my opinion of whether you should be paid or not...as it stands, having you on the show isn't worth paying you.

I don't speak for Bob...I don't even now him.

 

Richard Dawkins wouldn't give this guy the time of day. You miss the point entirely. This guy wants people to come on his show so he can attempt to make them look bad and himself look good. Why would I submit myself to that for free? If I thought he really wanted to expand his conciousness or had some sincere motives, it would completely change the equation. Me just showing up on his show puts him in a position where he risks nothing.  Asking for an appearance fee is a way of raising the stakes.  And I would expect any members here to get the same. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: BGH

simple theist wrote:
BGH wrote:
god rules wrote:
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.

Okay, see this is the problem.

Both of you are projecting.

For one thing Simple_Theist, so very many of us were christian at one time, your assertation that none of us understand christianity is patently false. There are many members here that were very fundemental christians. Read some of the intro threads from members and you will find your assumption to be misinformed.

Secondly, God_Rules, there are no teachings of atheism and no belief in atheism. Atheism is simply defined as, lack of belief in a god. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. The members here disagree on many issues and you can see in the discussions here that there is not a central 'dogma' of atheism.

I assert that it is the theists who are afraid, it is the theists who do not understand atheists. It is the theists who are insecure about the magic they believe in. It is the theists who deep down realize mythology is not a sound worldview and therefore have trouble defending their beliefs.

Do us all a favor, before both of you continue on the forums, take the time to learn what it really means to be an atheist. Take the time to actually learn where some of the members came from, what beliefs they previously held and why they no longer believe in god. It would serve you well to learn a little bit about the people here and then you may not receive insults from some members.

I'm simply going by the posts I've read on this site. It appears the atheist on this site don't know anything about Christianity. If there are exceptions, I haven't noticed any, except perhaps Rook. By the posts I've read, I can only assume that while they may have been Christians before, they still never really studied Christianity. This is what it appears by reading posts on this site.

 

Wow, the no true Scotsman/Christian fallacy too?

Is there a fallacy that you folk won't use?

"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


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
CALL IN SHOW

pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this?  Are you putting out the debate at his request?  If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread. 
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com


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

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com

 

His turf? His rules? Not gonna happen. I may be a theist but I'm not entirely delusional. 


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
IF YOUR CONFIDENT

wavefreak wrote:

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com

 

His turf? His rules? Not gonna happen. I may be a theist but I'm not entirely delusional. 

iF YOUR CONFIDENT YOU'RE RIGHT IN YOUR POSITION AND HE IS WRONG, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EMBARASS HIM IN FRONT OF HIS AUDIENCE. THIS INTURN WOULD GET THEM TO STOP TUNING IN TO HIS SHOW BECAUSE YOU EXPOSED HIM AND HIS BELIEFS IN GOD AS FRAUDULOUS, THEN YOU WOULD STOP HIS SHOW FROM AIRING AND YOU WILL BE ONE STEP CLOSER TO YOUR GOAL OF CONVINCING THE WORLD THERE IS NO GOD.


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

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this?  Are you putting out the debate at his request?  If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread. 
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com
http://www.wmuz.com/


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

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com

Open discussion until he pots the caller down without his/her knowledge or has the screener cut off the call if /when he's losing (assuming the caller even get past the screener)?

If I wanted that kind of "open discussion" I'd call O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

"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


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

god rules wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com

His turf? His rules? Not gonna happen. I may be a theist but I'm not entirely delusional. 

iF YOUR CONFIDENT YOU'RE RIGHT IN YOUR POSITION AND HE IS WRONG, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EMBARASS HIM IN FRONT OF HIS AUDIENCE. THIS INTURN WOULD GET THEM TO STOP TUNING IN TO HIS SHOW BECAUSE YOU EXPOSED HIM AND HIS BELIEFS IN GOD AS FRAUDULOUS, THEN YOU WOULD STOP HIS SHOW FROM AIRING AND YOU WILL BE ONE STEP CLOSER TO YOUR GOAL OF CONVINCING THE WORLD THERE IS NO GOD.

 WHY ARE YOU YELLING? 

It doesn't work that work.  There's nothing to stop this guy from cutting off the caller, hanging up or just yelling over him.  It's happened before it will happen again.  It would just be a waste of time.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


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

god rules wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com

 

His turf? His rules? Not gonna happen. I may be a theist but I'm not entirely delusional.

iF YOUR CONFIDENT YOU'RE RIGHT IN YOUR POSITION AND HE IS WRONG, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EMBARASS HIM IN FRONT OF HIS AUDIENCE. THIS INTURN WOULD GET THEM TO STOP TUNING IN TO HIS SHOW BECAUSE YOU EXPOSED HIM AND HIS BELIEFS IN GOD AS FRAUDULOUS, THEN YOU WOULD STOP HIS SHOW FROM AIRING AND YOU WILL BE ONE STEP CLOSER TO YOUR GOAL OF CONVINCING THE WORLD THERE IS NO GOD.

 

LOL. Little 'ol me could eliminate this man from broadcasting in a just single phone in exchange? I'm so good I just raised my fee.

 

Does your hero have the balls to do this in a mutually agreed upon manner? You issued a challenge but insist on doing it your way. I have no interest in participating in a shouting match. Ad Hoc verbal 'debates' are useless. 


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

wavefreak wrote:
god rules wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

god rules wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
He welcomes any of you to call the show on "Free for All Friday" which is open discussion. It is from 3:00-4:00pm EST the number is on the web @ wmuz.com

 

His turf? His rules? Not gonna happen. I may be a theist but I'm not entirely delusional.

iF YOUR CONFIDENT YOU'RE RIGHT IN YOUR POSITION AND HE IS WRONG, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EMBARASS HIM IN FRONT OF HIS AUDIENCE. THIS INTURN WOULD GET THEM TO STOP TUNING IN TO HIS SHOW BECAUSE YOU EXPOSED HIM AND HIS BELIEFS IN GOD AS FRAUDULOUS, THEN YOU WOULD STOP HIS SHOW FROM AIRING AND YOU WILL BE ONE STEP CLOSER TO YOUR GOAL OF CONVINCING THE WORLD THERE IS NO GOD.

 

LOL. Little 'ol me could eliminate this man from broadcasting in a just single phone in exchange? I'm so good I just raised my fee.

 

Does your hero have the balls to do this in a mutually agreed upon manner? You issued a challenge but insist on doing it your way. I have no interest in participating in a shouting match. Ad Hoc verbal 'debates' are useless. 

ACTUALLY it is you who is insisting. It wouldn't be a shouting match. Bob is a respectful individual, people call his show with opposing views all the time(regulars). Most of the time it is those individuals who shout and overtalk Bob. He will always allow you to speak your point as long as you give him the opportunity to respond.

 


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

god rules wrote:
ACTUALLY it is you who is insisting. It wouldn't be a shouting match. Bob is a respectful individual, people call his show with opposing views all the time(regulars). Most of the time it is those individuals who shout and overtalk Bob. He will always allow you to speak your point as long as you give him the opportunity to respond.

 

 

I guess I don't believe you. Maybe if you had started this thread respectfully it would be different. But the thread title and your first post show a thinly veiled contempt. How can you expect to be accepted as credible when you open the conversation asking if any have the guts or balls? You start from a confrontational stance and expect me to not be wary and defensive?


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

wavefreak wrote:
god rules wrote:
ACTUALLY it is you who is insisting. It wouldn't be a shouting match. Bob is a respectful individual, people call his show with opposing views all the time(regulars). Most of the time it is those individuals who shout and overtalk Bob. He will always allow you to speak your point as long as you give him the opportunity to respond.

 

 

I guess I don't believe you. Maybe if you had started this thread respectfully it would be different. But the thread title and your first post show a thinly veiled contempt. How can you expect to be accepted as credible when you open the conversation asking if any have the guts or balls? You start from a confrontational stance and expect me to not be wary and defensive?

I don't feel i was being disrespectful. I was offering up a challenge. People do that all the time. In retrospect since i've been on this site, i've seen a lot of name calling and insults. Have i insulted you personally? If you don't trust me then listen to the show today between 3:00-4:00pm EST and see for yourself.

ps. I said "guts"


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

god rules wrote:

ps. I said "guts"

 

Apparantly I owe you an apology. Somewhere 'balls' came up but maybe it was a different thread. 

 

But back to the point. I have no interest in doing an ad hoc call in to anybody. Not just Bob. It has nothing to do with guts. A call in to any such radio show is immediately an un-even playing field. A controlled written exchange would be far more illuminating. Or is illumination not part of Bob's agenda? You want Bob to be able to operate in his nice safe environment. I think he should step out and face the lions out here in the jungle.


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

wavefreak wrote:
god rules wrote:

ps. I said "guts"

 

Apparantly I owe you an apology. Somewhere 'balls' came up but maybe it was a different thread. 

 

But back to the point. I have no interest in doing an ad hoc call in to anybody. Not just Bob. It has nothing to do with guts. A call in to any such radio show is immediately an un-even playing field. A controlled written exchange would be far more illuminating. Or is illumination not part of Bob's agenda? You want Bob to be able to operate in his nice safe environment. I think he should step out and face the lions out here in the jungle.

Bob was dissapointed in the debate with "way of the Master". He talked about it on his show. With all do respect to kirk and ray, they obviously didn't have the knowledge or weren't prepared for the rebuttle on the science portion of the debate. I'm confident that if Bob was in that debate, he would have done exceptional. He could have handled any of their scientific questions in detail. That is why he had kelly on his show. My point is, he is not  at all afraid to go into the lions den. He has the"Top Ten Proofs" on cd, the evidence God exists, evolution isn't possible scientifically, etc.... 


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

god rules wrote:

Bob was dissapointed in the debate with "way of the Master". He talked about it on his show. With all do respect to kirk and ray, they obviously didn't have the knowledge or weren't prepared for the rebuttle on the science portion of the debate. I'm confident that if Bob was in that debate, he would have done exceptional. He could have handled any of their scientific questions in detail.

I went to the links that PJane posted earlier, and I couldn't find any info about what his qualifications are as far being any kind of scientific expert.  Could you provide this info? 

Quote:
That is why he had kelly on his show.

Kelly's not a science expert.  You've been told this numerous times.   

Quote:
My point is, he is not at all afraid to go into the lions den. He has the"Top Ten Proofs" on cd, the evidence God exists, evolution isn't possible scientifically, etc....

When he argues science with, say, deludedgod, then I'll be impressed.   

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


god rules
Theist
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-06-26
User is offlineOffline
If kelly is not a science

If kelly is not a science expert than why did she agree to talk science and when she got stumped y'all cried "ambush"


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
It appears Kelly complained

It appears Kelly complained about the Way of the Master guys not using science and then brought up something scientific herself. So if she isn't a science expert, then she shouldn't mention aything dealing with science. If she says something about science, then whomever she is debating has a right to refute her using science.

I would not pay wavefreak, ever, if I had a radio show. There is nothing in it for me. Plenty of people willing to do it for free and plenty of more qualified people to spend my money on getting on a show. From a business stanpoint, it wouldn't be worth it. If you had any real qualifications, then you might be worth money, but you don't. I could take the money you want me to spend on you, and spend it on someone qualified and with a degree in whatever we would be debating.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:

I would not pay wavefreak, ever, if I had a radio show. There is nothing in it for me. Plenty of people willing to do it for free and plenty of more qualified people to spend my money on getting on a show. From a business stanpoint, it wouldn't be worth it. If you had any real qualifications, then you might be worth money, but you don't. I could take the money you want me to spend on you, and spend it on someone qualified and with a degree in whatever we would be debating.

That is your right. You also still don't recognize that nature of business. Demanding an appearance fee is a perfectly reasonable opening gambit in a negotiation. Bob could counter offer with no appearance fee, but the other things can be worked with. But no counter offer has come up. Call during his show is the only option given.

Did you miss the part where I offered to do a debate in writing? Neutral territory? No appearance fee? 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
god rules wrote: hey

god rules wrote:

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.

$5 says Bob changes the topic to something other than science. 

- Brian Sapient


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


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

Sapient wrote:
god rules wrote:

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.

$5 says Bob changes the topic to something other than science. 

That is all speculation.


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

god rules wrote:
Sapient wrote:
god rules wrote:

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.

$5 says Bob changes the topic to something other than science.

That is all speculation.

And you still haven't come across with links where he's debated any experts. Does your guy just take on amateurs on his show (where he has all the control), ask questions out of people's areas and crow about his "wins"?  

"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


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

jcgadfly wrote:
god rules wrote:
Sapient wrote:
god rules wrote:

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.

$5 says Bob changes the topic to something other than science.

That is all speculation.

And you still haven't come across with links where he's debated any experts. Does your guy just take on amateurs on his show (where he has all the control), ask questions out of people's areas and crow about his "wins"?  

Y'all are full of excuses. Why don't you ask Michael Shermur or  Victor Stenger themselves. It seems to me you should be familiar with these individuals since they are atheists and have spent time in your arena.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I left this topic for awhile

I left this topic for awhile before looking at it due to the huge number of responses, and now I find that my entire response can be summed up by two previous posts by site members.

Hambydammit wrote:
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.

Sapient wrote:
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.

There's really nothing else to say.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
I left this topic for awhile before looking at it due to the huge number of responses, and now I find that my entire response can be summed up by two previous posts by site members.
Hambydammit wrote:
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.
Sapient wrote:
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.
There's really nothing else to say.
Then you are just as your fellow atheists, living in denial. Avoiding the truth.