Laura Ingraham vs Brian Sapient

rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Laura Ingraham vs Brian Sapient

I was surfing youtube, and I stumbled into a debate between Brian Sapient and Laura Ingraham:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=89GcKtbS4xk

Since I am from Panama, and living in Panama, where Catholic fundies are a dime-a-dozen, homophobia is a cool trend everywhere, and atheists are rare, it is a ""miracle"" that I know about Brian Sapient, and it is no surprise that I have no idea of who Laura Ingraham is, for she is a radio talk show host, and I don't have satellite radio or anything like it. I can tell that she is a very unpleasant person.

Anyway, one of the things I noticed about this debate is that she used a technique Christians often use in verbal debates which is simple: "cutting off" the person they're debating, often raising the voice.

Then she takes Brian Sapient off-guard by saying Christians have charity programs while atheists have none, or something like it. Let's see how true that is:

(1) Christian charity programs, whatever they are, often have strings attached, and one of them is converting the people being helped into Christians. Christian charity work usually involves large sums of money that end up being used to build more christian places of worship.

(2) Do christians help people because they want to, or because they think helping people will give them a ticket to heaven?

(3) With all the damage christians do (overpopullation is one of the leading causes of poverty, and I don't need a degree in rocket science to figure out who is to blame for it), their charity work is no better than having the KKK giving candies to black kids.

(4) Most of the scientific community isn't christian, and quite frankly having them coming out with artificial skin for burn victims, new prosthetics is a lot better than having christians praying for any patient's recovery.


Another BS she threw at Brian Sapient was the nonsense that every movement that improved mankind had a christian element in it.

(1) Marty Luther King was a reverend, yes, but white-black segregation wouldn't have existed if whites hadn't slaved blacks, and many people who supported slavery used the old Testament to condone it since the OT supports slavery.

(2) The Feminist movement has a Christian element. What utter nonsense. Most Christians are anti-feminists, and, in the Bible, Paul couldn't have been more anti-woman. And she is a Catholic? Isn't that the religion that would've women popping out babies all the time because that's what women are in this world for?

There's a part 2 of that debate, but listening to that woman makes me sick to my stomach.

 

 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The mp3 of that show is

The mp3 of that show is floating around somewhere too.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, that retarded cunt

Yeah, that retarded cunt could never hold her own in a real debate - she uses the techniques of talking over people and cutting their mike off. They PWNED her on the RRS show afterward.

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


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Why is she so ignorant?

Why is she so ignorant?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
22jesus22 wrote: Why is she

22jesus22 wrote:
Why is she so ignorant?
Why so rude? To show her audience that she has no respect for atheists.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
In defense of Laura, she is

In defense of Laura, she is trained to do that. You'll notice almost all (famous) talk show hosts use similar tactics, regardless of religious stature.


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
I've put a page on

I've put a page on http://FreeThoughtPedia.com/ on this debate... if someone wants to added commentary and a description, feel free:

 

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laura_Ingraham_v_Brian_Sapient

 


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Yeah,

MattShizzle wrote:
Yeah, that retarded cunt could never hold her own in a real debate - she uses the techniques of talking over people and cutting their mike off. They PWNED her on the RRS show afterward.
I'm listening to that show right now.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
The RRS show is also on the

The RRS show is also on the same FTP page.

 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
I just posted the following

I just posted the following on my blog.

Laura Ingraham had Brian Sapient of the Rational Response Squad as a guest on her radio show. Members on YouTube, such as AntiResponseSqd, have uploaded this recording and said Brian got "owned." I examined Laura's arguments and found them wanting. Thus, I wrote down the faults of her argument and responded to the video of the second part of the interview. AntiResponseSqd quickly deleted my comments. Why? Did I curse, make disparaging comments, spam, or violate the YouTube Terms of Service agreement? No. My only offense was not agreeing with them! Fortunately, AntiResponseSqd cannot exercise Fascism here. Thus, this is where my examination of Laura Ingraham's arguments shall be. 

Laura begins insulting Brian. That was petty. After she praises "love thy neighbor" she deletes it from memory. Jesus' ethical teachings were relevant a minute ago, not now. Laura has a "theology of the moment." Using "theology of the moment" as the base for morality is like using water as the base for hammock posts.  

Laura then argues that religion is the foundation for charity organizations. The implication: she thinks people are only charitable because they fear God or God's judgment, they're trying to get on God's good side, to ensure entrance into Heaven or not entering Hell. One moment she's praising them for how their morality goes beyond themselves and the next moment she essentially argues that their morality is because of a concern solely for themselves. I'm sure many people involved in charities would agree with me in saying God's existence is an unnecessary incentive because empathy and compassion offer more than enough incentive to do good deeds. Laura spits on these people.  

Laura then argues that religion is responsible for all freedom movements. She speaks of Martin L. King getting his views from the Bible and Mahatma Gandhi. I agree. However, she implies that Mahatma Gandhi was a religious man. Gandhi described himself as "super-atheist." Atheists also played a large part in ending racial segregation, Laura. Women's Suffrage? Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, and Matilda Gage were some of the leaders of the Women's Suffrage movement and they all considered organized religion to be an enemy to their cause--No Gods, No Masters. Animal rights? Most of the credit for the Animal Rights movement belongs to Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, atheists. She said that if atheists had their way there would not have been any freedom movements. She just spit on Mahatma Gandhi, Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, and many other good people.  

(After Laura made her "atheists would not promote peace" argument, John Lennon's song "Imagine"--which promotes the idea of abandoning religion in favor of peace--was playing in the background. That was humorous.) 

Laura then plays the "who's smarter" game. Laura then argues that Galileo and Da Vinci's intelligence is proof there was proof Mary gave birth to Jesus ~2,000 years ago and Jesus still exists. Galileo and Da Vinci may have believed through faith rather than reason. High intelligence does not equal infallibility. The premise of her argument consisted of the appeal to authority logical fallacy and her conclusion didn't follow from that invalid premise.  

Laura then tries to psychoanalyze Brian. Something bad must've happened in Brian's past that caused him to turn away from Catholicism. Psychoanalyzing people you don't know is never a good idea. What if I said of Laura that she only turned to the Heavenly Father because she hates her real father? I don't believe that's true, of course, but it mirrors the silliness of Laura's try at psychoanalyzing Brian.  

Laura's final argument was Pascal's Wager. The sole intent of this argument is to motivate people to gamble, using selfish and greedy reasons, on the hereafter. Would God favor a selfish, greedy, half-believing, faith-professing, Heaven-coveting gambler over an unbeliever who thought truth was more important than selfish, greedy wishes but didn't find the truth?

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
If some people are doing

If some people are doing charity work because of religion that means they are trying to get into heaven, or they are afraid of hell, whatever. These people are interested only in themselves and couldn't care less about those who are in need.

Religion is responsible for all freedom movements? First of all, the Bible condones slavery, racism, and it is anti-women. Just read Exodus, Leviticus, and Pablo's teachings, specially Timothy 1.

 Is religion is behind women's rights, why do fundies hate feminists so much? 

Does Laura know that Galileo got life sentence for disagreeing with the church? Does she know that Giordano Bruno got burned at the stake?  Isaac Newton may have been a christian, but he also believed in alchemy, and even if he didn't, so what? Genius does not mean mental-perfection. A thousand geniuses could believe the Earth is flat, and that wouldn't make it so.

Pascal's wager can be used by Christians, Islamists, and some sects of Hinduism.  It is a conversion tactic that can be used by every religion. 

 

 

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums,

Welcome to the forums, Visual_Paradox!

We'd like to get to know you a little better. When you get a minute, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself.

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


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Well, I wrote my

Hello Susan Smiling 

I wrote my introduction but accidentally used the wrong browser tab, submitting the topic to this forum. I would appreciate it if you or someone else could move it to the appropriate forum for me Smiling

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!