A hard core Christian dodges a debate (God told him to)

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
A hard core Christian dodges a debate (God told him to)

Quote:
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD
Date: Sep 28, 2006 5:36 PM

We invite you onto our radio show to discuss your beliefs and ours. We have questions, you're welcome to ask us well. Would you like to appear for up to one hour to discuss your beliefs and your group at your school?

In Reason,

Brian Sapient

Quote:
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: WRHS Revolution
Date: Sep 28, 2006 10:32 PM

Well this could be fun. I love talking to anyone about God and stuff. But I do need to talk to the rest of WRHS Revolution and God about it first.

Eric

Quote:
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD
Date: Sep 28, 2006 7:39 PM

If god talks back let me know, I can probably have the proper pills prescribed.

Quote:
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: White River Revolution
Date: Sep 29 2006 9:49 PM

Well God did talk back last night through His word He said, "But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say, We wipe the dust of your town from our feet as a public announcement of your doom. And don't forget the Kingdom of God is near!"(Luke 10:10-11) Now you have welcomed me personally of course. But you have already rejected Jesus. And since I'm a follower of Christ you have rejected me because the Holy Spirit is living inside of me. You might not understand that because you have not accepted Christ as your savior. But, if you reject the master have you not rejected the servent as well? Also, I have studied the life of Jesus and he never went looking for debates! And as you know Christian means follower of Christ so I follow his example. I'll be praying for you guys, that you will have happiness. Sorry, but I must do as I'm told.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Smell the fear. He's right,

Smell the fear.

He's right, of course. The character Jesus didn't look for debates to join. He started several and others came to him. But Eric read his Bible and it spoke to him - he just decided to ignore that "Go ye therefore into all the world..." jazz.

"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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Keep believing in the

Keep believing in the Babble. Jesus was never real.


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
his last sentence "Sorry,

his last sentence "Sorry, but I must do as I'm told." is a very scary thought. And is a perfect example of how dangerous religion can be.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
22jesus22 wrote:his last

22jesus22 wrote:
his last sentence "Sorry, but I must do as I'm told." is a very scary thought. And is a perfect example of how dangerous religion can be.

Exactly. When you use phrases like "follow your master" etc. shows that this person has shut out all capablities of rational thought. They are engulfed with emotion. They holy spirit that lives in him is nothing but a sense of belonging. He feels good because he belongs to something bigger than himself. THis is not very conducive to self reliance. And the church is using these puppet strings of control (emotion which leads to submission) and will use and control this person to spread the word of god. It's viral, as Dawkins and others have put it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Connor
Connor's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-12-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm beginning to thank that

I'm beginning to think that modern theology is synonymous with willful ignorance.


Angelic_Atheist
Silver Member
Angelic_Atheist's picture
Posts: 264
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
WOOO!!!! Lets hear it for

WOOO!!!!

Lets hear it for the imaginary slave master in the sky! 

Gimme a S!

Gimme a L!

Gimme an A!

Gimme a V!

Gimme an E!

What does that spell?!?! 

We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Angelic_Atheist

Angelic_Atheist wrote:

WOOO!!!!

Lets hear it for the imaginary slave master in the sky!

Gimme a S!

Gimme a L!

Gimme an A!

Gimme a V!

Gimme an E!

What does that spell?!?!

 

SLAVE!!!!!!!

*Does the splits*


thisisbart
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
i think its quite lame that

i think its quite lame that you guys post this letter up here and then just bash the person who wrote it. this whole site is supposed to be based on open minded and intelligence right? i read nothing 'intelligent' in that at all. just a picture of a fat ass chic doin the splits. 


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't remember anyone

I don't remember anyone saying that one can't have fun while being exposed to such sheer mental insanity as in the letter above.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
thisisbart wrote: i think

thisisbart wrote:
i think its quite lame that you guys post this letter up here and then just bash the person who wrote it. this whole site is supposed to be based on open minded and intelligence right? i read nothing 'intelligent' in that at all. just a picture of a fat ass chic doin the splits.

Who invited Rondney King?

"Cant we all just get along" is a nice idea. But to suggest that someone who is not willing to debate the claims they make is worth respect, is absurd.

If someone came up to you and said, "I must do what Allah tells me" That wouldnt frighten you? If it doesnt then you have your head in the sand.

People vote and act on their religious beliefs. If there are no watchdogs making sure they dont dogmatize the goverment what do you think people like the e-mail above would do to our goverment and our laws?

I dont care what label you claim of any religion, what this person is doing to themselves is mental slavery and this person wants to spread their mental slavery.

Nobody here is adressing ALL Christians, but merely pointing out that THIS person's mentality is the same personality type that leads Muslims to slam planes into buildings.

Do you really believe that people hear voices in their head? I do, but not a deity. Rather a deep seeded indoctriantion based on a deep seeded disire to have identity. Unfortunatly this phycology once imbeded into people leads them to project themselves on others including via goverment and law.

This person's mind is poisoned. Other people of religious beliefs are not threatened by debate. People like this however must be challenged at every turn to maintain the freedom, not only of atheists, but other religious labels as well. This person would if they could force their "obey" mentalitiy on others. That makes them dangerous.

If you cant at least make the attempt to defend the claims you make you do not diserve respect at all. Blindly following and regurgitating words in a book is complete intelectual cowardice. 

 

"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


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
thisisbart wrote: snip I

thisisbart wrote:
snip

I think it's funny you just bash everyone here. Bash the repsonses and not even read them.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 That guy is not a hard

 That guy is not a hard core Christian, whatever that means. I know who the top Christian philosophers, scientist, and apologists are, and they will debate you anytime. Some however, only debate Ph.D's. I'm just an average joe, and I'll debate you on your show anytime. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to show how non-sensical atheism is. Seriously, if you people would take your head out of the closet and start doing some research and investigations on these things, I don't think you would be so antagonistic toward theism. I think that most of the atheists here have never really eve bothered to study our philosophy, science and apologetics. Some of the most skeptical people in history have become christians after researching the data for themselves.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
"Debating creationists on

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon".

 

That's an interesting claim, since by Grandfather was a Creationist, and was also the worlds leading chess champion for correspondence chess. Also, how many creation scientists have you actually talked to yourself? I'm sure its safe to say NONE. They would shred you to pieces and ribbons.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:

Also, how many creation scientists have you actually talked to yourself?

Behe, Dembski, Ross and Thaxton, to name the top dogs. I haven't heard from Ross in months. Behe dropped out, and Dembski hasn't responded in a very long time. So perhaps before making such sweeping statements, it would be wise to remember that everyone can see what you write. As for "shredding me to ribbons", this is simply not the case. I have found that all of them are incredibly dishonest. Ross tended to ignore nearly everything I said (sounds a lot like you)and in the Dover Trial, Behe was trying to convince the jury of Intelligent Design by showing that biologists could not persuasively show how the complex immune system evolved. And he was presented with 9 books by proffesionals and 58 peer reviewed journals on immunology. First he said that they were "unfruitful", and then, when pressed, admitted he had not read them.

So again, I urge you not to make such blanket statements. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


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

Connor wrote:
I'm beginning to think that modern theology is synonymous with willful ignorance.

Narrator: Congratulations! You just won grand prize!

(Off stage: Tell him what's he's won.)

Narrator: Here's what you've won! An all-expenses paid trip to...reality! Here you will live out your days until you die...at which point you'll most likely lie in the ground and rot like the rest of us.

____

Actually, I think fear of death is a great motivation to be willfully ignorant.

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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:
That guy is not a hard core Christian, whatever that means. I know who the top Christian philosophers, scientist, and apologists are, and they will debate you anytime. Some however, only debate Ph.D's. I'm just an average joe, and I'll debate you on your show anytime. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to show how non-sensical atheism is. Seriously, if you people would take your head out of the closet and start doing some research and investigations on these things, I don't think you would be so antagonistic toward theism. I think that most of the atheists here have never really eve bothered to study our philosophy, science and apologetics. Some of the most skeptical people in history have become christians after researching the data for themselves.

AL500 wrote:
That's an interesting claim, since by Grandfather was a Creationist, and was also the worlds leading chess champion for correspondence chess. Also, how many creation scientists have you actually talked to yourself? I'm sure its safe to say NONE. They would shred you to pieces and ribbons.

BEST laugh I've had all day.

 

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


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  Some of the

AL500 wrote:
  Some of the most skeptical people in history have become christians after researching the data for themselves.

First, one shouldn't have to be considered "skeptic" to discount "data" from a book w/ talking snakes, unicorns, dragons and voices coming from burning bushes.   

It's only recently that "skeptical people" have even been given the freedom to question superstition in the first place and it's not without repercussion.  (How many murder attempts have there been on Salman Rushdie's life ?)

So, no true skeptic could ever become a christian if they've actually studied the "data" (or the amazing lack thereof) themselves and have the freedom to dissent.  Nice try.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


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

AmericanIdle wrote:

First, one shouldn't have to be considered "skeptic" to discount "data" from a book w/ talking snakes, unicorns, dragons and voices coming from burning bushes.

Well said. Anyone who takes that stuff literally DESERVES to be laughed at. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to believe it because I was indoctrinated and even though it would have pissed me off if someone laughed at me, those beliefs ARE laughable.

I'm just glad my mind is free from that rubbish.

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


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
AmericanIdle wrote:

First, one shouldn't have to be considered "skeptic" to discount "data" from a book w/ talking snakes, unicorns, dragons and voices coming from burning bushes.

Well said. Anyone who takes that stuff literally DESERVES to be laughed at. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to believe it because I was indoctrinated and even though it would have pissed me off if someone laughed at me, those beliefs ARE laughable.

I'm just glad my mind is free from that rubbish.

I believed it too and for the exact same reason.

It pissed me off to be lauged at also, but escaping from the lies and enslavement of indoctrination turned out to be infinitely more important than being laughed at.

By the way, should I fall for anything as ridiculous again, (Don't see this happening, however) feel free to let me know by whatever means necessary, even laughter.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


jjayc08
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-03
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote: AL500

AmericanIdle wrote:

AL500 wrote:
  Some of the most skeptical people in history have become christians after researching the data for themselves.

First, one shouldn't have to be considered "skeptic" to discount "data" from a book w/ talking snakes, unicorns, dragons and voices coming from burning bushes.   

It's only recently that "skeptical people" have even been given the freedom to question superstition in the first place and it's not without repercussion.  (How many murder attempts have there been on Salman Rushdie's life ?)

So, no true skeptic could ever become a christian if they've actually studied the "data" (or the amazing lack thereof) themselves and have the freedom to dissent.  Nice try.

 

Well, by nature I'm a very skeptical person and I'm still a strong believer in Christianity. Does that make me folly?

 I must say to posters on the forums, if you wish to come as to possess some form of intelligence, you must stop with the pictures of overweight ladies doing splits, and silly folly. And indeed, I see you pick at every fall of what someone says, such as pointing out how many creationists you've "talked" to.

I am and have been in the process of observing many different religions, and non religions alike, part of the cause of me taking the time to reply and become a part of this site.

 

Much of the "data" in the bible is not to be taken literal; yes, you've probably heard this argument a million times before, but much of the stories in the bible are morals. Yet, their not just a bunch of random stories put together.

 

Something many people don't realize is that the bible code goes farther than just spacing between letters; something the History Channel forgot to mention when they compared it to Childrens Stories. Even if they are morals stories, they have codes that go into such small details as symmetry, reffering to other verses in the bible, and even assigned meanings to each number that corresponds with the story that it confines within. No computer or human alike could be so accurate as to provide historical accuracy (yes, there indeed is historical accuracy in the bible, according to historians and scholars who have studied the subject much longer than any of us most likely) and a bible code so complex. So debunk the bible code, and then we can proceed with further ado.

 

And yet, to turn around and call these well educated scholars of well means foolish would be folly!

 Albert Einstein even pointed to a more divine power in the Universe; he himself was not generally religious in the time of his scientific exploration, but could not comprehend the universe without a "greater power". Are you calling well documented and educated scholars, and one of the greatest minds in the 20th century foolish?

 

And just to mention, according to "Deludedgod"'s picture of the WTC's before they were attacked... it wasn't a religious right with box cutters that brang those two towers down, but that's another argument of it's own (and that one is not a theory!)

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither"


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: AL500

deludedgod wrote:

AL500 wrote:

Also, how many creation scientists have you actually talked to yourself?

Behe, Dembski, Ross and Thaxton, to name the top dogs. I haven't heard from Ross in months. Behe dropped out, and Dembski hasn't responded in a very long time. So perhaps before making such sweeping statements, it would be wise to remember that everyone can see what you write. As for "shredding me to ribbons", this is simply not the case. I have found that all of them are incredibly dishonest. Ross tended to ignore nearly everything I said (sounds a lot like you)and in the Dover Trial, Behe was trying to convince the jury of Intelligent Design by showing that biologists could not persuasively show how the complex immune system evolved. And he was presented with 9 books by proffesionals and 58 peer reviewed journals on immunology. First he said that they were "unfruitful", and then, when pressed, admitted he had not read them.

So again, I urge you not to make such blanket statements.

 I found Behe remarkably open to discussion with a stranger too. I emailed him sometime last year, and we had a brief exchange.  But nothing he said was all that more impressive than the drivel internet theists post on our boards... he was remarkablly dishonest in his response about the very issue you mention: The peer reviewed journals about immunology.

 

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

Books on atheism.


CmRoddy
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD Date: Sep 28, 2006 5:36 PM We invite you onto our radio show to discuss your beliefs and ours. We have questions, you're welcome to ask us well. Would you like to appear for up to one hour to discuss your beliefs and your group at your school? In Reason, Brian Sapient
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: WRHS Revolution Date: Sep 28, 2006 10:32 PM Well this could be fun. I love talking to anyone about God and stuff. But I do need to talk to the rest of WRHS Revolution and God about it first. Eric
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD Date: Sep 28, 2006 7:39 PM If god talks back let me know, I can probably have the proper pills prescribed.
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: White River Revolution Date: Sep 29 2006 9:49 PM Well God did talk back last night through His word He said, "But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say, We wipe the dust of your town from our feet as a public announcement of your doom. And don't forget the Kingdom of God is near!"(Luke 10:10-11) Now you have welcomed me personally of course. But you have already rejected Jesus. And since I'm a follower of Christ you have rejected me because the Holy Spirit is living inside of me. You might not understand that because you have not accepted Christ as your savior. But, if you reject the master have you not rejected the servent as well? Also, I have studied the life of Jesus and he never went looking for debates! And as you know Christian means follower of Christ so I follow his example. I'll be praying for you guys, that you will have happiness. Sorry, but I must do as I'm told.

 

Wow, Mr. Sapient, you sure are a hypocrite.

Let me ask you a question. Why haven't you guys debated people like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, James White, Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, or  J.P. Moreland?  Sorry, but Kirk Cameron is simply not the best that  the other side has to offer, and debating him does nothing for your cause.  I know Kelly debated Matt Slick from CARM.ORG, but she simply got spanked  and was outmatched. So much so, actually, that even a FULL YEAR LATER you, Mr. Sapient, have not accepted Matt Slick's personal challenge to debate you. So sad...

I understand if you don't want to debate those guys. I guess the reason would be that you know that you can't handle that kind of scholarship and apologetics. Way to swing at the low hanging fruit guys!

Oh, and just to let you know, debating the RRS would also be considered "swinging at the low hanging fruit" as well. Do you know how I know this? Because the argumentation that you guys think is great would never be used by an intelligent atheist in a formal debate.

Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

I can't help but see a connection between all of Romans 1 and our society today.

 

Edit: Just to let you know, James White also has a radio show and he would be more than happy to speak to you if you call him. Just go to aomin.org.

"Morality that starts with me must logically and necessarily end with me."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:his last sentence

Quote:
his last sentence "Sorry, but I must do as I'm told." is a very scary thought.

Ya think? "God told me to slam some jets into buildings. " "God told me to kill some Jews" "God told me to blow up some abortion clinics".

Not scary at all, if you are a fan of lemming violence.

Meanwhile wistle blowers like Ralf Nader who said, "Cars are unsafe" back in the 70s is treated like a lepar.

Credulity is the bastion of the puppiteer, "Who gives a shit about quality control as long as it feels good".

"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


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 People sure dig up some

 People sure dig up some old ass threads.


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
CmRoddy wrote:Sapient

CmRoddy wrote:

Sapient wrote:
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD Date: Sep 28, 2006 5:36 PM We invite you onto our radio show to discuss your beliefs and ours. We have questions, you're welcome to ask us well. Would you like to appear for up to one hour to discuss your beliefs and your group at your school? In Reason, Brian Sapient
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: WRHS Revolution Date: Sep 28, 2006 10:32 PM Well this could be fun. I love talking to anyone about God and stuff. But I do need to talk to the rest of WRHS Revolution and God about it first. Eric
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD Date: Sep 28, 2006 7:39 PM If god talks back let me know, I can probably have the proper pills prescribed.
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: White River Revolution Date: Sep 29 2006 9:49 PM Well God did talk back last night through His word He said, "But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say, We wipe the dust of your town from our feet as a public announcement of your doom. And don't forget the Kingdom of God is near!"(Luke 10:10-11) Now you have welcomed me personally of course. But you have already rejected Jesus. And since I'm a follower of Christ you have rejected me because the Holy Spirit is living inside of me. You might not understand that because you have not accepted Christ as your savior. But, if you reject the master have you not rejected the servent as well? Also, I have studied the life of Jesus and he never went looking for debates! And as you know Christian means follower of Christ so I follow his example. I'll be praying for you guys, that you will have happiness. Sorry, but I must do as I'm told.

 

Wow, Mr. Sapient, you sure are a hypocrite.

Let me ask you a question. Why haven't you guys debated people like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, James White, Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, or  J.P. Moreland?  Sorry, but Kirk Cameron is simply not the best that  the other side has to offer, and debating him does nothing for your cause.  I know Kelly debated Matt Slick from CARM.ORG, but she simply got spanked  and was outmatched. So much so, actually, that even a FULL YEAR LATER you, Mr. Sapient, have not accepted Matt Slick's personal challenge to debate you. So sad...

I understand if you don't want to debate those guys. I guess the reason would be that you know that you can't handle that kind of scholarship and apologetics. Way to swing at the low hanging fruit guys!

Oh, and just to let you know, debating the RRS would also be considered "swinging at the low hanging fruit" as well. Do you know how I know this? Because the argumentation that you guys think is great would never be used by an intelligent atheist in a formal debate.

Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

I can't help but see a connection between all of Romans 1 and our society today.

 

Edit: Just to let you know, James White also has a radio show and he would be more than happy to speak to you if you call him. Just go to aomin.org.

I agree.

Bump. I think Mr. Sapient (along with all his other followers) should see this and note that their "brave leader" is nothing more than an angry atheist who can't defend himself in any meaningful debate.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion wrote:I

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

I think Mr. Sapient (along with all his other followers) should see this and note that their "brave leader" is nothing more than an angry atheist who can't defend himself in any meaningful debate.

I'm not their leader.  The "hypocrite" obection wasn't answered in this thread because virtually the same argument has been answered many times before.  At this point answering it again might actually give it a shred of validity of which it has none. 

Here's the Matt Slick debacle for you in the real world, not la la land as presented in the objection.

- Brian Sapient


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


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Atheist

Sapient wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

I think Mr. Sapient (along with all his other followers) should see this and note that their "brave leader" is nothing more than an angry atheist who can't defend himself in any meaningful debate.

I'm not their leader.  The "hypocrite" obection wasn't answered in this thread because virtually the same argument has been answered many times before.  At this point answering it again might actually give it a shred of validity of which it has none. 

Here's the Matt Slick debacle for you in the real world, not la la land as presented in the objection.

Is that it? Just Matt Slick? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that Matt is a great apologist, but what about the other guys listed? Someone like James White puts Matt Slick to shame.

OH SNAP! I just heard on the show (from the link you gave me) that you guys are actually quoting Bart Ehrman as a credible source with Misquoting Jesus. Listen, James White destroys Bart Ehrman in every single argument Dr. Ehrman uses. So why don't you call James White's program? Or debate the other people mentioned?

By the way, the rest of the debate was a joke. You guys did not accept any sort of answer that Matt gave. You were the one who gave circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often. So as I said, go debate James White and see how far you get. Eye-wink

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Atheist

Sapient wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

I think Mr. Sapient (along with all his other followers) should see this and note that their "brave leader" is nothing more than an angry atheist who can't defend himself in any meaningful debate.

I'm not their leader.  The "hypocrite" obection wasn't answered in this thread because virtually the same argument has been answered many times before.  At this point answering it again might actually give it a shred of validity of which it has none. 

Here's the Matt Slick debacle for you in the real world, not la la land as presented in the objection.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Sapient, if you honestly think that you managed to "refute" Matt Slick in that sad attempt at a debate/discussion that you linked me to, than you really should rethink your methods. And for being called the "Rational Reponse Squad," you sure do hold some very irrational views and ways of debate. I find it very sad that you engage religious people, especially Christians, in this fasion.

And just an FYI for anyone intersted, Mr. Sapient has not, I repeat, has not responded to Matt Slick's challenge. The radio show he linked me to happened before Kelly was on Matt's show and before Matt sent out a public challenge to debate Mr. Sapient. So don't think that you have managed to dodge this.

I promise you that if you were to try and have a public debate with Matt Slick (or any other apologist like James White, William Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, etc) you would get crushed. Your innability to identify logical errors in your own arguments is enough to keep you from winning any formal, time debate.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

There. Read Matt's side of the story. When you are done, go down to the very bottom and see his two challenges to your "Rational" Response Squad. I doubt you will answer any of these, as most atheists don't.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Someone like James White puts Matt Slick to shame.

I don't debate presuppers, White is a presupper.  I would teach a basic logic lesson should James White want one, however I think I know him well enough to not accept.  As weak as Matt Slick is, he's abundantly more logical than James White.

 

Quote:
By the way, the rest of the debate was a joke.

Agreed, absolutely fucking hilarious.

Quote:

You were the one who gave circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often.

Name two circular arguments we made.

 

Quote:
 

So as I said, go debate James White and see how far you get. Eye-wink

The day after I start accepting offers for debates with people who have down syndrome.

- Brian Sapient


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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

And just an FYI for anyone intersted, Mr. Sapient has not, I repeat, has not responded to Matt Slick's challenge. The radio show he linked me to happened before Kelly was on Matt's show and before Matt sent out a public challenge to debate Mr. Sapient. So don't think that you have managed to dodge this.

Matt's challenge to me is akin to Al Gore challenging George Bush to a re-debate and calling George Bush a "dodger" if he doesn't accept.  Matt's done, and I was done with him the day I hung the phone up on him.  All that's left now is the comedy of watching him re-challenge me and watching people like you cry for a future debate instead of accepting his ass was handed to him.  Maybe if you could accept reality in the file I alerted you to it would be worth doing it again, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

 

Quote:
I promise you that if you were to try and have a public debate with Matt Slick (or any other apologist like James White, William Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, etc) you would get crushed.

I'm damn glad I'm not relying on any promises from you.

 

Quote:
Read Matt's side of the story.

I did, that's why the file was made available free.  So people could make up their own mind.  

 

Quote:
When you are done, go down to the very bottom and see his two challenges to your "Rational" Response Squad. I doubt you will answer any of these, as most atheists don't.

Him and Al Gore sitting in a tree.

- Brian Sapient


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


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Atheist

Sapient wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Someone like James White puts Matt Slick to shame.

I don't debate presuppers, White is a presupper.  I would teach a basic logic lesson should James White want one, however I think I know him well enough to not accept.  As weak as Matt Slick is, he's abundantly more logical than James White.

 

Quote:
By the way, the rest of the debate was a joke.

Agreed, absolutely fucking hilarious.

Quote:

You were the one who gave circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often.

Name two circular arguments we made.

 

Quote:
 

So as I said, go debate James White and see how far you get. Eye-wink

The day after I start accepting offers for debates with people who have down syndrome.

Excuse after excuse after excuse. Trust me, James White would destroy any of you with half his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair. If you are so confident, than prove that you are not a chicken atheist who does nothing but hide behind his keyboard. Call James White and prove him wrong. Set up a public debate with James White on ANY SUBJECT YOU WANT and he would be glad to humiliate you and your entire staff.

Oh, and "refuting" someone by ganging up on them like you did with Matt Slick is hardly intellectual at all. Don't worry, nothing you can say is going to change the fact that you, and all other atheists on this site, are chicken and would NEVER debate someone like James White in a public, moderated, and timed debate. You just wouldn't be able to handle it because of your need to insult and stray off topic. Especially, ESPECIALLY, if it were one on one.

You, sir, are pathetic, along with all your other staff members.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TAD,Why appeal to Slick and

TAD,

Why appeal to Slick and White? Afraid you can't handle yourself here?

This is just a fancier version of "My dad can beat up your dad".

Fight your own fights, You can start with naming the  "circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often" that you accuse the RRS of doing in the debate. There were even long periods where RRS mikes were closed so Slick could make his points and all he did with that opportunity was whine about being interrupted.

"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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Excuse after excuse after excuse. Trust me, James White would destroy any of you with half his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair. If you are so confident, than prove that you are not a chicken atheist who does nothing but hide behind his keyboard. Call James White and prove him wrong. Set up a public debate with James White on ANY SUBJECT YOU WANT and he would be glad to humiliate you and your entire staff.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear the first time.  I said White is a presupper.  It's been covered on this site before, but essentially that means he is nowhere near our intellectual level.  Having a conversation with him would be like debating theoretical physics with a 4 year old.  Not only would nobody get anywhere, but I don't deserve the headache that would come of it.  White is a moron.  Now run back to him like the good sheep you are and tell him he's a moron over and over until he stops making excuses. 

If you'd like to do more research on it...

presuppositionalist 1

presuppositionalists are idiots

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)

Paul Manata finally gives up TAG

 

- Brian Sapient


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


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Atheist

Sapient wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Excuse after excuse after excuse. Trust me, James White would destroy any of you with half his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair. If you are so confident, than prove that you are not a chicken atheist who does nothing but hide behind his keyboard. Call James White and prove him wrong. Set up a public debate with James White on ANY SUBJECT YOU WANT and he would be glad to humiliate you and your entire staff.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear the first time.  I said White is a presupper.  It's been covered on this site before, but essentially that means he is nowhere near our intellectual level.  Having a conversation with him would be like debating theoretical physics with a 4 year old.  Not only would nobody get anywhere, but I don't deserve the headache that would come of it.  White is a moron.  Now run back to him like the good sheep you are and tell him he's a moron over and over until he stops making excuses. 

If you'd like to do more research on it...

presuppositionalist 1

presuppositionalists are idiots

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)

Paul Manata finally gives up TAG 

Again, these are some of the saddest excuses I have ever heard. Do you really think that you are on a higher intelligence level than James White? Prove it!

Here, if you want to hear Matt's recent challenge, go to this link and download his radio show.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/carmorgpodcasting/~5/499941317/rec123108.mp3

Listen from 45:35 - 52:00.

I must say, for being such "rational" atheists, this kind of childlike and pathetic excuse is rather sad. You think you are the top notch atheists? Than prove it! But you haven't, do you know why? Because you just said "It's been covered on this site before..." Having a monologue about someone with your idiot atheist friends isn't dealing with an issue. And that is all you guys have here. You don't have any meaningful discussion with people.

And yes, people think that your site is a joke along with your entire organization. Even atheists think this! I mean, if atheist philosopher Michael Ruse was embarrased to be an atheist because of The God Delusion, than I doubt that any intelligent atheist would think that you guys are any better.

I'll say it again, having a monologue, which is obviously all you are interested in, is not dealing with the issue. Period. If you think so, than that further shows your irrationality and, quite frankly, your childish debating methods and "logic."

I want to add one more thing, and I hope you actually read my post, Mr. Sapient. The reasons that you think that you will get nowhere with White is as follows. One, you are using that as an excuse to not get your "rational" butt handed to you.

Two, you don't accept correction! This is a huge one. I heard your "debate" (which it wasn't, it was a gangbang and hardly worth the title of "dealing with Matt Slick" ) against Mr. Slick and one of your own members would make an assertion that is completely false, but then continue the argument based on a wrong initial premise. Matt pointed this out and Mr. Rook said, "Yea, well, OK whatever." and continued his argument. Matt then said, "Wait, you can't start an argument on a false premise and expect it to work for you." You know what you guys did? You laughed at it! Why? Because for some odd reason, you think that is illogical. So even though Dr. White could destroy your arguments that are based on antient text and manuscript criticism, you would not accept the correction anyway, change the subject, and declare yourself the winner.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TAD,Why

jcgadfly wrote:

TAD,

Why appeal to Slick and White? Afraid you can't handle yourself here?

This is just a fancier version of "My dad can beat up your dad".

Fight your own fights, You can start with naming the  "circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often" that you accuse the RRS of doing in the debate. There were even long periods where RRS mikes were closed so Slick could make his points and all he did with that opportunity was whine about being interrupted.

Oh, so pointing out that he is not being treated fairly is enough to declare the RRS as "dealt with Matt Slick"? Are you serious? Matt would start answering a question, and in that answer would touch some other topic that a different member of RRS was an "expert" in. Without allowing Matt to fully answer the question, they would cut in and ask another question pertaining to that topic. When Matt would go back to what he was talking about before getting interupted, the RRS kept expecting Matt to answer the new questions. This went on the entire show.

Matt Slick gave a public challenge to Mr. Sapient to talk to him one-on-one. But, Mr. Sapient will not accept the challenge, and I think it is because Mr. Sapient is nothing more than a whimp making childish excuses to avoid it. Go to the link I provided above and listen to the section I mentioned. He gave this challenge yet again.

Of course, Mr. Sapient feels that a monologue is "dealing" with a person and is clearly not interested in a dialogue one-on-one... So sad considering how enthusiastic Mr. Sapient is about his atheism and he wants to "heal theism" as much as he can.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Yes, it's because James

Yes, it's because James White is a genius and Matt Slick would whip my butt.  Feel better now?

 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Yes, it's

Sapient wrote:

Yes, it's because James White is a genius and Matt Slick would whip my butt.  Feel better now?

No. Your arrogance, along with your misplaced sense of intelligence, is just so overwhelmingly sad. You have already shown me your utter fear of debating those guys in a fair one-on-one dialogue, not a monologue.

And by the way, your hypocrisy is just sad. You bash a Christian for declining a debate, to the point of putting up a thread in attempts to humiliate them. But you will not answer many challenges to a debate made against you because someone is a "presupper" (which is a terrible attempt at an excuse) or because you have "already dealt with him" when you just ganged up 4 on 1. Are you man enough to go against 4 Christian apologists at once? I don't think you are Mr. Sapient. You know how I know this? Because you aren't even man enough to talk to someone 1 on 1.

So pathetic if you ask me.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

blah blah... You bash a Christian for declining a debate, to the point of putting up a thread in attempts to humiliate them.... blah blah same stuff

For what it's worth this thread was originally posted because an atheist asked us for help, and this was the start of what I did for him.  I don't remember all the details 2 years later but the jist was that the WRHS revolution was in some manner making atheist students feel bad about themselves, affecting their ability to learn in a secular environment, and utilizing school time in such a way that violated the school code of conduct.  Excessive prayer in class was one of the items the student was complaining about.  As you can see in my initial e-mail I offered the group the ability to ask us questions, discuss our beliefs, and I had questions to return.  I didn't bash, nor did I bash them in the actual forum, I simply posted the communication.  

You however have chosen to beat a dead horse after getting the only answers needed and bash extensively (what's that about hypocrisy?).  And you're welcome to continue... the floor is yours.  I have an idea, make a disparaging comment about my desire to accept a challenge from Matt Slick, you haven't talked about that yet.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Atheist

Sapient wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

blah blah... You bash a Christian for declining a debate, to the point of putting up a thread in attempts to humiliate them.... blah blah same stuff

For what it's worth this thread was originally posted because an atheist asked us for help, and this was the start of what I did for him.  I don't remember all the details 2 years later but the jist was that the WRHS revolution was in some manner making atheist students feel bad about themselves, affecting their ability to learn in a secular environment, and utilizing school time in such a way that violated the school code of conduct.  Excessive prayer in class was one of the items the student was complaining about.  As you can see in my initial e-mail I offered the group the ability to ask us questions, discuss our beliefs, and I had questions to return.  I didn't bash, nor did I bash them in the actual forum, I simply posted the communication.  

You however have chosen to beat a dead horse after getting the only answers needed and bash extensively (what's that about hypocrisy?).  And you're welcome to continue... the floor is yours.  I have an idea, make a disparaging comment about my desire to accept a challenge from Matt Slick, you haven't talked about that yet

You silly atheist... can't even defend yourself. Laughing out loud

I understand. I'll leave you to the depravity of your heart. Just know that you wouldn't be able to hold a respectable debate against anyone worth their salt.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TAD,

Why appeal to Slick and White? Afraid you can't handle yourself here?

This is just a fancier version of "My dad can beat up your dad".

Fight your own fights, You can start with naming the  "circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often" that you accuse the RRS of doing in the debate. There were even long periods where RRS mikes were closed so Slick could make his points and all he did with that opportunity was whine about being interrupted.

Oh, so pointing out that he is not being treated fairly is enough to declare the RRS as "dealt with Matt Slick"? Are you serious? Matt would start answering a question, and in that answer would touch some other topic that a different member of RRS was an "expert" in. Without allowing Matt to fully answer the question, they would cut in and ask another question pertaining to that topic. When Matt would go back to what he was talking about before getting interupted, the RRS kept expecting Matt to answer the new questions. This went on the entire show.

Matt Slick gave a public challenge to Mr. Sapient to talk to him one-on-one. But, Mr. Sapient will not accept the challenge, and I think it is because Mr. Sapient is nothing more than a whimp making childish excuses to avoid it. Go to the link I provided above and listen to the section I mentioned. He gave this challenge yet again.

Of course, Mr. Sapient feels that a monologue is "dealing" with a person and is clearly not interested in a dialogue one-on-one... So sad considering how enthusiastic Mr. Sapient is about his atheism and he wants to "heal theism" as much as he can.

I see - you didn't listen to the show and are just taking Slick's word for it. I also see that you haven't bothered to take on the rest of my post. I also notice that you disregard how Slick asked Kelly (the philosophy person on the show) biology questions more suited for Yellow #5. I wonder what questions he's ask Brian. who do you think would be more suitable to answer them? Dawkins? Dennett?

Don't worry - theists like you don't want to think rationally. The Bible keeps you from having to use your brain.

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Sapient wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

blah blah... You bash a Christian for declining a debate, to the point of putting up a thread in attempts to humiliate them.... blah blah same stuff

For what it's worth this thread was originally posted because an atheist asked us for help, and this was the start of what I did for him.  I don't remember all the details 2 years later but the jist was that the WRHS revolution was in some manner making atheist students feel bad about themselves, affecting their ability to learn in a secular environment, and utilizing school time in such a way that violated the school code of conduct.  Excessive prayer in class was one of the items the student was complaining about.  As you can see in my initial e-mail I offered the group the ability to ask us questions, discuss our beliefs, and I had questions to return.  I didn't bash, nor did I bash them in the actual forum, I simply posted the communication.  

You however have chosen to beat a dead horse after getting the only answers needed and bash extensively (what's that about hypocrisy?).  And you're welcome to continue... the floor is yours.  I have an idea, make a disparaging comment about my desire to accept a challenge from Matt Slick, you haven't talked about that yet

You silly atheist... can't even defend yourself. Laughing out loud

I understand. I'll leave you to the depravity of your heart. Just know that you wouldn't be able to hold a respectable debate against anyone worth their salt.

Do you have an opinion of your own or does Matt have to give it to you?

"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


adamryan
Theist
adamryan's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion, From

The Atheist Delusion,
 


From one theist to another: stop being an ass.

 

-adamryan