Stephen appears in a 4 hour supplemental free download of RRS

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Stephen appears in a 4 hour supplemental free download of RRS

The Rational Response Squad was asked to respond rationally to a friend of a friend tonight, and we quickly obliged.

The following is a free download. We planned on editing it, but that was before the show length crept up to 3.5 hours. It's not the type of performance we'd like to put out, but the content is still good.

30 minutes-90 minutes Rook talks ancient history and detailed biblical contradictions. Rook tends to be long winded as he's a wealth of biblical information.
90 minutes-210 minutes the discussion gets a little more philosophical, fun, and fast paced.
210 minutes-show end Rook and I give you a little more information on FreethinkingTeens.com, and the upcoming weekend of recording (including Sam Harris).


IT'S A 50 MEG FILE 4 hour show
Right click "save as" or "save target as"

UPDATE: We created a 37 minute version taking the best arguments from the show and put them into a brief hard hitting file.
DOWNLOAD THE 37 MINUTE SHOW HERE.

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


Cody
Cody's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
haha, I am very much looking

haha, I am very much looking foreward to this one.
stephen is a friend of mine. infact i introduced him to greg a couple weeks ago.
I want to know if he survived or not.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty choppy in this

I'm pretty choppy in this show with the "ums" and "ahs". But it's a good listen.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I caught one glaring

I caught one glaring problem, I said "Moons shadow on Earth" instead of "Earths shadow on moon."

Also, I said "Rule over eternity" but corrected myself to say "rule over humanity and all life" however the point is just as clear.

- Brian Sapient


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


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
In the conversation about

In the conversation about the effects of religion I said NRA instead of IRA.

And although man has been on earth for around a million years, in our present state of evolution we've only been around for 160,000 years. Still well beyond that of 6,000.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


fattychunks
atheist
fattychunks's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
User is offlineOffline
hey sapient... uh were you

hey sapient... uh were you relly playing call of duty... lol i laughed out loud when you said that... or you said some other army fps, cant remember


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
fattychunks wrote:hey

fattychunks wrote:
hey sapient... uh were you relly playing call of duty... lol i laughed out loud when you said that... or you said some other army fps, cant remember

Yeah man, I took Stephen on while taking out the entire German army. Sticking out tongue

- Brian Sapient


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


fattychunks
atheist
fattychunks's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:fattychunks

Sapient wrote:
fattychunks wrote:
hey sapient... uh were you relly playing call of duty... lol i laughed out loud when you said that... or you said some other army fps, cant remember

Yeah man, I took Stephen on while taking out the entire German army. Sticking out tongue

thats too funny man
lol


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Take note, I edited the

Take note, I edited the first post to include a modified 37 minute (straight to the point) edition of this debate.

- Brian Sapient


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


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Showing my condemnation for that travesty of a show.

With all due respect, i am new around here, and i listen to the abridged version of the show the 37 minute version. Though rook and sapient were definetly not in rare form they embarrased the dull witted cristian with remarkable easy with a type of haughtiness that i cannot praise.

I heard your disclaimer in the begginning of the recording but i don't think it excuses your behaviors. As far as your agruments were concerned i agree with it 110% no quarrel there. However I think that you and the squad are not paying attention to the subtles of life and society.

It seems that you all have this naieve idea of being right is all that matters. You are smart people and should realize it's not the righteous that rule, and it's not the correctness that determines popularity. Your tendices to act as a iconoclast are not going to win you any popularity votes.

And of course what do you care of popularity? well think of what your asking people to do, everything that they have been taught is bullshit, and they face nothing when they eventually perish. For most people this is a tough pill to swallow. And you must remember most people are not like us, they don't care about rationality and listening to sound arguments. As soon as you starting saying things like war on chritmas and stomping on their diety they will shut you out immediately and not listen to anything else.

Assuming they you think these people are worth bringing to rationality you have to play on their terms. I personally will let the fools be deluded, i'm not going to expend my effort arguing fruitlessly, better to spend it on more useful things.

In conclusion you seem to want to promote rationality and dispell of these silly myths and this bogus "morality". Then i believe you must change your tatics and play on their rules appealing to emotion and other irrational tatics that they can understand. Using irrational methods to achieve rationality sounds a bit dubious i know, but whatever gets the message across is important..

Just use your head.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
ClubHollis wrote:... think

ClubHollis wrote:
... think of what your asking people to do, everything that they have been taught is bullshit, and they face nothing when they eventually perish. For most people this is a tough pill to swallow. And you must remember most people are not like us, they don't care about rationality and listening to sound arguments. As soon as you starting saying things like war on chritmas and stomping on their diety they will shut you out immediately and not listen to anything else.

You have a very good point... when I feel attacked, I defend... even if I might be wrong.

No one wants to have something pried from their head or their heart, without any promise of anything in return. Even if the thing they prize is false.....

Quote:

Assuming they you think these people are worth bringing to rationality you have to play on their terms. I personally will let the fools be deluded, i'm not going to expend my effort arguing fruitlessly, better to spend it on more useful things.

In conclusion you seem to want to promote rationality and dispel of these silly myths and this bogus "morality". Then i believe you must change your tatics and play on their rules appealing to emotion and other irrational tatics that they can understand. Using irrational methods to achieve rationality sounds a bit dubious i know, but whatever gets the message across is important..

You have a very good point... rhetoric has a value... making a friend of your 'opponent' has a value.... levity has a value..... considering the feelings of the other person has a value.

I think that it might help us all if we rational responders (I include myself as one too) might consider that we are irrational about some things too. I think all the rational responders realize this and admit to this and they even talk about this on the show, but it might help all of us if we all remembered this when tackling irationalism is others.... we have our own irrational beliefs...

I think where we go wrong is that sometimes we act as if the 'irrationalism' is all out there. I know we know better, but we don't always act that way. I think every member of the squad is open to this, but we sometimes forget it.

And you're right that there are times where being 'irrational' - i.e. using rhetoric/emotional appeals, isn't bad either. We do that too! But we ought to consider the emotions of the other person more often.

I've been thinking about the same things that you have, so I am very happy that you came by and spoke, as it allowed me to do the same.

PS I just noticed something... you used the very methods you wanted the rest of us to use, and it helped convince me that you were right - without it hurting my feelings or making me feel defensive. Isn't that interesting? You actually proved your point while arguing for it. Well done, and welcome to site, a very nice start.

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

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok for those unaware of the

Ok for those unaware of the background here... Hollis posted something along these lines in our blog. Because of the letter, I asked if we could communicate via phone, I hate typing the RRS position out over and over. Although I liked the letter in the blog more Sticking out tongue, you've asked twice for RRS to respond, so I'll speak on it briefly. I did try calling your number and getting you on skype. Sign on to skype next time you log on, maybe I'll have time to talk at more length.

ClubHollis wrote:
With all due respect, i am new around here, and i listen to the abridged version of the show the 37 minute version. Though rook and sapient were definetly not in rare form they embarrased the dull witted cristian with remarkable easy with a type of haughtiness that i cannot praise.

Funny, I wouldn't have called him inferior, yet you imply it (haughtiness). He reminded me of myself, and I spoke to him the way I hoped someone would've spoken to me to snap me out of my daze when I was young. It's ashame that simply by virtue of discussing religion with him, we come across as having overbearing pride. For that matter, didn't he exhibit some of those same characteristics?

I don't like coming across like that.

Quote:
I heard your disclaimer in the begginning of the recording but i don't think it excuses your behaviors.

You mean calling a spade a spade? If so, that's just how we are. We call em as we see em. We try to remain as pleasant as possible. The flipside of your argument is comments like this, "It was amazing how pleasant you guys managed to be, even after hearing some of the things he said." (direct quote from myspace)

Quote:
As far as your agruments were concerned i agree with it 110% no quarrel there. However I think that you and the squad are not paying attention to the subtles of life and society.

We are man we are. We recognize that some people need "tough love" in order to snap out of it.

Quote:
It seems that you all have this naieve idea of being right is all that matters.

Again, that's not what I believe, assuming it (as you'd agree), doesn't mean we feel that way. Both Rook and I value family over "being right" any day. I value caring for someone over "being right." Now when it comes to argumentative logic, debates, etc... being right is 95% of what matters... the rest is learning from what you're not right about. Arguing in a philosophical sense is how humanity moves forward, I mean no ill will when I do it, I mean to help move myself, my philosophical opponent, and humanity forward when I do. I hope you recognize the difference over a shouting match and a logical argument, Rook and I were engaging in a logical argument... someone who came to us, who wanted to "confront us."

Quote:
You are smart people and should realize it's not the righteous that rule, and it's not the correctness that determines popularity. Your tendices to act as a iconoclast are not going to win you any popularity votes.

What do you think determines popularity? Being pleasant? Sugar coating life? I really appreciate your perspective and where you are coming from, for the last 6 years (minus the last two) I held exactly your view... and this is the only statement I'm having a hard time wrapping myself around. I think oftentimes, being "right" determines popularity over anything else. I've known some real assholes who were popular, simply because they tended to be "right."

Quote:
And of course what do you care of popularity?

I don't. I'm already much more popular than I would've ever wanted to be. I wish someone else was in my place.

Quote:
well think of what your asking people to do, everything that they have been taught is bullshit, and they face nothing when they eventually perish. For most people this is a tough pill to swallow.

I know, and I don't expect my arguments to always win them over. I expect my arguments (metaphorically speaking) to get them to actually attempt to swallow that pill, and then watch it get lodged in their throat. Then you can come along and (metaphorically speaking) hand them a glass of water to wash it down. However... had I not convinced them to put the pill in their mouth, you're water would've never done a thing. We've said it many times before... good cop-bad cop. We're the bad cops. And hey... most cops that are "bad" are bad due to illegal activity, we don't go there. Eye-wink

Quote:
And you must remember most people are not like us, they don't care about rationality and listening to sound arguments.

And that needs to change, that's why we do this. What are you doing to change that? I mean that honestly.

Quote:
As soon as you starting saying things like war on chritmas and stomping on their diety they will shut you out immediately and not listen to anything else.

You realize we didn't make up the term "War on Christmas" right? We're mocking the people at Fox News for their authorship of this load of horseshit, and actually giving them a small dose of what they pretended to be true:

They made up a phony war... now they can deal with the real thing. This ridicule and mockery is what they deserve. How are you confronting them on this issue?

Quote:
Assuming they you think these people are worth bringing to rationality you have to play on their terms.

They don't have terms when it comes to bringing them to rationality. As you already stated we're talking about people who "don't care about rationality." Would you say their terms are sugar coating and over the top pleasantries?

Quote:
I personally will let the fools be deluded, i'm not going to expend my effort arguing fruitlessly, better to spend it on more useful things.

And here you and I see our fundamental difference. I will give up my life, wasting large portions of it to help the fools out of their delusions. I don't claim to be beter than you, don't get me wrong. It is simply a fundamental difference between you and I. I lost my mother to "Jesus belief" she is now mentally insane, although most doctors wouldn't diagnose her as such. I've vowed to help as many people as I can til the day I die, so that others don't have to go through the same pain... the pain that religion has caused to our world.

Quote:
In conclusion you seem to want to promote rationality and dispell of these silly myths and this bogus "morality". Then i believe you must change your tatics and play on their rules appealing to emotion and other irrational tatics that they can understand. Using irrational methods to achieve rationality sounds a bit dubious i know, but whatever gets the message across is important..

Here again is another difference between us. I wouldn't use irrational methods to wake up the irrational. Wait... maybe I already do. As Todangst mentioned, some of what we do is irrational, we'd admit to that. I'm not always rational although I try to be. Isn't mocking "The War on Christmas" trying to take two wrongs and make them a right? If so... I'm being irrational in hopes of waking others up from their irrationality.

We on occassion appeal to emotions and honestly I wish I had more of those arguments. I can tell you however it's very hard for me to act dishonestly when trying to wake people up from dishonesty. My father always says, "What do you replace peoples theism with?" I try to convey to him that science, reason, rationality, and reality are enough... and he still says "you should come up with something to try and replace theism with, something emotional." I "get it." I just don't have it in me, to me it's dishonest. I'd rather act irrational, over dishonest anyday. I loathe dishonesty, I detest it... it's hard for me to present an argument I don't wholeheartedly believe myself. And when it comes to abandoning theism, I believe we replace it with reality... not anything more. I always say, it's not the job of reality to give you something fun to suck on, it's simply reality, nothing more, nothing less. Please find solace in the fact that you have my personal assurance that I attempt to remain as pleasant, polite, and caring as possible in every conversation and interaction I have in life... especially when representing a need to abandon theism.

I really appreciate your prespective, as I said, I was just like you for many years now. Over the last few I've slowly started to realize that a slightly more extreme approach can not only be a good thing, but is warranted and necessary. I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes this year. Sam Harris wrote "The End of Faith," I suggest you read it, he'll be on the show this weekend. In a recent interview he said:

Q. What is the most likely way that American society, if not the rest of the world, will eventually abandon irrational faith?

SAM HARRIS:
I think this is a war of ideas that has to be fought on a hundred fronts at once. There's not one piece that is going to trump all others.

But I think we should not underestimate the power of embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people who were writing "The Adventures of Superman" radio show. Week after week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish; and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate organization with tens of millions of members-many of whom were senators, and even one president-to a world in which there are now something like 5,000 Klansmen. It's basically a defunct organization.

So public embarrassment is one principle. Once you lift the taboo around criticizing faith and demand that people start talking sense, then the capacity for making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we'll start laughing at people who believe the things that the Tom DeLays, the Pat Robertsons of the world believe. We'll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.

- Brian Sapient


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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian, very nice

Brian, very nice response.....


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Brian, very

todangst wrote:
Brian, very nice response.....

Yours was good too man, as always.

- Brian Sapient


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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Nice to hear that, so much

Nice to hear that, so much better than than how I'm treated by the infidel mods....


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Inserting One's Foot in Mouth

Very good response Sapient, but you should know that this topic is not going to be easily won.

First of all the most pressing of my concerns is a sincere aplogy. This is a classic case of inserting one's foot in mouth. I inadvertantly called your mother a deluded fool, and that was not my intention, i apologize. I also thank you for not taking it personally and attacking me as a person.

Now let's get down to business. I don't think your being honest with yourself sapient.... I wouldn't have joined the group if i didn't think you all had good intentions and a good cause. However i think you are on the right track and you need to imbrace what you have created and not be afraid. Whether you admit it or not even having the name Rational Responders is gimicky, the fact that they rhyme, there are hundred's of other combinations you could have chose but chose that one. The whole badge, the T-Shirts, all of it is gimicky and surving the purpose and practical for getting the message out. Dare i say it that you guys are kind of "cool". i don't know what standards of cool involve behaving rationally and dispelling of myths but i recognize it when I see it.

Why don't you just embrace what you've started and use it for good. I am in agreement with your father, in what will your offer the people as a suitable substitute. I'm not going to speak for the world, but i'll speak for American society, religion goes all the way down to the constitution! Religion and politics are ugly bedmates together, like Hamlet's mother and his wretched uncle. Many interested parties at stake that benefit and make millions of dollars off of religion. Do i think it's hopeless? Of course i don't but i just think you need to offer people something other than just reality. You know that astethitcs is a part of philosphy because it is important. Human's aren't all practicality they are creatures, not only creators of science, but creators of painting, web design, acting, music, religion, and comedy. While most of these are good we could do without religion.

I'm not suggesting that you imply that we should live austere lifestyles that is on a need only basis. What i suggest is this, that the people aren't going to let go of such an imeshed belief without any escape. Just think, the average person has religion, politics, and morality all in the same camp. If you take out religion you've taken out morality and politics for them. Obviously we know this isn't true and to divorce religion, the belief in a supernatural being and morality, making important choices about one's life and how to interact with fellow man. This is a huge void that psychologically is going to need to be filled with something. Plus they'll have this ridiculous idea of sin still lodged in their brains. I'd compare it to parents kicking their children out and say "ok fend for yourself" with no instruction on how to.

If your going to go about your noble quest, i think if you don't know the answers find someone you think "knows the answers" and not only respond but go all out and talk of not these new values, because they are ancient, but of these superior values. I mean if your going to do it go all out, because simply dispelling the myth is going to leave a vacuum for an equally absurd cultish organization to arrive, like scientology or something like that. In the competition for ideas ideologies seem to remain the only competitors.

As far as how you came off, i didn't listen to the whole 4 hour interview, so when the other guy started talking about something and there was just a huge silence, and rook wanted to jump in and you said "no let him finish" he sounded so foolish that i couldn't even entertain anything he had to say even for humors sake. Him and "maybe he has a great mysterious plan" the fact that he said that aloud was evidence enough that he seemed to be an ill-instructed theist.

I cannot write more at this current time because i have something to attend to right now. But i will be back in little more than an hour, i look foward to your response. Sincerely,
Me

Just use your head.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Hollis to properly respond

Hollis to properly respond I'll have to wait til tommorrow. I did ask some serious questions however that it seems you didn't answer. I hope maybe if you have a moment when you return you will try to answer a few of the unanswered, if not all.

- Brian Sapient


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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ClubHollis wrote:With all

ClubHollis wrote:
With all due respect, i am new around here, and i listen to the abridged version of the show the 37 minute version. Though rook and sapient were definetly not in rare form they embarrased the dull witted cristian with remarkable easy with a type of haughtiness that i cannot praise.

A valid point. We ARE in your face, and can be abrasive. We can also be rather understanding and civil, and I think we typically are. We used to BE that guy we're chatting with, remember that.

Quote:
I heard your disclaimer in the begginning of the recording but i don't think it excuses your behaviors. As far as your agruments were concerned i agree with it 110% no quarrel there. However I think that you and the squad are not paying attention to the subtles of life and society.

I think we do pay very close attention to society. Our shows are a running commentary on society and how religion impacts it. Now I do grant you this may not endear the believer. I like to think we do the latter with our honesty, with our willingness to admit ignorance and with our identification of what it was like to believe juxtaposed to where we are now.

Quote:
It seems that you all have this naieve idea of being right is all that matters. You are smart people and should realize it's not the righteous that rule, and it's not the correctness that determines popularity. Your tendices to act as a iconoclast are not going to win you any popularity votes.

I know where you are coming from, and I disagree vehemetly. You cannot educate somebody who is unwillingly to learn or admit that they may be wrong. We plant seeds here, IMO. Nothing we say will ever change Ray Comforts mind. However, what we say to Ray, or more importantly, what we say to a believer may.

For me (and I haven't read Brian's response yet) the object is to strip the person naked, throw them out into the cold, and tell them you've still got a warm community to go to. You've got to tear down beliefs, you've got to rip them to shreds without mercy. You shouldn't be mean or condecending when you do it though - I used to believe the same things.

I don't think we'll ever have a single conversation with a believer and have them say on the spot, "Oh yeah, you're right". I do expect people to come back months or years latter and say we helped them come to reason.

Quote:
And of course what do you care of popularity? well think of what your asking people to do, everything that they have been taught is bullshit, and they face nothing when they eventually perish. For most people this is a tough pill to swallow.

So why sugar coat it? That IS what we are telling them. We can and do offer rational ways of dealing with that information, but why pull punches? If you had cancer and it was terminal, should I wait till you had just a week to live to break the news?

Quote:
And you must remember most people are not like us, they don't care about rationality and listening to sound arguments.

Then they are not the target. You've GOT to be open to some degree, or else you're talking to a wall. I think most of the people we've talked to (with exeception of the the pros) have some degree of reachability. I think we've left most of those people reeling, and questioning. What more can we do?

Quote:
As soon as you starting saying things like war on chritmas and stomping on their diety they will shut you out immediately and not listen to anything else.

I think you misunderstand the premise behind the WOE and WOC.

Quote:
Assuming they you think these people are worth bringing to rationality you have to play on their terms.

I think EVERY person is worth bringing to rationality, and I REFUSE to play on their terms. That's honestly why I think we can be effective.

Quote:
I personally will let the fools be deluded, i'm not going to expend my effort arguing fruitlessly, better to spend it on more useful things.

So our show with Ray Comfort was fruitless? Debate is never fruitless as long as somebody other than the participants hear it.

Quote:
In conclusion you seem to want to promote rationality and dispell of these silly myths and this bogus "morality". Then i believe you must change your tatics and play on their rules appealing to emotion and other irrational tatics that they can understand.

We can and DO go the emotional route on occasion. Listen to show 4 with Kim. We really gear it toward the person we're talking to, actually.

Quote:
Using irrational methods to achieve rationality sounds a bit dubious i know, but whatever gets the message across is important..

Well, IMO, you cannot get there with those methods. If we do what you suggest we'll simply create more New Agers, and that would be just as bad if not worse than them being a Christian or Muslim of Jew.

There is something to be said for honesty dealt with a baseball bat and a friendly hug after the beat down.

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

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


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
right now

your right i was a bit hurried this morning, now i will exam what you said with greater detail and respond to all your specific points.

Just use your head.


goescrunch
goescrunch's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-08-20
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
The Rational Response Squad was asked to respond rationally to a friend of a friend tonight, and we quickly obliged.
IT'S A 50 MEG FILE 4 hour show
Right click "save as" or "save target as"

I'm listening to it right now, and it's great. I'm one who doesn't mind some long-windedness when it is something intelligent, relevant, and informative.

A quick tidbit of how some people come across belief, and how they cling to it:
My family is largely a Xian family, this I understand, and always have understood. I was a strange one, and I always wanted evidence of things. I didn't really believe in Santa because it made no sense that there would be so many. Santa is magic? Sorry mom, can't buy that one. That's just silly. A tiny flying chick that collects teeth and pays for the priveledge. Um, NO. So on, so forth. So when I heard this stuff of a magical man that lived in the sky, I was really confused. For the most part, I don't mind other people believing in this stuff, so long as they don't force it on me. I once knew a git who thought she was a vampire, but since she didn't force that stuff on me I didn't care.

At a pretty young age I started having strange experiences, which my family attributed to being "supernatural". I'd see family, friends, and pets who were deceased. I'd have strange feelings that felt like I was floating from my body. Sometimes it would feel like my bed was shaking late at night when I woke, and I told my mom about it confused, and she freaked out thinking the DEVIL was coming to get me. (Such a good Xian, she told me it was because I was a bastard child that the devil was coming to take me home... Makes you wonder why some people adopt if they are only going to tell the kid something like that.) I'm digressing from my actual story... My strange experiences worsened over time, to the point of me losing control of my body. At times I'd just start writhing a bit and muttering/mumbling, which they all thought was either angels speaking through me, or demons possessing me. It wasn't until 2003 when I finally COLLAPSED at my place of work in a tonic-clonic seizure that I was finally close to finding out what was wrong with me all my life. About three months after this incident I was officially diagnosed with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. THAT is what caused all these experiences. Since being put on Depakote, BIG CHANGE. I still was having some breakthrough seizures, but not to the point that it had been. Now I'm on Depakote and Phenobarbital. Sure, I'm drained a lot of the time, but no longer do I have those symptoms. This was a big blow to my mom and sister, considering they always thought that I had "gifts" from "god", like I was some sort of medium for "god" to work through. I remember my sister asked the Xian Nuerologist (I was being treated at a Xian clinic) if it was possible that the medications could interfere with abilities that I may have communicating with "god". Even a man who believed in "god" looked at her shocked and told her, "That's just silly. Any experiences she had were simply the results of her seizures." He then ranted of creepy people who deny themselves or their children treatment thinking God will help them. He believed in that, but he felt that everyone was given medication to use. I respected him for that. LoL, he even felt abortion wouldn't exist if God didn't give people the knowledge to use it! He was an interesting one...

Still, there's no telling how many religionists out there who are having visions and out of body experiences, and other so called "supernatural" experiences actually have Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. A person can function surprisingly well with it.

Even certain mental conditions result in religious delusions. Bipolar disorder has this potential. I'm also bipolar, but I so far haven't had any religious delusions. I usually have business delusions, thinking I can invent something that will make me amazingly rich, blah blah blah. However, my brother becomes TERRIBLY delusional regarding religion when he goes into a manic episode. So you have this guy who is the HARSHEST atheist when he's in a depressive episode, but this terrifying religionist when he's manic, sometimes to the point of thinking he IS god. o_O

Religion has the potential to be a damn scary thing. It is also VERY easily abused.

I just don't see why the book can't be viewed as a fable that can sometimes be a good reference for some advice. It's just a bunch of stories anyway, taken from here and there, changed left and right. Gah...


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Ok for those

NOTE, I FUCKED UP AGAIN. I HIT EDIT ON THIS POST FROM HOLLIS AND THEN RESPONDED. SO ALL THE QUOTED INFO IS HIS RESPONSE AND MY ANSWER FOLLOWS. YOU WILL NOT SEE HIS POST ABOVE THIS.

Sapient wrote:

I aplogize, occasionally it may be difficult to reach me on skype due to the 7 hour time difference, i'm up when you sleeping sometimes and vice versa.

It's cool, however I called 10 minutes after I saw you log in to this site. Eye-wink

ClubHollis wrote:

it seemed like you repeatedly interrupted him and were trying to talk over him. i must give it another listen.

I don't consider this rude. It's our show, and if I find it essential to stop someone in their tracks to talk about a point, I do it. Were I to let him talk, and instead I miss making the point... that is where I would view myself as a failure.

Quote:
I'm sorry I didn't catch the things that he said that were hair raising. He didn't even threaten you with damnation. He didn't, at least the the 37 minute version, say the ever frustrating "your still one of god's children, you just don't know it yet, got is still watching over you" I get that often from christians when they find out i'm an athiest, which is quite irratating.

He made little comments along those lines, nothing real bad, overall he was a nice kid, but then again I thought I was being nice. I think you should appreciate that there are a great many people who wouldn't have kept their cool as much as us simply because his beliefs were irrational, not because he came across as rude or haughty.

Quote:
And how exactly do you come to this judgment who needs "tough love" and who needs "soft love"? or whatever the distinction is remains to me seen, i'll let you decipher it for me.

I suppose one can't be sure. However if you tell someone 2+2=4 and they deny it, and then you show them how 2+2=4, and then they deny it... you start to enter the realm of "need for tough love."

There are some who are open minded, and will accept rationality at the onset, others will deny deny deny reality, while 30 hours of soft love may work, 3 hours of "hard love" could be equally as effective in a way. FWIW: I actually thought we were being soft on Stephen, we're talking about YOUR perception.

Quote:
Well i didn't witness a "logical argument" i saw logic on one side of this "argument" which was your side. But from him i heard no logic, all i heard were concessions and excuses.

While he wasn't very logical, it was certainly his version of logical argumentation.

Quote:
I've known some real assholes who were popular, simply because they tended to be "right."

[b]YOU USED BUSH AS AN EXAMPLE

Funny you used Bush. To me Bush is a good example of an asshole who is popular in spite of the fact that he's almost always wrong, Bush makes your case. Take a guy like Howard Stern however. Howard is extremely popular, considered an arrogant asshole by many (similarly to how people misunderstand us), and yet he's extremely popular, as he speaks from the gut and tends to be right.

Charles Barkley is another example. Very popular man who speaks from his gut, pulls no punches, calls a spade a spade, and is considered an asshole by some. He's even spit on a fan, and he's still a legend (in a positive way).

Quote:
well think of what your asking people to do, everything that they have been taught is bullshit, and they face nothing when they eventually perish. For most people this is a tough pill to swallow.

Quote:

This seems to be a weak and arbitrary assertion, are you claiming that you behave this way because you are the bad cop? Well then who's the good cop?

You, and others who embrace your mindset (me 3 years ago).

Quote:
I wouldn't just go straight into something like God is a concept with contradictory characteristics, a concept with contradictory characteristics at the same time in the same respect cannot possibly exist. I fail to see how this will move someone who is not rational in the fist place. You must appeal to their emotions.

Showing someone that they hold true something that is impossible is not only appealing to their reason, but is appealing to their emotions, and you're overlooking that.

Quote:

Would you say their terms are sugar coating and over the top pleasantries?

[b]Yes

I don't buy it. I know too many theists who are no more pleasant because they are theist. I just don't buy it.

Quote:
i don't go into arguments thinking i'm right neccessarily and my mind cannot be changed.

Me neither, I'm always open to change.

Quote:
If a theist any day of my life actually supports his arguments with credible testible evidence, i'll pray to god that day.

Not sure if I'll pray, but I would most certainly "believe."

Quote:
While the theist is not going into the argument believing there's a chance they could be mistaken, they simply won't listen to anything u have to say, at least the one's that challange you.[/b]

And here you see exactly why "good cop" will not work. You need to shake them up, rattle them, snap them out of it, they're acting irrational and illogical and they don't see it.

Quote:

Christianity is much bigger and has a much more rooted foundation than the KKK ever did. Comparing apples and oranges, people proudly call themselves christians while KKK members were proud, did so rarely in the open, and had to be fairly secretive about it. They are two completely different animals.

The KKK operates mostly behind closed doors now as a result of public ridicule, it didn't in the 40's. It was very out in the open in the 40's.

- Brian Sapient


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


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
be careful

I worked in the mental health field, and i know 500mg and 250mg depakotes have some pretty nasty side effects after long term use. Try to see if your doctor's can let you use a diff med sometimes.

all the best

Just use your head.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClubHollis wrote:Very good

ClubHollis wrote:
Very good response Sapient, but you should know that this topic is not going to be easily won.

I didn't enter this discussion in an attempt to win a topic, I entered it to explain to you why I hold my position, and help you understand it better.

Quote:
First of all the most pressing of my concerns is a sincere aplogy. This is a classic case of inserting one's foot in mouth. I inadvertantly called your mother a deluded fool, and that was not my intention, i apologize. I also thank you for not taking it personally and attacking me as a person.

You see, here you see my acceptance of calling a spade a spade, I practice what I "preach." My mother is a deluded fool, yes it hurts to say that, but it's reality.

Quote:
However i think you are on the right track and you need to imbrace what you have created and not be afraid.

If I had fear I wouldn't be here taking on the death threats man.

Quote:
Whether you admit it or not even having the name Rational Responders is gimicky, the fact that they rhyme, there are hundred's of other combinations you could have chose but chose that one. The whole badge, the T-Shirts, all of it is gimicky and surving the purpose and practical for getting the message out. Dare i say it that you guys are kind of "cool". i don't know what standards of cool involve behaving rationally and dispelling of myths but i recognize it when I see it.

It seems it all worked. They're all gimicks, and they are cool. Of course our arguments are very real.

Quote:
Why don't you just embrace what you've started and use it for good.

That is exactly what we're doing.

There wasn't much more for me to respond to in this letter, which was your previous letter.

- Brian Sapient


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


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Useful comments

Well anybody can critize and complain, let me offer maybe offer a useful strategy that maybe you sometimes use, that i often implore if trying to bring somebody to rationality.

To be quite frank i do what i call "playing Columbo" i don't know if you've ever seen that old show. But it's a dectective show and the main dectective is a guy named Columbo, he's an arkward short lazy-eyed man. However he is quite astute and brilliant and his adversaries, the suspects, always think of him as an annoying pestering old fool. More often than not he's way ahead of everybody, and when he wants to draw out a confession or reveal what he knows he does it in a sort of confused manner. He asked them to clarify their allibies and he throws in what he knows, and it's already too late when they realize he knows everything.

Unfortunately maybe you and sapient don't have this previlege. Briefly my father is a catholic, my mother is a baptist, they couldn't agree on what to make me so they did the rational thing and decided they would let me decide. I'm not even baptized. I never went to church or anything like that. However i've done a lot of studying of religions when it came time for me to come to a decision in my early adolecence. So when i question christians i pretend i'm very ignorant to their religion and ask them to explain it to me. During their explainations of god and the stories i'll say things like "wait a minute i thought u said god, was all knowing, so how didn't he know eve ate the fruit?" and "let me get this straight, so god created a tree of good and evil knowing that humans were curious and would eat from it? i thought u said this god was good?" and so on and so forth i'll come to the same conclusions that you say but they get to thinking like "hmmmm.... that doesn't make a lot of sense...."

What are your thoughts on this way?

Just use your head.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClubHollis wrote: What are

ClubHollis wrote:

What are your thoughts on this way?

I think it's great. We created a theme for our show though... "The Rational Response Squad." The idea is we respond rationally to the irrational, not ask questions of the irrational. So we try to keep the show within that theme. I've done that Columbo act on occassion though, even on the show.

- 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: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
SKYPE CONVERSATION WITH

SKYPE CONVERSATION WITH HOLLIS

[9:41:55 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: so i'm curious to know what u think about bush
[9:42:02 AM] Brian Sapient says: I hate him
[9:42:06 AM] Brian Sapient says: Sticking out tongue
[9:42:17 AM] Brian Sapient says: worst president of all time maybe
[9:42:23 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i also think so
[9:42:38 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: but what did you think of my argument about him being right in principle
[9:42:45 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: though he's self-interested liar
[9:43:27 AM] Brian Sapient says: I'd have to re-read it
[9:44:23 AM] Brian Sapient says: fuck
[9:44:28 AM] Brian Sapient says: I just realized I fucked up
[9:44:30 AM] Brian Sapient says: fuck.
[9:44:42 AM] Brian Sapient says: I edited your post instead of quoting it
[9:44:42 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: how?
[9:44:44 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: one of your repsonses has my picture
[9:44:50 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: yea
[9:44:59 AM] Brian Sapient says: as a mod the buttons are next to each other
[9:45:05 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i was reading thinking "i know i didn't write that" haha
[9:45:08 AM] Brian Sapient says: I can make it my picture and explain
[9:45:16 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: ok no prob, i understood
[9:45:26 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: urs was simply a button slip
[9:45:32 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i'm completely illiterate
[9:45:38 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: on how to quote properly
[9:46:56 AM] Brian Sapient says: ok, it shows better now
[9:47:02 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: ok
[9:47:05 AM] Brian Sapient says: says my name and has a mod note on top
[9:47:11 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: good
[9:47:18 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i never thought of myself as the good cop haha
[9:47:27 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i'm the one that gets called rude and obstinate
[9:47:31 AM] Brian Sapient says: it's a metaphor
[9:47:34 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: because i don't bless people when they sneeze
[9:47:38 AM] Brian Sapient says: oh well isn't that funny
[9:47:50 AM] Brian Sapient says: maybe that's why you think we should adopt this nicer philosophy
[9:48:23 AM] Brian Sapient says: the psychological side of this, I think that atheists who want us to be nicer have been told too often that they need to be nicer, and have accepted the arguments of theists.
[9:49:36 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: or maybe it's that they see the intricases(can't spell) of people's psyche's
[9:49:47 AM] Brian Sapient says: maybe. Eye-wink
[9:50:03 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: and that they know simply shattering people's beliefs and not offering a suitable alternative is not going to work
[9:50:09 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: of course rationality is suitable
[9:50:26 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: but they have it ingrained in their heads that rationality can only go "so far"
[9:50:38 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: and cannot penetrate certain aspects of life
[9:50:51 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: the church has done a mighty fine job of brain washing people
[9:51:30 AM] Brian Sapient says: yup
[9:51:47 AM] Brian Sapient says: pleasantries are not enough to overcome it. Eye-wink
[9:52:15 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: well let me juxtapose two events then
[9:52:25 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: maybe they are completely unrelated and i can't compare
[9:52:30 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: but i will try anyway haha
[9:53:48 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: right now christians have "the power" as they have for a long time.... this goes back to the philisophical differences between martin luther king jr. and malcom x, and huey p. newton and the black panthers
[9:54:11 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: were the blacks to respond to every act of violence and injustice fairly and with equal measure
[9:54:29 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: those in power would have twisted the events and said "see look at those black people, look what they do"
[9:55:22 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: christians contol the media, they control corporations, and if you not in a postion above reproach they will simple use rhetoric to say "look at THOSE people, look how they act, do you want to be like that? they have no respect for people"
[9:55:37 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: as if religion is anything that need be respected in the first place
[9:56:24 AM] Brian Sapient says: look at the War on Christmas... you see it as we're giving them an excuse to point and say "see those atheists, they're as bad as we said."
[9:56:27 AM] Brian Sapient says: We see it as...
[9:56:40 AM] Brian Sapient says: "The media wants to lie, we'll give them their lies"
[9:56:44 AM] Brian Sapient says: you think...
[9:56:56 AM] Brian Sapient says: this stops Christians from liking atheists
[9:56:59 AM] Brian Sapient says: we think...
[9:57:09 AM] Brian Sapient says: this stops the media from acting so fucking stupid
[9:57:26 AM] Brian Sapient says: we would rather control the media in this sense, to make a greater impact later.
[9:58:29 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i see some merit to what your saying
[9:58:34 AM] Brian Sapient says: I guarantee you the author of "War on Christmas" and Bill O'Reilly know all about our war, and I guarantee you they've never brought us up on the show
[9:58:44 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: of course not
[9:58:49 AM] Brian Sapient says: they are scared of us in that way, they haven't made us an example
[9:59:00 AM] Brian Sapient says: because if they do, they're actually doing us a big favor
[9:59:07 AM] Brian Sapient says: we've put ourselves in a win win
[9:59:24 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: that's true
[9:59:31 AM] Brian Sapient says: sure they're might be a few people who think atheists suck as a result of it, but those people already thought atheists sucked anyway
[9:59:47 AM] Brian Sapient says: the FACT of all of this is....
[10:00:02 AM] Brian Sapient says: we just wont know what methods work best until they're instituted and lived out
[10:00:13 AM] Brian Sapient says: you might be right, I might be right
[10:00:20 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: you are right completely about that
[10:00:25 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: they all must be tried
[10:00:43 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i think part of the differences some of the reasons are cultural partially minority status
[10:00:50 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: blacks are minorities in america
[10:00:56 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: athiest are minorities
[10:01:01 AM] Brian Sapient says: yup
[10:01:40 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: and growing up your taught "you know your black, and most people here are white, you have to live with them, whether some will be unfair or not"
[10:01:51 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: so you end up having to pick and choose your battles
[10:01:57 AM] Brian Sapient says: yup
[10:02:11 AM] Brian Sapient says: we live in a world where we are taught to respect others peoples beliefs
[10:02:16 AM] Brian Sapient says: RRS is trying to change that
[10:02:20 AM] Brian Sapient says: we call that irrational
[10:02:19 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: haha i love it
[10:02:33 AM] Brian Sapient says: we think only beliefs that deserve respect should be respected, however...
[10:02:41 AM] Brian Sapient says: we respect everyones right to hold their beliefs
[10:02:46 AM] Brian Sapient says: two seperate things
[10:02:59 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: but unforunately other people's beliefs effect my life
[10:03:01 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: and yours
[10:03:13 AM] Brian Sapient says: yup... so we need to change that!
[10:03:27 AM] Brian Sapient says: well not that others beliefs affect ours, that in principle is ok
[10:03:41 AM] Brian Sapient says: it's irrational or illogical beliefs that we should be concerned of
[10:03:50 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: true i agree
[10:04:01 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i see your point of view
[10:04:06 AM] Brian Sapient says: i'm glad
[10:04:11 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: athiest i've read in a sociological journal
[10:04:15 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: are more distrusted than arabs
[10:04:18 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: in america
[10:04:20 AM] Brian Sapient says: yup
[10:04:22 AM] Brian Sapient says: I read it
[10:04:30 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: what have we got to loose
[10:04:41 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: already the bottom of the totem pole
[10:04:46 AM] Brian Sapient says: exactly, yup!
[10:04:49 AM] Brian Sapient says: no where to go but up
[10:04:57 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: true
[10:05:20 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: well i'm glad that's settled
[10:05:23 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: i'm on board
[10:05:31 AM] Brian Sapient says: shall we post this skype chat in the thread?
[10:05:37 AM] Hollis K. Lima says: certainly

- Brian Sapient


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


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

ClubHollis wrote:
Well anybody can critize and complain, let me offer maybe offer a useful strategy that maybe you sometimes use, that i often implore if trying to bring somebody to rationality.

To be quite frank i do what i call "playing Columbo" i don't know if you've ever seen that old show. But it's a dectective show and the main dectective is a guy named Columbo, he's an arkward short lazy-eyed man. However he is quite astute and brilliant and his adversaries, the suspects, always think of him as an annoying pestering old fool. More often than not he's way ahead of everybody, and when he wants to draw out a confession or reveal what he knows he does it in a sort of confused manner. He asked them to clarify their allibies and he throws in what he knows, and it's already too late when they realize he knows everything.

I'm guessing that you do have some training in psychology (combined with your med advice above) because this is the sort of advice a superviser would give to a student clinician.

In short, you're suggesting the Socratic method of Socratic Irony.....

I think that it is a good idea in some contexts - with clients for example, because the method is respectful, AND it allows the client to 'own his own discoveries'... if the client himself is answering the question and uncovering the contradiction, it is the client who 'makes the discovery'... .

No longer are you prying this prize away from his fingers... instead, he's letting loose his fingers and letting the prize go himself....

I think there are cases where this would be good... with call-in theists... younger ones particularly, who are willing to examine their religion.

But there are times where it pays to be more direct as well - for the sake of clarity for the audience.

But I would have to agree that, in general, asking questions, rather than making arguments, is a very powerful way to get your point across.... as long as an idea is in my head, it can 'make sense'... but when you compel me to talk, out loud, and to answer questions, many times the problem in my idea is exposed.... and using the Socratic method allows me to feel that "I did it', not "you're attacking me"

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

Books on atheism.


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:ClubHollis

todangst wrote:
ClubHollis wrote:
Well anybody can critize and complain, let me offer maybe offer a useful strategy that maybe you sometimes use, that i often implore if trying to bring somebody to rationality.

To be quite frank i do what i call "playing Columbo" i don't know if you've ever seen that old show. But it's a dectective show and the main dectective is a guy named Columbo, he's an arkward short lazy-eyed man. However he is quite astute and brilliant and his adversaries, the suspects, always think of him as an annoying pestering old fool. More often than not he's way ahead of everybody, and when he wants to draw out a confession or reveal what he knows he does it in a sort of confused manner. He asked them to clarify their allibies and he throws in what he knows, and it's already too late when they realize he knows everything.

I'm guessing that you do have some training in psychology (combined with your med advice above) because this is the sort of advice a superviser would give to a student clinician.

In short, you're suggesting the Socratic method of Socratic Irony.....

I think that it is a good idea in some contexts - with clients for example, because the method is respectful, AND it allows the client to 'own his own discoveries'... if the client himself is answering the question and uncovering the contradiction, it is the client who 'makes the discovery'... .

No longer are you prying this prize away from his fingers... instead, he's letting loose his fingers and letting the prize go himself....

I think there are cases where this would be good... with call-in theists... younger ones particularly, who are willing to examine their religion.

But there are times where it pays to be more direct as well - for the sake of clarity for the audience.

But I would have to agree that, in general, asking questions, rather than making arguments, is a very powerful way to get your point across.... as long as an idea is in my head, it can 'make sense'... but when you compel me to talk, out loud, and to answer questions, many times the problem in my idea is exposed.... and using the Socratic method allows me to feel that "I did it', not "you're attacking me"

Your guess was correct, i was a clinician at one point and time but i'm put that behind me. but i still carry some of those habits i suppose in dealing with people with various psychosisis(can't spell)

You articulated what i was trying to say better than i did, thank you very much. I agree with you that this may not work for all cases, but this is my standard approach so as not to have people shut me out from the start, less intimidating. I remember i'd have clients as we'd call them for over six months and hardly reveal a thing. very frustrating work that i'm not cut out for. but that's another story.

kudos

Just use your head.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: No longer

todangst wrote:

No longer are you prying this prize away from his fingers... instead, he's letting loose his fingers and letting the prize go himself....

I think there are cases where this would be good... with call-in theists... younger ones particularly, who are willing to examine their religion.

But there are times where it pays to be more direct as well - for the sake of clarity for the audience.

But I would have to agree that, in general, asking questions, rather than making arguments, is a very powerful way to get your point across.... as long as an idea is in my head, it can 'make sense'... but when you compel me to talk, out loud, and to answer questions, many times the problem in my idea is exposed.... and using the Socratic method allows me to feel that "I did it', not "you're attacking me"

FWIW: If you noticed in the Stephen debate, I mostly used only the Socratic method. If you listen to Mike and I in debate we tend to use it extremely often. It is in our opinion the most powerful tool in getting the other side to see the light. Ask Rook about how often we ask him to use the socratic method, more often than he does.

Listen to show 4. (or at least the first 30 mins) Listen to Mike and I challenge ourselves to do nothing but ask questions of Kym. (notice Rook cheats first and we toy with him, on the matter)

- Brian Sapient


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


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
This is true, they

This is true, they constantly ask me to use it more often then I do. I'm just the lecturer of the group...and I tend to be long winded, tis true. But it's tough to break from those habits. I'm of the opinion (Which may be illogical) that it's good to have contrast in a debate. I lecture to get people to see a specific point and flood them with information, so when people use the socratic method they can tie in certain points themselves, catches them off guard. In the end, we got Stephen to admit he wasn't sure about the Bible anymore.

That's a step in the right direction.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: FWIW: If you

Sapient wrote:
FWIW: If you noticed in the Stephen debate, I mostly used only the Socratic method.

I should have figured that, since that's a rational approach!

Quote:

If you listen to Mike and I in debate we tend to use it extremely often. It is in our opinion the most powerful tool in getting the other side to see the light. Ask Rook about how often we ask him to use the socratic method, more often than he does.

I am glad to hear it and it's very cool that all of us agree on this....independently.. we've all come to it on our own, which is in accord with the method itself.... Reason, based on both logic and human psychology, leads us to see this.

Quote:

Listen to show 4. (or at least the first 30 mins) Listen to Mike and I challenge ourselves to do nothing but ask questions of Kym. (notice Rook cheats first and we toy with him, on the matter)

HA! Thank you, I am going to listen to this today.

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

Books on atheism.


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

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
This is true, they constantly ask me to use it more often then I do.

Heh heh..

Quote:
I'm just the lecturer of the group...and I tend to be long winded, tis true. But it's tough to break from those habits.

Well, to be fair, you probably have more info to lecture upon than we do.

I think we might all agree that what is really needed is balance.... be open to using all sorts of methods, resist over-reliance on any one mode..... Use Socratic irony as much as you can, but at the same time, even Socrates himself would lecture.... in fact, that is how he often ended the question session.... by pointing to the problem, the contradiction, and then lecturing.

So that's why the team approach is best... different methods come into play...

Quote:

I'm of the opinion (Which may be illogical) that it's good to have contrast in a debate. I lecture to get people to see a specific point and flood them with information, so when people use the socratic method they can tie in certain points themselves, catches them off guard. In the end, we got Stephen to admit he wasn't sure about the Bible anymore.

That's a step in the right direction.

Darn right! Nice work......

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

Books on atheism.


goescrunch
goescrunch's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ClubHollis wrote:I worked in

ClubHollis wrote:
I worked in the mental health field, and i know 500mg and 250mg depakotes have some pretty nasty side effects after long term use. Try to see if your doctor's can let you use a diff med sometimes.

all the best

Currently I'm looking into Lamictal. Considering it treats both aspects of bipolar disorder and a variety of seizure types, I think it would be a good choice. The pamphlet my nuerologist gave me doesn't mention many side-effects, but I notice promotional pamphlets like to skip a lot of problems...

So far the thing I hate most about the depakote is the hair thinning. I know that seems like such a petty thing, but few females enjoy having thinning hair. I know men don't really enjoy it either, but it just seems worse to have it on a female. **sigh** How shallow, eh?


ClubHollis
ClubHollis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
hey goescrunch

Well of all the long term side effects, i'd say hair thinning is the least of worries. However the big green monster, as i'd like to call it are quite effective. However i think vanity is shallow true, but i also think there's nothing wrong with it as long it's not interferring with national thoughts and descisions. i mean if you have to choose between vanity, for instance, keeping a cancerous breast because you don't want to be without it, though you may die. or not getting some life saving lukemia because you want to keep your hair is dangerous. But that's personally reasonable to dislike something for vanity's sake.

I've long stopped keeping myself abreast on the latest drugs. They make so much money off of those drugs, but hey it is what is. I'm not going to turn into a scientologist or anything. So what do you do for work?

Just use your head.


equinox
equinox's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2006-08-25
User is offlineOffline
Rook's Sloppy Textual Criticism

Rook did a less than commendable job in the discussion with Stephen when it came to textual criticism issues. You guys could have done a better job, but I guess you need to know your stuff before you attempt to engage in an argument and sound like you know your stuff.

Your presentation of textual critisim lacked balance and was full of faux pas. Apparently you don't know as much as you pretend to know. How can you expect to hold any standing when your facts are wrong? Unfortunately, Stephen did know enough to challenge you. You need to do better on this if you want respect as a Rational Responder.

You said the Septuagint (LXX) was 1850 years old. Please provide your source for this. Every book I have ever read and even Wikipedia date it from 250-100 BCE.

Nestle-Aland is a translation of the Greek Text with a textual apparatus, similar to the UBS Greek text, not an encyclopedia or concordance of manuscripts (MSS).

The Catholic church possesses few of the biblical MSS. Codex Sinaiticus is in London, Codex Alexandrinus is in London, Codex Vaticanus is in Rome...etc. Paparus 1 (P1) is in Philly and contains the gospels.

Just like you corrected Stephen on his definition of witchcraft and his use of a non-scientific site related to Creationist propaganda masquerading as science, why can't you respect the merits of textual scholars and define or characterize textual criticism how they do, not based on your definition or characterization?

Do you own a greek text of the New testament, either Nestle-Aland, 27th edition or United Bible Societies, 4th edition (UBS4)? You could be greatly helped in your arguments if you did.

Since we do not have the orginal MSS of the old and new testemants, it would make sense that textual scholars would have to comb over the many existing MSS and attempt to find the most original readings. And it would make sense that this would be a process over time where the current greek and/or Hebrew texts could be validated or corrected based on new archeological/textual evidence. This seems very rational. To characterize the process as a rewriting of the text to harmonize it with current religious belief dogma seems disingenuous.

Just like science has working theories that get put forth, modified and corrected based on the evidence; textual theories follow a similar rational process. The most compelling textual theory to date being Westcott and Hort's. Could you give a more balanced description of textual criticism in the future?

Thanks


equinox
equinox's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2006-08-25
User is offlineOffline
Writer of Hebrews

Rook, you also said that the writer of Hebrews wrote in the name of Paul. How do you know this?