Pastor wants me to forward this message / debate challenge to the rrs

FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Pastor wants me to forward this message / debate challenge to the rrs

Dunno why he didn't come here directly.

Quote:

 

Hey, I'm not here to start any wars. But I wanted to ask you and your supporters to contact the Rational Response Squad and suggest that they challenge scholar Chuck Missler to a debate as they did with Comfort and Cameron. He has a background in science and all the technical stuff and although I think the Way of the Master folks did okay, Missler would bring more to the table to answer some of the questions Atheists have. Also, He has a plethora of evidence which he would provide in a debate which might be interesting to you guys. To contact Missler: http://www.khouse.org/email/
Thanks and take care,
Marc

 

 

 

Link (see page 2 of comments): blog


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Actually Cameron and Comfort

Actually Cameron and Comfort challenged the RRS.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Hmph.

Missler became a devout fundamentalist after his business collapsed catastrophicaly and he lost everything.  The religious tax exemption (I think ministries still get it?) must have helped when he set up Koinonia House.

As for his academic pedigree, his PhD is from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University where he's now working.  Make of that what you will.

Perhaps he needs the airtime? 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote: K-House as we are

Quote:
K-House as we are affectionately called, is dedicated to the development and distribution of materials for encouraging and facilitating serious study of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.

Right off the bat, this would be a short debate. This guy likely can't say anything that wouldn't be a circular argument. If he believes the bible is the inerrant word of god, there is no sense continuing unless people want to make fun of him and what he believes. There's no science or rhetoric in the universe that has been yet discovered that can prove the bible in errant, yet there's overwhelming examples, within the bible itself that nullifies its status as factual and reliable.

 I'm sure it would be entertaining to hear him ramble for a little bit.  But anyone claiming the bible is inerrant, and also to be an expert on the bible, well that's contradictory.  No "expert" on anything, in any scientific sense, would ever be so closed minded towards the subject of his expertise.

 


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician

The Patrician wrote:

Missler became a devout fundamentalist after his business collapsed catastrophicaly and he lost everything. The religious tax exemption (I think ministries still get it?) must have helped when he set up Koinonia House.

As for his academic pedigree, his PhD is from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University where he's now working. Make of that what you will.

Perhaps he needs the airtime?

 

I want to know what "six companies" he was "CEO" of.

Hell, I can make myself CEO of 20 companies right now. Ok, I'm CEO of Pile Industries Ltd., and also CEO of BSInc.... I'm CFO of WheresMahMoneyBiatch, PLC.  I'm also on the board of directors of the People-Will-Believe-Anything Foundation.  They're world-wide, did you know that?  In-ter-nationale.. yes indeed.   I'm big... it says so on my web page....

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I added him to the list, I

I added him to the list, I think the same person sent the email to us directly.  Inevitably after every single debate we ever do, there are people who claim they can do better or someone they knows can do better.  I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.  FGL, tell your friend the same thing we tell anyone who sends a message like this... Get Chuck Missler to write us and we'll address it, otherwise it'll be on our timeline.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Ruined Saint
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
FGL wrote: Missler would

FGL wrote:
Missler would bring more to the table to answer some of the questions Atheists have.
Why do they always assume that we have questions?

"Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its uses. Personally, I turn to it whenever I want my intelligence insulted."
~Pat Condell


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

FGL wrote:

 although I think the Way of the Master folks did okay

 

Really?  I think that should be the first belief he defends. Smiling 

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
Pile wrote:

Pile wrote:
 

I want to know what "six companies" he was "CEO" of.

Hell, I can make myself CEO of 20 companies right now. Ok, I'm CEO of Pile Industries Ltd., and also CEO of BSInc.... I'm CFO of WheresMahMoneyBiatch, PLC. I'm also on the board of directors of the People-Will-Believe-Anything Foundation. They're world-wide, did you know that? In-ter-nationale.. yes indeed. I'm big... it says so on my web page....

 

 

 

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


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Ruined Saint wrote: FGL

Ruined Saint wrote:
FGL wrote:
Missler would bring more to the table to answer some of the questions Atheists have.
Why do they always assume that we have questions?

 

Because they assume that anyone that has no belief in god is either stupid or confused. 


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I would dominate you guys

I would dominate you guys in debate...  Yeah of course you can dominate these kids and their friends Jesus and the Pope - theyre idiots.  Make the premise "Does god exist", and the debate will be nothing more then a discourse on the concept and premise of god.  I would take you to school so fast.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
It would be nice if the

It would be nice if the church would fork over some speaker fees for the event.  I'm wondering if they expect Brian to appear for free so they can bill the event and increase their turnout.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: I would

Anbesol wrote:
I would dominate you guys in debate...  I would take you to school so fast.

Will the first lesson be about humility? 


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Certainly. no seriously,

Certainly.

no seriously, you guys should try me.  Have you ever tried a non-christian dogma theist?  All the ones youve tried have been destroyed because they brought dogma, but you too bring dogma, and I will not infringe upon your beings or beliefs, only exploit your dogma and its false nature.

try me.... 


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

Anbesol wrote:

Certainly.

no seriously, you guys should try me. Have you ever tried a non-christian dogma theist? All the ones youve tried have been destroyed because they brought dogma, but you too bring dogma, and I will not infringe upon your beings or beliefs, only exploit your dogma and its false nature.

try me....

Let's rock.

Start your debate here. 

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

Books on atheism.


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I give the golden debate

 I give the golden debate face to face - this whole internet intermediary just confuses and dissolves things. When I can look you in your eyes, and ask you a question to the premise of the topic - you cannot hunt the internet and look for vast deluded conceptualizations that are so easily spoon fed to you kids. When you see me face to face, I will dominate you in the present moment, not within the anonymity and the strength of a mouse and keyboard. Ive already given some sound conjectures in the other forums here, but again, this is simply internet shit, not true debate.

This is not a copout, because Im not even copping out of anything, I have started many debates already in the other threads, and I can continue to do so with relative ease.  Lets just not fool ourselves into thinking that internet debate is even close to live debate.     


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Nice Dodge, bob and weave

Nice Dodge, bob and weave you got there anbesol.

 

 


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
thats a pretty dumb response

thats a pretty dumb response since I made no such copout.  My first post here was a beginning of a debate and even since nobody here gave me a more reasonable conjecture.  So wheres the bob dodge and weave?  why dont you look at my first post "I Believe in God", try to refute and debate that then instead, since you are so eager to be be handed your own ass.


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I believe in Santa Clause,

I believe in Santa Clause, my proof is that I had presents under the tree christmas morning when I woke up. Now try to prove to me that Santa didn't bring me those presents, because the evidence of the presents says it all...

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


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

Anbesol wrote:

I give the golden debate face to face -

You need to prove yourself worth their time first.

 

Quote:

this whole internet intermediary just confuses and dissolves things.

Actually formal written debate is the standard. Live debates usually  don't allow for the time to cover any matter in any serious detail.

In addition, one can examine each other's citations. 

 

Quote:

This is not a copout

 

This guy is wondering why you even felt the need to bring up this denial:

 

 

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

Books on atheism.


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
then try me, kiddo.  

then try me, kiddo.  


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Try you on what? We're

Try you on what? We're waiting, Anbensol. But I've been debating theists for years, and I have never seen a good argument for God. So if you think you can do it, you will command our complete attention. But you wont be the first to have failed. Or the second. Or the thousandth. So let's hear it, Mr. "I would dominate you in debate".

"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


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Lol...

Lol...


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
And I told you I allready

And I told you I allready brought the fucking debate oh obelisk of brilliance.  I allready told you that I brought the debate in my first post, and I just created another debate.  So, brilliant one, perhaps the reason you kept dominating these htousands of theists is because they are idiots, and have taken the "jesus is god god is jesus bible is innerent infallible word of god yadda yadda yadda" but I take a different stance then those idiots...  First thing you need to know about me - you do not know what my concept of "god" is, so dont pretend that I am "just like all the others".  Youre acting very self-righteous to put all people into such categories, everyones a theist or atheist to you, much like in christianity everyones a christian or a non-christian.  You have the hob-goblin of conceit in a narrow vision of mind, trust me, argue with me about the grass being green and i'll still destroy you.  


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, then post away, or

Well, then post away, or give me a link. And if you think you can destroy me, you will respond to the challenge me and todangst assembled.

And if you go off on an ad hominid rant like that again, I won't just ignore you, I'll slap a temporary ban on you. Antagonism is not tolerated.

"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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: then try me,

Anbesol wrote:
then try me, kiddo.

 

Ok.

 

You pick the topic. I'll help you to whittle it down to something we can debate, if necessary.

Once you pick the topic and once we agree on the specifics, we can start.

You can PM me or simply write it all out here. 

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

Books on atheism.


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
preferably write it in

preferably write it in here..so we can all get something out of it...offer new insights/take part in the raping.

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
 

 


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Okay Todangst, I submit to

Okay Todangst, I submit to you that there is no difference between action and reaction.  How do you in all your wiseness respond?  Is there a difference?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10322
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Anbesol wrote: I would

Anbesol wrote:

I would dominate you guys in debate...  Yeah of course you can dominate these kids and their friends Jesus and the Pope - theyre idiots.  Make the premise "Does god exist", and the debate will be nothing more then a discourse on the concept and premise of god.  I would take you to school so fast.

In your dreams. You're so pathetic you dominate yourself. We'd just point and laugh.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: I give the

Anbesol wrote:

I give the golden debate face to face - this whole internet intermediary just confuses and dissolves things. When I can look you in your eyes, and ask you a question to the premise of the topic - you cannot hunt the internet and look for vast deluded conceptualizations that are so easily spoon fed to you kids.

 

In other words, he has great faith his magical man boobs will mesmerize us and make us incable of coherent thought or discourse.

 


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: And I told

Anbesol wrote:
And I told you I allready brought the fucking debate oh obelisk of brilliance. I allready told you that I brought the debate in my first post, and I just created another debate. So, brilliant one, perhaps the reason you kept dominating these htousands of theists is because they are idiots...

Man, I just love this shit... I have to be in the mood for it, but when I am, this crap is more fun than a barrel of creationist monkeys.

This epitomizes the almost magical, mind-boggling brilliance of theology's legacy of stupidity, close-mindedness and arrogance.

No matter how many people have come before the mighty Anbesol. No matter what other brilliant, learned minds, who have travelled far and wide, sought wisdom from the highest mountain tops, battled through the fiercest of opposing forces, brought back knowlege of the ages, there's always yet another dumbass (usually christian) theist who disregards the whole of history, even his own, and sticks out his Tourette's-infested, pumped up penis and places it on the chopping block and dares someone to do something.

How goddam awesome is that? Seriously... what other community can provide a seemingly never-ending parade of dipshits ready to ignore everything that has come before to step up to the plate and get bonked as if it's the first time ever done?

Maybe one day we can figure out how to generate energy by having morons jump into pit of flaming shit, and someone can write a book talking about the virtues of jumping into box of flaming shit, and people like Anbesol can sit and watch one person after another perish in the pile of flaming shit, and anxiously wait their turn as if they're magically non-flammable. Fucking awesome!

 


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I don't

Sapient wrote:

I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

My goodness, your arrogance knows no depths. You really have no idea about the quality of your arguments or where they rank in the scale of "good reasons". What I see in these forums is someone who is quick to shout, and deride people with clever images, and who is surfing solely on the wave of popularity that is RSS. If it weren't for the occasional intelligent atheists posting here, these forums seem like they would quickly degenerate into teenage rants with photoshopped images to win arguments. Since you offer nothing new, you're not going to have much of an impact in the world for the "greater good" of atheism beyond what would happen if RRS never existed.

Your problem is that you can't even accept that there are good reasons for theism. You talk about mind deseases, and compartmentalising, as though the truth of atheism is patently obvious, and when you hear about an intelligent theist it must be because they haven't thought about it. What this betrays in fact is the lack of depth to which you've analysed the arguments. You don't even know why an intelligent person might have reason to believe in God, and I'll bet like Dawkins you think that faith means believing in something without evidence - as though having evidence somehow obviates the need for faith. For as long as you never understand theism, you'll never succeed in making an impact based on reason. Persuasion on a popular level, where rhetoric rules, will be your domain until you understand the arguments made by theists in order to respond to them.


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

My goodness, your arrogance knows no depths.

Pot meet kettle.

Theists have held the patent on arrogance since the dawn of religion. It's one of the tools they use. Since religion addresses man's insecurities, being self-confident (which weak-minded, insecure people misinterpret as arrogance) will always be one of the most effective ways to sell an idea.

Let's face it. Religion is salesmanship. Unlike other social transactions, the payoff for religion doesn't typically happen until you're dead, so there are no 100% satisfied customer testimonials available. As a result, it's all about salesmanship. And being confident in what you're selling is a fundamental aspect of getting others to pay attention.

Like everything else, this underlines the outrageous hypocrisy theists have. If an atheist dares to be self-confident; if he dares to be honest and call a theist "delusional" (which is technically true), he's "arrogant." That's BS.

Every preacher who has ever stepped foot behind a pulpit has wielded this so-called "arrogance" in trying to convey how confident he was of various supernatural concepts. But when someone you disagree with exhibits the same self-confidence, it's somehow impolite and extremist?

Get real.

croath wrote:
You really have no idea about the quality of your arguments or where they rank in the scale of "good reasons". What I see in these forums is someone who is quick to shout, and deride people with clever images, and who is surfing solely on the wave of popularity that is RSS. If it weren't for the occasional intelligent atheists posting here, these forums seem like they would quickly degenerate into teenage rants with photoshopped images to win arguments.

Let me guess... your definition of an "intelligent atheist" is one who panders to your fragile sensibilities... Your idea of "good reasons" are those that conveniently don't conflict with your own.

This is the problem with many theists... they're preoccupied with the manner of delivery... the formality, the pomp and circumstance, as opposed to the substance of the conversation. They're too busy wiping the tears out of their eyes or coming up with a counter-attack than they are actually responding to the arguments raised. You want to talk about originality... your argument certainly is devoid of any. Like many other theists, instead of addressing the issue, you are more preoccupied with the tone of peoples' writing. But we know that's just an excuse to avoid actually exposing the fact that you really don't have any respectable counter-arguments.

This is why you say he doesn't have any good arguments -- a vague and ambiguous judgement, as opposed to citing specific arguments and explaining why you think they are not good. You're not really interested in the issues. You're just treading water here trying keep your head inside the delusion that opposes the force that is the gravity of reality. Brian didn't create the crusades, Ted Haggard or pedophile priests; he didn't make the bible a chaotic, bloody, sadistic, hypocritical storybook; he didn't invent evolution... he just cites things, but go ahead, blame it on him instead of addressing the issues. We're all idiots here.. we won't catch that. Keep treading water..

croath wrote:

Your problem is that you can't even accept that there are good reasons for theism.

I can't speak for Brian, but I can answer this claim.

Sure there are good reasons for theism. If it keeps some nutjob from going postal, that's cool. However, a little lithium might accomplish the same purpose without any altar boys getting molested along the way.  If people need to be scared of hell to keep from becoming serial murderers, that's not a bad thing. But I'd also suggest the core notion that theism teaches: that you're flawed via your ancesors and bound for eternal suffering if you don't play their game -- that's a concept that many of us feel creates the problem religion seems to address in the first place.

Likewise, I can probably cite reasons why smoking, doing cocaine, drinking, mudering a neighbor, raping someone or setting a city on fire would be a good thing. But if you look at the *bigger picture*, those arguments might not stand up. This is what we do here... we look at the *big picture* instead of a narrow, filtered view of life, the dim view theists use to justify the value of their beliefs.

croath wrote:

You talk about mind deseases, and compartmentalising, as though the truth of atheism is patently obvious,

You have committed theist misconception #1, of assuming atheism is a "belief" - it's not. We're not promoting atheism as a world-view. We're suggesting that, upon critical examination, theism is seriously flawed. There is a difference. We're advocating critical review of theism, NOT promotion of atheism. Atheism is something that happens to everyone, including theists, when they decide a particular belief system doesn't make sense or isn't worthy of serious consideration. You yourself employ this logic towards competing religions, but you're too blind and narrow-minded to recognize we're doing to your flavor of delusion, exactly what you might do towards Islam, Hinduism or Scientology.

And again, you make sweeping condemnations without citing any specific proof. You accuse us of not having "good arguments" and whip out this lame, "Little Adolph did some good things too! So you're wrong about the Nazis"-argument. Heard it... boooring.

 


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
You obviously have no clue

You obviously have no clue what I was talking about.  My comments were directed at Brian, not atheists in general.  I never said that there weren't Christians who were arrogant - nor did I say that there weren't atheists with humility.  It was an attack on Brian.  All the points in your post are therefore irrelevant tangents.

Pile wrote:

Like everything else, this underlines the outrageous hypocrisy theists have. If an atheist dares to be self-confident; if he dares to be honest and call a theist "delusional" (which is technically true), he's "arrogant." That's BS.


I don't know who you're responding to in your post, because it can't be me.  I called Brian arrogant because he went on national TV displaying his ignorance and primitive arguments, and has the nerve to claim that he probably won't find a "good enough" sparring partner.  This is so obviously, glaringly false, that it shows the true depth of his misguided sense of strength.  There are atheists who are far better at *reasoning* than Brian who would not make such a bold claim.  Is Brian better than them?

Regarding the "delusional" comment as being 'technically true', who are you speaking to?  If you're telling me that it's technically true, I'll tell you flat out you're wrong.  There is a God, and so it's not a delusion to believe in one.  Of course, you and other fellow atheists might huddle together and speak about the delusions of theism, but the term 'delusion' will not be used by a theist.  We won't agree to you.  You're only going to succeed in getting that term to stick when you're preaching to the choir.

Pile wrote:

Let me guess... your definition of an "intelligent atheist" is one who panders to your fragile sensibilities... Your idea of "good reasons" are those that conveniently don't conflict with your own.


You guessed wrong.  I didn't attack Brian because his strong words somehow managed to shatter my fragile shell of belief.  He looks like a shark trying to fly - it's amusing more than anything.

Pile wrote:

This is why you say he doesn't have any good arguments -- a vague and ambiguous judgement, as opposed to citing specific arguments and explaining why you think they are not good.


Huh?(http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/7624)

Pile wrote:

This is what we do here... we look at the *big picture* instead of a narrow, filtered view of life, the dim view theists use to justify the value of their beliefs.


You're misguided if you think that the RRS is some bastion of free thought and rationality.  If you want some intelligent atheists then look away from RRS, and the hero Richard Dawkins who's philosophy is barely sophomore level.  Try Nicholas Everitt or perhaps Michael Rowe or other philosophers who use arguments with premises and conclusions that might actually be true.  Ask some of the more intelligent atheists here who they think are representative.


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

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

My goodness, your arrogance knows no depths. You really have no idea about the quality of your arguments or where they rank in the scale of "good reasons". What I see in these forums is someone who is quick to shout, and deride people with clever images, and who is surfing solely on the wave of popularity that is RSS. If it weren't for the occasional intelligent atheists posting here, these forums seem like they would quickly degenerate into teenage rants with photoshopped images to win arguments. Since you offer nothing new, you're not going to have much of an impact in the world for the "greater good" of atheism beyond what would happen if RRS never existed.

Your problem is that you can't even accept that there are good reasons for theism. You talk about mind deseases, and compartmentalising, as though the truth of atheism is patently obvious, and when you hear about an intelligent theist it must be because they haven't thought about it. What this betrays in fact is the lack of depth to which you've analysed the arguments. You don't even know why an intelligent person might have reason to believe in God, and I'll bet like Dawkins you think that faith means believing in something without evidence - as though having evidence somehow obviates the need for faith. For as long as you never understand theism, you'll never succeed in making an impact based on reason. Persuasion on a popular level, where rhetoric rules, will be your domain until you understand the arguments made by theists in order to respond to them.

 

You realize you completely misinterpreted my sentence and went on a completely off the mark rant?

My point was that the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better. In this case they've submitted "Chuck Missler."

Chuck Missler like Comfort and Cameron are patently moronic on how science works. I think it was particularly funny that such a moronic fool was submitted as someones choice to have on the show.  I've come full circle, almost every theist on the show has either been someone who said they could do better, or was a recommendation of someone who said X could do better.

I mean are you fucking kidding me?

Chuck Missler:

 

- 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
I find it ironic that Pile

I find it ironic that Pile opened his last post with "pot meet kettle" as it seems to be happening again. 

 

croath wrote:
You obviously have no clue what I was talking about.

Pot meet kettle.

 You had no clue what you were talking about when you made your call out on my arrogance in the previous post.

 

Quote:
All the points in your post are therefore irrelevant tangents.

 Exactly, pot.

 

- 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
Anbesol wrote:  I give

Anbesol wrote:

 I give the golden debate face to face - this whole internet intermediary just confuses and dissolves things. When I can look you in your eyes, and ask you a question to the premise of the topic - you cannot hunt the internet and look for vast deluded conceptualizations that are so easily spoon fed to you kids. When you see me face to face, I will dominate you in the present moment, not within the anonymity and the strength of a mouse and keyboard. Ive already given some sound conjectures in the other forums here, but again, this is simply internet shit, not true debate.

 Where do you live? I'm happy to meet you face to face if convienient for us both, I'll even buy the first round.

Honestly though, I see much of what you just wrote as sour grapes.

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.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me or is this

Is it just me or is this forum filled with nothing but ad hominem? 

Anbesol, you make the claim..you defend it, you have been offered a debate here, publicly numerous times...take it or leave it.  Arrogant remarks are getting old.  The more you keep beating around the bush the more you discredit yourself in the sense that perhaps you are afraid of getting caught in a fallacy.  See with the internet we can cross check references etc... My feeling is that the only reason why you would want a face to face is because you probably have short snippets of responses that are meant to confuse your opponent based on your predetermined and shortsighted view that all we know how to do is argue against jesus christians.  Well.... if you're the man... the invitation here has been offered many times.  Are you saying you're afraid to debate on this thread?  If you're good enough to whip us all live...then obviously it would be no problem for you to do it over the internet.  So...either shit or get off the pot.

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


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: Anbesol,

LeftofLarry wrote:
Anbesol, you make the claim..you defend it, you have been offered a debate here, publicly numerous times...take it or leave it.

Is Croath another account for Anbesol? I thought that guy got the boot because kept refusing the debate he asked for and just kept calling everyone idiots? I miss him *sniffle* 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Try you

deludedgod wrote:
Try you on what? We're waiting, Anbensol. But I've been debating theists for years, and I have never seen a good argument for God. So if you think you can do it, you will command our complete attention. But you wont be the first to have failed. Or the second. Or the thousandth. So let's hear it, Mr. "I would dominate you in debate".

 

As is the vernacular, "it is on like Donkey Kong."

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


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:

LeftofLarry wrote:
Anbesol, you make the claim..you defend it, you have been offered a debate here, publicly numerous times...take it or leave it.

Is Croath another account for Anbesol? I thought that guy got the boot because kept refusing the debate he asked for and just kept calling everyone idiots? I miss him *sniffle*

 

I could check, as I was reading through this post, I did not see a banned banner on anbesol's name, so I assumed he is still active, unless deludedgod got trigger happy Smiling I'm assuming he's still here. I can check and get back with ya.  unless anbesol, just got scared and scampered away. 

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


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: I can

LeftofLarry wrote:
I can check and get back with ya.

Not important enough to do any extra work for. I'm not sure why I had it in my head that anbesol had been booted (wishful thinking?) but it doesn't matter. Croath seems to be about as constructive so I might as well consider them the same guy.

Though, Croath hasn't called anyone an idiot yet, so I doubt he is actually an alt for anbesol ... come to think of it.

Proceed, sorry for the derail Smiling 


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
No, he has been banned and

No, he has been banned and then came back as orajel and his IP was banned I believe.  People like him are only good for antagonism, they have no substance, only egotism and superiority complexes.  Anyway...fun times either way. Smiling

cheers 

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


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:

You realize you completely misinterpreted my sentence and went on a completely off the mark rant?

My point was that the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better.

I'm sorry, how exactly were you trying to point out that I misrepresented you? The best that I can see as a misrepresentation is you saying "theists who come to RRS and suggest debating opponents will never recommend a good enough sparring partner" vs "no theist exists that would be a good enough sparring partner". But I fail to see how you can believe the former, without believing the latter, since if a good enough sparring parnter exists, it's highly probable they will be suggested at one time or another. So I also fail to see how I misrepresented you. Do you or do you not think that there are theists out there who would give you a run for your money, or better?

In response to other people's comments - I have never posted at RRS under any other name than you see here.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote: croath

Pile wrote:
croath wrote:

You talk about mind deseases, and compartmentalising, as though the truth of atheism is patently obvious,

You have committed theist misconception #1, of assuming atheism is a "belief" - it's not. We're not promoting atheism as a world-view. We're suggesting that, upon critical examination, theism is seriously flawed. There is a difference. We're advocating critical review of theism, NOT promotion of atheism. Atheism is something that happens to everyone, including theists, when they decide a particular belief system doesn't make sense or isn't worthy of serious consideration. You yourself employ this logic towards competing religions, but you're too blind and narrow-minded to recognize we're doing to your flavor of delusion, exactly what you might do towards Islam, Hinduism or Scientology.

You are confused about what is a belief.  For any proposition, you can hold a belief that that proposition is true or false.  In this case, you hold it true that the proposition P, 'God exists', that Not P.  Or perhaps you hold as true the belief Q, God does not exist'.  Or something more like R, 'God is a figment of people's imaginations, cultivated through millions of years of cultural and social selection'.  Whatever.  The point is that you *do* have a belief regarding the proposition of God, and your belief about that proposition makes you an atheist.

I was completely justified in using the term 'truth of atheism', because you hold it as true that not P.  I said nothing about worldviews.  So then you enter into word games, some nonsense probably about me being an atheist in regards to Zeus, or Thor, or
something else.  But what makes you an atheist is not that you reject just any proposition (are you an atheist in regards to the female US president?), otherwise the term becomes diluted and meaningless.  Atheism is defined, usually, as someone who believes God does not exist.  I believe God exists.  Whether I think that there is a Zeus, or Thor, or whatever, is irrelevant.  I don't call myself an atheist, even though I don't believe there's martians on the far side of the moon. 

No idea what you're talking about in regards to Nazi's.


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I'm sorry, how exactly were you trying to point out that I misrepresented you? The best that I can see as a misrepresentation is you saying "theists who come to RRS and suggest debating opponents will never recommend a good enough sparring partner" vs "no theist exists that would be a good enough sparring partner". But I fail to see how you can believe the former, without believing the latter, since if a good enough sparring parnter exists, it's highly probable they will be suggested at one time or another. So I also fail to see how I misrepresented you. Do you or do you not think that there are theists out there who would give you a run for your money, or better?
It doesn't matter how it would turn out, there would always be someone saying he should debate someone better (ie, more representatives of the person's personal point of view). If a christian moderate debated Brian and all the christians thought the christian came out on top, there would be a fundamentalist that would say "Well you should debate so-and-so", and so on.

Realistically, no debate is going to leave either side fully conceding 100% of all points made by the other, so there will always be room for "someone better". It's quite likely that the same thing was said to WOTM.

 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Why can't Aerosol just give

Why can't Aerosol just give us a taste? Say, an argument invalidating noncognitivism.


brights
Silver Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
debate challenge/ missler

Yes he does need the airtime, I suspect his ratings are dwindling like many of the other TV preachers ratings are. 

 Unfortunately so many unbelievers watch just to see what they are saying never considering they are attributing to the ratings.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: Realistically,

ABx wrote:

Realistically, no debate is going to leave either side fully conceding 100% of all points made by the other, so there will always be room for "someone better". It's quite likely that the same thing was said to WOTM.

You haven't really corrected what I said. I didn't misquote or misrepresent Brian. You're arguing some sort of general idea that there can't possibly ever be good enough sparring partners for any debate of any sort, just because there might be a fan somewhere who says "you should have debated <y>". That doesn't work - because by your logic no-one will ever have a good enough sparring partner for any debate, and therefore Brian's statement is meaningless.

And besides this, Brian's statement is now obviously false. Just listened to a discussion with William Craig regarding Sam Harris. Apparently Brian was invited to talk on the show with Bill Craig on it - Brian refused, saying that Craig was on a higher level than him. That sounds to me like Brian knows there are people out there who are "good eough" sparring partners. He just doesn't want to face them!

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/Thoughts-on-Sam-Harris-claims.mp3 


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: ABx

croath wrote:
ABx wrote:

Realistically, no debate is going to leave either side fully conceding 100% of all points made by the other, so there will always be room for "someone better". It's quite likely that the same thing was said to WOTM.

You haven't really corrected what I said. I didn't misquote or misrepresent Brian. You're arguing some sort of general idea that there can't possibly ever be good enough sparring partners for any debate of any sort, just because there might be a fan somewhere who says "you should have debated <y>". That doesn't work - because by your logic no-one will ever have a good enough sparring partner for any debate, and therefore Brian's statement is meaningless.

And besides this, Brian's statement is now obviously false. Just listened to a discussion with William Craig regarding Sam Harris. Apparently Brian was invited to talk on the show with Bill Craig on it - Brian refused, saying that Craig was on a higher level than him. That sounds to me like Brian knows there are people out there who are "good eough" sparring partners. He just doesn't want to face them!

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/Thoughts-on-Sam-Harris-claims.mp3

Sounds to me like you're looking for any excuse to complain.

Brian was not saying that he would never have a "good enough" debate opponent for his own liking. He was saying that no matter who he debates, someone will always say that he should debate someone "better". Unless someone were to convert Brian, there will always be someone popping up after the debate saying that he should debate someone else. 

 

Quote:
because by your logic no-one will ever have a good enough sparring partner for any debate, and therefore Brian's statement is meaningless.
That's exactly correct, and that it's meaningless was exactly the point - it's not Brian's opinion, it's the opinion of theist viewers/listeners that always write him after the debate.

Misunderstandings happen, but the level that you're taking this to is making you look petty, small minded, and frankly stupid. You misunderstood his meaning; get over it, and find something of substance to argue.