It seems like you get a groove going during the course of the show. Is that normal? Meaning, once you figure out HOW they're framing all the tired old arguments, does it get easier to answer them?

Good closer, too: "... how much of it is pandering? I mean, you're talking about politics here." Walked right into that one.

She uses her brain and looks good doing it. Total package. Yay Kelly!

Orange county California or Orange county Texas?

Also, I may be nitpicking, but if you could condition yourself to cut back on the "ya know" s that would be awesome and would make your public speaking so much better. I had to un-learn saying "ya know" and now I either use a very short pause or drag words out a little bit when talking to someone to avoid saying things like "uhh" and "ya know". I still say "ya know" but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be.

Just a suggestion, you be how you wanna be.

I think its easy to criticize people on the net, but harder to do things in your own life. That being said, public speaking is difficult and while I think getting out there and doing it is a sure way to get better, dropping superfluous things like uhh, umm, and ya know, and...and....and.... really do make a positive subconscious(and sometimes conscious) impression in the audience.

I haven't done public speaking or debates much, but the ones that have been taped and replayed to me make me notice things I don't consciously realize I am saying at the time.

I don't know if it would necessarily improve Kelly's radio show appearances to be more polished. The answers were all obviously familiar "rational responses", so if she were to take out the idomatic vocal tics, she might find a less sympathetic audience. Who knows? Women are judged in such strange and different ways compared to men.

No kidding.  If she appeared to have taken lots of speech classes, people would say she was over-polished and distant.

I do understand the criticism, though.  I'm constantly working on eliminating tics from my speech, and I have plenty.  The people around us influence us so much, it's hard to ever get to a point of having great speech patterns and keeping them.

Actually, I have an ex-girlfriend to thank for improving my speech, albeit indirectly.  She was very smart, and very manipulative.  I had to think about exactly what I wanted to say or I was in for an hour argument.  It taught me to reflect for a minute and choose my words carefully.  That in itself cut down on tics.

Ha! Women are so much better at this kind of thing than men. I remember my high school GF to college GF when we were close to breaking up actually wrote a list of things she thought I had done that annoyed her, and then made a straw man list of her own to show me how almost all of the problems were mostly my fault. Yes, dealing with manipulative people that have brains like recorders will make you choose the exact words you want to say with care.

A part  of me really admires you for saying a thing that needs to be said, in my life archaeological, I have heard any number of stories with a closed mouth, and call out the fact would put you out of a job faster than any commonly rude thing you might do. it was nice to see and hear you thoughts.

 I liked that interview. Kelly, you did a good job. But a few bones to pick here and there.

Your interviewer had a view of quantum mechanics that I like to call "mystic physics". I'm familiar with quantum mechanics; I'd majored in physics and I know some of the math of it. And "mystic physics" interpretations seem to me like little more than "wishing will make it so."

And I'm somewhat familiar with Communism.

Marxist theory posits that there exist laws of historical development that will ultimately reward the virtuous (the proletariat or working class) and punish the wicked (the bourgeoisie or capitalist class). Marxists get into a lot of Hegelian dialectical bullshit, which is why the call their overall theories "dialectical materialism". Their laws of historical development are economics-based, being "historical materialism" or the "materialist conception of history."

This may explain the Marxist rhetorical tic of using "contradiction" as a synonym for "conflict", like referring to "the inner contradictions of capitalism."

And while Marxist theory may seem too impersonal and colorless for many people, some Communist leaders have remedied that by establishing cults of personality, like Stalin's and Mao's and those of Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il. These supposedly godless Communist leaders got their citizens to worship them as gods.

And why did Soviet Communists had such a grudge against religion? As opposed to tolerating religion without giving it any special privileges. I think that a clue can be found in Russia's history. The Russian Orthodox Church had long been an agency of the Tsarist regime and an ideological supporter of that regime. And many Russian revolutionaries, not just the Communist ones, wanted separation of church and state. But the Communists, when they took over, slipped into Tsarist patterns, complete with having an officially promoted ideology. The Church survived, mainly because it represented Russian heritage; Stalin brought it back to rally his troops after the Germans invaded in WWII.

Here's a hymn to Stalin composed by A.O. Avdienko:

O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,

Thou who broughtest man to birth.

Thou who fructifies the earth,

Thou who restorest to centuries,

Thou who makest bloom the spring,

Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...

Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,

Sun reflected by millions of hearts.

Kelly, you said there is no evidence God exists. Do you really, really believe that?

What would you consider evidence?

I believe we have a strong cumulative record of evidence in science [cosmology, cosmological argument, macro and cellular biology, fine-tuning in the cosmos and biological organisms, etc]. These things evidence a super- intelligence. If atheism were true, none of the fine-tuning would exist.

We have the record and miracles of the prophets, mystics, fulfilled prophecy, the change of life that Christianity produces when practiced correctly.

We have Jesus, His claims and His resurrection proving His claims. I understand you deny the historical Jesus. But you have to because if He was real then your view of the universe is wrong.

We have a cumulative case. So to say there is "no evidence," is really overstating your case.

The evidence is in nature and history.

It is now the universal consensus of cosmologists that the universe began to exist [Big Bang].

Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

So, the theist is perfectly justified in believing in a super-intelligence and Creator. The universe is fine-tuned for life. This evidences intelligence and mind.

Also, God didn't want us to have 100& proof of His existence. He engineered it this way. If there was proof, there would be no need for faith. And as the New Testament says, it is impossible to please Him without faith.

So, we DO have evidence for God. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes.

SPOON BENDING

You mentioned this. I used to have a friend who was an advanced medium. I saw him bend spoons very rapidly with his mind. I REALLY saw this. I swear. He also had the ability to move objects with his mind. I'll see if I can track him down and we can make a Youtube video on this.

Another thing, the theist is perfectly rationally justified for believing in God. We have REASONS and EVIDENCE in our favor. Atheists cannot give us any rational reason for believing in atheism.

God is actually a simpler tag [occam's razor] then believing in multiple universes. It is impossible to have an infinite amount of moments. Second, all other alleged universes would also have to be fine-tuned in order to produce our fine-tuned universe.  Who fine-tuned them? Third, there is no evidence of multiple universes. Fourth, where did those universes come from?

So the theist is justified in believing in God. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. God is a simpler explanation then the infinite universe theory.

You are entitied to disagree. But you are wrong in critisizing us for our belief. We are perfectly justified.

How do you do it Jerud1711?  How do you make so many incorrect and false claims like that and make it sound like you still have an argument or a point?  Not a single thing you've said in either of your last two posts has any accuracy to it what so ever.

The worst thing is, I've seen you make most of those statements before and you've been corrected yet you still make them?