Vastet wrote:

I left this topic for awhile before looking at it due to the huge number of responses, and now I find that my entire response can be summed up by two previous posts by site members.

Hambydammit wrote:

You know what I've noticed?  All these "Master Debaters" we hear so much about apparently don't have the "guts" to come to RRS and put their masterful proofs of god into print.

Sapient wrote:

Kelly was already on Bob Dutko. He was extremely dishonest in how he set up the discussion. He purposefully ambushed her on topics of thermodynamics when we specifically stated in the preinterview that our science expert was Mike Yellow #5. During the interview she stated her expertise was not science, but philosophy and psychology... she did so several times. Each time he continued to force issues of thermodynamics that she specifically stated were not her area of expertise and then claimed victory in that she wasn't informed of the topic. If you happen to see the dishonest twat bag, feel free to spit in his face for us. He hasn't accepted or returned the email to receive an appearance on our show. Dishonest pussy is all I can say for him. In addition our RRS partner Brian Flemming was on Dutko twice.

There's really nothing else to say.

Then you are just as your fellow atheists, living in denial. Avoiding the truth.

Perhaps he should change that if he's so sure of himself.

Geez... I vote that all of you just drop your drawers, get out the ruler, and declare a winner.

I'll let everybody in on a couple of secrets...

1) He's not coming to this board to post

2) Nobody from here is going on his show again.

3) This conversation is a waste of everyone's valuable time on the planet.

 

Vastet wrote:

Perhaps he should change that if he's so sure of himself.

I believe there is little reason for a Christian to actually come here. There hasn't been a post to made here that makes me dount my Christianity, in fact every post that is posted makes me believe Christianity even more.

simple theist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

simple theist wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

What amazes me is that this thread has made it to four pages.

 

What amazes me is that this post has made it to four pages with Sapient still claiming Kelly was ambushed, but hasn't refuted God Rules description of the event. Which shows Kelly wasn't ambushed, and Kelly actually started talking about science.

Strange.

Sapient tells you that he thinks Kelly was ambushed.

Y#5 tells you that he heard the show and thinks that Kelly was ambushed (refuting god_rules description of events).

In both cases you want transcripts and not opinions.

God_rules tells you that she wasn't ambushed and you seem to have no problem with accepting his opinion at face value.

Just...strange.

Actually you should look at his post. It clearly says more then Kelly wasn't ambushed. Spaient and Y#5 have only declared Kellly was ambushed. God Rules provied a summary of the events that happened, which is why I"m believing him right now instead of RRS. Y#5 gave me an opinion, not a refuting of the events. I like to make my own opinions, and thats what God Rules post allowed.

If God Rules' post is so wrong, why doesn't anyone say that and mention how the events actually happened. To my knowledge God Rules did not post any opinions in his description of the event, in fact it hasn't been refuted, and therefore must be the way the event happend.

Based on that description Kelly was not ambushed, reguardless of what Sapient , Yellow #5 or anyone from RRS says.

I believe God Rules description of the events, only because they have not been refuted.

I understand.

Y#5 wrote his opinion after hearing the show. God_rules wrote Dutko and reported what he said.

So you're taking the word of someone who has an interest in slanting things to his view (his word is good solely because of his Christianity?) over someone who listened to the show?

simple theist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

simple theist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

simple theist wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

What amazes me is that this thread has made it to four pages.

 

What amazes me is that this post has made it to four pages with Sapient still claiming Kelly was ambushed, but hasn't refuted God Rules description of the event. Which shows Kelly wasn't ambushed, and Kelly actually started talking about science.

Strange.

Sapient tells you that he thinks Kelly was ambushed.

Y#5 tells you that he heard the show and thinks that Kelly was ambushed (refuting god_rules description of events).

In both cases you want transcripts and not opinions.

God_rules tells you that she wasn't ambushed and you seem to have no problem with accepting his opinion at face value.

Just...strange.

Actually you should look at his post. It clearly says more then Kelly wasn't ambushed. Spaient and Y#5 have only declared Kellly was ambushed. God Rules provied a summary of the events that happened, which is why I"m believing him right now instead of RRS. Y#5 gave me an opinion, not a refuting of the events. I like to make my own opinions, and thats what God Rules post allowed.

If God Rules' post is so wrong, why doesn't anyone say that and mention how the events actually happened. To my knowledge God Rules did not post any opinions in his description of the event, in fact it hasn't been refuted, and therefore must be the way the event happend.

Based on that description Kelly was not ambushed, reguardless of what Sapient , Yellow #5 or anyone from RRS says.

I believe God Rules description of the events, only because they have not been refuted.

I understand.

Y#5 wrote his opinion after hearing the show. God_rules wrote Dutko and reported what he said.

So you're taking the word of someone who has an interest in slanting things to his view (his word is good solely because of his Christianity?) over someone who listened to the show?

No I am not. God_rules gave me a description of the event. Y#5 gave me his own opinion. I've asked several times for someone to refute God_rules posting of the description of the event. No one has. It is therefore that I assume his post was 100% true, becuase sapient or Y#5 did not say it wasn't, no one has. It is from that description that I have reached my own conclusion that Kelly was not ambushed. She mentioned the creation of the universe, which is scientific and not philosophical. After she mentioned the creation of the universe, Bob had the right to respond with science and to refute Kelly. If Kelly didn't want to argue science, then she should have never mentioned anything that deals with science.

I have so far taken God_rules word because he didn't simply give me an opinion. I will listen if Y#5 or anyone else wants to refute what God_rules said about the event. (though I will question why no one refuted his post before)

I don't listen to opinions without the opinion being backed up. Sapient and Y#5 haven't backed up their opinions yet. God_rules has.

 

All the while taking Dutko's opinion as gospel simply because a brother theist told you so.

Unless you've listened to the show that's all you or I have.

So the proposal to have a written internet debate on a neutral site is of no interest? This tends to confirm my position that Bob is interested only in "winning" and not really interested in truth. Which is precisely why an ad hoc call to his show is a fool's errand. The problem with this format is that it actually entails risk for Bob. How would he look to his constituents if some unknown internet persona dismantled his arguments? I guess he can't risk that happening. So who really lacks the courage of his convictions?

wavefreak wrote:

So the proposal to have a written internet debate on a neutral site is of no interest? This tends to confirm my position that Bob is interested only in "winning" and not really interested in truth. Which is precisely why an ad hoc call to his show is a fool's errand. The problem with this format is that it actually entails risk for Bob. How would he look to his constituents if some unknown internet persona dismantled his arguments? I guess he can't risk that happening. So who really lacks the courage of his convictions?

He already dismantled kelly's arguments of science on his show with the laws of thermodynamics. Instead of making excuses why yellow #5 can't call in to bob's show, why doesn't he refute bob's claims on air in front of his audience. Speaking of his audience, there are a lot of non christians who listen and call in to his show on a regular basis. So it is not like yellow#5 would be the first to refute bob on air. If he is confident he holds the truth about the non-existence of almighty GOD then what does he have to lose? Is it pride? It's just a phone call.

jcgadfly wrote:

simple theist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

simple theist wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

simple theist wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

What amazes me is that this thread has made it to four pages.

 

What amazes me is that this post has made it to four pages with Sapient still claiming Kelly was ambushed, but hasn't refuted God Rules description of the event. Which shows Kelly wasn't ambushed, and Kelly actually started talking about science.

Strange.

Sapient tells you that he thinks Kelly was ambushed.

Y#5 tells you that he heard the show and thinks that Kelly was ambushed (refuting god_rules description of events).

In both cases you want transcripts and not opinions.

God_rules tells you that she wasn't ambushed and you seem to have no problem with accepting his opinion at face value.

Just...strange.

Actually you should look at his post. It clearly says more then Kelly wasn't ambushed. Spaient and Y#5 have only declared Kellly was ambushed. God Rules provied a summary of the events that happened, which is why I"m believing him right now instead of RRS. Y#5 gave me an opinion, not a refuting of the events. I like to make my own opinions, and thats what God Rules post allowed.

If God Rules' post is so wrong, why doesn't anyone say that and mention how the events actually happened. To my knowledge God Rules did not post any opinions in his description of the event, in fact it hasn't been refuted, and therefore must be the way the event happend.

Based on that description Kelly was not ambushed, reguardless of what Sapient , Yellow #5 or anyone from RRS says.

I believe God Rules description of the events, only because they have not been refuted.

I understand.

Y#5 wrote his opinion after hearing the show. God_rules wrote Dutko and reported what he said.

So you're taking the word of someone who has an interest in slanting things to his view (his word is good solely because of his Christianity?) over someone who listened to the show?

No I am not. God_rules gave me a description of the event. Y#5 gave me his own opinion. I've asked several times for someone to refute God_rules posting of the description of the event. No one has. It is therefore that I assume his post was 100% true, becuase sapient or Y#5 did not say it wasn't, no one has. It is from that description that I have reached my own conclusion that Kelly was not ambushed. She mentioned the creation of the universe, which is scientific and not philosophical. After she mentioned the creation of the universe, Bob had the right to respond with science and to refute Kelly. If Kelly didn't want to argue science, then she should have never mentioned anything that deals with science.

I have so far taken God_rules word because he didn't simply give me an opinion. I will listen if Y#5 or anyone else wants to refute what God_rules said about the event. (though I will question why no one refuted his post before)

I don't listen to opinions without the opinion being backed up. Sapient and Y#5 haven't backed up their opinions yet. God_rules has.

 

All the while taking Dutko's opinion as gospel simply because a brother theist told you so.

Unless you've listened to the show that's all you or I have.

That post was a response to me from dutko himself. He responded to sapients original post about the events that took place on his show with kelly. I copyied it and pasted to the post. He quoted what kelly said in the beginning of the interview. If this is false, then why hasn't kelly refuted it?

simple theist, I too would like to know the truth about this interview Kelly had with Bob Dutko, but I'm curious about why you don't research it yourself. Have you actually listened to, or read the official transcript of the show in question? If not, why are you 100% sure that god rules is correct without looking at any real evidence? god rules' post is second hand, without context, and circumstantial which is hardly evidence at all. Why not go to the primary source, and get a full transcript or recording of the show? Why be the first to call for a transcript, being skeptical that an atheist (on the internet) could tell the truth, but then retract that call and fall in line with a version (again on the internet) you'd like to believe? (BTW, Kelly is a more reliable source than god rules. Kelly's account is at least first hand. But I'd rather have the transcript.) Now, I'm not arguing for Kelly, Sapient, and Y#5's version of the show. It's possible they're trying to cover up something. It's possible god rules is making up stuff, or he/she quoted the show out of context to make it look like Kelly wasn't "ambushed." This could also also be a matter of perceptions, where Dutko thought Kelly gave him full rights to bring up science when she didn't mean to give him that permission. Or, Dutko could have been trying to take advantage of Kelly's weakness in the area as alleged. Seeing this as black and white, 100% sure thing is simply preposterous on the complete lack of evidence that you have. The proper thing to do, and you should know this, is to suspend judgement until you've read the transcript, or heard the show. Simply believing god rules' story because it hasn't been "refuted" smacks of you being too credulous and biased towards a fellow coreligionist. Your method at arriving at the conclusion that Kelly, Sapient, and Y#5 are misleading us is faulty. You may be correct, so is a broken clock twice a day. Your simple faith in god rules' post speaks volumes of why you're still a Christian, namely that either your critical thinking skills are lacking, and/or you think faith (i.e. belief without evidence) is a good way of finding truth. So, I have decided to actually try to find this evidence myself, and hope you follow suit. There doesn't seem to be anything on WMUZ's web page about obtaining transcripts, so I have emailed Dutko asking for a transcript or recording of the show. I'll update this post when I have more data.

Sapient wrote:

god rules wrote:

If this is false, then why hasn't kelly refuted it?

I'm gonna go with the "just doesn't care enough." We'll probably touch on this in the stickam room/on the show at somepoint.

In other words, can't refute it because its true. Just another way of avoiding the reality of what happened on the show, just like when you moved the thread to trollville hoping that it would be ignored or forgotten. Once again, out of sight out of mind phylosophy.

Am I missing something?