Actually Cameron and Comfort challenged the RRS.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.... 

 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.     

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.

You need to prove yourself worth their time first.

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. 

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

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".

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.  

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. 

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

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!

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.

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..

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.

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.

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:

 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.

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 I'm assuming he's still here. I can check and get back with ya.  unless anbesol, just got scared and scampered away. 

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.

cheers 

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

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