She's a total asshat, fucktard and cunt-gristle. Or as the RRS dubbed her "That Retarded Cunt."

We as atheists, might want to approach this like evolution. Our positions are young compared to the myth laden past.

We have to face that we are NOT the alpha male. Theism in all it's forms dominates humanity. While there are intelects who do believe who DO NOT take umbrage to our blasphemy, we still are fighting an infintile past.

While it is true it is important for us to not portray ourselves as monsters, it is also true that we cannot afford to sit back while the other clubs take humanity out with them because they care more about a fictional being existing and dominating all others, than the species surviving.

So how do we convey that they got it wrong without becoming what we say we hate? How do we let ourselves vent and bitch, while letting them vent and bitch, WITHOUT adding to the powderkeg called theism?

I say that neither the atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim or any other label needs to look at blasphemy to the other as "offensive". I would merely say to those who cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Just because humans verbally box and disagree doesn't mean we cant look at each other as human. WE ARE, but so are theists.

Christians were not always the alpha male. I would sugest to the major three that striving to be the alpha male, as a end all global domination  is a detriment to humanity and the survivial of the species would be paramount above any club you belong to.

Tell us how you really feel.  Think you want her. I think you want to play rotisary with her. I think you want her to give you a reach around......That, or she makes you want to shoot yourself.

I am not sure what you are getting at. The SS had belt buckles inscribed with "God is with us", which makes Hitlers war against the Jews religious. And even Native Americans, whose language was not widely known outside tribes, helped send false information to the enemy and send real information to allies to defeat Japan.

But you are right that Christianity did not win that war although Chrisitans in America claim it did, also at the same time used blacks in our civil war and World War 2 as pawns and as valiantly as they proved themselves, white Christians still refused to treat them as equal.

Yet the sort term memory of humanity shows itself in every label in that even black Christians are against gay marriage, atheism and muslims who are not terrorists.

So how do we as humans look at the failure of history without becoming the monsters we claim some are and they claim we are without losing our autonomy or becoming genocidal?

How do we be ourselfs, bitch at the same time, without becoming what we say we hate?

So what are the best strategies for dealing with such douche-bags?

My personal favorite is reflective listening.  here is how this would look:

"Gosh Laura, it sounds like you feel that your religion is being attacked.  Do you think that by putting my ideas out there it is somehow attacking yours?"

Or

"Gosh Laura, you sound scared.  Does it scare you that there are people in the world who don't believe what you believe?"

By asking these kind of reflective, and open-ended questions you are putting the responsibility squarely on her to articulate here position.  you can then use this to uncover the crazy in her thinking, with statements like:

"So what you are saying is that without believing in divine magic, we are all going to behave in an immoral way.  Is that right?"

the other thing that this technique does is that it takes control of the conversation.  The person in control of the conversation is the one asking the questions.  By turning the conversation around so that SHE is defending her position, and you are asking the questions, you gain much more control of the situation.

This is why it is often best to answer a question with a question.

That said, Laura is a professional interviewer.  she knows these tricks, so you need to realize that you are an amateur going into the ring with a professional, and prepare accordingly.

Another tactic is to explicitly say "OK, i want to take turns here -  I'll listen to what you have to say about this, but in exchange I want you to listen to what I have to say" - then if they renege, you can guilt trip them, embarrass them and make them generally look bad.

These are combat tactics.  I think it is important to recognize that if you are having a discussion, you want to be clear about your goals, AND you want to quickly assess what the other person's goals are - in the case of the discussion in question, Brian's goal was to get the word out there about his beliefs.  Laura's goal was in direct conflict with his goal - her goal was to discredit him.  Brian was effectively sticking his neck in the noose by even going on the show.  Personally I think he was quite courageous and that all things considered he did pretty well.  The locker-room analysis is only useful if it helps us to build new strategies and tactics for dealing with these situations.  I think that the more people we get out there discussing the rational worldview, the more resistance we will get from the faith-heads.

That said, here are some possible goals for discussing religion with a person

1)  Changing the mind of the person you are talking with

2)  Changing the minds of the onlookers

(note - one of the favorite traps of the Laura Ingram's of the world is that they like to couch the discussion as one that's about what you and I believe, but it's REALLY about getting the listeners to agree with her - that's why she doesn't fight fair - If I can discredit and humiliate you, then I don't need to address your argument do I?).

3)  Coming to the objective truth -  This is often the assumption that scientists make in entering debates - this sort of honest naivete' is often the reason that smart people loose debates with faith heads.

I think that it is important to explicitly understand what your own objectives are and to be able to quickly evaluate what the other person's objectives are.  You might be surprised to realize how much power this gives you in the conversation.

If you are going on the air, into a formal debate or any public venue, other than a peer-reviewed journal, then your primary objective should ALLWAYS be to persuade the audience.  Chaning the mind of the person you are talking to is only useful if they are already sympathetic to your position, and only then because it provides a role model to the audience for how THEY can change their mind to your position as well.  But if you are in combat, then your object is to win.

What would have happened if Brian had said - "Laura, I think that I have been invited on this show under false pretences.  I think that the whole reason you invited me on this show is to treat me like dirt and make me look bad in front of your listeners.  Now do you want to hear what I have to say or don't you?"
 

Think about Christopher Hitchens - one of his favorate tactics is to shame the host into shutting up and letting him speak bu saying "You invited me onto your show, now you are not giving me the chance to speak - are you so rude that you invite people on just to berate them?"  What Hitch does in this case is he "pulls their cover" and explicitly calls them on their bullshit.  This is a great tactic in certain circumstances.

I think that the way to win these exchanges (and make no mistake - they are a form of combat), is to clearly analyze the different tactics used, and discuss possible responses to these attacks. And then practice the responses so that when you are in combat you come across, as, cool, smooth, and in-control.  Fortunately, the internet is FULL of people using bad and dishonest debating tactics, so these tatcitcs are easy to find. 

The hardes attack to counter is the attack that is formed as a question where in order to answer the question you have to accept the assumptions behind the question.  These sort of leading questions are often hard to spot, and the only meaningful counter is to expose the assumptions rather than answer the question.  This then allows your opponenet to simply shout you down and accuse you of dodging the question.  You see this all the time on douchbag talk-shows like bill-Oreily.

I saw one guy who actually timed Bill's show, so that he knew about how much time he would have before bill-O would interupt him.  He then carefully crafted a very short and potent message that was the core of his arguement, and delivered it within that time limit.  Bill-O went BALLISTIC, because he knew right away that he had lost control of the interview even as it had begun, and you know a douche-bag like bill, can't handle not being in control.

This leads me to a final observation about the Laura Ingrams of the world.  They are all authoritarian personalities.  They are the sort of people who believe that because you have authority, your position is automatically legitamate.  Their basic assumptions are that might makes right.  For this reason, they will bully you.  They will also use evidence when it suits them and then switch to rhetoric when the evidence doesn't support their position.  They are not about truth or honesty, they are about winning.  Period.  I'm sure we could make a whole study about how to deal with this, but it seems to me that the basic goal one wants to strive for is to their own force against them, and make them implode.

Humiliations Galore!!!