My views on the Ingraham vs Sapient faceoff.
Offline Greetings,
Before I listened to your debate with Laura Ingraham I had never really heard of the woman, so I googled her. I must admit that I found her career resume quite impressive but she is obviously lacking when it comes to the art of argumentation. Here are just four of the diverting and idiotic tactics she used:
1 - She tried to use the work of Christian missionaries as proof that there is a god and as justification for the continuation of Christianity. In my opinion, Christian charity isn't altruistic since they're only doing it because a book tells them that they have to do it in order to make it into Heaven. If a million Christians do charity work based on what a book tells them it's still not as noble as the charity work of ten atheists who do charity work without being nudged by religiosity.
2 - She asked you if you were ever going to get a job, which was a low blow and indicative of the way that Christians will desperately lash out (I thought they weren't supposed to judge people?!) when they find themselves inevitably backed into a corner.
3 - She asked you why you're up at night thinking about Christians, which was another low blow. Christianity got where it is today because Christians WERE up at night thinking about what non-Christians were doing. Christianity is where it is today because they were persistently gaining converts and voicing their views, or when that didn't work, they just killed people. At least atheists aren't killing people wholesale because they won't agree with our view
4 - The name-game was the most pathetic in my opinion. It had absolutely no relevance to the argument at hand. Naming intelligent people who believed in God, or APPEAR to have believed in God does not establish a correlation between intelligence and religion. Laura named Galileo but also left out the part where the church banned his "heretic" works, allowed him to speak to no one at religious festivals, put him on house arrest, and denied him burial at the Basilica of Santa Croce (he wasn't allowed to be buried there until almost a hundred years after his death)! She named Leonardo da Vinci but fails to realize that he was also a man of science and did not believe in the Biblical flood based on his scientific observations. If anything, they've contributed to the atheist movement because they were two great men who successfully challenged the Bible (although they didn't live to see the fruits of their success). PS: Is it really any wonder that many intelligent people during the Italian Renaissance professed to believe in God when you could be jailed or burned at the stake for not agreeing?!!
I initially sent this message via Youtube but I realized that nobody had visited the account in quite some time so I decided to send it here. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
God-Bane
Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers -Mignon McLaughlin
- Login to post comments
She seems very impetuous...in the spirit of Rush Limbaugh or other conservative talk-radio hosts.
I listened to her host the Hitchens-Wilson debate...if she'd shut up, it might have been worth listening too.
I feel sorry for Brian...
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I have to keep telling people that these talk show hosts, LEFT OR RIGHT, are not journalists but entertainers. They are trained to pull strings and set their guest up as a punching bag. It was good that he went on anyway because it brings light to atheists.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
She's a lying POS.
She equivocates all the time.
Here she tries to allege that something that was clearly written in Alan Greenspan's book, was something that he never said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaCddX1LCBA&feature=related
One of her weak points to Sapient, is trying the appeal to emotions fallacy that theists are the ones who predominantly set up missions to help people.
She never speculates exactly how many Christian individuals would be willing to do that, if it were not funded somehow.
So, the church buying brownie points by helping the poor means that their benevolance is proof of a god?
How is that logical, to claim benevolance, when they won't distribute condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS to millions?
It's not relevant to the point she keeps trying to make.
All her fallacies 'point' to a god.
The fallacy that 'where do morals come from', if not from god?
The logical extension of that, is that without a god, she would have no morals.
Does she actually believe that?
I mean, seriously?
There are plenty of philosophies that follow a philosophy of 'karma'.
No god needed.
She would have to demonstrate that atheists are without morals, if he claim has any traction.
Which is empirically impossible.
Her position is a complete fallacy.
By default, she loses that 'major' argument.
Debates like this one, are fallacies, in any event, because they're a 'false dichotomy'.
The false dichotomy is that if they feel they can prove that something is not inherent naturally, then it defaults to god.
That's an infantile reasoning.
And arbitrary.
It's a 'lecture', and proselytizing.
It's not an actual intellectual discourse.
It's a pissing contest by them, of and endless circular argument, of "No, it's not" "My Daddy made that"
It's completely retarded, basically.
And, the most petulant, pathetic, way to 'end' discussion and debating.
An incredibly insidiously passive aggressive method of manipulation.
Science doesn't give a sh1t how they think the universe works.
Secularism doesn't give a sh1t either.
The ancient scriptures are books for intellectual dinosaurs. And she's a highly visible example of that. Her and other rocket scientists like Bill O'Reilly, and your Ray Comforts and your Kirk Camerons.
They're incredibly dim, and have tunnel vision.
Most average North American 10 yr olds, are more adept at lateral thinking.
Religion will become obselete.
And science and secularism make it a fairy tale.
The list of 'god made', keeps getting shorter and shorter. And they are to stupid to pick up on it.
It's happening right under their noses, and they either can't see it, or are deluded to not realize it.
Like taking candy from a baby.
They amuse me to no end...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Welcome aboard Godbane. One thing that isn't obvious from listening to the tape was something I experienced only on her show... I was muted at her will. I was muted often. I also couldn't hear her during any point that the producer had to tell me I was muted (as I was talking). It took a few minutes to change my method, but I ended up having to keep my points shorter than I already was making them.
Here is a free download of the Rational Response to the Laura Ingraham interview:
http://www.briansapient.com/rrs4160/56RRSflam.mp3
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yeah I cant stand laura Ingraham. She tried correcting his grammar which was just weak and off subject. Sure it may not be formally correct to say Galileo was smarter than me but its perfectly acceptable in less formal situations. It just showed she has very little tolerance when people don't share her views.