I'll do it for an appearance fee.

 

1 Timothy 5:18 Parallel Translations
NASB:	For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." (NASB ©1995)
GWT:	After all, Scripture says, "Never muzzle an ox when it is threshing grain," and "The worker deserves his pay." (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV:	For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

 

I wonder if this guy is an asshat like that Laura Ingraham that talks over people, cuts their mike off or edits it to make themselves look good.

Here's his bio - http://www.toptenproofs.com/aboutbob.php

A website that he supports/owns (not sure which one)  http://www.toptenproofs.com/

And some blogs about him.  Looks like not even the Christians like him very much.

http://bobdutko.blogspot.com/2007/02/news-hour.html

http://bobdutko.blogspot.com/2007/02/bob-bashes-liberals-ignores-facts.html

Just from what little I've read, he sounds like a real gem.

 

I see he's not interested in my offer. Msybe the irony of getting owned by a heretical theist scared him.

Contemporary Christianity is a blight on humanity. It is promoting un-truth in the name of god. It is increasingly the bigoted tool of Satan (to borrow their terminology) for keeping people compliant towards authority, arrogant towards non-believers and ignorant about reality. It is rapidly becoming an evil scourge.

 

There.  I said it. What you gonna do about it? Or haven't you any balls?

This would be perfect!!!  I'd love to see you thump this guy!

I see. He's an expert because he takes on amateur debaters in areas out of their chosen field and changes the rules. 

If you could get Anton Levey to debate, he would debate him.

Yea, but the theist has their chechi trump cards that delude them into believing that they haven't been pwnd.

1. "God did it"

2. "God can do what he wants"

3. "God works in mysterious ways"

4. "God doesnt have to explain himself to you"

5. "Out of context"

That is quite hard to shake them out of once they have baught it, the mental gymastics kick in and they use anything and everything of psuedo class to prop up their myth. 

Well, are you either the world's worst comedian, or are you stupid enough to think that satanism and atheism are the same thing?

Give me your best shot, chuckles. 

I'm lead to belive that Kelly appeared on Bob Dutko and Bob won the debate.

 Here is why I believe this. Sapient Claimed Bob ambushed Kelly about thermodynamics, but didn't mention why. This leads me to believe that Kelly said something that forced Bob to bring up thermodynamics. To me it sounds like Bob was refuting something Kelly said and this is why he brought up thermodynmaics and why Sapient didn't mention the reason the topic was brought up. Sapient then starts insulting Bob Dutko without providing any evidence to support the claims he is making.

If someone would be kind enough to explain what actually happened, I may change my statement above and agree that Kelly was ambushed, however as it stands right now, I think Bob did no such thing. 

FIrst thanks Yellow #5, The way you posted it as compared to Sapient does make me seem to trust you more. However I would still llike someone to post proof that Bob ambushed Kelly instead of their opinion. A basic summary of how the thermodynamics statements came up would be nice. Of course also pointing me to the transcript or copy of the show woudl work. I'm not asking for much, just something other then Bob ambushed kelly by talking about thermodynamics. I must admit I"m not sure what this has to do about Chrstianity to begin with, however I can assume Kelly said something was not true and then to refute Kelly's statment, Bob had to mention thermodynmics. I'm really mostly concerned with how the topic got on Thermodynamics and would like that explained instead. Before I agree Bob ambushed kelly, I want to make sure that Bob didn't have to bring thermodynamics into the conversation based on something Kelly said.

Wow in Trollville. Well I gave RRS an opportunity to defend their statment, however now I must admit that Bob did not ambush Kelly and Kelly probably did something to set herself up. Hence why RRS has not posted any support for their claim and moved the thread to trollville.

It's almost funny to read the claims of people like this. As always, I will deal specifically with the facts and  leave the insults and name calling to the other side. Here are some facts for you.
1) There was no "pre-interview" and definitely no "ambush".
2) When the on-air interview started, she specifically said she was disappointed with the Ray Comfort debate because ....(her words) "I was really hoping to talk science". I then said to her "great, I won't talk faith or Bible at all, how about we just talk science?" and she said "that'd be great" (so much for "ambush&quot
3) It wasn't until she started losing the debate so miserably that she started complaining about not being and "expert" on science, after which I reminded her that SHE was the one who first said she preferred a discussion on science.
4) She was the one who attempted to make scientific claims about possible origins of the universe. She just didn't like the fact that I was able to explain how the Laws of Thermodynamics made her suggestions scientifically impossible. When a debater has a scientific answer for your scientific hypothesis, you can't whine and cry "ambush".
5) I have never received an e-mail from them asking me to appear on their show, nor have I ever received any kind of invitation in any communication format of any kind.
6) As for my not having the "guts" for tough debates, I have debated Dr. Michael Shermer (very skilled national atheist debater), the Publisher of Skeptics magazine multiple times, American Atheists, The Infidel Guy, evolutionary scientists, etc. Just last month I debated the well respected atheist Astrophysicist Dr. Victor Stenger (Ph.D.-Physics) and author of "God: The Failed Hypothesis", in which he attempts to prove there is no God according to science, physics and cosmology. I could go on and on obviously, but I thought I would at least give you a factual response to my supposed lack of "guts" to debate some guy from an atheist website. (If you're wondering if my eyes are rolling, yes they are)
Take care and God bless, Bob

TO SIMPLE THEIST AND SAPIEN;

I emailed Bob about this thread and sent him Sapiens comments. This was his INTELLIGENT response, NOTICE he did it without any name calling or insults, just facts.

 I guess this is the kind of reaction you get when you confront Atheists with the truth. They move your thread, maybe hoping out of sight out of mind. How unfortunate they don't realize that the truth sets you free. 

hey Yellow Number 5,

I have a challenge for you. Why don't you call Bob on his show 3:00-4:00pm EST on any friday to challenge him on thermodynamics since you feel Kelly was allegedly put on the spot. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

You have had several people accept your challenge. But you want to dictate the terms. Who in their right mind would simply call up and start blasting away? If the true intent is the exchange of ideas, then this is the method least likely to promote any understanding. All it really provides is a good opportunity for Bob to make his listeners happy. If you REALLY want a debate, here are MY terms:

 

1) I have a busy schedule. I can fit you in in October. December is actually better. Why so long? I would never enter such a challenge without being fully prepared.

2) It must be broadcast in real time. No chance for editing allowed.

3) I will not phone in. This creates a disadvantage as Bob will be using broadcasting equipment which electronically enhances his voice. A person on the phone sounds tinny and nasally. This creates a perceptual difference to listeners that effects their reactions to the conversation. I will not give that advantage to Bob. Arrangements would have to be made for equality in audio presentation.

4) The subject of the debate would have to be clearly defined. No blindsides allowed from either party.

5) I get an appearance fee. Why? Why the heck would I help Bob build his listener base for free? Why would I help him sell his CDs? I would be willing to have the fee given to a charity of my choosing.

 

Of course, none of this will ever happen. Your "challenge" as stands is a sucker bet so Bob can promote his agenda to his cadre of supporters. Structuring a debate so that there is an even playing field is not in his best interest. Even if his opponent is some unkown internet denizen such as myself.

And the fact that none of this will happen is why you are now in trollville. You are not serious in your challenge. You are trolling for a sucker to come on the show and get "humiliated'.

 

edit:

It would have to be made clear that I am not a representeative of the Rational Response Squad. I am just a loose cannon stirring up trouble. I hang out here because there are some intellectually honest people around.  

 

No. That's ridiculous. Atheists serve neither 'god' nor 'satan' mainly because we see absolutely no evidence that would point to the existence of either one.

To compare atheism to satanism is proof of your complete ignorance about atheism in the first place.

[EDIT - QUOTES]

This doesn't prove anything. Both are UNPROVEN scientific and religious THEORIES.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty/ineptitude that plagues religion. Simply reminding people that a scientific theory is a theory is in no way a victory of any kind LOL.

You're also applying Occam's Razor incorrectly. Whichever theory requires more faith has no relevance, thus your argument is a straw man.

 

Bottomline: If you are indeed popular, it's only because you appeal to emotion rather than to logic.  You're no different than a propagandist or a shady politician. 

Is rude making statements about an individuals beliefs(me) or is it calling names and slinging insults(sapien)?

 Again, how does one operate outside the laws of physics? What does to operate mean removed from physical laws? How does one create outside the laws of physics? Isn't what we define as 'creating' a physical act?

Surely you can see that you aren't saying anything here. Yu have provided no answers. You are simply claiming 'it is possible because it is possible' without addressing the manner in which it is possible which is what my question deals with.

You aren't answering the question of how the universe came to exist you are simply making an unsubstantiated claim that a non-defined something is responsible.

 

What does that even mean? This shows a serious breakdown in reasoning skills. Even if one was to accept the unsubstantiated claims that a being could raise a man from the dead, or talk out his ass (so to speak), that would by no means lead one to believe it was possible for said being to create the universe.

Anyway, again, you aren't answering how your 'god' can create the universe from nothing, so, you aren't answering how the universe was created at all. You are simply saying, god therefor universe and universe therefor god. It is a non-sensical argument that is not only circular but completely uninformative. I might as well just shout chocolate therefor universe.

I don't have faith in any scenario for the beginning of the universe. I personally don't even see it as a lefitimate question as I see no reason to think there might have been a pre-universe (encompassing the singularity) state. 

If, however, I did find one of the many universal origin hypothesis compelling, it would at least be an answer to how the universe came to exist. God created it is not an answer. Even with faith that a god created the universe from nothing you still haven't answered how the universe came to be from nothing. Your answer not only requires faith it requires that one admit they have no answer which means that god is just left hanging out there with no causal relationship to the universe and becomes nothing but infinite excess baggage. He becomes something that was envoked as an answer, couldn't be tied to the question, but is, regardless, kept as an answer while the original question simply gets ignored.  

 

 

 

just because you don't understand something or don't know how to explain something means it's divine. this the modern day equivalent of people in the dark ages explaining everything as magic that otherwise wouldn't be explainable.

 

you also didn't address my last post. it's not long but really short and simple. are you avoiding my post?

 

Won't be me. (S)He hasn't responded to any of my posts. Maybe afraid of the crazy theist?

"Master of puppets Im pulling your strings
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams
Blinded by me, you cant see a thing
Just call my name, `cause Ill hear you scream
Master
Master
Just call my name, `cause Ill hear you scream
Master
Master"

 

 

No masters for me thanks, like djneibarger said:

(edit for clarity)

First, wavefreak, its clear no one is going to pay you to debate them. I don't go around saying that I'll appear on the RRS, only if I can go to their studeo and if they will pay me. Wantig to be paid is just stupid in my opinion.

 Also insulting God_rules, it just as stupid. It appears all of you are ignorant to Christian beliefs and therefore not qualified to debate a money. How can you say something is wrong when you know absolutelly nothing about it?

God_rules comments come from if you don't serve God, you therefore serve Satan. Has nothing to do with you guys actually worshiping Satan.

Also no one has refuted anything God_rules has mentioned about the debate with Kelly, so it appears that Kelly brought up the universe (a mater of science) and then complained because Bob tried to refute her with science.  

Thankyou simple theist for the encouraging words. Your are definitely a light in our world of darkness. It seeems as though almost all the responses i get from the atheists on this forum are either name calling or insults. Is this what atheism teaches their folowers. When confronted about your belief in atheism sling as many insults as you can to avoid defending why it is you believe, what you believe. I have to say vessel is an exception, He has actually been respectful in our conversations. This,to me, does not show a confidence in a belief system but resonates insecurity in something their not really sure about.