Who has the guts to debate an expert? [Trollville]
Posted on: June 26, 2007 - 10:12am
Offline
Who has the guts to debate an expert? [Trollville]
I don't personally have the knowledge @ this time to debate you guys but i know someone who does. Would any of you administrators or owners of this organization consider going on the Bob Dutko Show to debate Christianity vs. Atheism? Would you be willing to stand up 4 your beliefs in debating the BEST! Confronting wishy washy Christians does not merit any credibility to your stance on atheism. Arguing your position with someone intelligent who knows the word of God does. His show is on wmuz.com out of detroit. He has the largest Christian audience in the country. Your thoughts. [mod edit from Sapient: WE ALREADY WERE ON HIS SHOW. READ MY POST BELOW]
- Login to post comments
It is rude to come into another man's house and shit on his coffee table. This is precisely what you have attempted to do.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Okay, see this is the problem.
Both of you are projecting.
For one thing Simple_Theist, so very many of us were christian at one time, your assertation that none of us understand christianity is patently false. There are many members here that were very fundemental christians. Read some of the intro threads from members and you will find your assumption to be misinformed.
Secondly, God_Rules, there are no teachings of atheism and no belief in atheism. Atheism is simply defined as, lack of belief in a god. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. The members here disagree on many issues and you can see in the discussions here that there is not a central 'dogma' of atheism.
I assert that it is the theists who are afraid, it is the theists who do not understand atheists. It is the theists who are insecure about the magic they believe in. It is the theists who deep down realize mythology is not a sound worldview and therefore have trouble defending their beliefs.
Do us all a favor, before both of you continue on the forums, take the time to learn what it really means to be an atheist. Take the time to actually learn where some of the members came from, what beliefs they previously held and why they no longer believe in god. It would serve you well to learn a little bit about the people here and then you may not receive insults from some members.
Hmmmm. A personal relationship with domething that is inside your head. I am pretty sure that people who have relationships with entities that are not present that it is called schizophrenia. I don't want anything in my heart except blood. Do you think this jesus is what causes arterial blockages? Finally, you are fighting Satan, another imaginary entity. I saw a man on the street recently fighting with a non-existant giant bug. Perhaps, you could recruit him to help you in your pretend war.
I see something like the quote above and wonder when I fell into the Mad Hatter's tea party. "How is a raven like a writing desk?"
[ed. quote]
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
If a child claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's cute.
If a theist claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's a life affirming relationship.
If any other adult claims a relationship with an invisible friend, it's considered delusional.
Am I the only one who is confused?
Oh, and god rules, my question still stands, If Dutko is such an expert, why does it seem that he only wants to take on people who don't have much experience in broadcast debate or are not recognized in their fields of expertise?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think this sounds much more accurate (and better):
Actually if you were to rid jesus from your heart and experienced atheism in your life, you would find freedom. You would be free from the bondage of nonsensical rules, a "street gang" mentality, and organizations hellbent on controlling every aspect of everyone's lives. Meaning you would no longer be a slave to anything. Break the chains and set yourself free. Jesus didn't exist. Christians condemn the world, and think only they can save the world from sin. I would encourage you to accept the free gift of educating yourself, thus reducing the level of ignorance that no religion can operate without.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
You apparently don't understand how a business works if you think people don't get paid for their appearances.
Having a debate would probably generate more listeners. More listeners means more money for Butko, unless he's doing this radio show non-profit, which I highly doubt. Why would someone want to come on a show and make someone else money? That would be stupid.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
First, my time is valuable. I can charge $100+/hr for IT consulting because I know what I am doing. I have a hobby doing portraits in graphite. I charge anywhere from $100 to $500. If Bob wants a whipping boy for his radio show, I'm not going to just line up for the slaughter with a stupid grin. I'm a busy erson with an actual life.
Second, let us be clear. It would not be a debate in any real sense of the word. Bob's intent in something like this is NOT to gain understanding. His intent is to speak to his listeners biases and affirm whatever belief system he promotes. He doesn't want anything more than to look good in front of his audience and make his opponent look bad. I'm not going to assist him in that without getting something in return.
My Artwork
I respectfully have to disagree. To believe there is no god is a belief. The "central" dogma is a god does not exist. I am not afraid but i do fear GOD(respectfully). It is not magic i believe in, it is a REAL person Jesus Christ, who lives within my heart, who i experience in a REAL way everyday i'm alive and who is the owner of my soul.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
god rules - There is no 'central dogma' to atheism. There are no particular tenets we all must follow. There are no specific rituals or rules that an atheist must abide by. We are not even a unified group of people. In fact, the only thing we share is that we lack a belief in god and even that varies to a degree.
Not believing is not a belief, btw. There's no getting around that.
I strongly suggest you read up on what atheism is really about. It might help you on the forums.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Lack of belief is not a belief.... really it is that simple.
It's not magic? You just told me a god/man lives in your heart. You told me this same being owns your heart. And you told me you are afraid of god.
.....maybe you are right, you don't believe in magic.
Rather you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed to fear a myth. You sold your soul to a story in a book written thousands of years ago by men who DID believe in magic, and you hold this mythology to be true. I am sad to see mythology rule your life, I am sad to see you fear that which does not exist, and I am sad that you think cavemen 3000yrs ago somehow understood the world better than we can today.
Has Dutko debated them (if so give me links)? Or did he hit them with questions outside of their field as seems to be his wont?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No. It is real life. I can do whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, too bad.
My Artwork
Exactly. There is a precise and highly dishonest and unethical formula to every one of these debates between an apologist and an actual expert that I have ever seen.
The apologist challenges the expert to a 'debate' scheduled for some future time. The expert who has spent years studying in his field to acheive his status and receive his credentials accepts.
The apologist then spends the time leading up to the debate. not studying the actual science with the intent of being informed, but looking for places in the experts field where either scientific understanding is incomplete or where the layperson average spectator won't have the required understanding of the topic to be able to discern between a legitimate objection and a straw man. The apologist then constructs a series of questions that deal with these areas and insists that if the expert can't answer with absolute certainty, or if the apologist simply doesn't understand the answer, it must be god. The expert is then bombarded with these questions without being allowed the time to answer adequately, and the apologist plays this as his winning the debate to a crowd of believers who are only too willing to nod their heads in approval at the triumphant crusader of their blind belief.
It is sad that one would use such dishonest tactics in what should be an attempt to educate and discern truth, but truth is never the apologist's intention. Its all about playing to the audience. You don't want to start overturning the rocks of ignorance whe they form the sole support of the pedestal on which you make your stand.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
wavefreak defies categorization. That's pretty cool.
Always keep 'em guessing, eh?
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Let's change the parameters. I'm wiling to go ten rounds with this guy, but not unless there is skin in the game. Hence the appearance fee. He is risking nothing as long he dictates the environment for the exchange. So, I'll be kind and assume that Bob is really interested in an intelligent exchange of idea that results in increased understanding for all parties. If that's the case, then surely he would not object to an arrangement that is neutral ground? So let's make it real.
We'll find a neutral website that will host a debate. They will create a forum so that Bob and I have a place to exchange our thoughts. The primary thread in this forum is locked to everyone except Bob and me. Registered forum users can create threads for commentary and general cat fighting. This way we can go at each other for months and entertain the denizens of the internet at the same time.
You made a challenge. I accepted it. Instead of dancing around the issue, negotiate terms acceptable to both parties.
My Artwork
Out of curiosity, does Bob Dutko even know that you're putting people up to this? Are you putting out the debate at his request? If he doesn't know the you're wasting everyone's time with this thread.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Why the emphasis on debates? I know its a hallmark of punditry, radio commentators and the RRS, but debates don't create consensus on topics, esp. in the scientific arena. One cannot adequitely represent complex scientific data, and their theoretical implications, in an oral debate or even a typed debate. And a skilled debater can win a debate defending a discredited view.
To me, this all sounds like a pissing match or like comparing whose dick is bigger ... The scientific consensus around evolution, an ancient universe and earth - and the emerging consensus around topics like evo-devo, no need for an uncaused first-cause, the impossiblilty of a god, etc. are developed through the processes of peer-review, experimental verification and implementation .... this is why what we believe is dominant in intellectual communities around the world - becausde it is a result of a self-critical, self-correcting process that works off of our competitiveness and our cooperation ... NOT because someone went on a Christian radio show and debated a silver-tongued populist.
So seriously, grow up and let go of that big swinging dick around town routine, "god rules" - write a paper providing evidence for your assertion (for instance, that there is a god that rules) and see if it passes peer review in any respectable journal ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
I'm sad that nobody's noticed my little post a while back. If this dude's so awesome, then he can come here, to this website, and put his arguments into print. If they're good, we won't be able to defeat them. If they're the same worn out shit that we keep hearing, we'll point it out with footnotes and references.
If he can prove god exists, he shouldn't be afraid of doing it in print.
Is he...chicken?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I noticed Hamby, I just couldn't find a way to reference it in the same breath as "big swinging dick around town" ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Yes, those are your beliefs, but you've yet to prove to me that your beliefs are not just a religion/theory. You've already made your assertions; where is the evidence now?
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
I'm simply going by the posts I've read on this site. It appears the atheist on this site don't know anything about Christianity. If there are exceptions, I haven't noticed any, except perhaps Rook. By the posts I've read, I can only assume that while they may have been Christians before, they still never really studied Christianity. This is what it appears by reading posts on this site.
Wavefreak, if you were Richard Dawkins, then perhaps you could suggest getting paid to appear Bob's show. However, as far as I know, your not even an expert in any field related to the debate in question. You've never appeared on any other show...Your appearance would generate no new viewers. If Bob is going to spen money on anyone then it will be on someone qualified to debate him. Thats how a business works, you don't pay someone who isn't going to give you anyhing in return.
If your going to demand money, then don't complain that Bob hasn't asked you to be on his show. It's that simple. Bob would probably loose viewers by having you on his show.
If you have any experience or degrees in any related field, or perhaps have debated on shows before...that would change my opinion of whether you should be paid or not...as it stands, having you on the show isn't worth paying you.
I don't speak for Bob...I don't even now him.
Richard Dawkins wouldn't give this guy the time of day. You miss the point entirely. This guy wants people to come on his show so he can attempt to make them look bad and himself look good. Why would I submit myself to that for free? If I thought he really wanted to expand his conciousness or had some sincere motives, it would completely change the equation. Me just showing up on his show puts him in a position where he risks nothing. Asking for an appearance fee is a way of raising the stakes. And I would expect any members here to get the same.
My Artwork
Wow, the no true Scotsman/Christian fallacy too?
Is there a fallacy that you folk won't use?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
His turf? His rules? Not gonna happen. I may be a theist but I'm not entirely delusional.
My Artwork
Open discussion until he pots the caller down without his/her knowledge or has the screener cut off the call if /when he's losing (assuming the caller even get past the screener)?
If I wanted that kind of "open discussion" I'd call O'Reilly or Limbaugh.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
WHY ARE YOU YELLING?
It doesn't work that work. There's nothing to stop this guy from cutting off the caller, hanging up or just yelling over him. It's happened before it will happen again. It would just be a waste of time.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
LOL. Little 'ol me could eliminate this man from broadcasting in a just single phone in exchange? I'm so good I just raised my fee.
Does your hero have the balls to do this in a mutually agreed upon manner? You issued a challenge but insist on doing it your way. I have no interest in participating in a shouting match. Ad Hoc verbal 'debates' are useless.
My Artwork
I guess I don't believe you. Maybe if you had started this thread respectfully it would be different. But the thread title and your first post show a thinly veiled contempt. How can you expect to be accepted as credible when you open the conversation asking if any have the guts or balls? You start from a confrontational stance and expect me to not be wary and defensive?
My Artwork
I don't feel i was being disrespectful. I was offering up a challenge. People do that all the time. In retrospect since i've been on this site, i've seen a lot of name calling and insults. Have i insulted you personally? If you don't trust me then listen to the show today between 3:00-4:00pm EST and see for yourself.
ps. I said "guts"
Apparantly I owe you an apology. Somewhere 'balls' came up but maybe it was a different thread.
But back to the point. I have no interest in doing an ad hoc call in to anybody. Not just Bob. It has nothing to do with guts. A call in to any such radio show is immediately an un-even playing field. A controlled written exchange would be far more illuminating. Or is illumination not part of Bob's agenda? You want Bob to be able to operate in his nice safe environment. I think he should step out and face the lions out here in the jungle.
My Artwork
I went to the links that PJane posted earlier, and I couldn't find any info about what his qualifications are as far being any kind of scientific expert. Could you provide this info?
Kelly's not a science expert. You've been told this numerous times.
When he argues science with, say, deludedgod, then I'll be impressed.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
If kelly is not a science expert than why did she agree to talk science and when she got stumped y'all cried "ambush"
It appears Kelly complained about the Way of the Master guys not using science and then brought up something scientific herself. So if she isn't a science expert, then she shouldn't mention aything dealing with science. If she says something about science, then whomever she is debating has a right to refute her using science.
I would not pay wavefreak, ever, if I had a radio show. There is nothing in it for me. Plenty of people willing to do it for free and plenty of more qualified people to spend my money on getting on a show. From a business stanpoint, it wouldn't be worth it. If you had any real qualifications, then you might be worth money, but you don't. I could take the money you want me to spend on you, and spend it on someone qualified and with a degree in whatever we would be debating.
That is your right. You also still don't recognize that nature of business. Demanding an appearance fee is a perfectly reasonable opening gambit in a negotiation. Bob could counter offer with no appearance fee, but the other things can be worked with. But no counter offer has come up. Call during his show is the only option given.
Did you miss the part where I offered to do a debate in writing? Neutral territory? No appearance fee?
My Artwork
$5 says Bob changes the topic to something other than science.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
And you still haven't come across with links where he's debated any experts. Does your guy just take on amateurs on his show (where he has all the control), ask questions out of people's areas and crow about his "wins"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
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.
There's really nothing else to say.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.