We're real on tight right now with tons of projects.  We just had a computer crash as well (the main one).  We'll be reverting to old windows xp to get the sound settings we need to record the show. 

 If it gets up and running soon maybe we could have you on one night for a little bit, you'd pick which of the two you want to resolve.

Hello Gavagai nice to see you again

Out of curiosity, what kind of 'theism' is being discussed?

I have?

You're thinking of tod. But he's not here. Then again, I don't think he very much likes it either. We both have the commonality of hating the debate format. Nothing ever gets accomplished. We prefer the discussion format.

Ah, I remember that guy...he never showed, what happened? 

Norm's newest blog:

follow up to "Strong Enough…"

If you read any of the comments on that post, you have noticed that it garnered response for the RRS group. Which was appreciated. And I am following up on some of that.

What I wanted to pursue here is simply this. I am beginning to get my arms around this whole package that RRS presents. Even though they appear to display a rational and convincing argument, I am beginning to believe it simply boils down to debating skill, not convincing evidence.  Notice, I said “I am beginning to think.” It will take some time for me to work through that. But Mr. Sapient and his legion may not be as “wise” as they may first appear to be. They could simply be good debaters.

For example: Person A takes their position over here and then stacks all their resources supporting that position and resources that support the resources that support that position, and stacks them in their camp.   Person B does the same on their side.  Depending on who has the bigger stack that day, may determine who “wins” and who “loses”.

To put it another way. Person A could say, “Mr. X says that the experiment used to recreate the original molecules for the origin of life has been proven to be false by scientist C, D, and F.”     Person B then says, “Everyone knows that current studies done at Summa University by Professor H have reaffirmed that experiment, not only showing the molecules for the origin of life, but recreating the very atmosphere from that period.”    ( And the audience goes wild!!!!)

Well, person A cannot refute that because they have not seen the evidence from Summa University.  Once the debate is over and they see it, it becomes obvious that the experiment is blatantly false and riddled with errors. But Person B didn’t care about that or see a need to point that out. It simply proved their point in the debate.

Now I am not saying that is how RRS conducts “business”.  It just appears that “debate” is their strong suit. That is all. Besides, who would ever want to go up against someone with the last name of Sapient - “having or showing great wisdom or sound judgement”?

As they say in the South - I am going to noodle this one for a while. Do a little research and reading on debating, then we may revisit this.

*******************

My response:

Norm,

As you might expect, we’re anxiously awaiting any well educated theologians who might want to debate us. I’m not rushing you, as I understand that you want to be sure of what you’re doing. That’s fine.

I do want to address some of your concerns in this blog. The reason I insist on a written debate is precisely to avoid some of the pitfalls you are mentioning. Once the debate is said and done, theists and atheists alike have the benefit of being able to go back and nitpick each and every detail of the debate to decide whether it was about good “debate skills” or sound logic.

The second reason I insist on a written format is that it allows each side enough time to do their own research. If person A asserts that Summa University has published this or that study, person B will have time to determine if this is true, and can read the whole study if it pleases him to do so.

I know it’s kind of hard for many theists to wrap their mind around this idea, but we atheists want you to be able to state your case in intricate detail, and we want you to double check our facts, and we want you to analyze our debates to see if we’re using rhetoric or logic. A written format makes things better for you if we’re just “good at debate.”

You still need to focus on all your basic errors in linguistics before you can even enter into such a debate.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

For what it's worth, for both Norm MacDonald and Gavagai, I have no interest in debating an undeveloped or incoherent topic.  The two topics presented in the OP are both suffering from a complete lack of precise language, and before I'd even consider a debate, I'd want to know the precise meaning of all the vague words, such as rational, god, likely, etc.

In other words, until a coherent proposition is presented, I'm not going to waste my time.

I'm still baffled as to why these prominent theists, who are supposed to be so good at dismantling our arguments, don't just come here and dismantle them.  It seems like it would serve them awfully well.  We're getting to be a thorn in a lot of people's sides.

Did you read the thread that todangst posted?

He's had a fair debate, and he proved himself incapable of recognizing simple logical fallacies, which were demonstrated to him repeatedly by many people.

Read the whole thread, please.

Hamby and Todangst,

The challenge is only for the members of RRS that I listed. Thanks for your interest, though. As far as todangst's claims about my past discusision with him wherein I allegedly committed "logical fallacies" and other "blunders", I encourage all intelligent readers to click the links that he and rev provided, and judge the outcome for yourselves.

Brian,

In case these questions managed to escape your notice, here they are again (supposing our debate takes place via phone):

 Would you agree to give each party an equal amount of time -- free of interruption -- to present their case? 

 And would you agree to allow each party to record the entirety of the debate and distribute it as they see fit?

Cheers,

Gavagai

Well then our show and website aren't exactly the place for his cunning plan.  He should try the atheist and agnostic myspace group.

By the way, I have no idea what Rev is talking about. My plan is simply to engage you in a debate, providing you take up my challenge.

 Gavagai, please

Brian,

Thanks for your reply.

You say, "Get the idea of a debate out of your head, look at it like a conversation." Shouldn't the degree of confidence you place in your atheism warrant more than just a defense in an informal "conversation"? Why not defend it in a real debate with me? If your atheism is rationally defensible, one would think that you'd be eager to participate in a serious debate.

You're objection against the interruption-free policy seems odd, since it is a policy that virtually all rational and civil debates are guided by. (You are interested in a rational and civil debate, right?) If you hear me assert a falsehood, you would of course be free to point it out during your rebuttal. Problem solved. So we can agree to no interruptions, and you can still point out whatever falsehoods you wish. This is reasonable and fair. As soon as you agree to it, we can discuss scheduling considerations.

We'll both have watches, and they'll be synchronized beforehand.

Here's a more specific breakdown of the format I have in mind:

Round 1: Opening statements. 10 min each

Round 2: Rebuttals. 7 min each

Round 3: Cross exam. We each get to ask the other party 3 questions (questions should be framed in under a minute). The other party will have 2 minutes to respond to each question.

Round 4: Closing statements. 5 min each.

As for the resolutions, since you don't believe atheism has a truth-value, we can modify the first resolution as follows:

Resolved: Theism is more likely true than not.

In any case, you seem more interested in the second resolution. So we can go with that one.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Brian makes a really good point, and it's one of the reasons many of us shun the traditional verbal debates in favor of good old fashioned print. Theism has never, ever, ever been proven. If anyone could prove it, it would be front page news all over the world, and literally everything about science would have to change.

To think that someone who could do this simply wants to give Brian or Kelly a chance to try to argue seems ridiculous in the extreme.

Either this person is extremely malicious, and just wants to make RRS look bad before he wins his Nobel Prize, or he doesn't have enough goods to go to the Nobel panel, and would rather try to pick on someone he perceives as unable to refute his fallacious arguments.

By the way, if you review those threads Rev posted, you'll notice that it was Todangst and me who thrashed his arguments to shreds. I wonder if it's a coincidence that he doesn't want to debate us again?

Nope.  I'm thinking of theism.  I've opined on this at length, as have both todangst and deludedgod.  If you haven't read, or don't understand the arguments, please review these threads:

The Notion of Scientific or Indeed any Empirical Proof of God Commits an Internal Contradiction

My Central Thesis on The Conceptual Absurdity of the Theistic God

"God" is an incoherent term

The self refuting nature of "Hermeneutics"

Either a god is natural or it's not.  If it's natural, then science can describe it, and theism becomes meaningless.  If it's not, and it exists, then all of philosophy and science would necessarily be turned on its head.

 Before you start harping on how theism would not be meaningless, consider this.  If science demonstrated the existence of a natural being, and further demonstrated that worshiping (whatever that happens to mean) this being was beneficial, or granted eternal life, or whatever it happened to add to one's life, then the practice of worship would not be theistic any more.  It would be scientific.

The two are forever irreconcilable.  Religion must deal with that which is not scientific, else we would call it science.

This is precisely why I insist on written "debates" if someone must debate. 

Honestly, though, this seems incredibly simple.  What's the monetary prize for winning the Nobel?  It's pretty big, if I recall.  All these internet hacks who claim to be able to do it are either:

1) Incredibly self centered -- after all, why would anyone want to hold back such an amazing proof from the world?

2) Full of it.

Every "debate" I've ever engaged in went something like this...

Theist: I can prove god.  blah, blah, blah, blah, blah (ad nauseum)

Atheist: That doesn't prove it.

Theist: Yes it does

Atheist: No it doesn't

Theist: Yes it does

Atheist: Where's your Nobel Prize?

(chirp...... chirp...... chirp)

So your arguments only work with the most well-known members?

Atheism means nothing to me, I have no confidence in "atheism."  I have confidence in your inability (along with every other human to ever live on this rock we call Earth) to give rational reasons to believe in your god.   My defense of being an atheist is your inability (and everyone else in the world) to give good reasons to be a theist.  When I say good, I mean logical, falsifiable, rational.

Good try in getting your 20 minute spew bullshit session on our show though.

Defend what?  Atheism again?  Look around this site, I've written hundreds of times as to many of the reasons one should not believe in a god.  

I am eager to debate issues worth debating.  Want to compare the residual value of a Honda versus a Toyota and factor in reliability?  We can debate an issue like that all night if you want.

You seem to think you bring something to the table worthy of debating.  You don't, you apparently don't even understand what atheism is.  We'll talk with you and try to help you overcome your ridiculous beliefs in as civil and polite a manner as possible, that's what you can have as a promise. 

 Also... you'll get back from the show, what you give to us.  Turn in to a jerk, and you're likely to ed up on the phone with a few jerks.  Be nice, respectful, civil you're likely to get it right back.  (all things you'd know if you'd had listened to a few of our shows)

You're inability to promise you won't refrain from making statements that are false, dishonest, fallacious, incorrect, or misleading is ironic.  You want me to compromise my show... then you compromise who you are too.

No.  You are interested in trying to defend your views in front of a crowd of folks capable of picking them apart right?  

You're off to a horrible start with me.  You see how I started this post telling you to get the idea of a debate out of your head, and then you go on to ask if I'm interested in debate with you?

Civility I can handle, please start with yourself.

Apparently no we can't agree, and you're following a pattern of theists that have blazed the path for you.... ignore everything we say. 

Not on our show it doesn't.  It sounds like boring radio.

When you seriously want to come on our show, and you've realized your not the director of it, let me know.

I think the audience should hold the watches.

You really have no idea what you're walking in to.  Just no clue at all man.  80% of the audience here would tell you that hell would have to freeze over before we let someone come on and spew 10 minutes of bullshit in our ears.  No fucking way is it happening.   

This can be round 1, 2, and 3.

3 mins.
 

Take the second one, and take it on our forums.  I won't be responding again here until we're ready to book you.  This was a waste of time.