Rational Response Squad loses radio debate.

[EGarrett]

DMyfQBUMoM4

By "loses," I don't mean they actually were proven wrong. I mean that the person they're debating just made it sound to laymen as though he was correct. He passes off all kinds of shifting definitions of God...arguments from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, and passing off anecdotes as proof...but Kelly doesn't catch him on anything and lets him dominate the debate and drag her down into all kinds of semantics.

Very frustrating to listen to...and I'm considering calling this guy myself. But in the meantime, you can listen and also be frustrated.

[Wheezebucket]

You know what's frustrating to listen to? That lady's voice. Get a new front man, she's unbearable!

[Mercer]

I would have expected the rational response squad to be a bit more pugnacious, really. Not to mention effective: she really allows the discussion to wander off in a way which doesn't help her at all. I mean, her position on love is crass, far more so than her atheism (after all, when we love somebody it isn't simply an emotion, but a more general state of relationship: I love my girlfriend even when I'm thinking of something else entirely, but the chemical element presumably isn't constant.

[Phil]

Seems it cut off midstream. Is there more posted somewhere?

[EGarrett]

There are 5 parts, all posted by that same user...they should come up in the similar videos sidebar and also if you click the user's name. If you can't find them let me know and I'll post all in tags.

[wuschel]

DMyfQBUMoM4

By "loses," I don't mean they actually were proven wrong.This is one more example why everyone should look into Ignosticism, for as long as "Ignosticism" means that - in order to discuss stuff like "god exists" - there ought to be a coherent definition of "god" beforehand. I cannot stress this enough!

The radio host was clearly moving goal posts when he moved from the Christian god to "whatever_must_have_created_the_universe".

Atheism (as I think of it) is not establishing a claim, it rather is about rejecting a claim. When rejecting a claim, it must be clear what the claim actually is. There may be like 2 billion Christians, which means there are at least some 6 billion notions of the Christian god. (I did arrive at this number by applying the doctrine of trinity, which should provide a lower bound at least.)

Without a specific claim to reject, there still is a chance that one can go ahead and say: I define "god" as to be my kitchen table. Now go ahead and disprove the existence of my kitchen table!

It's a game of semantics, really, and in this instance, the host had the better skills AFA twisting words.

[Safe-Keeper]

Whether anyone from CARM saying it's been a great week, I think 'oh my god, what now?'.

[bpesta22]

I like the RRS, though I disagree with their approach to atheism. That said, I think it illustrates the fact that credentials are needed to represent the home team. Just having a basement radio show doesn't necc. make one the expert on religion and master debater.

The RRS should further their mission by getting advanced degrees somewhere. Just my opinion.

[Dunstan]

I like the RRS, though I disagree with their approach to atheism. That said, I think it illustrates the fact that credentials are needed to represent the home team. Just having a basement radio show doesn't necc. make one the expert on religion and master debater.

The RRS should further their mission by getting advanced degrees somewhere. Just my opinion.

I don't know much about the members of the RRS or what they do for a living; in fact, I think they don't use their full or real names because they like it that way. But what if they're just folks who are happy with their chosen fields of study or careers, who just want to help out their mission (whatever it is) as best they can? Does it have to be a choice between dedicating your life to promoting atheism or doing nothing (or at least, nothing in public)?

[kellyb]

That was painful.
I'm guessing she froze and thought of all the good responses on the drive home and is kicking herself now.

[l0rca]

I like the RRS, though I disagree with their approach to atheism. That said, I think it illustrates the fact that credentials are needed to represent the home team. Just having a basement radio show doesn't necc. make one the expert on religion and master debater.

The RRS should further their mission by getting advanced degrees somewhere. Just my opinion.

And/or by recruiting debaters. They have some people who hang around them who are completely dumb. I went into their stickycam room once and talked to someone about terrorism. I was so confused by the rambling logic that I ended up ignoring a large portion of the argument and offering to change the subject myself.

People know them by their publicity stunts thankfully, but I think Christian fundamentals and their networking has probably all but discredited their chances to really present a good perspective of atheism. Most of those fundies that know about them also probably know about similar vidoes and excerpts as this, and usually that's all they need to make up their minds about who's right.

[Beerina]

Christianity, and far more so religion in general, has thousands of years of buffed, polished arguments designed and tested to sway the masses.

Please be aware of this before jumping in. Here, as an engineer, I suggest you do small, real debates with local religious people to hone your skills. Also, study failures like this, and when Dawkins stood like a deer in the headlights when he goes to verbally confront Ted-the-secretly-gay-preacher (which, to Dawkins' credit, he included in his own show.) Come up with good, small, zinger-loaded responses to every single point, and be able to retrieve them mentally at will.

I've been trying to buff such responses myself for years on message boards, long before I discovered randi.org.

Sean Connery's character in The Untouchables: Are you serious about winning? They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue! :mad:

[bpesta22]

I don't know much about the members of the RRS or what they do for a living; in fact, I think they don't use their full or real names because they like it that way. But what if they're just folks who are happy with their chosen fields of study or careers, who just want to help out their mission (whatever it is) as best they can? Does it have to be a choice between dedicating your life to promoting atheism or doing nothing (or at least, nothing in public)?

In general, I agree, but this is their day job. They've moved into a house together, bought as a charity donation by some anon. atheist. Their profession is: promotion of atheism. And, they get paid to do it (charitable contributions fund them) which makes them "professionals," I guess. So, I think it's reasonable to hold em to a higher standard than say someone posting here as a hobby. Jmo...

[Dunstan]

In general, I agree, but this is their day job. They've moved into a house together, bought as a charity donation by some anon. atheist. Their profession is: promotion of atheism. And, they get paid to do it (charitable contributions fund them) which makes them "professionals," I guess. So, I think it's reasonable to hold em to a higher standard than say someone posting here as a hobby. Jmo...

No, that's fair. I didn't know that. If that's the case, then I agree with you that they should be working to improve their skills. However, I'm not sure I agree that advanced degrees really help your debating skills in most cases. In mass media debates, you need points that the general public can understand, so spouting off obscure points of evolutionary theory or cosmology will just get you labelled a smarty-pants professor who thinks he knows everything.

I think for the most part, this is something you learn by doing. Hopefully they're getting that practice on smaller stages (how popular a radio show was this one?).

I don't think it's a big deal if atheists lose some debates. I don't think the main goal of public debates on God's existence is to convert someone in real time, which I think is so rare as to be not worth worrying about. I think the main goals are simply establishing atheism as a mainstream viewpoint, and getting people used to hearing religion being challenged. Look at what the ID movement does: they'll debate anyone, anywhere, and they usually get spanked when they do, but they've still succeeded in convincing many people there is at least a "controversy."

[Wheezebucket]

That woman is a terrible mouthpiece - period. I don't care what the cause is, she shouldn't be talking about it in front of a mic. She's god awful - her voice, the way she carries herself, it's almost enough alone to drive you in the opposite direction, regardless of the argument. That's right, I almost love Jesus every time she opens her mouth.

She has to stop.