The Rational Response Squad

New Blog

2011-10-06T13:57:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are interested, I'm writing a new freethought blog over here.

I noticed that the RRS is still active, but given that many of their core members left and they aren't really doing anything worthwhile anymore I'm still not going to write about them. They'll disappear sooner rather than later.

Ok

2009-04-13T18:38:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems the RRS has finally fallen over the edge. If someone wants this blog, let me know and we'll talk. Especially if you're willing to give me money for it. :)

Otherwise, I've recently rediscovered my lifelong love: computer programming. Specifically, game programming - thanks to Conitec for providing a free version of their game engine while I save up money for the commercial edition.

Anyway, it takes up a lot of time, not to mention work and friends and I just don't have the motivation to write about nonsense like the RRS.

Peace.

Is the RRS Dead/Dying?

2009-02-01T08:58:00.001-08:00

I may be a bit late to this topic. However, I've been tied down with certain goings-on in my life.

It seems to me that the RRS is pretty much dead or dying. Kelly quit her writing project months ahead of her planned schedule (probably after her articles were picked apart so harshly that any rational person would have been embarrassed), they can't raise the $11,000 (!!!) needed to supposedly fund their website, and they have transitioned from a community of atheist activists into a community of atheists.

If this is the case, then I suppose this blog serves no useful purpose. If anyone is still checking this blog, or happens to stumble on it, maybe you can fill me in on the missing pieces. If I don't see any comments, then that'll be all the answer I need I suppose.

Brian Sapient Demonstrates How NOT to Keep Reasonable Atheists on Your Side

2008-02-27T21:53:00.001-08:00

Warning: Foul Language!!!

Over at the Rants 'n' Raves forums, the RRS is getting criticized by more of their atheist peers. Interestingly, Brian Sapient sent this e-mail to a user named "Stopper", seemingly for no good reason at all (note, although Sapient has established that this is "copyrighted", by publishing it on his website, the implied license clause allows me to reproduce the private e-mail here). I should warn you that this e-mail has some strong language.

From: infidelsapient@hotmail.com
To: my hotmail address that I never use
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: Go fuck yourself cunt

A letter from all of us at RRS...

Go fuck yourself. We see you in public, and we'll let everyone in the room know about your baggage. Bitch.

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7740

Your fucking scum. So glad none of the atheist groups want you back. Idiot. [sic - basically that entire thing]

That exchange, followed by Sapient's (over)reaction can be summed up in one picture:

Now, aside from the atrocious grammar, what's with Brian Sapient's "The Internet Is Serious Business" attitude? Was this really necessary, coming from anyone with an ounce of maturity and intelligence, or for that matter rationality?

Baggage? Interesting. Apparently, the baggage Sapient is referring to is referenced when he says something to the effect of her having more skeletons in the closet than Jeffery Dahmer. So, the moral of the story is: Don't criticize the RRS in any way shape or form, or even harbor criticism of any kind, or else the RRS will attempt to assassinate your character and humiliate you. Hm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't there another group that does something like that? Gets you to trust them, then when you reveal personal secrets, uses those secrets against you if you criticize them? Ah, that's right! The Cult known as Scientology.

To top it all off, Sapient made a big stink that Stopper violated copyright by publishing the e-mail (look at this thread). What is Sapient going to do? Sue her? Wouldn't surprise me since he threatens lawsuits more often than the Church of Scientology (I'm noticing a pattern).

Maybe the RRS is being vilified unfairly here, so let's take a look at some excerpts from their forum to find out for sure.

Kelly adds her two rational cents with:

They are obviously a bunch of dipshits

Then Mr. Sapient has this to say:

just wrote a two hour piece exposing these fucking idiots, and I lost it. Aerik, I love you man but these RRS hate issues are issues I just ignore due to stupidity, however when they pop up in my house I feel the need to respond. I just spent two hours on it, and will now need to spend more time. Time that could have been used on actual humans, not subhumans like the morons you're mingling with.

Then he follows up with:

Ask Jake about how when someone posed a thread about beastiality back in the day on the AN she was so restrictive about the speech she told Jake that if he didn't ban the user she would leave. This was at a time when we all tried to embrace her even though she has a closet of problems that rivals Jeffrey Dahmer. Thankfully Jake doesn't take well to ultimatums from Nazi cuntlicks who have low self esteem and stab the people in the back who try to protect her.
More on that cunt coming soon.

Man, I feel like I'm getting more rational just reading Sapient's incisive wisdom here. But for the life of me, I still can't see what reason these atheists would have for criticizing him. I mean, clearly he is a reasonable, mature, rational person...

Why certain people at RnR who think they are freethinkers, are in actuality gigantic fucking morons. We may also start telling stories about how insecure, insane, sick, and back stabbing, the cunt Janice Rael is.

Ok, I think that's all I need to quote from Sapient. Clearly his atheist detractors are being entirely unreasonable here. I mean, they're more-or-less calmly and rationally criticizing the RRS, when what they should be doing is calling people names, posting pictures of a person, and then mocking that person's body...Wait. Did I mention that Brian Sapient was posting pictures of Ms. Rael and then calling her a "400 pound whale"? No? Because he did. I'll paraphrase the wise utterances of The Sapient here, for your edification and so you can see why his atheist critics are just jerks who are out to use the RRS to gain fame because secretly they love the RRS and are insanely jealous, which sounds strangely narcissistic but it can't be because Kelly said it.

Anyway, here's the paraphrase:

At first, I thought this was in bad taste, but then I noticed the words under the picture of Rael's forum avatar which read: "Her avatar can fit insider her ass!! Talk about misrepresentation!" Now I know that it most definitely was not in bad taste.

Anyway, what is she misrepresenting? The Sapient addresses this misrepresentation when he says:

Furthermore I can add a tinge of parody to the article by noting that the sexy picture of Janice is a poor representation of her. She's more like a 380 pound whale, not that I have anything against people being overweight, I just find the deceit to be funny.

Sapient apparently thinks that Ms. Rael intended her readers to think that the obviously fake, computer generated model which looks nothing like a real person is supposed to be Ms. Rael. Obviously, we were meant to think that something which clearly isn't a human, is supposed to be a human. Ms. Rael is blatantly dishonest.

Sapient uses this as proof that Ms. Rael is a 380 lb whale, and therefore...well, I guess everything she says is invalid. I say, "Good for you, Sape." Obviously your atheist pals need a lesson in rationality, and posting these pictures with the complimentary remarks of "whale" is going to give them exactly that.

Sapient also included this nifty photo:

Then he changes his mind: She's not a 380 lb whale, she's a 400 lb whale. Which really means that we can clearly conclude that any of her criticisms of the RRS, or any of the criticisms of anyone remotely affiliated with her is moot. Right?

This raises a question which has been raised before: Does The Sapient objectify women, based merely on looks? After this, and the way he treats Kelly, the question seems rather poignant. But so what? Right? Obviously objectification of women would be a good thing, otherwise Sapient wouldn't do it.

On a bit of an ironic note, The Sapient criticizes Christians for rationalizing away supposed moral atrocities in the Bible, thus violating common sense morality. But here Sapient is violating common sense morality, by mocking people incessantly and beyond any possible need, so he can circle the wagons around his group as his obnoxious personality fans the flames of more and more criticism from fellow atheists. Obviously when he does it, its a good thing, because anyone who says otherwise is just spreading a dishonest meme.

Greetings

2008-02-27T09:51:00.001-08:00

I've been asked to contribute to this blog in Frank's absence. I was happy to take over, despite that I had all but abandoned the RRS on my other blogs.

I'm looking forward to catching back up with my old friends (the RRS), since there's no shortage of laughable material coming from their intellectual black-hole of a website (rationalresponders.com - which they finally managed to overhaul from a travesty of web design, into a pretty decently designed 'site).

There will be a few minor changes to the layout, otherwise the only difference should be in writing style. I like to focus more on philosophical arguments, when possible, and I like to keep up-to-date on the material coming out of the RRS as it happens. Not that Frank didn't do these things, mind you, I simply mean that I am enough of a loser to write anti-blog notes on everything Kelly writes for instance.

As a final note, I am leaving for a number of months for boot camp and technical training, so in a week or so there will be a "hiccup" in posting. Not to worry, though, it won't be permanent.

I'd just like to thank Frank for the opportunity, and wish him good luck and I hope God blesses him and his family.

That said, enjoy!

On Rook Hawkins on Paul and Identity

2008-02-25T12:30:00.000-08:00

Rook Hawkins just posted an article entitled "On Paul and Identity" where he makes the same argument that I've dealt with here. Some people never learn.

The RRS are open about their sexual perversion in front of children

2008-02-17T13:20:00.000-08:00

I find it absolutely hypocritical of the RRS to post a video about a low-life pedophile priest on their website, when they are known for exposing teenagers and children to pornography!

There are two things that are unquestionable about the Rational Response Squad:

#1 - They target youngsters.
#2 - They are overtly sexual in their orientation.

What a combination, huh?

Let's deal with #1 - They target youngsters.

That's a no-brainer. When asked, Is it true that you are targeting young people with their "blapshemy challenge"campaign"? Their answer is "Yes" (blasphemychallenge.com/faq.html). Furthermore the RRS help a teenage group of atheists known as the Freethinking Teens! As you can see RRS propaganda is throughout the whole website.

Now #2 - They are overtly sexual in their orientation.

You need only see how Brian Sapient films Kelly here:

Let me ask all concerned atheist parents some questions: Would you want someone like Brain Sapient be the leader of a movement that your teenage daughter follows? Does it comfort you that he objectifies girls? How about this: Would you want someone like Brian Sapient be the boyfriend of your daughter after watching a video clip like that? It looks like Sapient had himself a "Girls Gone Wild" moment, huh? I don't know about you guys but if I caught Brian Sapient filming footage up my daughter's skirt, I'd take that camcorder of his and shove it up where the sun don't shine. And if I caught my daughter acting like a little slut like Kelly, I'd teach her a lesson she would soon not forget.

Furthermore, RRS' website is easily accessible to children, and their image gallery is not hard to find. Check it out at your own risk:

www.rationalresponders.com/image

Is Brian Sapient and Kelly the only perverts in the Rational Response Squad? Nope. It looks like Rook Hawkins has a flare for it too. Not only are RRS into pornographic material, but literature seems to come their way, too. The following comes from Rook Hawkins' blogsite:

The Pleasure Cruise

By Rook Hawkins

He ran his finger tips over the curvature of her shoulder, the feel of her silky skin sent electric jolts through his body and into his loins. Just the touch of her excited him, his imagination sent soaring in untold fantastical directions, the things he wanted to do to her. They were the gentle whispers in his ear that nobody else would ever learn of.

She faced him now; her soft, violet-eyed gaze made him dizzy, but he still found strength enough to focus on her. She didn't have to move at all, he appreciated every inch of her, both inside and out. Yet it was the fact that she did move that made his heart want to leap out from his chest, and had he not been so enthralled by her he might have found that his palms had become sweaty from the heat of their passions.

Slowly, she laid him back on the soft, new bed he'd recently bought for the two of them. She didn't have to fight with pesky buttons or zippers as their clothes had long since been stripped from both their bodies. Her enchanted silver hair tickled his chest as much as her lips enticed him as they planted sensual kisses down to his stomach.

Each time she pressed against his skin he couldn't help but breathe heavier, he could feel his lungs start to burn from trying to hold back moans of pleasure. She didn't make such a task easy on him, and he dreamt that such a time would never come when she did. He enjoyed the game as much as she enjoyed winning at it. And although at times he felt he would burst, he did his best to restrain himself.

But she played dirty, and he could never commit himself for long. The addition of her tongue forced his joy to crescendo. It was as if all his surroundings had vanished, leaving only the shell of their movements remaining. He could taste the saltiness of his sweat dripping down from his hair, the sensation of their skin brushing up against each other with intentions of becoming one.

He stretched and grasped at the bed sheets involuntarily, as if such gestures of futility would stop the growing eruption within him. It was only a matter of time before she'd release him and take him. She played until she knew he could take no more, until he was beckoning her with his ample moaning and warm breadth on her wet, auburn skin.

Aside from the literature that reeks of pure cheesiness (my God in high heaven! Rook's writing is just awful!), it doesn't take a lot to know that Rook Hawkins is a pure amateur. He makes soap operas look bad.

Don't be fooled: Misogyny is a player in the Rational Response Squad.

And of course, where would all this perversion be were it not applied. In a live public chatroom where the following was said:

[note:
Brian Sapient overlooked this chat
this is bumbklaatt
bluemustangxxx is Rook Hawkin's then girlfriend
this is fyre86
this is abrahobscura]

bumbklaatt: I'm still hammered
bluemustangxxx: lol
bluemustangxxx: im still naked
fyre86: 5 times a dayyy
fyre86: once we did it 12 times
bluemustangxxx: dude
bluemustangxxx: 3 times with you on top bri
bluemustangxxx: then 2 with her on top
abrahobscura: on the zoloft i m luck if i get 2
bumbklaatt: nikki = succubus...
bluemustangxxx: then you wouldnt even have to work the last 2
fyre86: i l ove lube!!!!!!!!
bumbklaatt: just sucking a mans life force
fyre86: lolol
bluemustangxxx: your only job would be to provide thecum

Gee, how lucrative.

This is what it all comes down to, ladies and gentlemen:

1. The Rational Response Squad are targeting youngsters.
2. Obviously youngsters will be drawn toward RRS if they chose to. (Heck, they have children participating!)
3. Those children will be exposed to overt sexual antics of this group.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem if they were exposing such adult material to, well, adults (although that has its own moral questions), but to children?! Dude, get real! If a little girl finds her self-worth in such graphic depictions, can you imagine how she'll grow up? You look how Sophia Mills defends her atheist father's immature and immoral act, and finds absolutely no problem with it, now, we're going to have children defending lustful promiscuity? And seeing how RRS is setting an example for kids, they're going to think this sort of lifestyle is okay. Imagine, your young daughter strutting around for perverts like Brian Sapient, Rook Hawkins, bumbklaatt, and Mr. Gawn. Or imagine her acting as loose as Kelly, fyre86, and bluemustang. And, what of your sons? Your sons' masculinity will be defined by how much they can objectify women. Is that what a man does? These male pigs wouldn't know how to treat a women right. You need only look at Brian Sapient's life:

He doesn't live with the mother of his child.
At one point he lived in his the girlfriend's basement.
And his then girlfriend payed the bills to his show!

Is that what a man does? Shouldn't he be providing for his girlfriend?

If RRS are truly "rational" shouldn't they provide teenagers with reason and logic? Not sex orgies and half-naked women.

Do you want your little girl to end up growing into this (Is that a butt-crack on her chest or a cleavage?):

Or this (thank God they blacked her out):

You get the picture. But can you imagine how this girl would grow up under the lustful watch of the Rational Response Squad? That answer scares me. Furthermore, this overt promiscuity and influence on children gives an open door to pedophiles and perverts. The RRS should be ashamed of themselves. But no, they want teens exposed to their pornographic lifestyle.

Brian "Sapient" and the RRS are the most passive atheists in the world... bar none!

2008-02-16T19:50:00.000-08:00

Never in my life have I met a far more passive group of people than the members of the Rational Response Squad. Usually, when they're confronted they runaway. Brian "Sapient's" cowardice will always be remembered. It's darn near legendary by now. He still continues to refuse to debate able Christians, while taking on shallow apologists like (get this) Kirk Cameron! Also, Rook Hawkins refuses to debate able historians (like JP Holding). To grow more in life you have to be competitive. Sapient and Hawkins aren't. Rather, they do drive bys and back-biting without confrontational face-to-face combats. Taking on people you know you can beat isn't hard. It's cowardice. Read the lies.

Related:

Brian Sapient Can Dish Out But Cant Take It

Is Theism Irrational? Responding to the 'Lil Responder Krew

2008-02-16T02:29:00.001-08:00

Paul Manata whips the RRS crew again.

The Rational Response Squad and Pornography

2008-02-16T00:00:00.000-08:00

I look at so-called "men" of the Rational Response Squad, like Brian "Sapient", Rook Hawkins, LeftofLarry, Mr. Gawn, and Greydon Square, and how they continuously embrace pornography. They don't even hide the fact that they lust after women. It's written all over their website, and they make videos that would make any pervert happy. Worse of all, you have Kelly O'Connor who embraces this objectification of females. A real man doesn't treat or think of women as objects like these perverted sickos. And women ought to know better than to act like little skanks. Is it even mentally healthy to think of women this way? Of course not.

Serial killer and rapist, Ted Bundy, in his final hours before his execution, sought Christian psychologist Dr. James Dobson. There, he described his addiction to pornography and how it fueled his murderous ramapage:

The more corrupt your moral compass is, the more corrupt you are.

Let this be a warning to all of you.

Brian Flemming thinks it's a good strategy to be a coward

2008-02-11T02:15:00.001-08:00

This is old news but after doing a little research on Brian Phlegm-ming, I found this of interest...

Usually, when you have an opponent debate you, you may want to have a signed agreement, so there won't be any cheating or scandalous actions done. Atheist and Christ-mythicist Brian Phlegm-ming (the director of The God Who Wasn't There) has one of his own. In it, he says in order to debate him you must agree to the following:

I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist.
I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life.
I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.
I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.
I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition.
I believe the Bible is not infallible.
I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up.
I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.
I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.
I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

I've read about some cowardly actions before, but this takes the cake! This is like a pro-choice advocate telling a pro-life advocate that if you want to debate him you must have a signed-agreement stating that abortion is OK!

Now, this is where it gets very peculiar. Phlegm-ming claims that this was all just a stunt:

The goal of this stunt was to provoke Christian leaders into getting indignant, link to the Statement, and thus expose unwitting Christians to a notion that is often hidden from them by Christian authorities -- that much of what they are taught about ancient history is flat-out wrong, and believed on faith in contradiction to the available evidence. And, boy, did this strategy work. [<-- I had to laugh at that line!] Another goal of the Statement was to outline for Christians just how frustrating it is to debate with someone who uses reason when it is convenient, but drops it and retreats to "faith" as soon as his argument falls apart.

This may be one of the worse ways to provoke somebody, because Phlegm-ming unknowingly did it in spite of himself! Also, if a Christian debater refused to sign the agreement, would it really make him look bad? Of course not. It'd make him look rational, because you'd have to be an idiot to sign the said agreement. Whatever Phlegm-ming was up to in this stunt of his, it sure didn't help him. All in all, this strategy made him look like a chicken. Thank you, Mr. Phlegm-ming, for making your "debate" policy public.

Now, I never heard or read a real debate Phlegm-ming was in. If you recall, his last sort-of debate with Centurion was not really a debate if you look at the structure. Phlegm-ming had the structure done where it was more of a discussion. All it was, really, was a Q&A! Check it out: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12, part 13, part 14, part 15, part 16, part 17, part 18, part 19, part 20, part 21, part 22, part 23, part 24.

Related:

Brian Flemming and Debating by James White

Brian Phlegm-ming's The God Who Wasn't There

2008-02-08T13:11:00.000-08:00

You guys may remember that RRS was giving out free copies of The God Who Wasn't There DVD to the first few who did the dreaded Blasphemy Challenge. Well, we have the movie for you right here for free! In terms of filmmaking this documentary is a piece of crap - bad editing and horrific music. I mean, if his filmmaking skills is this bad what does that suggest about Brian Phlegm-ming's thinking? Well, it's not consistent that's for sure. You see, Phlegm-ming is an advocate of copyleft. That's the view where you can take some other filmmaker's footage of his movie and use it for your own purpose. Phlegm-ming did it to Mel Gibson where he took footage from the Passion of the Christ and put it in The God Who Wasn't There. Of course that's illegal but Phlegm-ming would invite a lawsuit from Gibson to get his name out. Obviously, Phelgm-ming is a parasite. Here's the thing though, virtually every time we put up The God Who Wasn't There in our blogsite, Phelgm-ming makes an effort to get the video removed from the server! Talk about hypocrisy! Especially when someone is an advocate of copyleft no less! But we're not going to stop :o). Here's The God Who Wasn't There unedited and unabridged. Watch the lies:

There are a number of wonderful critiques on the above mockumentary film:

Babylonisfallen:

Link

Bring You:

Link

Christian CADRE:

Reefer Madness and a new Jesus Myth film

Christopher Butler:

Part 1
Part 2

Ethics Daily:

"MOVIE REVIEW -- 'The God Who Wasn’t There'

GakuseiDon:

Review

JP Holding:

Great Expectorations

The God Who Wasn't There - appropriately debunked

Filmmaker Brian Flemming chumps out on a debate with JP Holding

Mike Licona:

Review

Joel McDurmon:

Manifested in the Flesh

Mysteryofiniquity (a non-Christian):

Link

SerpentSlayer1:

Part 1

Part 2

Susan Verstraete:

Review

James White:

The many errors of Brian Flemming # 1
Brian Flemming and debating

Related links:

Shattering the Christ Myth by JP Holding
Paul a gnostic? by JP Holding
The Jesus Legend by Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd
Lord or Legend? by Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd
Gary Habermas vs Tim Callahan part 1 and part 2
The Real Jesus
Refuting the Jesus Mythists once again
Update on the Real Jesus DVD
Two Questions for the Jesus Mythists
Dynamic Duo of Douchebaggery by Michael Stradley
Rook Hawkins on the Apostle Paul by Frank Walton and Friends
Blashpemy Challenge by Frank Walton and Friends

In response to Rook Hawkins' "Tom Cruise and the 'Jesus Meme'"

2008-02-06T23:56:00.000-08:00

"Yes of course scientific ideas are memes and atheism is a meme."

- Daniel Dennett

(I am as honest as Rook Hawkins in that I have not plagiarized any of the following from him)

by Frank Walton

In a recent wave of the viral media expose, Tom Cruise and the now infamous Scientology Indoctrination video (you should definitely watch the video before reading the rest of this), which has been systematically been removed from the net where ever the Scientologists have found them. What is the most interesting part of the video is not the maniacal laughter and psychotic expressions Cruise gives throughout the video, it is the way Cruise is portrayed by the film directors of the video itself.

What do I mean? Consider: Rhythmic Mission Impossible theme in the background, black turtleneck (sweater?), fancy director cuts at specific points as if to enhance Cruise's obviously vague and incomprehensible dialog. And who can forget the Cruise montage at the end of the film? The clear intent of the video is not to promote Scientology - because Cruise does not present any argument for it, at least not any that are coherent. He certainly doesn't seem like he has even thought the points out enough, stumbling through sentences worse than George Bush without a teleprompter (okay, even with the prompter he sucks). No, the point of the movie is about raising up Tom Cruise. Like a hero just coming back from storming the beaches of Normandy, or saving the world from a terrorist organization, or sliding across the hardwood floor in his underwear - or whatever, Cruise comes across like the coming Messiah. Nothing short of that hilarious South Part Scientology episode if you ask me.

It's an interesting phenomena that seems to happen in all secular religions when a so-called high-status symbol joins the rank. How interesting is it that Cruise, like Rook Hawkins, is highlighted in this way? Or better yet, I like to think of Cruise as part of this meme that is so prevalent in atheism. Consider the list of characters, starting with the early secularists who supposedly preformed all of these miracles, which usually upstaged Jesus in almost every way. Consider Michael Martin who, as explained by Phil Fernandes in his debate with him, not only believes that it's rational that something can come from nothing, but even thinks it's scientific! Or consider Rook Hawkins, who thinks Lucian never mentioned Christianity then was stupid enough to quote Lucian where he did mention Christianity! But it doesn't stop there.

A look at the evangelists of atheism will bring this concept of the "Jesus meme" to life.

These evangelicals are 'ministering' to millions of people. And when I say 'ministering', I mean lying their asses off. But that is perhaps for another blog entry. People come to them for guidance, receive a psychological comfort from them, even participate in fake "healings" where they are trained how to behave and act, all while giving a portion of their income to them. I'm reminded of Rook Hawkins and Brian Cutler who say they can heal Christians from their "mind disorders" then ask for money and donations for their non non-profit organization. Which, if your Cutler and Hawkins, all of that income is going probably going to porn. By the way, Rook, God doesn't need money if he's all powerful. Duh! But seriously, these characters are made out to be "demi-saviors", all of which they get from blind and mindless narratives.

I find it so ironic that, just as the Christ-myth authors reinterpreted scripture and used literary tropes to invent a story that Jesus never existed. These evangelicals for atheism reinvent the Gospel narratives to make money and elevate their own popularity. In fact, Cutler has been making post after post asking for money for his non-working ass. But how do these Christ-mythers reinvent history? Well, they act like Rook Hawkins where they think their uneducated, and plagiaristic, and only-high school degree background can still make a man an educated scholar by dressing their language from scholarly works. They put on a face of compassion, but really their just blood-sucking body-snatchers. And wouldn't you know it, Scientology is picking up on this "Atheist meme".

After stealing a lot of other things from atheism (claiming to be a compassionate organization but practicing intolerance, claiming to be an authority on various things like medicine and psychology or in Cruise language "drugs" and the "mind", and finally the use of horribly tainted logic and mind control to make the tainted logic sound "logical" - yep, stole all that from Christianity those bastards!), they have finally adopted the most popular trope - the messianic return. Rook Hawkins fits this role perfectly. He thinks he's a ladies man, attractive (although the look of a zombie with a goatee has taken away some of his charm, I'm sure), and is seen as a leader because of all those lectures he's been in.

And here is food for thought. In seven-hundred years, what will Rook Hawkins be seen as? We know him as the crazy, lying, goatee wearing liar who "just knows". But will he one day be viewed as a scholar of history for mankind? Scary thought? You betcha. What scares me more are his followers who already seem to be body-snatched and brain dead - sort of like your average Rational Response Squad follower! Compare these two videos - one from Rook Hawkins and the other from Paul MacFarland .

Rook Hawkins on the Apostle Paul (look how he thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we all know that's bull):

Paul MacFarland refuting Hawkins (smart and wise):

It's not finished folks. Now, look at these videos - one from Brian Cutler and the other from IrishFarmer.

Brian Cutler (immature and poor logic):

And IrishFamrer (rational and reasonable) whipping Cutler's poor logic:

See, judging from the videos above, it's very obvious that atheism does more harm to logic and rationality to pea-brains like Hawkins and Cutler, while the Christians have been shown to be much more smart and sharp than them.

With the "atheist meme", we know darn well how Hawkins and Culter will be looked at as in the coming future. It is an awful thought that such an incredible bag of horse manure (evolution and the Rational Response Squad), invented by a college drop out (Charles Darwin), can be spread on the faces of so many people while leaving them smiling. Yet, it may someday be said of the biggest spread of this crap, Stupid Rook Hawkins, that he was the man that brought about historical facts in the twenty-first century. What can you do about it? Well, I suggest you just laugh at him.

Related:

The stupid mind of Rook Hawkins
Rook Hawkins caught plagiarizing!
Rook Hawkins caught misusing a source with Thomas Thompson!

The RRS want to milk you for all the money you got
Brian Cutler wants you to pay your hard earned money for his troubles
RRS misuse their donations

Yet ANOTHER ATHEIST comes out against the Rational Response Squad!

2008-02-03T14:52:00.000-08:00

An atheist who calls himself carriedthecross wrote the following:

For a while I was attracted to such groups as the Rational Response Squad. Far be it for me to criticize my fellow atheists, but I cannot bring myself to stomach some of their tactics. Perhaps it is because we have different goals, all atheists are not the same, after all. As a Christian, I watched the Blasphemy Challenge videos with disdain. They seemed to me to be nothing more than a slap in the face to Christians. As an atheist, I still see the Blasphemy Challenge as a slap in the face against Christians. The goal of the project is to allow atheists to proudly dissent from popular culture, and ultimately, I assume, to promote atheism as an alternative to theism. The consequence that I see is to marginalize atheists more by making us look reactionary and angry. I doubt not the RRS’ motives, only their methods.

The Rational Response Squad wants to milk you for all the money you got!

2008-01-30T19:50:00.000-08:00

Brian Cutler is desperately looking for ways to make money. Lately, he's trying to threaten people with lawsuits so they can settle for a large sum of money. Of course, that's a sleazy way of making money. But what else is new with Cutler, huh?

But it looks like Cutler is looking for another way of making money: speaking engagements. That's right, if you want the Rational Response Squad to speak at your club, conference, church, event, etc. they charge up to $10,000! Think about what you're getting here guys! We're talking Brian Cutler (an ex-cell phone salesman with only a high school degree), Rook Hawkins (a non-published high school educated non-scholarly historian and plagiarist), and Kelly O'Connor (an ex-stripping lapdancer and a college dropout), mixed with all their immaturity! Wow, what a deal!

$10,000 for an uneducated lecture that only goes for about 2 hours? Hmm, let's break that down. For a decent full-time job you get roughly about $30,000 a year. The RRS charges $10,000 for one speaking engagement. $10,000 is about 4 months of work. Uhm, dude, they ain't worth it.

Here's the thing, it gets better. If you're actually dumb enough to dignify the Rational Response Squad to debate someone who is good and reputable (like JP Holding or whoever who has a degree), it'll cost you $50,000!

$10,000? $50,000? LOLOLOL! Their arguments aren't worth .50 cents!

PS Lest they call me liars, I have fool proof that RRS are on record for saying that these are the prices they charge.

More shameless acts from Brian "Sapient"

2008-01-27T01:44:00.001-08:00

I just visited Brian Sapient's (aka Brian Cutler's) youtube account and to my surprise he just uploaded videos of Michael Shermer. This is the same Michael Shermer that Sapient criticized and lambasted here! Among many things, Sapient accused Shermer of being passive and a hypocrite. If Sapient doesn't like him why is he uploading videos of him? It's simple, Sapient is using Shermer's name to spread his own. It's like what he tried to do to Richard Dawkins (guess what, Sapient still has videos up of Richard Dawkins in his account!). This shameless action proves that Sapient is an attention whore and he'll use anybody he hates to spread his name.

A new video on Brian "Sapient"

2008-01-27T01:35:00.001-08:00

Brian Cutler desperately wants you to pay for his troubles and bills

2008-01-25T17:51:00.000-08:00

Brian Cutler sent out this newsletter where he lies about the amount of money he has, but, you know, he still wants everybody else's hard earned money to pay for his troubles:

1/25/2008

As you may know a few weeks back we started having some server problems. We've solved the server problems but at what will be a big expense. We were too big for our server especially with the affiliate sites we host. So I sold 1% of the portion of my home I own (the one I owned 40% on with the anonymous investor who owns 60%) to Lori (K9sbyte - Rooks now live in girlfriend) to help cover the fees, and we bought a brand new server. I have $18,000 less in savings this year, and $42,000 less if you include the two years before it. (I had a large savings account before I started RRS)

We could really use your help covering the costs of this server, my savings account wont last much longer (thanks Lori for the cushion): http://www.rationalresponders.com/Help_Pay_RRS_network_server_fees

You can donate any amount from $3-$3,000. Over the next two years we estimate about $12,000 to run our network which includes free hosting to quite a few worthy groups and people. If you would like to make a donation of over $1,000 we can arrange for you to pay directly to a non-profit organization (tax deductible) who will use the money to pay their portion of the server fees. Contact me to make such an arrangement.

...

I like what Gene Cook Jr. said over at Unchained Radio:

Brian,

You sold 1% of a home that you own 40% of? Hahahaha,

Your friend,

Gene

Yup, Brian, you're an idiot.

Here's an example of how RRS uses their donated money (Uh, yeah, hard at work there, huh, Kelly?):

Atheist David Campbell: "[The Rational Response Squad] basically hate philosophy"

2008-01-23T19:10:00.000-08:00

Yup, yet again, another atheist comes out against RRS. In his interview with Christian Gene Cook, Jr., atheist David Campbell says of the RRS that they are "bigots", "fascists" and that "they basically hate philosophy." Also, they refuse to debate all types of people. Well, Brian Cutler can speak for himself if he would simply go on Gene Cook Jr.'s show. But he's too scared to. Yo Cutler, prove me wrong!

Anyway, here's a video of the interview:

Kelly caught lying about Dinesh D'souza

2008-01-21T14:27:00.000-08:00

Kelly writes:

Isn't it remarkable that Christians would like to use atheists as scapegoats for every evil action throughout history instead of admitting their own complicity? After all, they are the ones who are constantly reminding us that the inhumane actions committed by their predecessors don't necessarily reflect upon them, so why can't they just admit that the christians of the past were complicit in some of these atrocities?

They have, stupid! What's funny is that Kelly goes on to use Christian Dinesh D'Souza as an example; when D'Souza actually did acknowledge atrocities done in the name of religion. It's just that atheism is responsible for more dead bodies than Christianity. Here's a sample from his book:

"Religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders perpetrated by atheist regimes. I recognize that population levels were much lower in the past, and that it's much easier to kill people today with sophisticated weapons than it was in previous centuries with swords and arrows. Even taking higher population levels into account, atheist violence surpasses religious violence by staggering proportions. here is a rough calculation. The worlds population rose from around 500 million in 1450 AD to 2.5 billion in 1950, a fivefold increase. Taken together, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in population, that the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even so, these deaths caused by Christian rulers over five-hundred-year period amount to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a few decades."

Please, stop lying Kelly.

The Rational Response Squad on the Encyclopedia Dramatica

2008-01-19T19:09:00.000-08:00

There is an article on the RRS at www.encyclopediadramatica.com. It is not a favorable article. I did not give the link to it because there is hardcore nudity in it. But I read the article and for the most part, it is very accurate. Read the article if you will, but beware, it is very graphic.

The sound of Kelly O'Connor's voice and mental disorders

2008-01-18T01:43:00.001-08:00

Of course, some of you are familiar with Kelly from the Rational Response Squad. Well, it's Friday, so it's time for some entertainment:

Melanie Griffith here sounds a lot like Kelly [if you don't believe me listen to her voice (if you can) in her debate with Matt Slick]:

Kelly just finished writing an article, further stating that Christians (and religious people in general) are mentally screwed up. She makes this justification (among many others) citing examples of religious people decapitating parts and murdering people. Well, I just hope our brains aren't as "screwed up" as her voice. Anyway, at least I'm willing to concede that there are mentally disordered people aside from religion or atheism, and not necessarily because of it. For instance, the shooter in Finland was an atheist and a Darwinian evolutionist. Was that the cause of his shooting though? I'm sure atheists will have a whole lot of excuses that he didn't do it because of said assumption. Can't we all just agree that following a form of belief excessively and militantly can lead to damage? But no, even moderate people like the aforementioned MLK, Jr. are still mental retards to Brian and Kelly. Oh, and let's not forget about his mother, too. But when it's all said and done, if I have to listen to Kelly's voice one more time (or read any more of her writings) I just may end up with a mental disorder!

RRS on "theism is a mental disorder"

Is the universe infinite?

2008-01-12T12:51:00.000-08:00

Dr. William Lane Craig indirectly answers Brian Cutler and Kelly O'Connor:

Alonzo Fyfe on Kelly O'Connor

2008-01-10T12:28:00.000-08:00

Atheist Alonzo Fyfe (yes, another atheist cautious of RRS) reports on Kelly here. He makes the following observation:

[Kelly] tells us that we atheism is not bound to a single code of behavior and that it is compatible with people doing different things.

Then she complains that the problem with atheism is that its members do not march in lock-step behind a single drummer - that we are too busy fighting each other rather than uniting against a common enemy.

She writes, with a certainty that she is right and those who disagree are wrong, that the problem is with atheists who write with a certainty that they are write and those who disagree with them are wrong.

She calls the use of words like 'should' and 'ought' offensive in a post filled with protestations on what others 'should' (and 'should not') do.

Hypocritical Response Squad? Yup!

2008-01-09T16:27:00.000-08:00

A person who calls himself "adams_antics" wrote this in the RRS forum:

=============================================

Hypocritical Response Squad

When I found RRS, I was very excited to find other like-minded people to have rational conversations with. Where I live that is something very hard to come by. Even on the internet, it seems like everyone is still in the closet about their real beliefs.

I am always open to new ideas and consider any theory possible at first. If the person talking (or writer/blogger) has a better knowledge than me, I will listen to their story, ask probing questions, and learn everything they are willing to share. If I know more than the other person, I will hear them out and give the best response I can.

If I hear crazy conspiracy theories such as aliens are running our government, I will start by assessing the real possibility of it, taking all information into account, then estimate a likely percentage of truth. In this case I would say about 0.01%. Gov't hiding information of aliens, about 70%. 9/11 being an inside job, about 60%. I give these percentages because I don't know for sure, but given all the information I can find, I estimate a likeliness. I do the same for psychological, biological, and social analysys.

The reason I titles this "Hypocritical Response Squad" is because this group appears to be very open minded, willing to have a "rational" debate about topics. It even advertises that:

Quote:

Sapient wrote:

attacks personal or otherwise, are not acceptable, especially from people who aren't willing to admit that they could be wrong.

I have brought up a few topics for debate in which I did not feel like were being rationally debated, and even at times I felt as though i was being personally attacked for my ideas. Most of the time these are not even "my ideas", they are interpretations of other people's ideas, which I then estimate a percentage of possibility. So I don't necessarily "believe" these things, but I do give them consideration.

Two topics in particular are the 9/11 conspiracy (which I said I give a 60% chance of), and most recently, the idea of panspermia. Panspermia is the idea that life can be ejected off one planet (by means of comet collision or other method) and land on another planet and still be able to spread. This is a unique case because with the number of planets and meteors/asteroids, it almost has to happen somewhere in the universe, so I give the idea a 99.9% chance, but the odds of it happening to a given planet are more like 1 in a billion. I give the idea of fundamental building blocks of life forming life a 99.9(repeating)% chance, but again, the odds of it happening on a given planet 1 in a billion. Given both of these methods of life existing on a planet, both seem to have about the same likeliness.

I got flamed for supporting this idea, with comments like I had no understanding about how life or the universe works. I felt like my intellect was being attacked, and the debate on the topic did not get anywhere. So much for the "attacks personal or otherwise, are not acceptable" part. How about the "especially from people who aren't willing to admit that they could be wrong". Some quick searches will reveal that I am not retarded, and that RRS could actually be wrong.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/december2/marsunder122.html

Quote:

The idea that Martian microbes may have traveled to Earth as stowaways on meteorites sounds like science fiction, but it may be a good idea. George Thompson, professor emeritus of geophysics, says "the travel time and conditions in transit are probably tolerable for beasts like those found in bore holes," that is, thermophilic organisms. And the recent discovery of evidence of possible life forms in Martian meteorite ALH84001 makes interplanetary immigration of organisms from Mars seem less outlandish.

The study was funded by the NASA Exobiology Program. SR

Posted on Stanfords website, funded by NASA, and I am the one with no understanding of life or the universe? I really don't care that much about panspermia, I just don't like being attacked personally when I am simply trying to get new ideas out in the open.

=============================================

After pointing out RRS hypocrisy and his plead to act more mature and kind, he gets ridiculed and attacked by Rook Hawkins. Here's what Hawkins said,

To claim this shows an utter ignorance of how evolution occured...

And:

You are ignorant of the subject matter.

Typical, eh? But Rook Hawkins talking about ignorance? I love the irony.

Anyway, the best part was seeing Croath beat the crap out of Hawkins' arguments.

Rook Hawkins gets owned by Sarah Stringer

2008-01-06T16:23:00.001-08:00

This link proves once and for all that Hawkins doesn't know how to debate. Stringer spanked high school educated Hawkins. Here's her opening:

======================

Attention: All responses to my Case, unless they are from Mr. Rook Hawkins himself, will be ignored. This is a debate between me and Rook. If anyone else wants to debate with me on this subject, or any, they can send me a message either via MySpace here: http://www.myspace.com/biblethumper,or here at rationalresponders.com and we can arrange for a separate debate. Otherwise, you are merely a spectator here and your words will be regarded accordingly.

I have been challenged to a debate by your very own Rook Hawkins, but I'll start with a Side Note:

Rook, let's try and keep this debate civil and fair if you don't mind. If you do mind, it will not end well for you, and that's not a threat. I am not here to bash you or anyone personally; that's not how I debate, but I found your conduct the other night to be irrational and pretty outrageous considering the claims that you and your friends make about religion. I have yet to lie to you or anyone about what I said about you; and if you don't remember (you obviously don't), Marsage has already confronted you about certain laws in our country concerning libel in a chat room and closed that issue over a year ago. You even apologized to me for threatening me with a lawsuit. Also, I didn't even say that I beat you or "pwned" you, as someone else put it, in any debate. This is the same accusation you made against me a year ago, and it was a lie then as well. Either your friends lied to you about what I said, which was, word by word "I've debated Rook before," which is true and you know it, or you lied to me when you said that they told you something different.

You and I haven't spoken to each other in a year and you know it. If we have I'd like to see a transcript of our discussion and the date along with it. As for the thread I supposedly ignored you in, I'd like to see that as well, since I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you don't want people talking about you at all, which is what you said Christmas night in the stickam chat, then you should consider practicing what you preach and stop broadcasting your vicious views about me all over the internet. It seems you, Brian and Kelly all enjoy talking about me a lot more than I was aware of. There is nothing I have said behind your back that I wouldn't say to your face, since I wasn't lying, and I'm not afraid of you despite your ruthless attacks on me personally. I will not be bullied this time, Rook.

I always knew I would not do well attempting to debate you (or anyone in RRS really) in a chat room over it, (especially when I have three people cussing at me simultaneously with a three minute lag), and I have never claimed otherwise, but this is a forum. I can get my case out without you interrupting me every single second. And the topic at hand is concerning delusions and mental instability. Try to keep calm, Rook, whereas acting as you did the other night will only help me prove my case: if anyone is delusional, it's the atheist.

Telling me that I'm delusional and retarded won't get you anywhere unless you can prove it. You are very good at vigorously and ruthlessly jabbing at people with hateful and cruel words, but they mean nothing to me unless you can show how they are true, which is exactly what you'll have to prove to win this particular debate if you look at the resolution. Otherwise, you're just emotional, immature, and most importantly, irrational to the core.

Here is my First Affirmative.

Resolved: Theists are not delusional for believing in God

"Delusions" are something atheists accredit theists with almost every time I hear them speak on the subject of whether or not God exists. In fact it seems to be one of the main arguments made against theists today; Rook's favorite word when I used to chat with him was actually "delusional," along with "don't project, Sarah, you're projecting," but I find this belief about theism to be very irrational. Being "rational responders", you will realize that the resolution is accurate. As a side note, I would also like to make the case against those who would see theists, mainly concerned with Christianity, as mentally unstable somehow and therefore their belief that there is a God is a psychological one with irrational reasons and premises, ultimately leading to delusion. I think this issue goes hand in hand with the resolution, and so both will be addressed in my case.

Defining Terms

The definition of the word "delusional" that I will be referring to in this debate is from the American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

I will make my case based on this definition until a better definition of "delusional" is presented along with any other definitions I use.

Some other words that will need defining in order to accurately present my case are as follows:

Illness: a. Poor health resulting from disease of body or mind; sickness. b. a disease. (American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Illness)

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God)

My case will consist of three Contentions, each containing their own sub points and conclusions.

Contention 1: Invalidating evidence has not been presented to the Theist

In order to call someone delusional, we must first show that their false beliefs have been held in spite of invalidating evidence according to the definition. The atheist has yet to present this invalidating evidence to the theist if it exists, and if it does, the atheist cannot rationally claim that all theists hold their belief in spite of the evidence without generalizing because to make such a claim would require the atheist to know every theist living in the world today personally, but no one does of course. If Rook can show how I specifically have held to my beliefs in spite of invalidating evidence though, we can logically conclude that I am delusional.

Before I move on to my next contention, I will go over some prevalent arguments used by atheists to show the theist's psychological delusions. I will give reasonable arguments to confirm that they are not invalidating evidences, nor do they stand to rational analysis. I'm sure that Mr. Hawkins has plenty of other arguments he will hopefully be presenting as invalidating evidence in his First Negative, and when he does I will address those arguments. Until now, I will just get a few of the ones I've been seeing a lot of lately out of the way.

Sub point A: Wishful Thinking Argument Doesn't Disprove God

The first argument a lot of atheists use as supposed evidence that theism is irrational or deluded is the concept of "wishful thinking," which Sigmund Freud, one of history's famous atheists, was known to assert very prominently in his writings. The concept of wishful thinking asserts "such a belief is untrustworthy because of its psychological origin. That is, God is a projection of our own intense, unconscious desires; He is a wish fulfillment derived from childish needs for protection and security," says Professor Paul Vitz of the New York University Psychology department (1).

In Freud's The Future of an Illusion (1927, 1961) he makes this statement:

[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)

And thus, as Prof. Paul Vitz points out in his paper the Psychology of Atheism, Freud goes on to conclude that religious beliefs are:

illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest
and most urgent wishes of mankind . . . As we
already know, the terrifying impression of
helplessness in childhood aroused the need for
protection-for protection through love-which
was provided by the father . . . Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)

If you analyze what Freud is saying here, he's making the claim that anything with a psychic origin is invalid. This would make physics, biology, and psychoanalysis itself invalid (ironically), since they all originate with some sort of psychological roots. Therefore the argument is mute and defeats itself. In psychoanalyzing the theist by claiming anything with a psychic origin is invalid, Freud cuts the very branch that he's sitting on and invalidates his own methods of examination.

Moving along, Freud is also saying that belief in God comes from the "fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind……Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life." The only religions this theory can apply to though, is either Christianity or Judaism when looking at Freud's description of God. Freud's assertion isn't accurate when it comes to a good majority of world religions including pagan religions which originated before Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. Therefore it fails to show how God cannot exist using the argument of Wish Fulfillment.

Finishing up this sub point A, I will conclude that even if the concept itself works in specific situations and shows how people only believe in God because they have a psychological yearning for a father figure who protects them from the evil world around them, this does not disprove nor refute in any sense of the word the existence of God. This only proves that people want God to exist; it doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Example:

Let's say I am lying in bed one night in complete pain and agony. I long earnestly for morning to come. I fear the death that might come from my pain, I fear the darkness surrounding me, and I wish for someone to help me. This does not mean that dawn will not come or that I won't receive any help. In fact, I can rationally and logically believe that morning will come indefinitely because it comes every single day around the same time. It is a reliable and reasonable desire, so just because I want something to happen or to exist, that does not mean it doesn't exist or it won't happen.

Additionally, if you ask a theist why they believe in God, it's quite rare that you'll come across one that will actually say "because I want Him to." If one were to claim He exists only because they want Him to, then the belief would be fallacious. This is not so though.

Although many false beliefs and ideals can come from wishful thinking, Freud's argument that it is true concerning theism simply doesn't work.

Sub point B: "Who Created God" Argument Fails

The next argument atheists like to use when debating with theists is the argument of what I am calling "Who created God?" What generally happens in this particular instance is the theist will be giving evidence and substantial, logical and rational support for the existence of God, and the atheist will throw them off with, "Well…let's say God does exist…who created God?"

To make a potentially extensive answer to this argument short, in order to have a Universe at all, we must either have an infinite God or an infinite Universe. If God is the cause of our Universe, but is still subject to our laws, someone must have created God, right? Sure. Even so, it doesn't matter if another God created this God; God still exists, and that's the debate. Let's pretend God IS created by another God, you die and you're an atheist, and God is asking you why you refused to believe in Him. You tell him, "Well…I figured if everything has a cause then you must have a cause too. Who created you?" This won't get you out of judgment, and it doesn't disprove God's existence either, but rather, a possibly infinite number of gods.

Secondly, there is no reason why God would need a cause for His existence if He answers to the description the Holy Bible gives Him. If He is infinite and He created the laws, time, space and matter that we are subject to, then He is outside of those laws and it doesn't affect Him because they were His creation. It's as if someone were to say submerging an artist in a tank of water would destroy him because doing the same to his painting would. The artist is not made of paper, ink, or paint. Submerging yourself in water only gets you wet, unless you refuse to come back up for air of course. The painting and the painter are two different things; to compare the creator to its creation in this manner is silly.

Let's not forget that this argument, even if valid, doesn't disprove God's existence, but rather helps to show His existence even more by pointing out that everything needs a cause. The atheist simply fails to realize that the God of Christianity, if valid, isn't subject to the same laws that we are, and would be infinite; therefore He does not need a creator. But then the atheist will say "Well if your God can be infinite, why can't the Universe be infinite? Then there is no need for God." That is true, but science and logic will tell you that with entropy and the aging of the Earth, this is impossible.

Not only that, but it would make our experiences and knowledge with other laws and patterns in the Universe confused and discombobulated to say the least. If the Universe doesn't need a cause since it's always been here, how can we trust this law that says this or that law that says that, which all implies that nothing material can actually be infinite? And if we can't really trust any of the implications that the Universe's laws provides us, how can we trust science at all? This is of course only if the Universe is infinite. I believe it is not, but rather a perfect God created the Universe with laws of nature that are consistent in order that we might develop science which we can trust. If Evolution is our origin though; if our existence happened by chance and chaos, there is no reason for me to believe this law of science is reliable for any amount of time because anything could change at any moment by the same chance that caused us to exist in the first place.

Put simply, the atheist is stuck. They must either expect us to believe it all happened SOMEHOW, without God, by faith…in nothing, OR they expect us to believe that the Universe is infinite, which doesn't make any sense based on the most recent, scientific affirmations.

Claiming God must have a creator is not only against His character, but it fails to disprove His existence as well.

Sub point C: The Problem of Pain Doesn't Disprove God

This argument generally goes, "if there is an all loving, perfect, all powerful God that created all of this, why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? If God really loves us, He wouldn't allow us to suffer, right?" Well to begin, I will quote C.S. Lewis as he wisely states:

"Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself."

Without the inevitable consequences that come from our poor choices and decisions, all rational thought, accountability and responsibility ceases to exist. An irrational world that mustn't reap what it sows would contradict God's character of being perfectly just and omniscient. Not only that, but to eliminate pain and suffering would keep us from our free will. To eliminate pain is to eliminate the consequences of actions, and actions come from choices. If we have no choice, we are robots who cannot experience what it means to truly love or care for another person, nor to hate another person. Or, as Dr. William Lane Craig puts it in his debate against Corey Washington:

"First of all, if God is all-good, is it necessarily true that He would want to create a world with no suffering? I don't think this is necessarily true. It could be that if God were to create a world of free creatures in which He intervened every time to rescue us from harm, this would be a world in which rational behavior was completely impossible. It would lead to total irresponsibility, total irrationality in our actions. It would mean that you could drive as fast as you wanted on the highway, you could drink or eat any substance you wanted to, you could do anything to another person, you could act anyway you want, and nothing harmful would ever ensue as a consequence. I think that when you think about this, clearly it would make rational behavior completely impossible. So if God creates a world that operates according to certain natural laws, then the fire that warms us will also be the fire that burns us, and it may well be the case that an all-good God would want to create a world governed by natural law, which includes the possibility of harm.

Of course it's also possible, as the Christian believes, that there's an afterlife, in which God will compensate us for the harms that we have borne if we have borne these in courage, faith, and trust in Him. Every immoral act will be punished. So, if you put that into the equation, I think it makes it clear that it is not necessarily true that an all-good God would have to create a world in which there is no harm.

Secondly, if God is all-powerful, can He in fact create a world of free creatures in which no harm occurs? I think this is clearly not necessarily true. Given human freedom, God cannot guarantee how people are going to use that freedom. And if He intervenes every time to prevent people from choosing evil, then we turn into puppets or marionettes. So if God is going to create a world of significantly free moral agents, He has to allow them to make choices for evil, and therefore it may not be within God's power to create a world of free creatures in which evil does not exist. Therefore, I don't think Dr. Washington has been able to prove either of these premises to be necessarily true. And therefore he hasn't been able to prove that harm and God are logically incompatible." (2)

So Dr. Craig basically obliterates any hope of using this argument as evidence against the existence of God and there are very few philosophers today that will agree with Dr. Washington in saying the existence of pain is incompatible with a good, loving, and just God. In fact, as Craig actually points out after he demolishes Washington's argument from harm, it is widely affirmed by philosophers that this argument from harm or pain and suffering simply doesn't work, and Craig goes on to quote a few different philosophers which affirm it.

The argument that the problem of pain devastates any belief in God was actually one of the main reasons C.S. Lewis decided that there must be a God. The argument uses the premise that it's evil to do this but it's okay to do that. Lewis describes his old atheistic beliefs and explains how he came to theism and ultimately Christianity in What Christians Believe:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too-for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice- was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning." (3)

And so in conclusion to this Sub Point C, the problems of pain and suffering in the world do not contradict the nature of the Christian God, nor do they disprove His existence on the premise that a good perfect God would allow suffering for the sake of a rational, consistent Universe while giving justice to those who had to suffer and to those who need to suffer for their actions in this life and after.

Contention 1 Conclusion

In conclusion to my first Contention, the atheist has yet to provide the theist with any invalidating evidence of God's non-existence thereby making it irrational to call the theist delusional. If my opponent has such evidence, he should provide it in this debate as well as showing us how I have held to my belief in spite of this evidence.

There are probably dozens to even hundreds of other arguments that the atheists have come up with over the centuries to attempt disproving God, but these are just the main ones that I have heard most frequently while listening, reading and participating in debates over the existence of God. If my opponent feels that there are other arguments, or even one of the arguments I have already discussed, which invalidate the existence of God, he should provide them in his first or second Negative. If he fails to do so but brings up a new argument in our final rebuttals, the argument will be ignored because of Mr. Hawkins' failure to abide by the rules of debate. It is actually called "sliming" (http://www2.ccsd.ws/hgfaculty/debateTeam/JargonGlossary.pdf) and I will use the rules of debate as strictly as I can because I feel this debate should be carried out fairly for both of us and I doubt there will be any moderator or judge, at least not a neutral one.

Contention 2: Atheists have been known to be Delusional and have Irrational, Psychological Reasons for Unbelief in God

In complete affirmation to the Resolution that theists are not delusional, for my second Contention I will show how atheists have actually been known to be delusional and practice their unbelief as a direct result of irrational, shallow and psychological reasons. This of course does not mean that all atheists are delusional and irrational in their unbelief in God, but many are as a direct result of labeling the theist as delusional as you will see in my 3^rd Contention. There are many atheists sincerely searching for the truth, wanting evidence. C.S. Lewis was one of those atheists, along with Josh McDowell, Antony Flew, and many other famous Christians/theists today. When one honestly searches for meaning and for evidence, they will find God. The atheists of the RRS, however, are only searching for a fight.

Sub Point A: Atheists have Superficial, Irrational Reasons for Unbelief

In Professor Paul C. Vitz's paper entitled "The Psychology of Atheism," he shares some of his history as an atheist with us and tells of many different reasons why someone might want to be an atheist. Some of his most shallow reasons were popularity, fitting in, and making life more convenient to him. He writes,

"…through reflection on my own experience it is now clear to me that my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist-skeptic from about age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social scientists."(4)

The following list is a compilation of social reasons why many atheists become and remain atheists according to Professor Paul Vitz's paper from the Psychology department of the University of New York. None of them however, are rational reasons, nor are they acceptable as intellectual in the least.

1. "General Socialization: An important influence on me in my youth was a significant social unease. I was somewhat embarrassed to be from the Midwest, for it seemed terribly dull, narrow, and provincial. There was certainly nothing romantic or impressive about being from Cincinnati, Ohio and from a vague mixed German-English-Swiss background. Terribly middle class. Further, besides escape from a dull, and according to me unworthy, socially embarrassing past, I wanted to take part in, in fact to be comfortable in, the new, exciting, even glamorous, secular world into which I was moving. I am sure that similar motives have strongly influenced the lives of countless upwardly mobile young people in the last two centuries. Consider Voltaire, who moved into the glittery, aristocratic, sophisticated world of Paris, and who always felt embarrassed about his provincial and nonaristocratic origin; or the Jewish ghettos that so many assimilating Jews have fled, or the latest young arrival in New York, embarrassed about his fundamentalist parents. This kind of socialization pressure has pushed many away from belief in God and all that this belief is associated with for them.

I remember a small seminar in graduate school where almost every member there at some time expressed this kind of embarrassment and response to the pressures of socialization into "modern life." One student was trying to escape his Southern Baptist background, another a small town Mormon environment, a third was trying to get out of a very Jewish Brooklyn ghetto, and the fourth was me.

2. "Specific Socialization: Another major reason for my wanting to become an atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two things-their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4).

In this environment, just as I had learned how to dress like a college student by putting on the right clothes, I also learned to "think" like a proper psychologist by putting on the right-that is, atheistic-ideas and attitudes.

3. "Personal Convenience: Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time.

Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer. And then I also knew it would cost me time and some money. There would be church services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time spent helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious would be a real inconvenience." (5)

Sub Point B: Atheism is a result of the Oedipus Complex

Along with the social motives of the atheist and their desire for convenience, there is another significant and psychological reason for why a lot of people carry a strong disbelief in God. Right next to Sigmund Freud's world renowned atheism, he emphasized the psychological and unconscious issues people have as a central theme in his career. What he didn't realize is that the flaws he enjoyed searching for in other peoples' beliefs were all too prevalent in his own life and mind.

Many atheists like to quote these famous atheist philosophers for the profound and seemingly intellectual words they spew, but what none of them seem to realize is that there is more to these people than their anti-religious beliefs.

One of Freud's most famous works was the Oedipus Complex which, for Freud at least, was the childhood desire to sleep with his mother and kill his father.(6) I actually remember learning about this complex in the four month psychology class I took in my last year of high school. The exact words that came from my teacher's mouth that day were "Freud was a sick, sick man…and…you should not take this complex seriously…but, he is one of the most famous and recognized philosophers and psychologists of all time." I find that statement amusing to this day.

While Freud was trying to blame belief in God on wish fulfillment and delusion, through the Oedipus Complex, he has done the theist a great service in showing how the atheist can blame their unbelief in God on this complex. Vitz puts it this way:

"Now, in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all our neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of rejecting God. After all, the Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood and, above all, its dominant motive is hatred of the father and the desire for him not to exist, especially as represented by the desire to overthrow or kill the father. Freud regularly described God as a psychological equivalent to the father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful, unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God. Therefore, in the Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father and replace him with oneself. To act as if God does not exist is an obvious, not so subtle disguise for a wish to kill Him, much the same way as in a dream, the image of a parent going away or disappearing can represent such a wish: "God is dead" is simply an undisguised Oedipal wish-fulfillment."

In order to demonstrate this Complex in perfect working order, there is a list of the world's most famous atheists who all interestingly have the very same contempt for their father as the complex describes. Vitz describes it as the "defective dad" syndrome. By defective Vitz means the fathers were in their children's eyes either dead, abusive, weak, or abandoned their children.

Voltaire, Freidrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Thomas Hobbes, Sigmund Freud, Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong all have this "defective dad" issue, either losing their fathers at an early age and viewing them as weak, or being mentally and physically abused by them (7). To read a more detailed and especially informative description of this theory, read Prof. Vitz's paper here: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html.

Contention 2 Conclusion

In conclusion to my Contention 2 we can reasonably affirm that atheists are perfectly capable of being delusional in their unbelief because they can be psychologically unstable due to early childhood traumas involving their father figures, and superficial in their desire for convenience and a good social standing. Therefore, there is no reason to believe theists are delusional since it is really the atheist that is delusional. The belief itself is not really due to rational, logical examination but they mislead people into thinking this. The truth may be difficult to believe a lot of times, but that doesn't make it a lie.

Contention 3: Atheism Cannot Account for the Definition of Proper Function

In my last Contention I will address the issue of what it actually means to properly function as a human being. This is the heart of the argument atheists use in order to show theism is delusional. The arguments that theists are somehow ill will not work unless we have some sort of idea of what it means to be healthy. So what does it mean to be healthy? Well, Alvin Plantinga addresses this issue in his paper entitled "Theism, Atheism, and Rationality" perfectly. He says,

"What you take to be rational, at least in the sense in question, depends upon your metaphysical and religious stance. It depends upon your philosophical anthropology. Your view as to what sort of creature a human being is will determine, in whole or in part, your views as to what is rational or irrational for human beings to believe; this view will determine what you take to be natural, or normal, or healthy, with respect to belief. So the dispute as to who is rational and who is irrational here can't be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is fundamentally not an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. How can we tell what it is healthy for human beings to believe unless we know or have some idea about what sort of creature a human being is?" (

The Christian or the theist, believing that God is the creator of everything, the Authority by which we determine everything, can provide a logical, rational answer to the question of what it means to properly function since we only need to look to God and ask Him what we should be doing. The atheist, however, cannot. Plantinga continues on in his paper to describe what he finds is a problem with the idea of proper function:

"So far as nature herself goes, isn't a fish decomposing in a hill of corn functioning just as properly, just as excellently, as one happily swimming about chasing minnows? But then what could be meant by speaking of "proper functioning" with respect to our cognitive faculties? A chunk of reality-an organism, a part of an organism, an ecosystem, a garden patch-"functions properly" only with respect to a sort of grid we impose on nature-a grid that incorporates our aims and desires."

Who would know what proper functioning is more than the One who created whatever we are discussing? "My car works properly if it works the way it was designed to work. My refrigerator is working properly if it refrigerates, if it does what a refrigerator is designed to do. This, I think, is the root idea of working properly. But according to theism, human beings, like ropes and linear accelerators, have been designed; they have been created and designed by God," says Plantinga. It would be going out on quite a limb to think otherwise indeed. When you wonder if something is functioning properly, it's working how it was designed to work by whoever created it. But if people are just mistakes, or accidents…if everything we know, see and feel is just *poof*, here by chance, who is the atheist to tell anyone they aren't working properly since the atheist cannot account for what it means to work properly at all? If there is no Designer with an intended purpose, there is no such thing as "proper function." My beliefs which you find irrational are merely in disagreement with you and therefore you view me as delusional, but you cannot rationally claim that I am in fact delusional unless you can tell me what it means to properly function.

If my opponent can account for proper function without a designer with a specific intent for His creation and a specific design by which they should operate, then he might be able to win this debate. I don't think he can though, since the entire argument that theism is delusional depends entirely on what properly functioning really means. One can only be delusional if we can determine what it means to be logical and rational and that the person in question (me) does not hold to these standards.

First Affirmative Conclusion

In Conclusion to my First Affirmative and my 3^rd Contention, we can reasonably affirm that the theist is not delusional for believing in God. We can affirm this for the three reasons I have presented in my case. 1) There is no invalidating evidence that has been provided by the atheist; all theists cannot be accounted for in the attempt to show theism as holding its belief specifically in spite of this supposed evidence. 2) The unbelief in God can be rooted in superficial, psychologically unstable and delusional causes. 3) The atheist cannot account for what we would determine proper function is in order to show that the theist is delusional, and/or not working properly.

I challenge my opponent now to prove what exactly it means to function properly, since this is what he will need to prove in order to claim anyone is delusional at all. I challenge him to present us with some invalidating evidence by which the theist must resist in order to be called delusional also, and I challenge him to show how the psychological, irrational and superficial reasons for being atheist are somehow justifiable. Otherwise, it is the atheist who is projecting. It is the atheist who is delusional.

Thank you for this opportunity, Rook. I hope this experience can be enlightening and entertaining for both of us. I look forward to your First Negative.

References:

1. Vitz, P.C. (2002). The Psychology of Atheism. Truth Journal http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html .

2. Craig, W.L. (1995) The Craig-Washington Debate: Does God Exist? University of Washington. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5297

3. Lewis, C.S. (2005) The Rival Conceptions of God. What Christians Believe pp 12-14.

4. See Reference #1.

5. See Reference #1.

6. Freud, S. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Trans. James Strachey. 24 vols. London: Hogarth, 1953-74. (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/definitions/oedipus.html )

7. Morse, A. Boundless Webzine. Atheism and Its Link to Bad Dads. http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/isms/a0000223.html

8. Plantinga, A. Theism, Atheism, and Rationality. Truth Journal. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html

======================

This is quite a good opening. She clearly did her homework. Best of all she tried to preempt Rook Hawkins from acting like his usual immature self by actually trying to argue about the issue instead of being a doofus. I mean, she practically begged him to be forthright and learned. Unfortunately, she didn't get it. But to her benefit, Rook Hawkins' pathetic and unscholarly response was Hawkins' own demise! Observe:

Sarah Stringer: Attention: All responses to my Case, unless they are from Mr. Rook Hawkins himself, will be ignored.
Rook Hawkins' response: Good, then all responses after mine will be ignored because if you can set rules so can I.

I mean this is a statement from a coward, because Hawkins is openly admitting he will ignore Stringer - no matter how badly she destroys Hawkins' response. But that's no surprise, because Hawkins is known for ignoring people who destroy his arguments. Sarah continues her pummeling of Hawkins.

Did the Rational Response Squad claim Richard Dawkins had an extra-marital affair?!

2008-01-04T16:04:00.000-08:00

1/7/2008

Sorry, boys and girls, but I had to change this post.

Out of respect for Reed Braden (who took down his posts on RRS and Dawkins), I decided to take down what was originally said. He emailed me and asked me to do so. But that doesn't mean I won't tell you guys what happened :o)

1. During a skype chat, Brian Cutler (aka Brian Sapient) and Kelly O'Connor of the "Rational Response Squad" approached Reed and other chatters and claimed that Richard Dawkins was having an extra-marital affair! (at least 6 witnesses have confirmed this).

2. People in the chat room asked Brian and Kelly for evidence.

3. Brian and Kelly refused to give any evidence.

4. People in the chat room felt that Brian and Kelly were lying then.

5. What was the motive behind Brian's and Kelly's accusation?

It was found out that the Richard Dawkins Foundation's new management stopped RRS from having contact with Dawkins (because they knew RRS were attention-getting whores who used Dawkins to spread their own unpopular names).
RRS wanted the lady in charge fired.
She didn't get fired.
So Brian and Kelly made up an allegation of an affair.

6. Reed soon after made blogposts about this event.

7. After that, Brian Cutler chatted with Reed. Cutler attempted to plead, beg, and -finally- threaten Reed in order to prevent him from further discussing or publishing the accusation.

8. Reed didn't fall for it, but took down the posts for different reasons.

9. Reed makes an mp3 (fast-forward about 2/3s of the way) about this event.

10. Due to this event, many atheists have come out against the RRS.

So, that's that.

***UPDATE***

Here are Reed Braden's original posts: Here and here and here.

Atheists say: "It's Time To Drop The Rational Response Squad"

2008-01-04T14:50:00.000-08:00

Yet again, the Rational Response Squad are hit with yet another atheist who has gone against them, saying they are hurting the Atheist movement:

For some time now the rational response squad have been fairly big players in the Atheist Movement and have received a lot of attention. They have "debated" (for want of a better word) Ray Comfort and kirk Cameron ^[1], The crocoduck and gods banana guys. And were the instigators of the now famous "blasphemy challenge".

But does the Atheist movement need people like them? In this Atheists opinion, No, It doesn't. Not only do we not need them but i feel they are damaging to the Atheist movement.

Their goals don't seem to be the eradication of religion, Or even the separation of church and state. Their goal seems to be nothing more than getting kicks out of abusing the religious and being attention whores.

Their target audience doesn't seem to be intelligent people capable of making or understanding lucid logical arguments, Instead they cater for teenage boys who like looking at Kelly's large breasts ^[2].

Now, In their attempt to fan the flames of their own ego and create even more attention and drama for themselves they have made the claim that Richard Dawkins is having extra-marital-activities while in a drunken conference call with Reed over at unorthodox Atheism (great blog, check it out). The claim that Professor Dawkins is having an affair is patently untrue and not supported by any evidence, But even if it were true, What has it got to do with the RRS?

It's time to drop these clowns. The atheist movement isn't a Yahoo chat room, It doesn't need drama fabricated by attention hungry children at the expense of the very person responsible for their fame in the first place.

Way to show your gratitude and respect, Assholes.

A look back at 2007 for RRS

2008-01-03T13:42:00.000-08:00

To be honest, the RRS had a crappie year. Let's recap using the positive (+) and negative (-) method:

1. The blasphemy challenge - Believe it or not, RRS had little to do with the blasphemy challenge. It was Brian Flemming's idea and he's the one who funded the whole project. He was only using RRS to get the word out. But even if the blasphemy challenge was the RRS's idea it only lasted for about 3-4 months; soon after, it died out. Every once in a blue moon you'll have someone do the challenge. But not too many people are paying attention anymore. But I'll give RRS a + for this.

2. The blood drive - yeah, I know, what blood drive? Well, RRS did their blood drive on prayer day and nothing really came from it. At least, nobody (nor the press) took notice. They get a -

3. The "burn your burka" challenge - yup, the RRS did another challenge. This time they aimed their guns on Muslims, and, well, again, nobody took notice or even cared. I bet some of you haven't even heard of the "burn your burka" challenge. They get a -

4. RRS vs WOTM - I'll give credit where credit is due, the RRS won. But they still looked like dipsticks. For one, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are not exactly known for their apologetic work. Even atheists knew this. So, it wasn't like they were debating apologists of significance. But Sapient made plenty of mistakes in his debate. For instance, he mixed the first laws of thermodynamics with the third. Though RRS won the debate, they still didn't win the respect of some atheists. And besides WOTM got the last laugh. You see, Sapient refused to debate WOTM if Todd Friel was one of the debaters. He didn't want Friel because he'd know he'd get demolished by him. But Friel caught up with Sapient and this is what happened. But I'll give RRS a + for this.

5. Brian Sapient vs Laura Ingraham - this is the radio debate that caused Sapient much embarrassment. It was here that he admitted his then girlfriend (not Kelly) supported him financially. You get the impression that Sapient was totally lazy with his life while everybody else did his work for him. To this day, this is something Sapient has been unable to live down. All thanks to Ingraham. Either way, Ingraham wasted Sapient in this debate, and Sapient had to do a whole lot of damage control after it. RRS gets a -

6. The Uri Geller thing - So, Uri sued Sapient for uploading a video that he claims was copyright infringement. Nothing came from it. Then Sapient counter sued Geller for violation of fair use, and guess what, nothing came from it either. But in being sued by Geller, Geller actually had Sapient's real name published. Thank you, Uri! RRS gets a -

7. The Kent Hovind thing - So, Sapient uploads a video of Kent Hovind. Then Sapient gets suspended from youtube because of copyright infringement. Kent Hovind's son says he had nothing to do with RRS getting banned from youtube. But that doesn't stop Sapient from suing Hovind. However, I know of no lawsuit that has been sent to Hovind's son. So, it looks like Hovind's son was telling the truth all along: he had nothing to do with RRS being banned. So, nothing came from this fiasco at all, and RRS gets reinstated onto youtube. But of course that didn't stop Sapient from using Hovind's name to spread his own. But RRS gets a -

8. Kelly O'Connor vs Matt Slick - Kelly performed so badly in this debate it has been reported that some people were banned from RRS' forum for merely mentioning it! But Kelly once and for all proved that she couldn't take the heat when it came to real debaters. Thank you, Matt Slick! RRS gets a -

9. Rook Hawkins gets caught plagiarizing and lying - Okay, the plagiarism charge was in 2006. But because of us, Hawkins has never been taken seriously for his, uh, "scholarship." But the biggest thing that hurt Hawkins was when he claimed that his upcoming book was to be published by the Copenhagen series, which was found to be a lie. But then, nobody has taken Hawkins seriously, and now he is a disgraced "writer" forced to self-publish. RRS gets a -

10. Greydon Square arrested - Square is proof that if you're influenced by the RRS it will lead to harm. We reported on his arrest, and as always RRS stood by Square's story; despite the fact that witnesses say they saw Square holding a gun and chasing his victim on campus! HumbleOrthodox took down Square apologists here. RRS gets a -

11. The "theism is a mental disorder" thing - Wow, you talk about people who never thought they'd get hurt for saying something like this. When Sapient and Kelly made their video about 90% of atheists came out against them! This is something RRS will never be able to live down. RRS gets a -

12. Radar Magazine writes an article on RRS - This is something that came as a surprise and a shock. Radar Magazine (which is not a Christian friendly magazine) wrote an article on RRS and it wasn't exactly positive. Oddly, RRS recommended this article thinking it would do them good. But it didn't. The article stressed the fact that Sapient and Kelly were not sophisticated or even well educated, seeing how they dropped out of their schools. The author of the article also gave you the idea that Brian and Kelly were lazy and didnt' work hard for a living. Best of all, the author made fun of Brian's and Kelly's background: Brian was a cell phone salesman with a child out of wedlock (that he nearly aborted), and Kelly was a stripper at a joint called the "Bada-Bing!" And she has 3 sons! RRS gets a -

So, that's only 2 positives, and 10 negatives. Sorry, RRS, but you guys failed in 2007. Most of all, I believe that Brian Sapient is a failure in life. He doesn't work hard for a living. He's not taken seriously as a thinker by anyone (Christian or not). He's not the father of his child. He constantly begs his listeners for money, yet at the same time he refuses to make his company non-profit. If you want to know what a group of unsophisticated and gullible and immature atheists look like, look no further than to the Rational Response Squad.

Tell me that this video isn't like the mentality of the Rational Response Squad:

2008-01-01T01:57:00.000-08:00

Don't get me wrong, I for one don't believe that handing out atheist pamphlets is a crime good enough for imprisonment, but this video captures the mentality of the young atheists we see out there today. And this movie was made during the early 20th century!

More stuff on RRS

2007-12-30T21:34:00.000-08:00

Kelly pretends to know something about science

Rook Hawkins' Writing is Subjected to non-Peer-Review and Fails

Brian Sapient Is In Up To His Knees (<-- related)

Brian Cutler dancing like a chicken

2007-12-29T23:44:00.000-08:00

Seeing Brian Cutler dance here, and acting like he's black (Brian, dude, please, stay away from my culture), makes me wonder how he'll look like in the future as an old man. I suspect it would be something like this:

Related:

Brian Cutler as Blazin Hazen

Christians to be reminded their God doesn't exist for free!

2007-12-26T20:40:00.000-08:00

Reply:

Atheists have a negative reaction towards the RRS

2007-12-15T20:39:00.000-08:00

This is what I found at an atheist blog where atheists unloaded their frustration on RRS:

I wasn't impressed with the debating skills of the rational response squad.
- damiank | 12.15.07 - 8:39 am

I was subscribed to their email list for a while, but it wasn't a very good one.
- Kevin Morgan | 12.15.07 - 9:05 am

I have a somewhat negative opinion of the RRS. I first learned of them at IIDB, where they were promoting themselves with a clip of a podcast or something. I listened to it and it was immature religion-bashing. I posted that I didn't like it and then Brian Sapient got angry and said that I shouldn't judge them by this clip (which they themselves specifically provided as a sample!). He and I exchanged some tense private messages which ended when he told me not to contact him anymore. ... I think the RRS presents too negative a view of atheists (arrogant, emotional, puerile) than I prefer for us to present, but they do serve a purpose in some ways.
- Secular Planet | 12.15.07 - 9:14 am

I think it really comes down to the fact that they are just young and full of exuberance. I remember being that way in University too. I really enjoyed knowing everything about everthing.

The older me wants to cringe at such behaviour, but I think we need to just understand it and realize that maturity comes from experience.
- Brian | 12.15.07 - 11:56 am

The RRS has one redeeming quality: it forces people to notice that those who believe in reason are starting to make their voices heard. Other than that the RRS is pretty much counter-productive to the cause of atheism. They are reactionary, lack a proactive ethos, and the level of maturity needed to move things forward.
- Mike | 12.15.07 - 12:08 pm

Just from looking at the banner, they do look quite immature, and are probably the impression most theists get of atheists.
This is unfortunate, as the arrogonce of making the "atheist=rational, theist=stupid" divide is probably what generates most of the hate towards atheists.
- Child of Thorns | 12.15.07 - 12:13 pm

I think they're immature and their arguments and presentations tend to be weak.
- slut | 12.15.07 - 1:07 pm

They tend to come off as children. Unfortunately, this is what I think theists will say: "They're just kids, they'll outgrow this phase of nonsense".
- Soitgoes | 12.15.07 - 1:26 pm

Time now for another stupid "Brian Sapient" fact

2007-12-13T01:57:00.000-08:00

According to Brian Cutler (at 4:30) the third law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Uhm, No. It's the first law not the third law, stupid.

Time now for a stupid "Brian Sapient" fact

2007-12-12T01:47:00.000-08:00

According to Brian Sapient 90% of people in Sweden are atheists. Nope. Although an estimated 46 - 85% of Swedes are reported as being non-religious (that doesn't necessarily mean atheism by the way), the majority (78%) of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden... That doesn't strike me as an atheistic country, dude.

Time now for a stupid "Brian Sapient" moment

2007-12-10T19:27:00.001-08:00

This comes from Brian Cutler's conversation with Todd Friel:

Todd Friel: But do you hate the idea of Jesus?

Brian Cutler: No.

Todd Friel: You don't hate the idea of Christianity?

Brian Cutler: No, I don't!

Todd Friel: Then, dude, why are you doing this?

Brian Cutler: Because people believe in something that isn't true, and it actually effects not just me, you're looking for a specific example of persecution of me, it effects everybody... a lot differently than this.

Todd Friel: Nobody is hurting you. Nobody is burning down your house.

Brian Cutler: No, you see how you just did that?

Todd Friel: But you're still fighting against something you don't hate? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, it doesn't. But now, it's all so clear. Brian likes the idea of Christianity, which, uh, he thinks starts mental disorders. Uh, yeah?

The Rational Response Squad wishes death upon me

2007-12-09T18:02:00.000-08:00

Psycho!

Rational Response Squad member, Karla (aka bluemustangxxxgt), wrote this in my youtube comment:

youre a worthless piece of shit. people like you are what slows down the evolution of humans as a whole, you want to do good for people? kill yourself, just do us all a favor and kill yourself.

(June 02, 2007)

Uhm, and who said that RRS wasn't a hate group?

The New Atheism: A Hatred Reborn

2007-12-08T19:57:00.000-08:00

M makes a hard-hitting video about the not-so bright Brights (aka the New Atheists):

Laura Ingraham vs Brian Cutler

2007-12-07T14:46:00.001-08:00

Nobody wants to publish Rook Hawkins' book. We told you so.

2007-12-06T19:09:00.000-08:00

Rook Hawkins wagered that his book would be out by the end of this year. Well, so far, no such luck. After finding out there was no chance anybody would publish his book, Rook did everything to save face. Either way, we all know that he's a...

After (no surprise) banning and censoring Occams Raison for saying it like it is about Rookie Hawkins, and after accusing him of being me without evidence, I was forwarded this through email which appeared on the RRS form (although it seems to not be up any more):

"Remember this video?
It seems that because of some of the libel posted online, Rook has had to deal with an unusual amount of inane off topic criticisms. Most of these criticisms have a root source that we are well aware of. Rook has a section on our website to talk about the myth of Jesus Christ, not to talk about who will publish his book. Or to talk about his lack of college degree. If you've got criticisms of Rooks work, please feel free to present them. Criticisms of work should probably be sourced, considering that Rook usually does source his writings. Stupid off topic criticisms like some of the ones I've seen are free to be deleted at will or moved to this thread. Once posts are moved to this thread, mods are free to tear them to shreds. Edit out libel and leave the rest, edit out off topic crap and leave the rest, edit the whole damn thing and put a picture of a sheep in it's place... I don't care what mods do with it once it lands here.
For the record, I personally have spoken to at least 5 people with the power to publish Rooks book and would be interested in doing so. However considering the hater escapade for Jesus, giving up business contacts wouldn't exactly seem like a very bright idea now would it? Furthermore on the record... I WANT TO SELF PUBLISH HIS BOOK ANYWAY! The obvious goal is through a publisher, and I see no reason why that won't be easily accomplished, and accomplished with at least one solid peer review. However I secretly hope nobody wants it, so we can upload it through Amazon and make 51%. Ok... I've already wasted too much time."

The last paragraph is completely hilarious. To save face by knowing that the book would not be published by anybody reputable they say they want it to be self-published, yet at the same time they "hope nobody wants it"? These guys are jokes. What they should really say is this:

Too many of you darn pesky atheists and Christians know darn well that Rook Hawkins' uneducated high-school ass can't bring up anything of value when it comes to history. So, we're going to do it the loser's way and self-publish his book.

Oh, and another thing, Rookie, having your book reviewed by Richard Carrier doesn't mean your book is peer-reviewed. He doesn't even have a Ph. D. You guys are ridiculous.

Oh, like I'm really scared.

2007-12-06T16:34:00.000-08:00

Brian continues his "I'm gonna sue you assault" on yours truly. I was forwarded this message about Brian and me, and apparently this is what appeared in Sapient's forum:

Aerik: The lawsuit will be against Frank Walton for lying about who's publishing Rook's book and lying about the contents therein. It's a libel suit.

Sapient: That's less than 1% of it.

This dipstick has been threatening a lawsuit on me since the day he falsely accused me of pretending to be him around the net. The real cause why Brian Cutler wants to sue me is because he wants me to shut up about him. In fact, that's what he's been doing to many Christians. If you ever speak your mind about him, Brian will threaten to sue you. So much for free-thinking, eh? Sorry, Brian, but you know I only speak the truth about you, Rookie Hawkins, and pencil-head Kelly. So, bring on the lawsuit!

Related:

Rook caught lying about his publisher.

re: Cory Tucholski: Honest Christian of the day

2007-12-05T22:08:00.000-08:00

www.briansapient.com/blog/?p=35

*SIGH* It looks like Brian got really pissed off at yours truly. After quoting a fellow Christian (Cory Tucholski) who has been worried about my tactics (funny how this same Christian has problems with Brian too), Cutler writes:

It would seem instead that Frank Walton embodies the stereotype of the immoral Christian who would lie and cheat for Jesus.

I can see why Brian would flippantly calls me a liar without backing that up. I mean, c'mon, that's Brian, you know. But I never lied about Brian. If I did I would like to see proof. On the other hand, he says I cheat. Cheat? Cheat in what exactly? I never cheated in my life. (I wonder though if Brian cheated on his pregnant girlfriend with Kelly). And I never cheated when I tried to debate Brian. All he does is run from me. I want an honest debate with the nincompoop, but he won't take me up on it. Oh, well. But I find it hilarious that a man (ie Brian Cutler) would accuse me of cheating when he's practically open about how he cheats Christians in debates.

Let me deal briefly with what Cory was quoted as saying though:

I don’t want this to turn into an anti-Frank Walton ministry, but I thought that I would offer up one more post on why his “ministry” is not a Christian one.

First, the new poll on the side. He asks for the best word to describe Brian Sapient. The choices are less than Christian ways to describe any individual.

The Bible never described lazy people (that's a word I used for Brian)? He is definitely lazy. And very sexually perverted. That's why I used the word "pervert" to describe him.

And, the Bible is filled with strong language. For instance, Jesus and John the Baptist have used phrases like "brood of vipers" to describe people. Jesus was no softy.

While Sapient and I disagree ideologically, a small part of me wishes that I had the ability to devote my life full-time to my writing and ministry. Sapient has the opportunity to do that, and he seems very driven at his activism. I suppose, therefore, the word I would choose to best describe Sapient is “driven.” I think it fits better than the choices that Frank has offered up.

*SHRUGS* Yeah, okay, Brian is driven. So, what? I don't believe for a second he believes the things he says though. He's saying outrageous stuff just to get attention. That way, maybe he can find a sponsor that will give him money. That's all he's about. All Brian does is spend over 40 hours a week in front of the computer screen. He is not the father of his child, he used his ex-girlfriend, he lied about Kent Hovind's son banning him from youtube, while Brian likes banning people from youtube, he intimidates Christians by saying he'll sue them for all the money they have (yes, obviously, he has to do it for money, huh?), he has children exposed to skanky sluts half-dressed in his videos, etc. What more is there to say about Brian Cutler? He's a loser.

***UPDATE***

I love it when Brian responds to me. He keeps digging a deeper hole for himself. This is what he just wrote in his blog:

=================================

Just for kicks...
Posted on December 4th, 2007 by admin
www.briansapient.com/blog/?p=37

I rarely indulge him, but this one was the elusive self pwn and I had to, just had to point it out…

Fran quotes me…

“It would seem instead that Fran embodies the stereotype of the immoral Christian who would lie and cheat for Jesus.”

After quoting me, he says…

“On the other hand, he says I cheat. Cheat? Cheat in what exactly? I never cheated in my life.”

Do you see me say the words “Fran cheats?” I was making an inference. See how it could have been more honestly represented?

The elusive self pwn strikes again.

=================================

Well, all I gotta say is, Thank you, Brian, for admitting that your "inference" was unwarranted to begin with. I guess that really means I'm not a cheater then. Thank you.

LOL!

Brian, dude, you're so easy to figure out!

***UPDATE***

Brian looks for more pain. He writes:

=================================

Just for kicks II
www.briansapient.com/blog/?p=38
Posted on December 4th, 2007 by admin

“Do you see me say the words “Fran cheats?” I was making an inference. See how it could have been more honestly represented?” - Sapient

“Well, all I gotta say is, Thank you, Brian, for admitting that your “inference” was unwarranted to begin with. I guess that really means I’m not a cheater then.” - Fran

See just for kicks part 1 for the elusive self pwn. Did you see me say my inference was unwarranted? Do you see how Fran could have been more honest representing what I said?

One of my favorite quotes from Jake is,”The hardest thing to do in life is to see things as they are, not as you want them to be.” Theists see things as they want them to be in matters of gods, not as they are. Seeing things as you want them to be rather than how they are is dishonest to the one person that matters the most, yourself. It’s sad to see when humans let this dogma taught by religion funnel over in to other unrelated areas of their life. Like how to treat their wife, their children, themselves, etc. Losing sight of how things are, rather than how you want them to be is somewhere at the core of all the people who have killed in the name of religion.

=================================

My reply:

See just for kicks part 1 for the elusive self pwn. Did you see me say my inference was unwarranted? Do you see how Fran could have been more honest representing what I said?

You first said,

It would seem instead that Fran embodies the stereotype of the immoral Christian who would lie and cheat for Jesus.

Which I replied with,

Cheat? Cheat in what exactly? I never cheated in my life.

Then you said this to save face:

Do you see me say the words “Fran cheats?” I was making an inference.

The funny thing is, even if it was an inference that doesn't mean I was wrong. Because inferences are deriving conclusions based on facts. Well, if I cheated Cutler would have given us the facts. But he didn't. So, by definition his inference was unwarranted! Thank you, Brian, for leaving that opening for me to exploit :o)

One of my favorite quotes from Jake is,”The hardest thing to do in life is to see things as they are, not as you want them to be.” Theists see things as they want them to be in matters of gods, not as they are. Seeing things as you want them to be rather than how they are is dishonest to the one person that matters the most, yourself. It’s sad to see when humans let this dogma taught by religion funnel over in to other unrelated areas of their life. Like how to treat their wife, their children, themselves, etc. Losing sight of how things are, rather than how you want them to be is somewhere at the core of all the people who have killed in the name of religion.

Well, as we've seen that's not my problem. But speaking of how one treats their children, Brian, dude, last I heard you have no custody of your son. Besides, you aren't even an example to him. All you do is make these perverted videos laced with cussing in it. Is that how you want your son to be? You are not the father of your child. And you certainly weren't no example to the mother of your child. You used her and her money! I'm sorry you can't see how lazy and immoral you are, Brian.

LOL!

Does Brian really try to think things through before typing?

Theist vs. Atheist Debate - Paul Herrick (Christian) vs. Samuel Poling (atheist)

2007-12-04T12:32:00.000-08:00

God help me, why did this debate even have to happen? Herrick has a PhD in philosophy. A PhD! Samuel Poling is a kid in his 20s who (get this) is a Rational Response Squad member with a BA, and that's all. A piddling BA, guys. And how in the world did these two ever get to debate one another? Herrick creamed Poling. Herrick was a like a teacher teaching a nerdy snot-nosed punk a lesson (with gentleness and patience). Either way, the idea that Poling thought he stood a real chance against someone who is academically trained like Herrick is beyond me. In a sense, someone should admire somebody for taking on someone who's a real intellect, but it's typical of the Rational Response Squad to take on reputable and qualified debaters when all the while not realizing just how much they (the RRS, that is) suck. The end quality is an embarrassment to them. And by that token then, you should let everybody know about this debate. Personally, I'm not surprised RRS didn't bother to publicize this debate too much. The audio/video quality isn't all that great but you can still tell that Poling was trying to stay cool under pressure - during the cross-examination he was constantly shifting side-to-side. The best part was when Poling tried to condescend his way through the debate, which only served to make him look insecure. The Rational Response Squad are desperately trying to make themselves look like the rational ones - as if they're rational enough to take on prestigious people (does Rookie Hawkins ring a bell? well, Rook won't even bother debating. Figures.). And look what happens:

[Herrick is arguing the points he made in his essay against Richard C. Carrier here.]

Do the Rational Response Squad really believe the stuff they say?

2007-12-03T12:57:00.000-08:00

() YES, they are true believers.
() NO, they are just doing this for money.

So, you guys voted. Here are the results:

26 (50%) voted "Yes."
26 (50%) voted "No."

This is truly amazing! A tie?! Personally, I voted no. RRS is so stupid maybe they are true believers in their cause. But they aren't that stupid, are they? So, I voted no.

Rook Hawkins talks about Thomas L. Thompson again and mentions his piece-of-crap book

2007-12-02T16:27:00.000-08:00

Rook Hawkins is at it again!

In the forums, Rook Hawkins gives us a taste of his intro to his book. Go ahead and read it. Wasn't that just crap? Or as a reader told me, "a meandering, amateurish and self indulget ramble." I mean, no wonder Hawkins is screaming for help. I haven't read writing this bad since Rook wrote his little romance story. But Rook had a commenter (who is an atheist) taking him down...

Occams Raison:

Ummm, sorry to all the fans, but that was truly awful. It reads like a really verbose effort by a high school kid who's trying too hard to emulate a scholarly style.

This is actually getting published soon? By who? And do you have an editor, because you really need one if this eye-watering extract is anything to go on.

Seriously - who is publishing this in its current unpolished and awkward form?

Rook Hawkins clearly got toasted there so he had to save what little face he had left:

Occams, thank you for your completely worthless criticism. Please keep in mind this is just an introduction - not my first chapter (or any of the other 21 after). My editors, who have both probably published more than you ever will, actually enjoy my writing style and appreciate it, as both a scholarly work and as literature.

When it comes down to it, I trust Thomas L. Thompson and Richard Carrier's opinion over anybody who has as much of an obscure personality as you have since you started an account on this message board.

Rook again goes on about Thomas L. Thompson! And as some of you may recall we caught Rook in a bold faced lie when he suggested that his book was to be published by the Copenhagen series (Tomas L. Thompson is the editor of Copenhagen). Rook's claim was found to be false. And so he took away the "Copenhagen" reference at the behest of (get ready for this) Thomas L. Thompson! This had to be one of the biggest embarrassments of Rook's uneducated life.

Notice though that Rook didn't answer Occams' question which was, "...who is publishing this in its current unpolished and awkward form?" So Occams pressed Rook even more,

I notice you didn't answer my question about your "editors". Who exactly has accepted this book for publication? You mentioned Thompson, so I assume this means the Copenhagen International Seminar has accepted it - is that correct? If so, where does Richard Carrier fit in? I wasn't aware he was associated with Thompson's series.

To which Rook replied with:

I notice you didn't answer my question about your "editors".

I have answered you, before, in other threads. Perhaps you need to read what I write instead of ignore it? I've explained this to you upon your initial inquiry into who I was.

Who exactly has accepted this book for publication?

I never said it was certainly being published - what I said was I was under peer review. That education you boast about has not helped your reading comprehension.

You mentioned Thompson, so I assume this means the Copenhagen International Seminar has accepted it - is that correct?

For peer review - yes. Upon revisions, it may be published through that monograph.

If so, where does Richard Carrier fit in? I wasn't aware he was associated with Thompson's series.

Carrier is reviewing it as an addition. He has volunteered to look it over and provide additional critiques, as Thompson, although he is a friend, is a Theologian mainly. I focus primarily on historicity, and I wanted to be sure I covered all angles. I'm also sending a revised copy to be reviewed by a Greek Studies professor, Eric Schumacher, to gain additional perspective. I want to be sure I cover as many different angles as possible.

Well... okay. But one thing is for sure, Thompson doesn't strike me as a man who wants to be Rook Hawkins' bosom buddy. We'll see if we can get a hold of Thompson. We'll tell him know that Rook is using his name to spread his own. Kind of like what Richard Carrier does. It's no wonder Carrier gets along with Hawkins so well.

But Rook Hawkins had said his book will be published by the end of this year. At least his stupid freethoughtwiki (yes, they have one of those) said,

Rook Hawkins is currently working on his book, Discovering the Gnostics: A Look at the Evolution of Mystery Cults in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, due out at the end of 2007 (give or take a month).

Well, we're at the end of the year practically, yet his book has not come out in publication. Trust us, no reputable publisher will publish his work anyway.

The best part of the forum was when Rook admitted he had no college education (we'll be sure to tell Thompson that), and made an excuse for it,

College is great, I'd love to attend - perhaps you can lend me the money to go. Until that day, however, my 8 years of research and writing trumps most undergrads who probably will never use their education for any actual purpose other than to get a job.

*ROLLS EYES* And he's using his so-called 8 years of education to get a job. But we just caught Rook in another lie! He claimed he fought in the Gulf War (which was found to be a lie). Well, if he fought in the war Uncle Sam would be lending him the money to go to college. Occam wouldn't have to give him any money at all. So, lack of money for going to college is no excuse for Rook. Rook doesn't go to college because he's not intelligent enough. Pure and simple. Rook, you're a nincompoop.

HumbleOrthodox vs LeftofLarry on Greydon Square and the church

2007-12-01T01:38:00.000-08:00

To recap, the best thing to do is to first read the papers on Greydon Square's arrest here.

Soon after that Greydon made a video about his arrest here.

As you can see, it's obvious that Greydon's story had too many holes in it. And he may have very well gotten away with attempted murder. Soon, the Rational Response Squad came up with videos DEFENDING Greydon Square! It starts with LeftofLarry... and then LeftofLarry veered off on a tangent and attacked the church and Christians... and then HumbleOrthodox responded, and, quite frankly, creamed LeftofLarry.

Watch their debate in a playlist I made. As you can see, HumbleOrthodox did a masterful job of defending the faith against LeftofLarry's feeble attacks against Christians:

www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C7FEE6B524BEF2D0

Sluts for atheism!

2007-11-30T14:02:00.000-08:00

This is what the Rational Response Squad want their women to be like (so all you sluts with no self-respect ought to join them):

Probably, the funniest part was watching Brian Cutler "dancing." Was he trying to act like a chicken?

IrishFarmer on Kelly

2007-11-28T20:36:00.001-08:00

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Georgia Governor Angers the One True God by Praying to Yahweh for Rain

2007-11-27T16:48:00.000-08:00

RRS's poor attempt at humor isn't doing them any good. Apparently, they left a link to an article where historically politicians (yes, even Thomas Jefferson) asked for prayer. Hmm, are RRS making our point? Are they really that stupid?

Also, RRS writes,

The wrath of FSM poured down upon Atlanta like Holy Marinara from the heavens. Damaging a Baptist church, an ambulance service, and even a city hall building...

And what would that be compared to the Blind and Mindless Spaghetti Monster (basically, the blind and mindless spaghetti monster is what you would call "natural selection", Dawkins called it the "blind watchmaker")? Basically, what the blind and mindless flying spaghetti monster teaches are the following:

1. Intelligent man are a product of unintelligent "design."

2. Rationality came from a non-rational mind, or a non-rational spaghetti monster.

3. There are no purposes in life.

4. There are no goal-directed forces of any kind.

5. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics.

6. There is no ultimate meaning in life.

7. There is no free will for humans.

8. Human life is no qualitatively different than an animal's life, like an ant's or a tick's life.

9. There is no final judgment or life after death so live life as wild and crazy or immoral as you want.

I think the blind and mindless spaghetti monster pastafarian, Richard Dawkins, put it best, "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

May the noodley appendages of the blind and mindless spaghetti monster continue to bless you, RRS!

Oh, no! Evolution is true!

2007-11-27T00:50:00.000-08:00

Rook Hawkins' review of Acharya S

2007-11-23T22:47:00.000-08:00

Over and over again, I find out that Hawkins has not fully read the material he critiques. Now, I haven't read Acharya S. but I know of her, and recently Hawkins wrote a critique of her. Anyway, over at the RRS forums Freethinkaluva (a non-Christian) proves that Hawkins has not read Acharya S. and is therefore not qualified to review her. I'm not surprised someone has suggested that of Hawkins. Anyway, Freethinkaluva wrote this:

Have a look at my posts & others at RRS in the "Jesus/Krisna/Horus" thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/9725?page=1

If folks have a look at the thread there they would see how dishonest Rook is on the issue with Acharya's work. Rook omitted information provided to him in that thread & turned his "Problems with Acharya" into a straw man & an argument from ignorance. Mostly due to the fact that he hasn't read her work (which Rook admits in this thread) - especially "Suns of God" which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy."

Rook is dishonest here but seems to appeal to people who are too lazy to do their own research. And on top of that, It seems that Rook gets his false assumptions about Acharya from his hero Richard Carrier who also hasn't read Acharya's work. So Rook is RELYING on R. Carrier & doesn't go to the source - hows that for "sloppy scholarship"? Rook is an embarrassment to freethinkers & Jesus mythicists by dishonestly smearing Acharya like this.

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rooks blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Achayra from Rook is in order.

In order to save face, Rook responded while calling himself (get this) a historian:

See what I mean when I say they're fan boys? Not one peice of evidence submitted. Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time here and back up the claims. You all make loads of claims. This isn't a smear campaign whether you want it to be or not. This is a historian challenging the claims of Acharya S.

The only thing in order here is my post. You haven't presented anything but a lot of baseless objections. If you have read the book, then provide me the evidence in her book where she cites. I have asked this of you over and over and not once have you delivered. Put up or shut up.

But Freethinkaluva bested Rookie here:

... I'm merely pointing out the fact that you've never actually studied her work, which you admit & are already biased against it. And due to that fact, you're dishonest throughout your original post here & it should be removed as it's nothing but a flame, smear & straw man. As I already mentioned, folks who haven't actually read Acharya's work clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rook's blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Acharya from Rook is in order. And, no, Rook, you are NOT a "historian." You are a 24-year-old know-it-all who is lying about his expertise, particularly when it comes to Acharya's work.

... I am merely pointing out that Rook hasn't read the works he pretends to be an expert on here. His argument is further weakened by the fact that he feels the need to name-call me for pointing out the obvious. I didn't have an issue with Rook until he began dishonestly blasting Acharya's work, which I have read.

Some of Rook's poor points have already been addressed by Acharya. He made a mistake about Plato and was shown to be wrong in the link to the thread above I shared. Instead of admitting he was wrong, he went off on a campaign of hysteria pretending he knows Acharya's work. His childish behavior really smacks of jealousy, especially when he makes ridiculous claims of being a "historian." You're a kid, Rook, and your scholarship and experience don't even come close to Acharya's, so stop pretending otherwise.

Rook, I can approach Acharya about any kind of factual material you actually provide in your childish and pretentious diatribe, but she shouldn't be expected to go about addressing every little kid who comes along making attacks on her without even studying her work.

The best part was when more non-Christians ganged up on Rook. Here's what skullnboner wrote:

I surely do agree Freethinkaluva! Imagine if I were to critique Richard Carrier on the basis of what other's have said or "NOT SAID" instead of going to the source--the totality of Carrier's own published works. I would be correctly lambasted for even daring to niggle over any specific issue without having read them. Juveniles do that sort of thing in their smug cocky way. It is to be expected and the latter should not be taken seriously.

By rook or by crook....I doubt you will get an apology out of a delinquent wanna be expert. My impression is he a bratty self-important sand-box player. Hey...I just say things the way I see it. If rookie-baby can't take it, I will supply him with a soother. Anyhow, I haven't observed anything much valid or intelligent displayed here, but I like watching children be goofy!

LOL! Rook, dude, trust us, buddy, everybody, and I mean everybody knows you're a fake.

Keep Your Donations Coming In

2007-11-23T12:38:00.000-08:00

Larua Ingraham on Brian Cutler

2007-11-20T21:26:00.000-08:00

Laura Ingraham mentioned Brian Cutler in her new book (in the book, his pseudonym "Brian Sapient" is used) for only 3 pages. She recalled the time she interviewed him on her show. She doesn't say anything new, but the lesson she learned after having Cutler on the show is this:

"Thou shalt not lose one's patience with ignorant misfit twenty-somethings who spent too much time in atheist chat rooms." (p. 297)

Amen! Get her new book. It's good. And while you're at it listen to her interview with Brian Cutler, where she squashes him, both here and here.

Hey Brian, I'll be sure to send Laura Ingraham all the information I have on you. You know, information like your real name, how you think Dr. Martin Luther King had a mental disorder, how you want all Christians committed to mental hospitals, how you're a high school drop out, about how you nearly had your girlfriend get an abortion, etc. Maybe Ingraham will have an update for her soft-cover book all thanks to me :o)

Atheists do believe in something, and have a movement for it

2007-11-19T18:38:00.000-08:00

In response to this...

Actually, Brian Cutler, in many ways you're like a Christian with the respect of worshiping nature. You believe that non-intelligent nature brought forth your, uh, so-called intelligence. You believe that mindless nature, made your mind. You believe in eternal nature like a theist believes in an eternal being. You worship nature like a Christian worships Jesus, Brian.

Rational Response Squad wants more money

2007-11-18T23:27:00.000-08:00

Like all dimwitted televangelists, Brian Cutler is asking for more money. Well, we all know how Cutler likes to spend his money. According to the Radar Magazine,

"A twenty-something software developer from Maine dropped $200,000 on the Squad, buying them a house."

$200,000 dollars?!

Obviously, he didn't put that money to much use. Otherwise, why is he asking for more? I mean, how much more free money does Cutler need? Is he a money-grubbing welfare queen or what? I find it hilarious that Cutler thinks an ad with a half-naked skank on it will up his website hits. Well, it just may, but if he wants unsophisticated perverts to go to his website, so be it.

Oh, and, of course, RRS has to put in bold that "there is no dollar limit." Typical.

But Cutler writes,

We've also decided that we wont [sic] be alerting the audience as to which sites we are advertising on, as we are worried about sabotage from the fine folks who would like us to remain silent.

This doesn't make any sense. Is he scared we'll tell those sites what RRS is really about? I'll tell you this, if infidels.org (who is of the very very very few atheist websites I actually respect) has an ad of RRS on their website, boy, are they going to get it! It will show that some atheists have absolutely no dignity or rationality at all. But let it be known, if any atheist site has a RRS ad on it, they are truly shallow-minded, fascist fools.

Secular Fundamentalism is an oxymoron?

2007-11-15T15:56:00.000-08:00

Lap-dancing Kelly seems to think so. She writes that article in response to Michael Brendan Dougherty's concern over "secular fundamentalism." All Kelly does in her article is say how Dougherty is knocking down strawmen, or that he's being deceptive, etc. You know, the usual RRS rhetoric we all know so well, eh? All it does is come in one ear and out the other, Kelly. Of course, she's missing the point. Dougherty is using the term "secular fundamentalism" to mean hard-core fanatical atheists. Take for instance, the group Kelly belongs to. She advocates putting Christians in mental institutions to deconvert them from theism (read this too)! If that's not fanatical, I don't know what is! But does atheism have a belief-system? Technically, no, because there are different forms of atheism. But the New Atheist have a belief-system. They believe that neo-Darwinian evolution is true, for instance. You can gather a belief system from that thought alone. Atheist William Provine says,

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either."

And Richard Dawkins admits:

"Theologians worry away at the `problem of evil' and a related `problem of suffering.' ... On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Telling people that there is no such thing as evil or good is quite a radical claim. If not a fanatical one.

Rational Response Squad are a bunch of a**holes

2007-11-15T12:26:00.000-08:00

This guy rocks:

The NewLow on Brian Sapient again!

2007-11-14T12:33:00.000-08:00

Well, since their last video, the atheist group "Newlow" got a response from Brian Cutler and this is what happened:

See, even they know how full of it Brian is. I think it's hilarious he wouldn't allow these guys on his show, but, uh, he does want to be on their show. Of course, Brian is trying to give himself press but won't allow to give the NewLow any press at all. *SIGH* You gotta love Brian sometimes.

Brian Sapient (aka Brian Cutler) vs Ergun Caner?

2007-11-13T12:07:00.000-08:00

Of course, this is no challenge for Caner as he will no doubt squash Cutler. Well, unless Cutler demands that the format of the debate be unfair (which is no surprise). Anyway, I left a comment.

Related:

On Ergun Caner's interview with RRS

Antony Flew's Bogus Book?

2007-11-11T22:58:00.000-08:00

Of course RRS had to use name-dropping Richard Carrier as their source. But we already have info on this "Antony Flew" fiasco here and here and here.

RRS never has never will respond to questions about their tactics

2007-11-09T13:09:00.001-08:00

Well, one of the obvious lies was when Brian Cutler suggested he answered criticisms against him and RRS in the past. In my experience, Cutler dodges about 90% of the criticisms and concerns people have of him. So, he hasn't been responding to criticisms anyway. He should rename his organization the "non-response squad." And the idea that Cutler knows best about what to do with his life is a complete joke. Look at his life: he has no job, he cowers away from debates, he is not a real father to his child, he doesn't know logic, and he loves to spread lies. Anyway, we're not going to stop responding to Cutler and RRS :o)

Rook Hawkins' definition of a scholar

2007-11-08T01:17:00.000-08:00

When roaming around the RRS forum Occam Raisons wrote this:

I hope someone here can help me. I'm trying to find some professional academics in the fields of history or Biblical studies (or something related) who support the Jesus Myth thesis. So far I can only come up with Robert Price. I'm talking about academics in these fields who hold faculty positions at universities or equivalent research institutes. Is there anyone else other than Price?

Someone suggested Earl Doherty, and Occam responded:

I'm already familiar with Doherty, but he doesn't really fit my criteria. I'm looking for professional scholars in relevant fields. The same for G.A. Wells, who has good qualifications in his own field (German) but not in ancient history or Biblical studies. Richard Carrier is closer to the mark, but as a post-graduate student who is still completing his PhD, he doesn't fit my criteria either.

So it does seem that Price is the only professional scholar who does fit the bill. Unless someone can think of any others.

Lo and behold the dumbass himself (Rook Hawkins) said this:

Occams, your criteria is a bit deceptive and naive. There are many scholars who publish in academic journals who have absolutely no credentials, but are accepted widely by the community. If you are looking for a reason to attempt to dismiss the claims of mythicism outright, than I guess you're going to do that regardless.

Thus here's Rook Hawkins' criteria of a scholar:

No academic credentials + accepted widely by the community = scholar

It's no wonder Rookie calls himself a "scholar." By this criteria even an uneducated bum can be a scholar! But of course all of this is an excuse to make Rookie look like a smarty when really he's a dumby. Realize that Rook knows that there is no Christ Myther who fits a proper criteria which is rightly described by Occam as "some professional academics in the fields of history or Biblical studies." But Rook is relying on non-academics who have no scholarly or credentialed studies in the Bible. Amazing!

RRS does damage control for their lack of education and credentials

2007-11-05T00:27:00.000-08:00

After Radar Magazine noted the fact that RRS are NOT academically trained, Matthew Chapman wrote the following:

Funny thing is, even Chapman knew that the Radar magazine made fun of RRS, but RRS is still hoping more people would read it? Whatever. Still, the idea that a lap-dancing stripper (Kelly), and a high school drop out who's only real job was as a cell phone salesman (Brian Cutler), and a liar who thinks he's smart even with no real profession academic training (Rookie Hawkins) can fool a host of gullible non-Christians into thinking that they're actually as smart as Charles Darwin himself is quite sad.

Anyway, Matthew Chapman is but a piece of lint within the evolutionary academic circle. He is hardly ever cited or sourced. Well, he is probably never sourced in any academic or reputable science journal. His only claim to fame is the fact that he's Charles Darwin's great great grandson. And that's it.

Kabane52 forces Rook Hawkins to face the evidence, but Rook runs away

2007-11-04T22:21:00.000-08:00

I got this debate from RRS' forum. Rook Hawkins did more dodges than a game of dodge ball. Enjoy:

Question on the Pagan Parallels for the Jesus Mythicist

Kabane52:

Hello everyone. I am Kabane52 from YouTube. I think the Jesus Myth theory is nonsense that was righly abandoned by scholars in the 19th century. But apparently Bad Boy Flemming read too much of Earl Doherty and produced the "documentary" The God Who Wasn't There" which uses the hilarious "16 Crucified Saviors" list, which includes figures like Beddru. Do you know who Beddru is? He is made up. Never worshipped. But Bad Boy Flemming forgot to do his research.

My question is as follows.

What is the evidence for the following pagan parallels regarding Mithra.

Born of a virgin

Had 12 disciples

Crucified

Resurrected

I have seen these parallels parroted everywhere, but have not seen any evidence for it. So, your evidence that people thought Mithra had these four attributes is?

Oh, and by the way, the evidence has to predate Christianity. Take your best shot.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Okay. Try the Zoroastrian tradition of Mithraism which DOES predate Christianity.

Born of the virgin Anahita - which was impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster much like Christ is said to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit bringing the seed of David unto Mary.

I agree about the 12 disciples, the 12 disciples is a trope reflecting the tradition in the Torah where Moses asks for one man from every tride to represent that tribe and lead it.

I also agree that he wouldn't have been crucified, although he did shed blood for salvation of man. This was a common hellenistic theme, a trope going back as far as the Elusian mysteries.

He did ascend into heaven, in fact after a last supper (or sacred meal). His ascension, however, is not based on the Old Testament trope of Enoch like that of Jesus' ascension in Luke. Mithras ascends on a chariot (similar in means like that of Elijah) to become the cosmic ruler.

Also, now that you've shown that you have no idea what the mythicist position is, what did you tend to offer in return for your contest?

...

How come it was abandoned in the 19th century?

Mythicism was not abandoned in the 19th century. It's been a continuing part of scholarship for two hundred years since the establishment of the historical-critical method and the establish of many redaktiongeschichte schule. Additionally, most of scholarship has always been oriented away from secularism. Especially after the turn of the 20th century. The two historical Jesus quests (1st one starting in the early 18th century and ending with Schweitzer in 1911, 2nd one following Kasemann's lecture and article establishing additional traditions of his teacher and colleague Bultmann and ending with Robinson's evaluation of the quest in the same frame of mind of Schweitzer who categorized the quest prior to his book) established many methods which now are invalid and have been shown to be flawed for decades now. This is in part due to much better dating techniques, new archaeological finds and additional advancements in the fields of sociology, anthropology and archeology (among other fields). There is no modern historical-critical evaluation and refutation of the mythicist position as it stands today (put forth by Price, Carrier, Thompson and Doherty).

===============================

Kabane52:

You make the claims. Back it up by evidence.

You claim followers of Mithra thought Mithra

1. Was born of a virgin

2. Shed blood for the sins of mankind

3. Had a last supper

4. Ascended on a chariot into heaven

That is super! Where is the evidence for that which predates Christianity?

As for scholarly opinion of the Jesus Myth, yes, it was mostly abandoned in the 19th century. Even the Jesus Seminar, pinnacle of liberal scholarship, admits that Jesus existed. (At least most of them)

The mythicist position is refuted in depth here: (All of these are just linking you to the letter of the last name. Scroll down to see the rebuttal pages.)

Doherty: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.htm

Price: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-P.html

Carrier: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html

Never heard of Thompson. What has he written?

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

You make the claims. Back it up by evidence.

You claim followers of Mithra thought Mithra

1. Was born of a virgin

2. Shed blood for the sins of mankind

3. Had a last supper

4. Ascended on a chariot into heaven

That is super! Where is the evidence for that which predates Christianity?

Any academic publisher within the last ten years which has published on Mithraism. Why don't you start there, and after you've read those books, you and I will be on the same level.

As for scholarly opinion of the Jesus Myth, yes, it was mostly abandoned in the 19th century. Even the Jesus Seminar, pinnacle of liberal scholarship, admits that Jesus existed. (At least most of them)

No it was not. Your opinions on scholarship are naive at best.

The mythicist position is refuted in depth here: (All of these are just linking you to the letter of the last name. Scroll down to see the rebuttal pages.)

Doherty: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.htm

Price: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-P.html

Carrier: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html

And all of these authors have responded to Holding (which is not a historian or a scholar but rather an apologist who flings insults instead of evidence). Holding has yet to respond to any of their refutations. All of which can be viewed in their recent books and publications in peer reviewed journals. That is more to say then your Holding source, which is neither peer reviewed nor has he ever been published. Would you like to present a good source or would you prefer to present false information that historians pay no credence too? (All four of the scholars I presented by the way are credentialed - Holding is not)

Never heard of Thompson. What has he written?

Over 100 articles in peer reviewed journals and he is the editor of a scholarly monograph. Again...what has Holding done besides fling insults and criticize his betters?

NEXT!

===============================

Kabane52:

We're getting off topic here. The question was about the pagan parallels, so let's deal with those. How about we narrow it down to one parallel that we can discuss at a time.

The Virgin Birth of Mithra

What evidence is there for this that predates Christianity?

...

Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin.

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

That link is not an apologetics website, and it is written by a credentialed scholar, but it shows some evidence that Mithra was born of a rock. Mithra never died, he killed a bull, but this is only in Roman Mithraism, which postdates Christianity. We know very, very little about Iranian Mithraism.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Are you incapable of reading comprehension? I said the Zoroastrian tradition, not the Roman Tradition you silly person, you!

===============================

Kabane52:

Exactly. The parallels are only in Roman Mithraism (not Zoroastrian), and even there they are pretty weak. Tell me, in Zoroastrian Mithraism, what evidence is there that the followers thought that Mithra was born of a virgin?

...

Ah, good. So Rook hasn't abandoned the argument after all. We are discussing the virgin birth. So, Rook, what evidence that predates Christianity demonstrates that in Zoroastrian tradition, Mithra was thought to be born of a virgin?

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

What gives you this impossible idea that the Zoroastrian tradition doesn't demonstrate parallels? Why would you think that the Roman tradition is the only tradition that resembles Christ (which is false)? Zoroastrian tradition resembles Christ just as other early traditions hold common tropes. There is no doubt of that. Please consider the following sources on parallelism between old and new testaments and extra-biblical religions:

Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth ; The Early History of the Israelite People; The Mythic Past; The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Niels Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition; Miller-Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; Phillip Davies, In Search of "Ancient Israel"; Matthews-Benjamin, Old Testament Paralles: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East; James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement; Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel; Myth and History in the Bible; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History; Gosta Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (To name a few)

Many of those deal with general parallel's, but here aresome specifically dealing with Mithraism:

Robert Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire; Michael Patella, Lord of the Cosmos: Mithras, Paul, and the Gospek of Mark; Payam Nabarz, The Mytseries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief that Shaped the Christian World; Manfred Clauss (trans. Richard Gordon), The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries (again...to name a few)

These deal specifically with the influence of Zoroastrian tradition on the Romans, and how it shaped their understanding of Mithras (You apparently don't seem to realize that the Romans adopted the religion from Mithraism and that they really just altered a very small portion of the myth - much of it remained the same). These books will help you understand further the similar tropes between the two Gods.

I am not making the claim that Jesus is a carbon copy of ANY one God, specifically. That's a silly claim to make and one I fight against. However the fact that Jesus is a trope invented using manyvarious tropes is a fact. There is no dispute among scholarship about this. In fact, many historicists admit this, as did those even at the beginning of the first quest for Jesus which started with Strauss. However, that is the very problem. Once you admit it's all mythology and trope, you are essentially picking and choosing which part of the myth to take as "historical" (such as Crossan using the argument that Jesus's resurrection was probably historical, and the rest of the story parable). This is an underlining presupposition among scholars who claim Jesus existed - they start from the conclusion that Jesus must have existed, and then work backwards from that assumption (in their minds...something MUST have happened). This claim is automatically dubious, as nobody would claim (without gaining some sort of criticism from the consensus of scholarship) that the death of Dionysus, or Orpheus were actual historical events simply because they had followers (which is the only claim for Jesus to make). This is not how historical research and acumen is handled, and to think it is can only be viewed as naivety.

I certainly hope you don't hold this position, as it only reflects poorly on your thinking abilities.

===============================

Kabane52:

You still haven't given me your shred of evidence yet.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

I don't have too. The books I've presented do that work for me. I've given you the resources so YOU can do your own research on it, as it is clear by your naivety you are clueless. I am writing a book which takes up most of my time and as such I don't have the hours needed to present you with the evidence (which I'd basically be taking from these books). If you want to know, and you are being honest about your question, there should be no reason for you not to check those books out. If you are, however, just being a prick and are asking because you think you know-it-all, then you can honestly go fuck yourself. If the later is true, I'm just wasting my time anyway. If you are however being honest, and really want to know - go read those books.

===============================

Kabane52:

Works like Heidel's and Pritchard's note parallels but do not endorse any sort of "borrowing" thesis; in fact Heidel says that Genesis did NOT depend on Babylon's material. Nabarz is an occultist, not a religious scholar. Clauss does not support your case. Patella is a scholar but his work is considered fringe: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5409_5703.pdf and note that it speaks of general concept correspondence, not specifics like you want.
Could you cite specifics?

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

I would say that you are either misreading Heidel or you are pulling that conclusion from somewhere else. Can you please cite me where Heidel says that Genesis did not borrow from Gilgemesh? I can't seem to find that in my copy.

Further, the works are supplemental. They don't all have to support my opinion individually, as many of the works I mention utilize the manuscripts and provide adequate and up-to-date information regarding the borrowing of tropes and ideas in older manuscripts.

I'll retract Nabarz if you agree to retract J.P. Holding.

You say that Patella is fringe, but I find that irrelevant. Why would it matter if his work is fringe or not, especially when the reviewer (which you posted) stated that "Happily, the overall thesis of this book is at the very least plausible." (p. 2) You say it fails with specifics, but that makes me wonder if you even read the article at length or perhaps you just skimmed it, as the particulars Patella is missing are not at all detrimental to his case in the least. This is actually backed up BY the review, "It is significant that the problematic details are not specific to Patella’s book but rather an issue for Markan scholarship as a whole." (emphasis mine, p. 3)

In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer (James G. Crossley), that there are lots of gaps in Markan scholarship, and where Crossley admits there are gaps, also suggests many scholars interpret too much into the book and claim Mark says what it really doesn't. This is where the somewhat new (last ten years) scholarship of Dennis McDonald come into play, where we see many instances in the New Testament, but especially that in Mark where the Homeric epics are used as a formation of many key events, including the boy who tosses the mantle off his back before running off naked away from Jesus, and the three women who visit the tomb of Jesus at the end of the narrative to name a few; as well as the calling of Judas to the Sanhedrin to ask him to identify Jesus (when many of their ilk would have known who Jesus already was, being that he had rebuked a number of them and overthrew the tables of the money changers outside their front doors!)

You say Clauss does not agree with me...have you read the book or are you just guessing? "Moreover, the similarities between the two religions adduced above must have encouraged Mithraists in particular to become Christians. They had no need in their new faith to give up the ritual meal, their Sun-imagery, or even their candles, incense and bells. Some elements of Mithraism may well have been carried oer into Christianity, which partly explains why even in the sixth century the Church authorities had to struggle against those stuli homines, those simply clowns, who continued on the very church-steps to do obeisance to the Sun early in the morning, as they always had done, and pray to him." (p. 172)

I also agree with Clauss when he says, "Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Greco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world." (p. 168) This sets up my point nicely, in fact, that when you have mutualy similar religions fighting to save souls, ideas will be passed between the two when converts from one go to another and gain places of power in that community. This cannot be denied, and this is why Clauss admits this on page 172 (quoted above). The similarities are there, and exist. But they had to come from somewhere, and if Clauss even admits that they are similar because they came from earlier traditions in Greco-oriental (ancient near eastern Hellenistic) culture they could not be from events that actually happened in 30-33 CE.

When I suggest you go to a library and read the books I suggest you do so, otherwise you only show yourself to be foolish when somebody who actually has read them shows that you have not.

===============================

jcr4runner weighs in on Rook's attitude problem:

This is an interesting exchange. I see in one place where Rook criticizes J.P. Holding because he's "only an apologist and knows how to fling insults." Then I read about a dozen ad hominems directed toward Kabane including Rook telling Kabane (a 13-year-old kid!) that he's a "pr**k" and to go F*** himself.

Rook, if you did YOUR research and "read some books" on the law you'd know you could be brought up on charges for this -- sexually harrassing a minor -- whether ignorant or not, it's a tortious offense. At the very least you should be ashamed. But I guess atheists have no reason to be ashamed of anything.

All he's asking you to do is cite some evidence and you're reply is that your "job" keeps you way too busy and that you are too smart to inform a 13-year-old with some valid questions. It doesn't help either your case or your credibility.

Then you pass off not being able to cite an example by telling him to "go read some books." If Kabane is 13-years-old and can think like this, then he obviously has read some books. I wnat to see the discussion develop and see where Kabane will be at in 7 years or so.

He's not a historian yet -- and neither are you since you have no credentials by which to call yourself that -- but his father is a professor of history -- or so I heard? But I predict Kabane will probably have his PhD while you'll still be caliming to be a historian with no credentials.

Do you think the rest of the world can't see this for what it is?

BTW: I saw in one place where you called Holding a fraud. At least Holding does have an M.A. in library science which makes him a credible researcher -- and you have your degree in ???

For the record, I have degree in Psychology and English literature and am a certified teacher of English. So I do have some formal training in social sciences and literary analysis. But it's only a B.A. and I don't claim to be someone that I am not.

What you have proven is that you are able to find lots of books that support your atheistic longings. But you haven't done a lot of serious thinking or writing on your own. You aren't published. I've been reading for a year now that you are "writing a book." That should be a great laugh when it's finished.

Essentially, you are a parrot. There hasn't been any NEW Higher Criticism in the past 150 years. All of the refutations of Higher Criticism that were done more than 50 years ago still stand.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Apparently, this is nothing more than an attempt to attack me without providing any more insight to the debate. Once more, because this thread seems to be hijacked, I will repost this for kabane or anybody else. Please keep in mind that Kabane has been citing things that he has apparently not read, as I've shown below. I've cited near forty sources above and all of them should be considered. I have and will continue to be patient and wait for a response. Note how I call him out below:

Works like Heidel's and Pritchard's note parallels but do not endorse any sort of "borrowing" thesis; in fact Heidel says that Genesis did NOT depend on Babylon's material. Nabarz is an occultist, not a religious scholar. Clauss does not support your case. Patella is a scholar but his work is considered fringe: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5409_5703.pdf and note that it speaks of general concept correspondence, not specifics like you want.
Could you cite specifics?

I would say that you are either misreading Heidel or you are pulling that conclusion from somewhere else. Can you please cite me where Heidel says that Genesis did not borrow from Gilgemesh? I can't seem to find that in my copy.

Further, the works are supplemental. They don't all have to support my opinion individually, as many of the works I mention utilize the manuscripts and provide adequate and up-to-date information regarding the borrowing of tropes and ideas in older manuscripts.

I'll retract Nabarz if you agree to retract J.P. Holding.

You say that Patella is fringe, but I find that irrelevant. Why would it matter if his work is fringe or not, especially when the reviewer (which you posted) stated that "Happily, the overall thesis of this book is at the very least plausible." (p. 2) You say it fails with specifics, but that makes me wonder if you even read the article at length or perhaps you just skimmed it, as the particulars Patella is missing are not at all detrimental to his case in the least. This is actually backed up BY the review, "It is significant that the problematic details are not specific to Patella’s book but rather an issue for Markan scholarship as a whole." (emphasis mine, p. 3)

In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer (James G. Crossley), that there are lots of gaps in Markan scholarship, and where Crossley admits there are gaps, also suggests many scholars interpret too much into the book and claim Mark says what it really doesn't. This is where the somewhat new (last ten years) scholarship of Dennis McDonald come into play, where we see many instances in the New Testament, but especially that in Mark where the Homeric epics are used as a formation of many key events, including the boy who tosses the mantle off his back before running off naked away from Jesus, and the three women who visit the tomb of Jesus at the end of the narrative to name a few; as well as the calling of Judas to the Sanhedrin to ask him to identify Jesus (when many of their ilk would have known who Jesus already was, being that he had rebuked a number of them and overthrew the tables of the money changers outside their front doors!)

You say Clauss does not agree with me...have you read the book or are you just guessing? "Moreover, the similarities between the two religions adduced above must have encouraged Mithraists in particular to become Christians. They had no need in their new faith to give up the ritual meal, their Sun-imagery, or even their candles, incense and bells. Some elements of Mithraism may well have been carried oer into Christianity, which partly explains why even in the sixth century the Church authorities had to struggle against those stuli homines, those simply clowns, who continued on the very church-steps to do obeisance to the Sun early in the morning, as they always had done, and pray to him." (p. 172)

I also agree with Clauss when he says, "Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Greco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world." (p. 168) This sets up my point nicely, in fact, that when you have mutualy similar religions fighting to save souls, ideas will be passed between the two when converts from one go to another and gain places of power in that community. This cannot be denied, and this is why Clauss admits this on page 172 (quoted above). The similarities are there, and exist. But they had to come from somewhere, and if Clauss even admits that they are similar because they came from earlier traditions in Greco-oriental (ancient near eastern Hellenistic) culture they could not be from events that actually happened in 30-33 CE.

When I suggest you go to a library and read the books I suggest you do so, otherwise you only show yourself to be foolish when somebody who actually has read them shows that you have not.

===============================

Kabane52:

Discussing the opinions of authors is not relevant. I discuss evidence. So provide the evidence, and I will respond. If you continue to tell me to read some books, then the discussion is over, because you refuse to cite a piece of evidence for a virgin birth predating Christianity.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Discussing the opinions of authors is not relevant.

More naivety.

I discuss evidence.

You don't even know what "evidence" is.

So provide the evidence, and I will respond.

Those books clearly lay out the evidence for you. Read them. Stop avoiding the work load. Answers don't come easy, you actually need to work to find them.

If you continue to tell me to read some books, then the discussion is over,

Because apparently you are unread, and wish to remain so.

because you refuse to cite a piece of evidence for a virgin birth predating Christianity.

I have cited 50 books which discuss and show the evidence. The work is there and cited, you refuse to do anything about it. This is now a thread which not only displays your ignorance but your inability to be intellectually honest. You've so far lied and been dishonest throughout this whole thread and all you have done to suppliment that is show how incredibly lazy you are. Keep it up. Everyone with a third grade reading level can see you've done nothing but complain throughout this whole thread, while I've backed up and cited more than what you deserve. This has been an gross waste of my time.

And Rook, don't criticize JP Holding for not being a historian, when he does not claim to be.

I'm criticizing your use of somebody who has no understanding of historical methods and how the science of history is applied. You utilizing him as a resource is just one more additional nail in the metaphorical coffin; that coffin, by the way, is that which holds whatever integrity and respect you might have had, had you approached this subject from a more honest vantage point.
Yet you claim to be a historian and ancient texts expert because Richard Carrier(PhDless himself) told you you were. Get over yourself.

Another lie. Back this up please - and I still await your apology for lying about knowing those resources which you claimed above.

===============================

How to do the "Rook Hawkins" shuffle:

Whenever you're asked to provide evidence for something, dodge it by saying "just read these books" and that settles the problem. So, the next time Rook Hawkins asks you to provide evidence for a historical Jesus, just tell him to read more books, then you got him! That's how "scholars" like Rook Hawkins answers questions.

RRS still appropriating black culture

2007-11-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

The problem with using this type of language (especially coming from white people) is it makes our culture look like a minstrel one. RRS has a minstrel mentality when it comes to black people:

Of course, RRS are naming off "atrocities" in the Bible, yet they refuse to give any comprehensive justification for morality given an atheist worldview. But they know in their heart that atheism cannot account for moral absolutes. Thus they can't have any real problem with atrocities in the Bible.

Oh, and Rook, dude, you need to get some braces! Your teeth are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

Kevin Stover takes down cowardly Rook Hawkins

2007-11-02T22:13:00.000-07:00

Link.

The New Low take down Brian Cutler and the Rational Response Squad

2007-10-31T21:33:00.000-07:00

More and more atheists coming out against RRS. These guys are hilarious. They know how stupid RRS are, and deal with them for only the first 4 minutes but they don't hold back (warning: there's language):

Well, that was a pretty hardcore response. You thought that was bad, check out FakeSagan's response to Brian Cutler. Brian, dude, atheists really, really can't stand you.

OutCampaign news

2007-10-30T00:36:00.001-07:00

Link.

Does Brian Realize that those shirts make them look like a bunch of adulterers straight from Hawthorne's book? How uncreative and unoriginal can Brian Cutler get? But it's as if the girls are walking openly telling everybody she's proud of being a cheating slut. Or guys who like being perverted pigs. But then again, Brian and Kelly and Rook have had sex out of wedlock, so the shirts fancy them perfectly. Speaking of unoriginality, look at Brian Cutler's Rational Mobile. Wow, that takes talent, Brian. Please, continue to impress us with "your" very own ideas.

Related:

On Radar Magazine

Radar Magaine does it again :)

2007-10-29T19:14:00.000-07:00

Just found this ditty on Radar Magazine's website. The best part was when they said,

The Rational Response Squad... are holding a contest ... The first 15 people who post a YouTube video of themselves buying the issue of Radar in question get ... a copy of the magazine autographed by RRS founder Brian Sapient and two fellow non-believers. (We know, try to contain yourselves....)

LOL! Like I said, it's the harsh language they use that make RRS look like fools.

Uhm, Brian, according to above quote, Radar Magazine knows you guys aren't really famous enough to give out autographs. C'mon, ex-cell phone salesman, everybody knows how stupid you guys are.

Nick Pollar on Dawkins' Root of all Evil

2007-10-29T13:49:00.000-07:00

RRS has this preview of Dawkins' "Root of all Evil?" linked to their website:

Nick Pollard has a review of this TV series here and here.

Related:

Book reviews of God Delusion.

Jim Smith tries to have a reasonable conversation with Kelly

2007-10-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

Jim Smith had some "questions about the mind disorder of theism" and, well, Kelly didn't actually have a kind response. What's ironic was that this was actually posted in the "kill 'em with kindness" forum. See, I knew RRS couldn't follow their own rules. Either way, Jim turned out to be the most rational of them all despite the tone and condescension he received.

Idea for raising money for RRS "Sexy women of Atheism calendar"

2007-10-27T12:44:00.000-07:00

Link.

Let me make this clear to you, ex-cell phone salesman Cutler. Have you really taken a look at some of the RRS girls? They ain't pageant material, man. They are more like Miss Hoodrat material. But hey, if you think the best way to represent atheist women as a bunch of sluts, go ahead. Real men don't find dirty-looking prostitutes attractive. Pig-vomit, perverted, misogynistic, and emasculated so-called males can't handle women the way they are, and so they subjugate them into some kind of object. Sadly, the girls of RRS fall into that. Just look at Kelly and her fake boobs. Does this girl have any self-respect? Or that Cluelessforchrist cat, the girl couldn't attract attention with her personality or her smarts, so she turns herself into some kind of 40-year-old stripper. Girl, your time's up. Ya'll need a life.

RRS is an antitheist organization which means...

2007-10-25T12:46:00.000-07:00

As always, Brian Cutler gives insulting and dishonest replies to honest inquiries:

Kyle, your questions are bad ones.

We don't promote the belief there is no god, we don't even believe that ourselves. We promote the belief that there is no good reason to believe in a god, yet, and there probably never will be.

Okay, you say you don't promote the belief there is no god, but at the same time you do promote the belief that there is no good reason to believe in a god. So no matter how many infinite reasons people have for belief in a god, you'll reject it. So, in essence you really are promoting the belief that there is no god, genius.

Atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheism is a religion like off is a tv channel. Atheism is a religion like NOT playing baseball is a sport.

These parallels are as bad as Ray Comfort's banana proof for God!

It is the belief in nothing.

This is borderline retarded. You actually think atheists believe in nothing?

Kyle is right. Atheists believe in nothing. Atheist George Smith said something similar:

If I say to you, X is true, I am intellectually responsible for providing some kind of reasons for accepting it. If I do not provide you any reasons or I provide reasons that are invalid, you are legitimately justified in rejecting my claim to knowledge as unfounded and hence irrational. This is probably the single most important principle in regard to the defense of atheism.... You are not asserting the truth or existence of anything; you are challenging the theists' claim to truth. Your only responsibility in this regard is to examine critically the views of religionists, subject them to rational scrutiny, and either accept them or reject them on that basis. That is your sole responsibility. You have done your job after that.

You see? Atheism doesn't give you any obligation to believe in anything whatsoever.

You know that the wording you just used is an emotional ploy from conmen to try and manipulate your mind with bullshit? I as an atheist believe in tons of things, including the belief that you have been lied to likely by multiple sources about atheists and atheism to try and convince you it's bad or doesn't make sense... just like I was.

It doesn't. And neither do you, nipple boy.

Therefore doesn't anti-theism double back on itself? By saying the belief in God is bad because its a religion - seems contradictory. How would you respond to that?

Have you even googled the word antitheist? The wikipedia entry on it is the first link to come up. And the first definition to come up is: "An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God."

Yes, and earlier you admitted to promoting "the belief that there is no good reason to believe in a god." Sure seems like you're an anti-theist.

The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. Furthermore, an antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular."

Do you see anything at all about antitheist being someone who thinks believing in god is bad simply because it's a religion? I don't...

No kidding. Brian, if you are promoting the belief that there is no good reason to believe in a god, and say that belief in God is a mind disorder, then you are pretty much an anti-theist, smarty. But in some ways you are religious because you think atheism promotes some kind of belief, since you earlier admitted that as an atheist you believe in something.

... and I'm glad I don't...

But you do.

... because not believing in god simply because it's a religion is one of the dumbest reasons to not believe. There are literally millions of good reasons not to believe in the god of the bible or any god for that matter, and simply because it's a religion wouldn't even be on the list.

You've been lied to, I hope you follow up with research of your own. Research outside of the dumbfucks that taught you this nonsense.

- Brian Sapient

Well, Kyle seems much more informed than you are. You pretty much made his case that atheism requires belief. Thank you.

Uri Geller still popular as ever

2007-10-24T16:23:00.000-07:00

Ex-cell-phone salesman Brian Cutler has been trying his best to ruin Uri Geller's career. Also, you may recall he's been trying to milk money out of Uri with a stupid lawsuit. Doesn't seem to have done anything to ol' Uri. Why, he even has a major TV show coming up. Unlike you, Brian, Uri works hard and has a fan base. On the other hand, you convinced a bunch of gullible atheists that you and RRS are actually smart. I don't know who's the better illusionist: you or Uri.

Biblical Contradictions Answered For Rook Hawkins

2007-10-24T15:23:00.000-07:00

Part 1 and Part 2 by ILOVECHRIST.

Gizmo does damage control for the Radar Magazine article

2007-10-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

It's funny, Gizmo actually took down his previous video on the Radar Magazine article after we posted it here. He talks a little bit about that in this new video (without mentioning us, of course), but it's interesting what he says:

Translation: "I don't like the language they used for RRS, but buy the magazine anyway. RRS needs popularity! You have to pretend the article is actually to RRS's advantage not disadvantage."

*SIGH* People. But thank you for this video, Gizmo, I think people will see it our way anyway. That article made RRS look like fools.

Related:

Radar Magazine on the RRS

Brian and Kelly try on shirts

2007-10-22T13:07:00.000-07:00

What do all these T-shirts have in common? Well, they all look the same:

You guys have to learn how to design, because those were the most boring looking shirts I've seen. I doubt it'll get anybody's attention. But good luck with the sales. And I mean it, good luck. The best part was when Brian Cutler bared his body to the camera. As if he thinks he has something to show. I don't know, ladies, were you impressed? Well, at least you took my advice, Brian, and you're losing some weight. Still, would it kill you to do some push-ups? Or sit-ups? Join a gym for goodness sakes!

Brian Cutler threatens me AGAIN with another lawsuit

2007-10-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

We're #1 when it comes to exposing RRS and Brian Cutler for the person that he is. Since then, he has been desperately trying to find a way to get rid of us. He knows he can't intimidate us at all. But Brian keeps going on and on with these threats about suing me (for instance, see this one). He just made a post (without mentioning my name of course) entitled "Penalty for masking someones domain name with intent to confuse" (www.briansapient.com/blog/?p=14). I know this post is to me personally, because Brian left a link to Greydon Square's song "addressed", which was a song Greydon made to yours truly (I deal with "addressed" here). Either way, this lawsuit is just another stupid way of Brian Cutler trying to silent his critics by stopping me and censoring me. Sorry, Brian, your lawsuit won't do anything. There is no confusion, because people know that I'm not you. And as for the trademark infringement - what trademark infringement? You don't deserve to have "rational" in "Rational Response Squad." Everybody knows that. But hey, bring the lawyers. We all know you're now trying to make money by suing innocent people. It seems like you're having money troubles, huh? So, go right ahead, nipple boy. I'm ready for you.

Christians,

Don't be afraid to say whatever you want about RRS and Brian Cutler. If you at all feel intimidated you can send us info on Cutler and we'll be more than happy to post it. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ, and a joke like Cutler can't break that bind.

POLL RESULTS: Who's the stupidest RRS member?

2007-10-21T21:46:00.000-07:00

Is it:

A. Brian J. Cutler (aka Brian Sapient)

B. Rook Hawkins

C. Kelly

Alright, here are the results:

16 (28%) voted for A. Brian J. Cutler (aka Brian Sapient)

31 (54%) voted for B. Rook Hawkins.

10 (17%) voted for C. Kelly.

I was surprised by the results, because Rook Hawkins got the widest margin in the group. I didn't think it'd be that big of a margin though! I personally voted for Rook. At first, I thought most people would vote for Cutler since he's the most vocal nincompoop of them all. But no, the average person who know RRS, know all too well how desperate Rook is in trying to show how smart he is when he isn't. We know he doesn't do his homework. We know he's pretending. We know he's no smarter than an adolescent junior higher. We know he doesn't know the Bible. We know he's a complete crock. We know he's a moron. Just look at what he wrote in his blog (unedited and unaltered) about himself:

October 9, 2007 - Tuesday

Arrogant or Confident?
Current mood: discontent
Category: Life

Rook Hawkins: Cocky and vicious prick, or confident, knowledgable historian?

Consider that as I press on with a short digression.

(WARNING! This blog post is going to be a lot more personal than the average reader of my blog might be used too.)

I'm a realist. As such, I know I have shortcomings. Not in the least, I know I can be obnoxious at times, although in all honesty, I really don't try to be. But, that doesn't stop the occasional comment directed at me concerning my arrogance. Some time ago, somebody I respected called me self-centered, and the comment was so odd from this person it was more hurtful then I would have otherwised admitted.

Just today, somebody asked me if I thought I was cocky. I didn't know how to answer. I just kept thinking about that earlier conversation with that person I respected, and how that caught me offguard. So I asked her, "What do you think?"

"My first impression of you was that you were cocky." She said, "But I don't think that anymore." She explained to me that it was in the way I debated, that I was confident about the information that I knew and how I presented it, and if you didn't know me--it seemed cocky instead of confident.

I've heard similar comments before from people, especially when they got to know me. I often thought that confidence was always important, especially when dealing with a subject in which most people who I'd be talking too would be twice-plus my age, with doctorates hanging from their walls. But I'm not so sure I like being thought of as arrogant, especially if the person thinking that about me is somebody I may care about, who I may want to get to know better, or maybe keep a relationship with.

At the same time, it's who I am. And although I believe in bettering myself, I often wonder if there is such a thing as "going too far" with bettering yourself to the point where you're no longer...yourself. I feel that my confidence in myself is what sets me ahead of others, and the confidence in what I have learned is what sets me apart from my competition or colleague. To some extent, even saying that sounds arrogant to me now--but, that is still how I feel.

If I were less confident, less ambitious, would I be able to carry my weight in a debate with the Ergun Caners and the Dominic Crossans? Would I be able to be the historian I am? I don't think I could. Maybe that is part of the problem too, perhaps I fear losing confidence, because I feel that is the backbone of my personality.

Sure, I have a lean, and I like to be very mellow and laid back. But does that mean I'm arrogant? I know my shit, and I back it up with facts. Does that make me cocky? I will call you out if you are bullshitting your way through a discussion, and it is something I know you are wrong about. Does that mean I am somehow self-centered and bias? I don't think so. Are these attributes collectively seen as obnoxious? Yes.

I guess I am both explaining myself, and seeking some opinions. What do YOU think? Do you think I'm too arrogant? What would be a better method? I'm interested in opinions. Who is Rook Hawkins? Am I a cocky and vicious prick, or a confident, knowledgable person?

You're neither, Rookie. You are an idiotic coward though. LOL! You have to let go, dude. You are without a doubt the biggest dumb ass of the RRS crew. Congratulations!

More evidence to show that atheism is good for society?

2007-10-19T11:33:00.000-07:00

Lap-dancing Kelly goes on and on about how "good" atheism is for society. But a Christian just had a come back:

Next time you cite statistics on the number of atheists in a country, take them from an unbiased source, not an atheist website! The source uses numbers that are painfully inflated in a glaringly obvious way. Here is the list you presented:

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
Totally the reverse of what is true. Where did they pull these numbers from? Here are some numbers from the CIA factbook "Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%" atheists were not stated explicitly but I assume they are part of that 13%.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html

Wikipedia also verifies these numbers. (High number of Lutherans) "The majority (78%) of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden, the Lutheran church separated from the state in 2000. Other Christian denominations in Sweden include Roman Catholic (see Catholic Church of Sweden), Orthodox, Baptist, and other evangelical Christian churches (frikyrkor = "free churches"Eye-wink. Some of the Sami practise Animism. There are also a number of Muslims, Buddhists and Jews in Sweden." The numbers are indeed different, but they fall in the same range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden

Here's one more if you aren't convinced. "According to recent estimates, about 84% of the population belong to the Church of Sweden." http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-RELIGIONS.html

2. Vietnam

True. The majority of people do consider themselves non-religious here, but Vietnam isn't necessarily the most socially stable country, with significant amounts of poverty.

3. Denmark
"Evangelical Lutheran 95%, other Christian (includes Protestant and Roman Catholic) 3%, Muslim 2%" This means that Atheists would occupy around 1-4% of the population given a resonable margin of error

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/da.html

In a 1999 EVS poll,[1] Danes were asked to identify the nature of their belief in God.

* 21% said "A personal God"
* 31% said "A spiritual force"
* 19% said "I don't know what to believe"
* 23% said "I don't believe there is a God"
* 6% did not respond

These results clearly differ, but still are a far cry from the supposed near 85% rate of disbelief. Remember, this is a poll, so not quite as representative as a demographic representation. Also, keep in mind that "I don't know what to believe is not necessarily agnosticism, but it could be "i don't know whether or not God is spiritual or personal but still believe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

4. Norway
"Religion in Norway is overwhelmingly Protestant (Evangelical-Lutheran) with 82.9% belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway which is an established religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_in_Norway

5. Japan

Harder to say exact figures, because the majority of the population is either Buddhist, Shinto or a combination of the two. Buddhists can either believe in God or not.

6. Czech Republic
This is also correct, with about 59% falling into the atheist, agnostic or non-believer categories. Problem is that this country is not a good example of any of the things you spoke about "societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality." not really a shining example, although not horrible relative to other post communist states.

7. Finland
Evangelical Lutheran 89%, Greek Orthodox 1%, none 9%, other 1% nowhere near the minimum roughly 50% it would have to be to pass #10. http://atheism.about.com/library/world/AJ/bl_FinlandIndex.htm

8. France

This one is also right... although the around 50% stat is probably pretty high, depending on how rigorous your standards for what you define as catholocism. The majority are catholics but there are degrees of how serious they are.

9. South Korea
Also high levels of non-religion. Moderately good societal health (excellent when compared to North Korea though).

10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Fairly high levels of skepticism, but much lower than 49%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia. Again, this is not the country that you would want to point to as a shining example of atheism.

Also, much bigger than the very inaccurate data that you present is the very fundamental statistical fallacy that you commited. It is called the correllation/causation fallacy. Just because two things are correlated DOES NOT mean that they necessarily caused each other, as you seem to believe. Case in point...the number of cars in a city is directly correlated with the number of murders per year. That is a very fundamental fallacy of logic. What I am neglecting are the other factors that change when I increase the number of cars, namely population. You are clearly forgetting that a number of countries in Africa became religious due to the work of missionaries. So in reality, poor living standards preceded the Christian and Islamic beliefs in those countries.Please read this article, it should clarify this fallacy for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Joe Wyrostek vs. Rich Rodriguez from Rational Response Squad

2007-10-18T01:12:00.000-07:00

Guys and gals,

Please listen to this debate! Some of you who have had their moments with Rich Rodriguez know well how much of an obnoxious jerk he is. Well, he actually thought his non-intellectual and shallow studies was worth going through the hot seat. And man, did he get burned (fast-forward about 16:30):

Link.

My review:

Rich Rodriguez couldn't answer simple questions and babbled himself nearly into oblivion and even tried to change the subject from time to time (the funniest part was when Rich accused Joe of changing the subject). Joe Wyrostek nearly blew him away, as did the other gnarly guests on the show. Best of all was when Rich Rodriguez tried to defend his views on textual criticism, he only ended up hurting himself some more. He couldn't even look up a Bible verse correctly. In the end, Roriguez sounded like rank amateur and pseudo-historian. It was great hearing him get pummeled :) I loved this debate.

JP Holding on the Christ Myth and a little bit on RRS

2007-10-17T23:26:00.000-07:00

JP Holding delivers as always:

Related:

JP Holding scares the RRS
Rich Rodriguez chumps out on a debate with me.
Rook Hawkins will not debate JP Holding fairly.
Rook Hawkins gives cowardly excuses not to debate JP Holding.
The stupid mind of Rook Hawkins.

Radar Magazine on the Rational Response Squad

2007-10-16T23:03:00.000-07:00

So, I go to Borders bookstore and I get a copy of Radar (November 2007). I flip through it and happen to see a page-article where they make fun of Michael Lohan's (Lindsay Lohan's father) and Stephen Baldwin's plan to start a Christian asylum. I figured, well, there's no doubt they're gonna praise the hell out of the Rational Response Squad then since they like making fun of Christians. So I reach the article on RRS entitled "No-God Squad" (by Richard Rys). I read through the whole thing and my impression was, "Oh, man! Did he actually say that?!" So, was the article biased against RRS? No. The article mentioned their build up to their debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, and then it goes on about their life and how they came to be. And that's all. It wasn't long. It was only 3-pages long. There's nothing really new you'll read about the RRS here at all. Well, except the fact that Kelly was a stripper and that Brian was thinking about aborting his child... But more on that later... For now...

So, why did you love the article so much? You're glad that it exposed RRS as a bunch of frauds, huh? No, it's not that. There was no expose per se. Look, the "No-God Squad" article did not have a "what a bunch of idiots" tone. The tone was unbiased but it used some of the most unflattering language and frank and glib expressions to describe RRS. I nearly laughed out loud at some of it.

For instance, Rys described Brian Cutler as a man who had a "lumpy physique." Here's more he wrote about Brian:

"... an unemployed former cell phone salesman."

"... his (Brian's) true passion was spreading the word online by spamming websites with ads for atheist organizations."

"Brian is planning to make the Squad a nonprofit, but so far he's been too lazy to file the paperwork."

They also mentioned the fact that he was living in his then-girlfriend's basement! And of course Brian probably has no custody to his 10-year-old son. Speaking of his son, did you know that Brian got his then-girlfriend pregnant before he became a full blown atheist! The article says,

"The breaking point in Brian's relationship with [his mother], and the beginning of his apostasy, came after his girlfriend at the time got pregnant."

Meaning, while he was a "Christian", he was having some serious action with his girlfriend, which then got her pregnant. He knew as a Christian he wasn't suppose to do that. But he done did it! This tells me his relationship with God was most likely on shallow grounds to begin with. He should have known better. And, this may have given Brian Cutler more of an excuse to flee Christianity because he knew he screwed up, but instead of owning up to his sin, he decided to skip out on religion to become an atheist where he wouldn't have to face up to his guilt. And could this be why Cutler harbors so much hatred toward Christians because they condemned him for impregnating a girl out of wedlock? I think this part of the article was very telling about Cutler.

Also, was Cutler going to abort his child? The article talks about how his mother convinced him to keep the child. The idea that Cutler was thinking about aborting the child, while claiming to be a "Christian", quite frankly sickens me. But anyway, his mother actually had an abortion (while she was NOT a Christian), before she had Brian.

Now Kelly...

I think Kelly got it quite bad as well. Rys said she had a "ridiculous figure" and even joked about her E-cups! Here's more of his description of her:

"... a 29-year-old-Jesuit educated stripper."

That's right ya'll. Kelly acted like a ho in front of a bunch of perverts for a living. The article mentioned she did "lap-dances" at a place called "Bada-Bing!" No joke! The article also mentioned the fact that "she's now too busy for school" and the fact that her three sons live with the father. Three sons?!

A lot was mentioned about the fact that Brian and Kelly have no college degree and that they are dropouts. Here the article described Brian and Kelly as such:

"...unpublished college dropouts."

Guess who also is a dropout? The director making the upcoming RRS documentary. Rys described him as

"a film school dropout and former member of Best Buy's Geek Squad."

All these dropouts dropping from everywhere! And to think that these school dropouts think they can educate rational people!

The person who gets hit the least and gets most of the flattering language is none other than non-college educated Rook Hawkins. This is what Rys says of him:

"... the Squad's 24-year-old biblical scholar and ladies' man."

Biblical scholar? Oh, please! He was even voted the most stupidest RRS member in our poll (look to the top right-hand column). And, we have proof positive that Rook is not a ladies' man. Check out this video:

This video clip is proof that Rook Hawkins is indeed a castrated, emasculated pipsqueak: First, the girl tells Rook to slow down. (Apparently, he's not good in bed). Second, the girl questions whether Rook really exists. (Apparently, she couldn't feel anything.) Third, the girl says she feels there is not enough proof for Rook's existence. (Again, she couldn't feel anything.) See, it's that easy. And the same girl in that video said she does not like "manly" men. Therefore, Rook Hawkins has to be a girly man.

Oh, I should also add that Mr. GAWN was mentioned. His lyrics were even quoted where he said,

F*ckin' Christians, if I can't convert 'em I'll burn 'em. Learn 'em a lesson with my Smith and Wesson straight in they sternum.

I'm glad that's in the article. It said that Brian was concerned about those lyrics, although he doesn't condemn Mr. GAWN. But I'm satisfied that the readers are knowing what type of trash is coming out of RRS.

Anyway...

Look, I really don't know what's going through Cutler's and Kelly's mind. The "No-God Squad" article didn't praise them. And it didn't ridicule them or treat them like a bunch of idiots either. But if I were them (and thank God I'm not) I wouldn't be happy with Rys' descriptions.

Well, I'm glad I read the article. You guys should, too.

***UPDATE***

It seems like Gizmo was concerned about some contents of the article and couldn't tell whether it was "good or not":

Kill em with hypocrisy

2007-10-16T22:53:00.000-07:00

Brian Cutler has just started a forum he calls the "Kill Em With Kindness" Forum. Among many of the rules Cutler suggested the following:

1. No ad hominem attacks. (subset: no insults- this includes calling people irrational :shock :) unless Ricky devises a good "calling a spade a spade rule."

2. No profanity

3. No preaching (you can use the bible to prove a biblical point, but you can't use the bible as evidence for God. Adam will revise/expand later, this was actually his rule)

4. Make every effort to be civil, polite, understanding, and caring for your fellow human.

Well, let's see which of these rules Cutler, Kelly, and Rookie have broken:

1. No ad hominem attacks. (subset: no insults- this includes calling people irrational :shock :) unless Ricky devises a good 'calling a spade a spade rule.' They've broken this rule many times.

2. No profanity. They've broken this rule many times.

3. No preaching (you can use the bible to prove a biblical point, but you can't use the bible as evidence for God. Adam will revise/expand later, this was actually his rule). They've broken this rule many times.

4. Make every effort to be civil, polite, understanding, and caring for your fellow human. They've broken this rule many times.

Brian, you're an idiot, you know that. Everybody who has a brain knows you have no right to tell anybody what's civil or not.

M replies to LeftofLarry on Greydon Square's video

2007-10-15T11:58:00.000-07:00

We already took on LeftofLarry about Greydon Square's arrest, but M gives us his own gnarly reply:

Cameron and Comfort and Cutler... again!

2007-10-13T22:30:00.000-07:00

Brian Cutler's damage control:

Look, I'm on record for saying that Comfort and Cameron lost the debate (although it should be noted that Brian Cutler did all that he can from dodging a debate with WOTM's Todd Friel, until Friel caught up to Cutler and this is what happened... apparently, it took Friel less than 5 minutes to beat Cutler in a debate while it took Cameron and Comfort over an hour). But I don't buy the fact that Cutler thought that Christians like Comfort and Cameron would not bring up the Bible. Brian, do you think your listeners buy that for a second? I mean, seriously, are they that gullible? Were you really that shocked? You even saw Ray's outline of the debate before the debate took place and saw that he specifically mentioned the 10 commandments! Why didn't you say anything by then?! This video above of yours isn't doing you any good. It's just making Cameron's and Comfort's point. Sorry, Cutler, you're still a dishonest and lying douchebag. Oh, and WOTM's copyright infringement reeks of hypocrisy on Brian Cutler's part as he is known for stealing footage from people. Hearing him complain about WOTM's supposed copyright infringement is like hearing a little girl nag on and on about not getting any candy from the candy store.

Related:

SHOCKER: Brian Sapient and Kelly caught being cowardly weasels!

Brian Cutler still holds a grudge against Todd Friel

2007-10-13T22:18:00.000-07:00

It's quite strange that Brian Cutler gets off watching monkeys copulate with one another. Otherwise, why did he have so much footage of it? Anyway... I think the best part was when Brian Cutler held a shot of millions of dollars then had a shot of WOTM's URL address. Why is that so funny? Well, if you look at RRS's donation page it says this,

Submitted by RationalRespons... on Fri, 2006-09-08 13:21.
If you would like to donate some cash to help keep Rational Responders large and in charge, click on the donate button below. You can donate any amount, from $1 to billions and billions.

I'd rather be a WOTM member than a RRS member. RRS is too rich for me.

RRS interview their filmmakers for their upcomming mockumentary

2007-10-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

Just saw this in the RRS website:

Here is the mission statement written by the producer, Josh Austin. Keep in mind, this was written in the preplanning stages, there have been some deviations in the plan since then. Get ready to be moved and excited about this movie...

Rational Responders: The Movie
Mission Statement

This letter’s purpose is to outline and describe the focus and intent of the documentary, tentatively titled “Rational Response: The Struggle to Restore America’s Capacity for Critical Thinking”. This documentary style film will encompass many political and religious topics that are at the forefront of American dialogue.

The main focus of the film is the Rational Response Squad’s mission to fight theism; however this is not the complete extent of the content. This film is not about atheism, it is about the context of American dialogue and the role that religion plays in it. Atheism will be a central theme of the film as all those involved and those that will be featured in the film, on the rational side of course, will be atheists. Our mission is not to promote atheism per se, just the rationality and empirical evidence that inevitably leads to it.

We will not focus solely on Christianity, as some of the most irrational ideas come from other faiths. However, based on the fact that we do not have the resources to travel abroad at this point, the majority of people that appear in the film will be Christians or will be talking about Christianity.

The film will touch on such topics as: abortion, capitol punishment, stem cell research, the teaching or lack of teaching of evolution in public schools, the inerrancy of the Bible, various arguments for why god exists or does not exist, various arguments for morality gained from the bible and religion, immoral statements in the bible and how people pick and choose or reconcile those with their own views, and other sources of morality that are purely secular in nature. As stated before, the film will not necessarily promote atheism, but we will discuss what exactly an atheist is in detail, as well as some of the major misconceptions surrounding atheism. These topics will be covered through interviews with prominent atheists and Christians, off the street interviews, interviews as well as scripted dialogue from various members of the Rational Response Squad, excerpts from some Rational Response Squad radio shows, formal interviews with “average” atheists and theists alike, as well as a discussion with a Pastor. Furthermore, RRS will interview Ellen Johnson, Margaret Downey, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Brian Flemming, and Edwin Kagin for this movie.

This film will not pull punches, but at the same time it will be fair. We are operating under the Rational Response Squad name, and in order to not tarnish it, as well as remain credible and honest, we will adhere to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. We will make no unsubstantiated claims to back up our points, and all claims made or statistics used will be subject to verification.

If I had to sum up my goal for this movie in one thought, it would be the complete refutation and destruction of all the illogical and irrational ideas that corrupt our thought processes and lead us to make completely unintelligent and ridiculous policies and judgments. I don’t care what the origin or cause, I want to go after all the Christians, all the Muslims, all the Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses, all the people that enjoy such wonderful exemption from logical scrutiny. The wall of unwarranted admiration and respect has started to come down, through books and web sites, radio shows and articles, but there has been no film made solely to end rational dishonesty. In all reality, we will not be able to accomplish this in one film, or two, or five, or ten thousand for that matter, but we can instill the courage in others to not give up, and give them the intellectual ammunition to refute insanity wherever they may encounter it. There is a certain effect that a film can have on people that no other medium enjoys, and I hope that with the talent we have gathered, we will be able to instill in all free thinkers the pride that one should enjoy as a person who possesses the ability to break free from myths and misconceptions.

Make no mistake, this film will come under serious scrutiny. I, like everyone involved, does not wish to be made the fool by using irrational or false claims. Our cause is unpopular, and if we wish to make any difference at all, our film must stand up to the most demanding inspections, as it will no doubt be subject to such. As members of the Rational Response Squad will most certainly attest to, the positions and ideas that we put forth, while no doubt true, will result in some people wishing us bodily harm or worse. Those that wish to participate in the film but prefer to remain anonymous may do so, and although I personally discourage it, will not be thought any less of.

This project is important for too many reasons to list, and while unpopular, the number of people that agree with us is increasing. All they need now is for someone to come along and show them that atheism need not conjure negative connotations, and that logic, rationality and science can provide meaningful answers and practical solutions for both individuals and our country. I sincerely hope that “someone” can be us.

Sincerely,

Josh Austin

Josh on the street in a rare look at his ability to expose religious beliefs as moronic, he was filming for our movie...

My review:

On the "Filmmakers have the camera turned on them" video (the first video):

Well, these three evolved-monkey documentarians thought from the outset that RRS kicked butt. I think this goes to show where they are mentally - way at the bottom of the animal kingdom. Anyway...

RRS intend to sue "FriendlyGeek" ("FriendlyGeek made this video and this video, by the way). Of course, Brian Cutler admits that he has to do this for money, since he can't make any of it honestly on his own.

Oh, no, Brian Cutler, you don't want Christians killed (leave that to RRS member Mr. GAWN) you just want them locked up in psych ward and brainwashed to your atheistic views. How "free"thinking is that?

On the mission statement:

Your tentative title “Rational Response: The Struggle to Restore America’s Capacity for Critical Thinking” is a joke, especially if you feature RRS in it. Brian Cutler used his nipples against the existence of God, is that critical thinking? Brian Cutler used the "God wants me to show believers that he doesn't exist" argument, is that critical thinking?

Josh says,

Atheism will be a central theme of the film as all those involved and those that will be featured in the film, on the rational side of course, will be atheists. Our mission is not to promote atheism per se, just the rationality and empirical evidence that inevitably leads to it.

So, your film is not about atheism per se but that rationality belongs to atheism anyway? Josh, dude, you're stupid. You can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you have Brian Cutler's fat ass chomping on some of the frosting). But we're not stupid, Joshy, we know you're going at this completely and utterly biased. Your typical. You're going to show how fascist and stupid Christians are, while you're going to show how "smart" and "rational" atheists are. The fact that you're using RRS to do this is quite pathetic. You're going to have to do some serious editing their buddy.

Josh says,

This film will not pull punches, but at the same time it will be fair. We are operating under the Rational Response Squad name, and in order to not tarnish it, as well as remain credible and honest, we will adhere to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. We will make no unsubstantiated claims to back up our points, and all claims made or statistics used will be subject to verification.

Oh, ssuuurreee, you'll be fair and honest, Joshypoo. You've proven that in your mission statement here. No, really, you did. I have a few predictions about this mockumentary of yours...

What they won't show in the documentary:

Todd Friel whuppin' Brian Cutler.

Laura Ingraham whuppin' Brian Cutler.

Brian Cutler's nipple argument against God.

Brian Cutler's "God wants me to show believers that he doesn't exist" argument against God.

Matt Slick whuppin' Kelly.

Rook Hawkins' plagiarism.

Rook Hawkins' lie that his book was to be published by the Copenhagen series.

Brian Cutler's constant cowardice from fair and competent debaters.

Kelly's constant cowardice from fair and competent debaters.

Rook Hawkins' constant cowardice from fair and competent debaters.

The fact that Brian Cutler at one time depended on his girlfriend to pay his bills.

Brian Cutler admitting that Martin Luther King Jr. belonged in a mental institute because he has a mind disorder just for being a theist.

How RRS had a Christian banned from youtube.com.

How many, many atheists have come out against RRS.

None of this will be in the documentary no doubt.

On the "Satan Causes Cancer" video:

(I should note that I don't agree with everything my dear Christian brother had to say in that video. It's quite easy putting someone on the spot like the way Josh did. So, I feel a response is in order.)

In so many words, Josh says, "Why can't God just not give you cancer in the first place if He wants you to get medical treatment for your cancer?" My answer: beats me. But can't an argument be made that God wants you to seek medical treatment for cancer as a way to prove that He doesn't want you to have cancer though? Why can't God use medical treatment as His answer? Plenty of Christian missionaries and doctors go to Africa to give medical treatment. How is that a problem? What have atheists contributed to helping those with cancer in far off and third world countries? Little compared to Christians.

Josh's logic dictates that since God created Satan and Satan supposedly created cancer, therefore God created cancer. This is way fallacious! If a mother bore a child, and the child murdered an innocent person, is the mother responsible for that murder?

Yes, everything that happens in the universe is according to God's plan, especially cancer and murder and rape, etc. But that doesn't mean that God forced a person to grab a gun, and then forced him to aim it at an innocent victim, and forced him to pull the trigger. Josh's mind is in space at this point. But nobody is exempt from injustice in this world either, especially Christians. Nearly all (but one) of Jesus' disciples died rather gruesome and horrible deaths. God didn't make it easier on the Apostle Paul. I don't see how there is any logical contradiction that an all good God can allow evil in the universe to happen for a sufficient reason. But according to atheism, there is no absolute morality anyway. So why even complain about it?

Josh makes the point that why can't God control what Satan does. God could stop Satan, sure. But if He has a sufficient reason for Satan to do something, why not let him be? He did it to Job. But here's the thing, in atheism, man has no free will since he's just atoms banging around in a world in constant flux. Even Brian Cutler admitted that man has no free will. So, who's Josh to complain about who should control someone for whatever reason? Man has no control. He's always been programmed to do what he does.

Well, anway, Josh, just remember, it's awfully easy putting someone on the defense. And I'm not at all impressed with your "atheistic" rationality.

Good luck on your mockumentary!

Leftoflarry: "Leave Greydon alone! He's a human being!"

2007-10-12T22:20:00.000-07:00

Leftoflarry (who couldn't debate for the life of him*) goes "chris cocker" on us and says we shouldn't personally attack Greydon yet Larrypoo does personally attack Christians, and makes the ludicrous claim that we're afraid of people like him. Larry, dude, you have us all wrong. We're happy that there are fools out there who are publicly showing how foolish they are. That would include Greydon Square, RRS, and you. Keep up the good work! Oh, and about the money thing, open your eyes, man. Even Brian Cutler admitted he wanted money for his so-called organization, he writes:

If you would like to donate some cash to help keep Rational Responders large and in charge, click on the donate button below. You can donate any amount, from $1 to billions and billions.

Maybe he's joking about the billions, but he does want a lot of money, so he wouldn't have to work hard for a living. And you're a member of his organization! Your hypocrisy is astounding. Furthermore, you say his "alleged" arrest has nothing to do with the message of his music. Sure, it does. He claims that atheism is morally superior to Christianity, yet by example he isn't much of a... well, example. He pulled a gun on somebody after he got his ass whupped. He was going to kill someone in cold blood. A witness said they saw a gun in Greydon's hand while running after his victim on school campus! Are you that stupid and blind, Larry? And you had nothing to say to that at all. Instead, you ignore everything and babble on about how nice Greydon is. Typical.

Related:

RRS misuse their donations
Greydon Square threatens to shoot somebody on campus
Greydon Square's side of the story

=====================================

* - LeftofLarry tells you why he's an atheist
Here's LeftofLarry's and Brian Sapient's reply to me (addendum)
Responding to the left side of LeftofLarry's brain

Brian Cutler is looking for 50 good men to do ALL his work for him

2007-10-12T14:51:00.000-07:00

Basically, Brian is having a tough time competing in the market place of ideas and needs help... like always. 4 months ago, he asked for some help, but didn't get any. Otherwise, why would he now be asking 50 people to help his no-job ass? But this is my favorite part from nipple boy:

I have a new suggestion for those who want to help, and I've had recent success putting together a crew. Much of the work I do requires having not only knowledge of the issues we are working on but also advanced knowledge of the internet. Before I waste any more of your time, if you don't have at least 5 hours a week to help for a long period of time (like for at least a year) then you don't have the time to make it worth training you. Please don't take offense, I speak from experience, many have tried to keep up with me and they can't.

LOL! Uh, yeah, no atheist can keep up with a lazy minded individual such as yourself. I highly doubt that. Cutler, you are so easy to keep up we're ahead of you.

I bust my ass behind closed doors, and feel like I need a total of 75 part time helpers to keep up with my level of activity. I've had past problems with getting helpers on board that took more time to train than the return on the training I received in work. Please keep this in mind, right now. If you aren't dedicated to helping with what may seem like menial tasks on a recurring basis, but are in effect responsible for big growth, please don't waste my time (by doing so, you may actually slow us down).

Cutler has such a condescending tone. I doubt that anybody would be attracted to coming to RRS anymore. But I bet you if a sincere atheist tries to help out, and Cutler isn't satisfied with him (or her), he'll use them as an excuse as to why RRS is failing. At least, that's what this post of his sounds like. Oh, and I'm sure these 50 men have to work for free. Let's see, a one-year commitment, for at least 5 hours a week, to a man who does not do his own work? Uhm, that sounds like a bargain.

Kelly is suppose to be pretty... Uhm, yeah...

2007-10-11T00:25:00.000-07:00

Well, I agree with the part that Kelly shouldn't be speaking, because Kelly's scraggly voice is like the sound of fingernails scratching a chalkboard. Anyway, did Brian Cutler say women should have an equal opportunity with him? Dude, there's not one girl on the net that finds you attractive, nipple boy.

Greydon Square tells his side of the story

2007-10-10T13:02:00.001-07:00

Wankster!

Link.

Atheists falsely assert that theism is a "mind disorder"

2007-10-09T17:31:00.000-07:00

Margaret Downey

2007-10-08T22:30:00.000-07:00

According to Margaret Downey about 510 people attended the Atheist Alliance Convention. That's not a lot. We have church retreats that outnumber that easily without even a peep through the internet or radio or television. I don't know about you guys but I haven't heard a thing from Christians about this supposed "gigantic" and "groundbreaking" event. And still, RRS are denying that there are atheists who are reacting negative to them. Uh, yeah, keep dreaming, Brian Cutler. And I doubt that all 510 people would confront you face to face to say that you suck. But this not-so-big event reminded me of past failures from RRS. Their blood drive: a failure. Their burning burka challenge: a failure. Their recycling Bible challenge: a failure. In fact, I doubt hardly any of you guys heard of these past pranks conducted by RRS. Their blasphemy challenge: well, that couldn't have been done had Brian Flemming donated thousands of dollars to make it national. By then, Brian Cutler was using his girlfriend to pay for his bills. It looks like hard work doesn't get anywhere with this guy. Either way, this AAC event wasn't all that traumatizing to Christians.

Here's an aside, Brian, you said,

We were talking about how like blacks are proud to call themselves blacks, and there's a negative stigma attached to it.

This may be one of the most stupidest thing I heard. How in the world is blacks being proud of being black is some kind of "negative stigma"? If there was a negative stigma we wouldn't use the word "black." You're a moron, Brian. And don't think for a second you can speak for my race. Being black and being an atheist are two different things, you stupid four-eyed, big nippled freak.

Amercan Atheist Idol Brian Cutler

2007-10-07T22:04:00.000-07:00

Forget about Greydon Square (who's a great atheist moral example no doubt), fast forward to about 7:01 in this video and you'll see Brian Cutler trying to act like a rapstar[!]:

Oh, please, Brian, you think you got moves? You think you can talk with your hands like Chuck D or something? Are you trying to appropriate black culture with a Uncle Tom like Greydon Square watching your back? Like the Outlaw Immortalz said, "Is you's stupid?"

But Cutler is a fan of Hip Hop. A friend of his actually contacted us and said he tried rapping back in the days! Did you know Cutler's pseudonym was "Blazin Hazen"? When MTV had some try outs, Cutler submitted a video of himself to them. This is a "true" story, people. No really, it's very very "true." Don't believe us? We have footage to prove it right here.

Andy Thompson at AAI 2007

2007-10-07T18:20:00.000-07:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Critiques by Beast Rabban:

This is a fascinating, chilling video, not just for what it says about the psychology of suicide bombers, but also about the pathological psychology of the speaker, Andy Thompson, Richard Dawkins and the other assembled 'Brights' who want religion classified as a mental disorder, and, by implication, religious individuals treated as ill.

... here are some of my observations.

First of all, there's an intellectual sleight of hand going on to reinforce the assumed link between religion and suicide bombing. All of the examples discussed were religious, and, although secular groups using suicide bombers like the Tamil Tigers were mentioned, it was omitted that these groups were secular. Thus, the speech gave the false impression that religion was exclusively responsible for suicide bombers.

This is demonstrably false. While I don't doubt the number of suicide bombers in Iraq has escalated immensely, historically the group that has used suicide bombing the most has been the Tamil Tigers, who are a Marxist, nationalist organisation. Now secular groups and ideologies have stressed the nobility of dying for the cause since the ancient world. Readers of the First World War poetry of Wilfred Owen will remember his bitter quotation of the Roman maxim 'Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori' - it is sweet and good to die for one's country. The ultra-patriotic and vehemently anti-religious Italian Futurists expressed the same views. At one of their soirees, which characteristically ended in violence, their leader, Marinetti, intoned 'How beautiful it is to die with a red rose blossoming on one's forehead!' On the other side of the political spectrum, Soviet schoolchildren as part of their Military-Patriotic Education were taught songs in school celebrating death in war to promote Communism, such as in Afghanistan during the Soviet military occupation. Suicidal violence is not unique to religion, and has also been used extensively by secular ideologies.

Now let's critique Thompson's evolutionary views.

Firstly, it should be noted that evolutionary psychology is still a highly controversial area within academia, and Thompson's speech illustrates why. There is the use of dated and discredited research, the projection into the past of modern pyschological features, which is then used in a circular argument to show how such features anciently evolved, and observations that sound terribly deep and scientific but are actually very banal, as well as 'Just So' stories.

Let's start with Napoleon Chagnon and the Yamomami. Since Chagnon wrote his book, The Violent People other anthropologists have visited the Yamomami and come to the opposite conclusion. The Yamomami are not the violent savages portrayed by Chagnon, and there have been allegations of distortion of the true picture of Yamomami society by Chagnon. Chagnon's presence amongst the Yamomami was acutely disruptive and grievously exacerbated tensions within Yamomami society. So, the portrayal of warfare and violence as typical of Yamomami society has been criticised and rejected.

Furthermore, there is the problem that other anthropologists have come to a completely different conclusion about the nature of pre-modern, tribal warfare. Yes, massacres and mass death did occur, as far back as the European Neolithic. However, the general picture of tribal violence is more like that of the documentary on Papua New Guinean indigenous warfare, Dead Birds than of the bloody picture presented by Thompson. Papuan warfare is characterised by regular campaigning seasons, but the battles are more like mass disorganised skirmishes than the highly regimented affairs of modern armies. Now while there is considerable violence, there is relatively little death. These battles are more occasions for violent masculine display than for the absolute extermination of enemies. Warfare here is more of a lengthy process of feuding which can last years, than of the campaigns of mass warfare.

So the assumption that 20 per cent to 40 per cent of all males died in warfare in the pre-modern period is highly questionable, and seems to be colossally inflated.

Then there's the assumption that these modern societies are somehow typical of the human deep past. The assumption here is that because the Yamomami don't have our technology or scientific worldview, they are somehow 'premodern'. Yet these are modern societies. They exist now, and are the product of their own particular sociological development. It cannot be simply assumed that they are somehow not as modern as we are. The assumption here is that they are somehow not as evolved as Western society, although I doubt very much that Thompson and his comrades expressing this view would see it quite like that. We're getting very close to the view of Jung and the 19th century evolutionary biologists that 'primal' peoples are more primitive in their cognitive processes than Western humans.

One can also criticise Thompson's speech for relying strongly on Hamilton's and Dawkins' 'selfish gene' ideas. In fact, this has been widely critiqued and is seriously flawed. Firstly, one can find numerous examples in nature and elsewhere where altruistic behaviour occurs in contradiction to the biological imperative for personal survival, or the survival of one's kindred. For example, the heroic individuals who saved Jews from the Nazis during the Shoah - the Holocaust - did so despite the fact that if they had been caught, they and their entire family would have been executed. They did not think of this, however, and saved Jews because they felt it was right, not because there was some kind of reward. Thompson's speech ignored the real problem of altruism for Darwinian reductionism.

Now let's start on the psychological arguments which supposedly show that the belief in God has arisen from other psychological functions which perform beneficial functions, and have been somehow hijacked by the religious phenomenon.

This is highly speculative indeed, and is based on the presumption that God does not exist and that people don't really have disembodied minds. Yet there is strong evidence from philosophy and parapsychology that immaterial minds and God exist. Rudolf Otto way back in his 1917 classic The Idea of the Holy discusses the role of evolution in religion, and argues that evolution may actualise the experience of God in the human species, but that this experience is nevertheless objective and transcendent, a belief shared by Sir Alistaire Hardy.

In fact one can turn Thompson's arguments back on their heads. Yes, people can and do remember and plan conversations and personal interactions that they have had every day with people. This does not mean that they don't have real conversations with these people, however, or that these individuals are necessarily imaginary.

As for the argument from corpses, and the lingering feeling that a corpse is nevertheless still a person, clearly that has something to it as a corpse is a person, except that it does not move or live. Does this lead to the belief in ghosts or souls? This is debatable. While the ancient conception of a ghost was more like a reanimated corpse, some tribal groups, such as the Votyaks in Siberia, apparently believed that the soul died as the corpse decayed. The soul is what gave the individual life, and did not always persist beyond death, or if so, then it had to be released from the corpse by defleshing and other processes. The persistence of human remains after death are not necessarily the origin of the human belief in the soul.

Furthermore, it could be argued that even if the belief in God and the soul is the product of evolution, nevertheless, this is merely the case of evolution allowing humans to develop the cognitive machinery to recognise what is already there, in the same way that 2 + 2 is immaterial, yet objectively exists outside of the human mind.

Thus, evolutionary psychology is extremely flawed as a method for exploring human warfare, the origins of altruism and does not explain, or explain away, which is what Thompson was trying to do, the existence of God. Thompson here is not offering science, but poor metaphysics dressed up as psychology.

Now let's turn a few atheistic assumptions about morality on their heads. Underlying this presentation by Thompson is the unspoken assumption that suicide bombing is the product of an irrational worldview, and that atheists are far too rational ever to do such a thing.

However, this assumption only has validity in the context of present Western society, which grants people freedom of belief, and where most people are well-fed and have a decent standard of living. Yet to many of the jihadis and fideyin who commit the religious assassinations in the name of Islam, Westerners have no morality.

In the 1980s Channel 4 in Britain screened a documentary about revolutionary Iran, in which they interviewed ordinary Iranians. The documentary featured a young Western Muslim who had immigrated to Iran to join them in their war against Iraq. When asked about whether he was fanatic, he replied, 'Well, you in the West are fanatical about sensuality'.

Similarly, when BBC Radio 4 made a programme on the original Assassins some years ago, one of the speakers, an Iranian guide to their fortress in the Iranian desert, stated that all the tales about their fanaticism simply stemmed from Western society's inability to understand their determination to defend their community. Now while I don't doubt that Thompson has provided an accurate description of the psychology of individual suicide bombers, and the sociological processes by which young people can be manipulated into dying and killing for their religion, their is still the question here of the atheist inability to take the moral high ground.

However morally contemptible and repugnant it is to us in the West, there is still the problem in that it was and is done by people who feel they are preserving their way of life, and that their actions are both rational and just.

Now, one great president said that 'Americans would rather be poor and free, than rich and slaves'. However, what is the cost of freedom? If the atheists at the conference here would not die for their beliefs if, say, a regime came into power tomorrow which denied them of their right to their beliefs, but otherwise kept America affluent, then the Muslims Jihadis are right: Western society, or at least the secular part of it, is corrupt and decadent, seeking its own pleasure at the expense of any principles. If, however, they were determined to die for their beliefs - to suffer death, rather than convert to theism at the point of a gun, then they've also taken one of the first steps they've claimed are the province of the religious fanatic.

The complacency under which this presentation is framed - the belief that suicide bombing is almost exclusively the product of 'irrational religion' comes from a fundamental inability to conceive of atheists ever being called upon to do the same in the name of atheism. It's a fundamental failure of atheist imagination, to ask themselves the fundamental questions about morality and duty. Ultimately, I don't think atheists have the moral high ground to reproach the suicide bombers.

Doug Powell proves once and for all RRS are by definition irrational

2007-10-06T02:02:00.000-07:00

RRS caught stealing footage!

2007-10-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

If you guys notice in this post, the "Margaret Downey" video no longer works. It came from RRS, but why isn't it up anymore? Well, apparently RRS stole the footage from a fella named ThinkerHA. Notice the comment section:

ThinkerHA (1 day ago)
This video starts at the same point, ends at the same point, and has the same length as the one I captured. Did you take this video from my account watch?v=NqARr-Q1WkI and not even bother asking me nor giving me credit for capturing it and putting if online?

RRS have been stealing footage from a number of people throughout the web. As you guys may recall it got them banned from youtube twice. However, RRS cited the fair use doctrine as an excuse for them stealing footage. I just don't see why they pulled the Margaret Downey video then. What a bunch of idiots!

(HT: Jason)

Rational Response Squad - Brian Sapient is anti-semetic ?

2007-10-04T16:53:00.000-07:00

I personally don't think that Brian Cutler hates Jews. After all, Cutler is a Jew himself. However, what Cutler has in common with Adolf Hitler is that they both believed that the God-believing Jews who died in the Holocaust had a mental disorder. It's frightening to know that Cutler actually believes these Jews were mentally unfit. The shame! And also like Hitler, Cutler believes that Judaism is dangerous. Over all, I wouldn't be surprised if people start calling Cutler a self-hating Jew.