Art Bell

[WhiteCrow]

The problem is that the majority of Americans don't have proper debating skills.

   That's bullshit!

   (place on ignore)

You're going to burn in Hell!

[Eddie Coyle]

You're going to burn in Hell!

  No. You are!

[trostol]

It would help to know from what point in time that particular list represents.
It could've been before Art's show started, for all we know.

says Sept 2015

[Juan Cena]

says Sept 2015

It's doubtful they're using numbers from this month. It could be using numbers from August, or an even longer overall period.

[morgana213]

 

You're going to burn in Hell!

We all may burn come September 23.  That is only 10 days from now.   

[Scully]

Art seems to take these things personally.  I really hope he doesn't,  because they are valid.

That has been my observation as well. 

[Zenman]

The atheist guy was really interesting.  Maybe Art could have started interviewing him for a bit while awaiting a tasty god-fearer. The idea that our complexity presupposes a creator loses with me because we have no idea of how many planets are out there in a situation that will support human life and how many billions of time the universe tried and erred in creating humans.  The more tries you have, the more likely the long shot will pan out.

Right. And why cannot life "grow" eventually from water and rocks, just as this particular Universe "grew" from its initial explosion? Maybe the laws of physics and the Rules of the Universe just "are", and have always been. Creator optional.

[SciFiAuthor]

Right. And why cannot life grow eventually from water and rocks, just as this particular Universe grew from its initial explosion? Maybe the laws of physics and the Rules of the Universe just "are", and have always been. Creator optional.

Or maybe creator probable, if Nick Bostrom is to be believed. It's just that the creator isn't a god. It's just someone with a computer capable of simulating a universe very accurately.

[Zenman]

Or maybe creator probable, if Nick Bostrom is to be believed. It's just that the creator isn't a god. It's just someone with a computer capable of simulating a universe very accurately.

Yes, perhaps even that--The Neck Beard Universe Theory.

[SredniVashtar]

I don't mind people being critical, I will say however that Bell Gab is far more critical then compared to other places or email I have received but it is the nature of this board, that has always just been a fact of life here. As somebody said I am a big boy and can take it, don't worry.

My leaving Sirius/XM had nothing to do with critical comments at all, it was a lack of dependable streaming, very poor connections and a lack of caring about Piracy along with a lot of other stuff. I love the set up I have now, no complaints. I think we are doing fine and I will continue to experiment with stuff that seems fun. Not all of it works, the World has changed and I thought it very interesting that I found a well spoken Athiest but could not find a worthy opponent.

If at some point I do decide to stop it would be because I don't get enough time with my Family, we are of course on opposite time clocks and I do miss the time with them but for now it's ok.

Feel free to hack at me as you wish, I can handle it.

Art

Hi, Art

Thanks for some interesting points. I know we must annoy you on here sometimes, and you have a dig back occasionally (which is fair enough and all part of the fun) about us being a bunch of loser shut-ins, but I think you ought to realise that whatever criticism you receive is well-intentioned, if sometimes a little too trenchantly expressed. The big difference between now and when you were doing it all the first time is, of course, that opinion, good or bad, is instant and 24/7, and sometimes people don't give enough time to consider what impact their comments may have on the recipient. I think anyone can accept that in any given week some shows are going to work and others are not, and also that if you don't take risks occasionally and are prepared for the odd stunning failure  you will never grow an interesting show. I don't remember reading anything here that doesn't imply that your return is the best thing that has happened to broadcasting in a long time, so all of the gripes should be taken in context. The only criticism I have personally is that the show is an hour too short, but that is more of a compliment really when you think about it.

As for the atheist v believer debate. That comes up a lot on here, and the fact is that nobody who believes in God can offer a shred of proof that it is anything other than a myth. Although I'm on their side, atheists have it too easy and I wish more intelligent advocates could be found. Plenty of intelligent people believe in God, but it is often for quite stupid reasons; it's a lot harder to put together a coherent argument that doesn't rely on rhetorical tricks and dodgy syllogisms. If you want to check out a few people in this area then I would suggest looking at the opponents of people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on YouTube. I don't find their arguments all that convincing but they could at least make a decent fist of it and have reasonable debating skills. It's well worth giving this another go because it is an enduring topic that can never be definitively answered.

[SciFiAuthor]

Yes, perhaps ever that--The Neck Beard Universe Theory.

Well, historical depictions of God and his various prophets have always been that of neck beards. Coincidence? I think not!

[CornyCrow]

The problem is that the majority of Americans don't have proper debating skills.

True, not all of us has been taught formal Parliamentary debating skills, but perhaps the purposes of a public entertainment talking format differ a bit? 

[CornyCrow]

Right. And why cannot life "grow" eventually from water and rocks, just as this particular Universe "grew" from its initial explosion? Maybe the laws of physics and the Rules of the Universe just "are", and have always been. Creator optional.

You have the same problems with a creator.  What came before 'it'?  'It' obviously used the matter in the universe to create life, did it not?  Have you ever seen something come out of nothing?  It is much more plausible that the laws that govern the universe, some of which we barely understand but know exist, created humans, than relegating all that is not understood to some invisible friend. 

I watch Religion and Ethics, a half hour Saturday tv show.  There was a guy who believed he had some experience of god.  Well, there are others who have the same mystical experience, but who leave it as an experience and do not feel the compulsion to label positive, elevating, experiences as 'godly'. 

Maybe we are just arguing labels, but 'god' these days often comes with a book and a list of do's and don'ts and all sorts of guilt trips.  You know how demons can frighten people?  Maybe they are doing that consciously because they feed on fear.  Maybe ecstatic elation is also caused by some creature, but one on the positive side?  Why presume a god because you have a certain experience?

Many worship the 'god of the gaps' - a god who just fills in for the unexplainable.  Maybe this is Buddhism, or existential religion, but if you are honest in life, you deal with your own experiences as they are.  Don't project wishful thinking onto them.  Don't live by a book or by another person's propaganda, follow what you, yourself, have observed.  Life will give you all that you need for the moment, all for which you are ready. 

Did you ever think that a scientist who considers himself an atheist may be more on track to nirvana than some of the 'religious'?  The scientist is busy uncovering the miracles of the universe, dealing with what life presents to him.  He's not reading out of some dead book and trying to follow a philosophy that was convenient for tribal people centuries ago. 

I think many today sense that what passes for religion can actually separate man from the true reality. 

[SredniVashtar]

Why presume a god because you have a certain experience?

This is going to annoy people who keep seeing this thread turn into some sort of religious debate forum!

My opinion of what you said is that we naturally turn to God because it is in our frame of reference. We can't imagine 'things' without there being a maker, so our first intellectual port of call is to imagine a supra-being who makes all of the stuff we call the world. It's the same sort of thinking that sees UFOs as spaceships when they could just as easily be something that we lack the mental agility or experience to comprehend. I don't think any honest atheist could deny that for all the breakthroughs in science, the universe is a very strange place, but that's not the same thing as saying that the myths that primitive societies have employed to explain this strangeness is literally true.

[Zenman]

Well, historical depictions of God and his various prophets have always been that of neck beards. Coincidence? I think not!

Lol. Never really thought about it, but I think you're definitely on to something.

Well, I'm leaving for now. I'm pretty sure I can hear the Topic Police coming.

[CornyCrow]

This is going to annoy people who keep seeing this thread turn into some sort of religious debate forum!

My opinion of what you said is that we naturally turn to God because it is in our frame of reference. We can't imagine 'things' without there being a maker, so our first intellectual port of call is to imagine a supra-being who makes all of the stuff we call the world. It's the same sort of thinking that sees UFOs as spaceships when they could just as easily be something that we lack the mental agility or experience to comprehend. I don't think any honest atheist could deny that for all the breakthroughs in science, the universe is a very strange place, but that's not the same thing as saying that the myths that primitive societies have employed to explain this strangeness is literally true.

We are capable of changing our frame of reference.  We really should.  Many conflicts are because of those 'frames of reference'.  Perhaps the problem is not whether there is or is not a god - 'god', out of the context of religion is just an ethereal debating point, at least to me.  Even if people are believers, why must that be in the context of a religion?  I think that in society, more and more, people are sensing this and that's why church attendance is dwindling.

Just because there are things that we cannot explain is no proof of a god.  Sometimes we just have to live with ongoing questions.       

[SredniVashtar]

We are capable of changing our frame of reference.  We really should.  Many conflicts are because of those 'frames of reference'.  Perhaps the problem is not whether there is or is not a god - 'god', out of the context of religion is just an ethereal debating point, at least to me.  Even if people are believers, why must that be in the context of a religion?  I think that in society, more and more, people are sensing this and that's why church attendance is dwindling.

Just because there are things that we cannot explain is no proof of a god.  Sometimes we just have to live with ongoing questions.     

I daresay we are on the same page with this stuff, more or less, but I think religion does have some sort of use. People like to group together with those of a like mind, which is probably the chief use of religion these days, as long as it's ecumenical rather than sectarian, which is more easily said than done of course.  Even ritual can have a function, and it can help to mark certain stages in a person's life and give it meaning. The main problem that atheists face is that, for all their enthusiasm for science, the picture they paint is still quite cold, where religion gives a sense of human significance, however spurious it may be.

The difficulty arises when you start claiming that your ideas are the only ones that are valid. I think meditation is probably the best way we have to jog us out of this trap we are in of too narrowly focusing our attention and not being able to see the wood for the trees.

[ItsOver]

We all may burn come September 23.  That is only 10 days from now. 

My manhole cover is ready.

[WhiteCrow]

  No. You are!

Why do you hate Art Bell?

(Reported to Keith)

[PaulAtreides]

You're going to burn in Hell!

Your mother dresses you funny.

[AppealPlay]

I'm not sure who the new generation of personalities are, either. But Hoagland's producer, Ross, is scheduling personalities that are conducive to entertainment. Hoagie is a very good interviewer when he's in "Dick Cavett" mode as SciFiWriter puts it.

Entertainment is the name of the game and Hoagland is building a listenership on his personality and skill in interviewing guests of various specialties.

Even his "bat-shit crazy mode" is entertaining, don't you agree? Look at how many of his listening audience are demanding an extra hour. Why do you think that is?

I've soured on Hoagland recently.  I want him to stay in full crazy mode and not the Hollywood/science fiction shows.  It's also ridiculous when he starts talking politics.  I don't care or want to hear Hoagie's opinion on anything political.  It makes me kill the stream immediately.

Space woo is great.  HP Lovecraft?  Eh, no thanks, Richard.

[WhiteCrow]

Your mother dresses you funny.

Why do you hate MV?

(Reported to Jazmunda)

[Inglorious Bitch]

the fact that the debate guys were not good is not a slight to Art, its honest feedback.

Exactly. If anything, it's a compliment to Art. We would rather listen to him than anyone else during 12-3est/9-12pt.

[FightTheFuture]

Hi, Art



As for the atheist v believer debate. That comes up a lot on here, and the fact is that nobody who believes in God can offer a shred of proof that it is anything other than a myth. Although I'm on their side, atheists have it too easy and I wish more intelligent advocates could be found. Plenty of intelligent people believe in God, but it is often for quite stupid reasons; it's a lot harder to put together a coherent argument that doesn't rely on rhetorical tricks and dodgy syllogisms. If you want to check out a few people in this area then I would suggest looking at the opponents of people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on YouTube. I don't find their arguments all that convincing but they could at least make a decent fist of it and have reasonable debating skills. It's well worth giving this another go because it is an enduring topic that can never be definitively answered.

I know for a fact, there`s no shortage of Christian apologists -- scholars all -- willing to debate any atheist, anywhere, anytime.  One need only use Google to easily access these folks` contact information. One might also peruse YouTube, as there must be at least 1000, or more, videos of their their lectures, debates, etc. circulating the internet.

[Inglorious Bitch]

Well I am glad Richard is doing well, I did everything possible to help him, we do very different shows which is also fine. Remember we are on the same team. If some of you like his style better I am more than good with that. I hope he continues to kill it. Remember we are up against Coast, not each other, the better we both do the better chance we have of creating a smaller but better alternative.

Art

Brilliant foresight to give Hogie his own show. I've been signed up for both shows since day 1. Richard sounds amazing, although I hope that he never gets rid of the ringing phone. He already oiled his chair. To me, listening to him is like being a student in an astrophysics class and having to focus to stay on top of what is being said. Then someone farts or does something silly that breaks up the tension and it is hysterical. That's why the phone is funny, because Richard is so intellectual and a random ringing phone is the comic relief needed otherwise the show would be too serious.

I hope you both stomp Whorge into the ground. Any news on ratings for Coast since you and Richard began?

[WhiteCrow]

I daresay we are on the same page with this stuff, more or less, but I think religion does have some sort of use. People like to group together with those of a like mind, which is probably the chief use of religion these days, as long as it's ecumenical rather than sectarian, which is more easily said than done of course.  Even ritual can have a function, and it can help to mark certain stages in a person's life and give it meaning. The main problem that atheists face is that, for all their enthusiasm for science, the picture they paint is still quite cold, where religion gives a sense of human significance, however spurious it may be.

The difficulty arises when you start claiming that your ideas are the only ones that are valid. I think meditation is probably the best way we have to jog us out of this trap we are in of too narrowly focusing our attention and not being able to see the wood for the trees.

That's not my experience with many people that have rejected their traditional relgious upbringing and are now meditators.   
They have become more closed minded about accepting that religions have 'any' societal and individual human significants. "not being able to see the wood for the trees"
These enlighten meditators have individually meditated their thinking, into the same group-think superiority attitudes of a closed group, of self appointed exclusionary elitist. Exactly what they profess they are not, they have become.
I suspect narcissistic tenacities may at the roots of their rejecting the group (religions) and turning inward (individual meditation).

[Inglorious Bitch]

  'It' obviously used the matter in the universe to create life, did it not?  Have you ever seen something come out of nothing?

That's part of the problem with human thinking. We can only think and perceive from our perspective. Imagine an ant trying to grasp the concept of relativity. It could not and therefore would dismiss it as something that is not part of their experience. God is something that we could never hope to understand with our limited human minds and experiences.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on YouTube.

Didn't one of these luminaries recant on his deathbed?

[SredniVashtar]

Didn't one of these luminaries recant on his deathbed?

You'll have to ask Dawkins, he's still alive. As to Hitchens, not that I have heard.

[ItsOver]

Exactly. If anything, it's a compliment to Art. We would rather listen to him than anyone else during 12-3est/9-12pt.

Yes, precisely.  I don't tune in to listen to twits with aggravating voices.  I can always get that on C2C.

[Inglorious Bitch]

Yes, precisely.  I don't tune in to listen to twits with aggravating voices.  I can always get that on C2C.

You're welcome!