A fan in NC (which is all the credit she wanted), sent us a set of four different TAE Caller Bingo Cards she made. There were a few minor typos, but honestly, they hardly detract from the excellent job she did producing these. Just amazing.
Feb 12 2013
TAE Caller Bingo Cards
Leave a Reply
About the Author
56 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Lord Narf
February 12, 2013 at 8:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Heh, nice. Wonder if it’s one of my compatriots, in TAM, FAAST, TFS, etc.
curiousgeorge
February 12, 2013 at 8:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
These are great !!! Good job.
Tim H.
February 12, 2013 at 8:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Awesome work, though I don’t see “Where’s your evidence that Atheism is true?”
Avalon Sharp
February 12, 2013 at 8:35 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I think the block “shifting of the burden of proof” covers that one!
Lord Narf
February 12, 2013 at 9:02 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ah, true. I was about to go look, myself. I figured there had to be something applicable on there somewhere.
Tim H.
February 12, 2013 at 9:35 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thanks- now I see it!
thebookofdave
February 12, 2013 at 8:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Personal favorite: Argumentum ad Arboribus
Lord Narf
February 12, 2013 at 8:42 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ooh, nice. We should add that name to the official list.
edmond
February 12, 2013 at 9:15 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What, no Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot?
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 4:47 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ya, and no “Cheezos”?!
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 4:36 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“Everybody knows there is a gaad”, “Atheism is a religion”.
Great job! But too many redundant things between these 4 cards, but well super idea. We will have some full cards for the next show!
Jasper of Maine
February 13, 2013 at 7:27 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
We’ll probably also need atheist caller cards:
“I wanted to call to thank you guys”
“I’m arguing with a theist friend on facebook”
“How to I refute this claim a Christian made?”
John Kruger
February 13, 2013 at 7:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
We could add “Attempt to define god into existence” (or perhaps just Begging the Question), and “Logic is impossible without god(or just Presuppositional Apologetics)”.
I was thinking there could be a “obnoxious theist put on hold” square, but that might as well be the FREE space.
Cosmas
February 13, 2013 at 7:56 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“trees” ??? would someone pls elaborate
Jamie Sims
February 13, 2013 at 8:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“trees” refers to creationists who call in and say evidence of design can be found by looking around us at the trees/flowers/animals etc
See:
Cosmas
February 13, 2013 at 11:13 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thank you. I hadn’t seen that segment before.
Hillarious
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 4:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Yeah, we’ve gotten that from others, only they were serious. When you ask them what evidence they have for God, they say, “Go outside. Look at the trees; look at the clouds …”
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY7QorXzDa4&w=560&h=315
This guy uses it a little after 4:40. That’s when the question that elicits it starts, anyway.
The whole call is worth watching, though. I have a bit of a man-crush on Jeff Dee, and we get to watch him go off nicely, in this one.
I wish we got more callers like this guy. I miss the old days, when we’d have every wingnut from around Austin calling. They represent what Christians actually think, not the half-baked apologetics that most of the out-of-state ones call in with, nowadays.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 4:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Okay, let’s try that again with a format that this thing accepts.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 4:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
God dammit. I used the same format that Jamie did. How do you get this thing to accept YouTube embeds again?
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 4:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
anyway, the link works. that was exactly that past part of the show I was looking for ! I was looking at crazy caller(s) from village1diot to find that guy, but I haven’t found him. Anyway on the bingo they should have also an entry of “f…… weirdo” so as tears-of-bread, troll-named-troll, build-a-machine-to-see-ghosts-and-be-like-child-playing-with-poo, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8CRlHcDmv4&list=PL405C7CD96F339E67
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 5:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I meant hat one
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Shit, what happens? it was not the one I meant. it was crazy caller #21
I hope it will work now
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
too bad, it doen’t work. watch no.21 on the playlist for the ones interested.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 6:02 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlFIO2XBvU
That one? That guy is a bit of a lunatic.
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 6:50 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ya, exactly!! everytime I have wanted to put that link it frozed to the same link…
that guy called like 3 or 4 times and waited that they were 2 different hosts and was going on with the same stuff.
I have discovered on that crazy callers playlist many good weirdos
like the metaphysical quantum theorist woman, never heard her before.
I wonder why those “old” callers don’t call anymore. Would be funny.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 7:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I get the sense that a lot of them have become intimidated by the fact that the callers are coming in from all over the world, now. Also, there isn’t as much of a snowball effect going on. When people pull up the show and see that more than half of the people calling in are atheists, they might get the horribly mistaken impression that the people running the show want atheists calling in mostly.
Plus, once we started getting people calling in with all of the elaborate theological arguments, that probably scared off a lot of the circular, the-Bible-is-true-because-it’s-the-Bible callers.
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ya, good point: now they realize that the phenomenon of atheism is not only restricted to a small group of “weirdos” in Austin, but it is a strong intellectual movement around the world.
Ya, and also they see “brilliant” theologian get demolished on the show. I guess it scares now to say “look at the trees”.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 8:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Yup. Matt Slick was the best we’ve had call in, I think, and he demonstrated himself to be a dishonest prick, with his activities after the show.
Ray Comfort was a bit of an embarrassment. Some of the random, amateur apologists calling in with crap like polonium halos and the like had more than Ray did. All that Ray Comfort had was a straw-man of Evolution (the attacking of which does nothing to further his god-claims), and a convoluted version of Pascal’s Wager.
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 8:19 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ya, well Matt Slick I like him for (outside the show) about determinism, but to proove the existence of god he is so so, especialy , like Craig, he leads anyway to a deistic god not much more then that.
Comfort? yeah, let me laugh. Like all those pastors in baptists and pentecostals churches where they are self proclaimed pastors, laughable.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 8:29 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I’d like to see someone like William Lane Craig, in a controlled, conversational format … or better yet, Duane Gish. It would be fun to see if he could make it more than 10 seconds, before the first “Stop! That’s wrong. Please justify your point.”
Ibis3, Blighter and Trampler since 1971
February 13, 2013 at 9:01 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“Why do you believe a god exists?”
“It’s obvious! The evidence is everywhere. Just look at the trees!”
ChaosS
February 13, 2013 at 9:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Love it, made me laugh.
Could use a “punch you in the face for Jesus!” square (I’d settle for ad hominem).
Cmaximus
February 13, 2013 at 10:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You could add:
-Poe
-Teacher whose students listen to the show
-Caller is hung up on
-Theist who loves the show
-Specific miracles, like Fatima
-Atheist who wants to come out to family
-Not enough time to take the last caller’s question/topic
-Conspiracy theory
-Repeat caller
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 10:24 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And “and your done!” of course.
John Kruger
February 13, 2013 at 10:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You can’t add Poe, the whole point of Poe’s law is that you can’t tell the difference. Perhaps the mention of a Poe for the comment thread bingo card, that I could see.
thebookofdave
February 13, 2013 at 8:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It could still work. Occasionally, a caller will make such a bizarrely absurd or outrageously offensive statement that one of the hosts will publically question whether it was sincere, or sarcastic. A few of these callers returned to troll successive shows, and gotten challenged. This behavior eventually got ‘Mike from Stone Church’ (and his aliases) banned from TAE’s live show and blog. The block might be used whenever the host points a call out as a possible Poe.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 8:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Yeah, Mike from Stone Church was a real Poe, for quite a while. He slipped up eventually, but he had us going for a couple of months.
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 8:38 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
was Mark…
where did you get the idea that they were banned from the blog and the show?
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 9:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Yeah, Mark. Whatever.
I believe they said, on the show, that he was banned. It was a while back, though. I don’t remember for sure.
jacobfromlost
February 14, 2013 at 9:09 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Mark was explicitly banned from the blog (he was posting as “ChrisLanganFan” at the time). When he started demanding more confrontational theist callers, and started his vague threats about how he and “his friends” would continuing trolling the show unless some arbitrary percentage of callers were confrontational theists…Russell banned him from the blog. I assumed he was banned from calling the show the last time Matt caught him and he basically admitted to being a troll.
Mark also came clean as an atheist troll in the chat around that same time. Hasn’t been heard from in the chat, blog, or show (caller) since then.
(If you google “ChrisLanganFan”, that blog thread will be the first result.)
Lord Narf
February 15, 2013 at 7:46 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Yeah, it was pretty idiotic.
“I’m going to do something, unless you control the theists and make them call in more.” Uhhhhh, yeah, we’ll get right on that.
CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain
February 13, 2013 at 7:30 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“Wouldn’t it better to call yourself ‘agnostic’?”
“Can I [say|ask] one more thing?” (For the third time)
Out-of-body Experiences
Co-host: “What does that even mean?”
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 7:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Yeah, when the theists go around calling themselves gnostics, that’s when I’ll adopt the agnostic label, as a contrast to them.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Well, I’ll think about it then, at least. When I’m still a borderline gnostic, just in the opposite direction from the theists, the agnostic label still strikes me as dishonest. It only has significant meaning when you’re applying it to the absurd standard of absolute certainty, which is stupid. Even the Christians who claim to absolutely know don’t actually absolutely know.
I look at it as a sort of spectrum. Take a 0 to 100 percentage scale, on the likelihood of their being a god. If you’re within 25% of either end, you’re effectively a gnostic. It’s that squishy, 50% in the middle who are the agnostics of some flavor or other … although some of the agnostic theists would say they’re 90+% sure there’s a god, just don’t know his characteristics.
The snotty agnostics are probably mostly down within the bottom 10% of the scale. They’re just using the absolute-certainty bullshit to give them justification for acting like assholes.
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 9:00 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“The snotty agnostics are probably mostly down within the bottom 10% of the scale. They’re just using the absolute-certainty bullshit to give them justification for acting like assholes.”
10% of which scale? near atheism or theism? seems I repeat myself but agnostism believe that it is unknowable if a god exists or not…
anyway, in Germania it is late now…
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
On the 0% to 100% chance of god’s existence. Bottom 10%.
We’ve already been over this in the comment section of another post. The pure agnostic position makes a negative claim that they can’t support and is pretty much impossible to defend. How are you going to demonstrate that gods existence is unknowable? Which evidence would you supply to support that claim?
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 9:24 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“On the 0% to 100% chance of god’s existence. Bottom 10%.”
–that he doesn’t exist? where did you get those numbers? if you want to put it on that scale, would be around 50%, but that scale anyway doesn’t apply to agnosticism.
“How are you going to demonstrate that gods existence is unknowable? Which evidence would you supply to support that claim?”
–I won’t do a thesis here and tonight, but if you haven’t read Kant it might be a good start to know what started modern agnosticism.
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 9:41 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I didn’t say that the scale applied to agnosticism. I said that the scale applies to agnostics. Most of the hardcore agnostics who opposed Christianity so aggressively were also atheists, just wouldn’t accept the label.
So, you’re saying that you think there’s a 50/50 chance that the Christian god exists? Really?
I have read a lot of Kant on the subject. I don’t think he makes a very good case, and most of it isn’t particularly applicable to the real discussion, when you’re talking to a theist. It’s an evasion, not an address of the real issue.
ericvon germania
February 14, 2013 at 5:21 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“I didn’t say that the scale applied to agnosticism. I said that the scale applies to agnostics”
–ah, ok “those” famous “agnostics”.
“Most of the hardcore agnostics who opposed Christianity so aggressively were also atheists, just wouldn’t accept the label.”
–hmm you seem so certain. you are talking about where and when? seems that if someone is (was) a militant anti christian he would have called himself atheist without fear. Me I see the other way around, most of the time those “agnostics” are (were) more believers but they didn’t “know” which religion or which god or which holy book to take, so they are something called today “fluffy theists”.
“I have read a lot of Kant on the subject. I don’t think he makes a very good case, and most of it isn’t particularly applicable to the real discussion, when you’re talking to a theist. It’s an evasion, not an address of the real issue.”
–Well Kant did a good case for a reason to separate church and state. he isn’t my favourite, but he showed that the roam of meta-physic (god) we cannot know it’s nature, therefore we have to separate the certainty of the physical world and stop the discussions about the “other world”
“So, you’re saying that you think there’s a 50/50 chance that the Christian god exists? Really?”
–that is not what that “scale” is about. a person in the middle, that “ideal” “agnostic” (not from agnosticsm) is someone who refuse the religion presentation of a god and who refuse to conceid that maybe a god doesn’t exists, maybe someone who is sometime 80% and sometime 20% and see that he cannot take a decision from a side or another. but of course some who called themselves “agnostic” are in fact atheist but for some reasons they prefer the neutrality of that label for many reasons (don’t want to loose their chance with theist girls/boys, thinks that “agnostic” sounds deeper or more “spiritual” then “atheist”.) saw many muslims who still believe in god but reject the severity of islam so they called themselves “agnostics” instead.
ericvon germania
February 13, 2013 at 9:06 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
agnosticism
Lord Narf
February 13, 2013 at 9:19 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh, good lord. The everystudent.com ads are back. Well, if that idiot is willing to waste money advertising on FTB, I guess I can deal with seeing them.
Jasper of Maine
February 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
That’s the way I see it. Transferring money from them to AXP.
curiousgeorge
February 14, 2013 at 3:54 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I don’t know how to post links or I would do so. (Maybe someone can do that for me if they feel it worthwhile.)
But anyway, if you enjoy a good sacrilege tune as I do I then you might want to check out here on FreeThoughts Blogs the most recent “Ashley Miller” Eukele Wednesday video.
It is a catchy upbeat muscial tribute to the resigning pope Ratzinger. You really need to watch the short commentary at the beginning as well for the full experience.
Warning, if you are offended by colorful language, this video is not for you. Also, keep children away from the computer !!!!
Lord Narf
February 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What if you think that children should know those words, so they won’t be confused when they encounter them out in the wild?
curiousgeorge
February 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Depends on how old. You’re right, it can be a jungle out there !!!
How do you think Ashley Miller reallyfeels about Ratzinger?
artificialbenevolence
February 24, 2013 at 3:55 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
me and my friends already have an Atheist Experience drinking game that runs along very similar lines as this – the cards might turn out to be quite useful, but considering how quickly things can degenerate on a good night, we’d probably need to have them laminated