Quantcast

«

»

Feb 12 2013

TAE Caller Bingo Cards

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.

Bingo_Page_4 Bingo_Page_1 Bingo_Page_2 Bingo_Page_3

56 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Lord Narf

    Heh, nice. Wonder if it’s one of my compatriots, in TAM, FAAST, TFS, etc.

  2. 2
    And How

    These are great !!! Good job.

  3. 3
    Tim H.

    Awesome work, though I don’t see “Where’s your evidence that Atheism is true?”

    1. 3.1
      Avalon Sharp

      I think the block “shifting of the burden of proof” covers that one!

      1. Lord Narf

        Ah, true. I was about to go look, myself. I figured there had to be something applicable on there somewhere.

      2. Tim H.

        Thanks- now I see it!

  4. 4
    thebookofdave

    Personal favorite: Argumentum ad Arboribus

    1. 4.1
      Lord Narf

      Ooh, nice. We should add that name to the official list.

  5. 5
    edmond

    What, no Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot?

    1. 5.1
      ericvon germania

      Ya, and no “Cheezos”?!

  6. 6
    ericvon germania

    “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!

  7. 7
    Jasper of Maine

    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?”

  8. 8
    John Kruger

    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.

  9. 9
    Cosmas

    “trees” ??? would someone pls elaborate

    1. 9.1
      Jamie Sims

      “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:

      1. Cosmas

        Thank you. I hadn’t seen that segment before.
        Hillarious

        1. Lord Narf

          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.

          1. Lord Narf

            Okay, let’s try that again with a format that this thing accepts.

          2. Lord Narf

            God dammit. I used the same format that Jamie did. How do you get this thing to accept YouTube embeds again?

          3. ericvon germania

            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

          4. ericvon germania

            I meant hat one

          5. ericvon germania

            Shit, what happens? it was not the one I meant. it was crazy caller #21
            I hope it will work now

          6. ericvon germania

            too bad, it doen’t work. watch no.21 on the playlist for the ones interested.

          7. Lord Narf

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlFIO2XBvU

            That one? That guy is a bit of a lunatic.

          8. ericvon germania

            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 :D like the metaphysical quantum theorist woman, never heard her before.

            I wonder why those “old” callers don’t call anymore. Would be funny.

          9. Lord Narf

            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.

          10. ericvon germania

            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”.

          11. Lord Narf

            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.

          12. ericvon germania

            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.

          13. Lord Narf

            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.”

    2. 9.2
      Ibis3, Let's burn some bridges

      “Why do you believe a god exists?”
      “It’s obvious! The evidence is everywhere. Just look at the trees!”

  10. 10
    ChaosS

    Love it, made me laugh.

    Could use a “punch you in the face for Jesus!” square (I’d settle for ad hominem).

  11. 11
    Cmaximus

    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

    1. 11.1
      ericvon germania

      And “and your done!” of course.

    2. 11.2
      John Kruger

      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.

      1. thebookofdave

        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.

        1. Lord Narf

          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.

        2. ericvon germania

          was Mark…

          where did you get the idea that they were banned from the blog and the show?

          1. Lord Narf

            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.

          2. jacobfromlost

            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.)

          3. Lord Narf

            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.

  12. 12
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain

    “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?”

    1. 12.1
      Lord Narf

      Yeah, when the theists go around calling themselves gnostics, that’s when I’ll adopt the agnostic label, as a contrast to them.

      1. Lord Narf

        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.

        1. ericvon germania

          “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…

          1. Lord Narf

            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?

          2. ericvon germania

            “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.

          3. Lord Narf

            –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.

            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 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.

            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.

          4. ericvon germania

            “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.

        2. ericvon germania

          agnosticism

  13. 13
    Lord Narf

    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.

    1. 13.1
      Jasper of Maine

      That’s the way I see it. Transferring money from them to AXP.

  14. 14
    And How

    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 !!!!

    1. 14.1
      Lord Narf

      What if you think that children should know those words, so they won’t be confused when they encounter them out in the wild?

      1. And How

        Depends on how old. You’re right, it can be a jungle out there !!!

        How do you think Ashley Miller reallyfeels about Ratzinger?

  15. 15
    artificialbenevolence

    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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>