How Emery can improve

[Emery]

Now that our 100th episode has been aired, it seems a good time to reflect on the reasons I started this podcast, and whether to continue.

First, Christian/atheist/morality issues are things I think are important and like talking about, and discussions with Christians were always interesting to me. It seemed a natural progression to make these discussions into a podcast. Second, I had just decided to apply to law school when the podcast started, and I thought doing the podcast would be good practice for the public speaking that is needed in this profession. It is this second part that I still find challenging, and I'm not sure I'm making much progress. It is difficult for me to make concise, pithy statements, and to be quick with the humor when speaking in public. Having Scott as a co-host really highlights my shortcomings--Scott's really a good public speaker.

It always amazes me that people like the podcast, and are so kind with their reviews of my performance. Often I listen to the shows and cringe. So for the next 100 episodes, I either need to improve, or consider another person to fill my shoes. Obviously I'd prefer the first option, so here is where I need your help:

First, I'd like to identify the problems. What are the biggest issues you see on my side of the podcast? Biggest annoyances? Words/phrases I overuse? (hint: "well...") And generally, what do you find sucky about how I speak? Second (and here's the hard part): any suggestions on how I can improve? Or is this a lost cause, and a new atheist co-host is needed?

Thanks for all the support over the years you guys. I am in your debt.

[Keep The Reason]

Now that our 100th episode has been aired, it seems a good time to reflect on the reasons I started this podcast, and whether to continue.

First, Christian/atheist/morality issues are things I think are important and like talking about, and discussions with Christians were always interesting to me. It seemed a natural progression to make these discussions into a podcast. Second, I had just decided to apply to law school when the podcast started, and I thought doing the podcast would be good practice for the public speaking that is needed in this profession. It is this second part that I still find challenging, and I'm not sure I'm making much progress. It is difficult for me to make concise, pithy statements, and to be quick with the humor when speaking in public. Having Scott as a co-host really highlights my shortcomings--Scott's really a good public speaker.

It always amazes me that people like the podcast, and are so kind with their reviews of my performance. Often I listen to the shows and cringe. So for the next 100 episodes, I either need to improve, or consider another person to fill my shoes. Obviously I'd prefer the first option, so here is where I need your help:

First, I'd like to identify the problems. What are the biggest issues you see on my side of the podcast? Biggest annoyances? Words/phrases I overuse? (hint: "well...") And generally, what do you find sucky about how I speak? Second (and here's the hard part): any suggestions on how I can improve? Or is this a lost cause, and a new atheist co-host is needed?

Thanks for all the support over the years you guys. I am in your debt.

I think your delivery is fine-- your voice is a calm one, and you have a natural sense of humor and what could only be described as a warm personality. You're clearly the diplomatic sort of atheist, and want to embrace a dialog; the problem is that there's a natural limit to this without becoming repetitive and -- sorry -- boring.

I think any advice from me would be more in the realm of not letting the theists get away with their waffling or flawed arguments, but that is not really the thrust of your podcast, and one has to admit you have lasted far longer than most in this sort of venue-- it's tough to argue with success but we've all noticed that the podcasts come farther apart, and there is a weakening of impact in them.

This is perfectly natural given the more or less static nature of you and Scott as hosts. I listened to 1-90 before I posted a single thing on the forum (I think it was 90. It might have been 92 or something) and I thought it was a good move when it changed from Norton to Scott. Mainly because Scott came in with a willingness to open up and admit to some serious doubts. You consistently had the skill to lead him along a path he seemed very willing to go, and then reveal to him the fact that he was in a logical cul de sac which he couldn't easily retreat from. I found I missed Norton only briefly, because Scott was so damned interesting and you were able to consistently deploy argumentation that would lure him in and then show him there was nowhere else for him to go.

This is a rare skill, and it is almost certainly going to serve you well as a trial lawyer, especially on cross-examinations and redirects (how you might fare on voire dire is another matter, lol).

Ok-- so here's my surprise reveal. With respect to Scott, whom I like very much, and to Norton, who seems to be a nice enough guy, while I know you're asking how you can improve, I think the secret formula is not in you leaving or even changing much-- but in you finding another theist to take up the alternate viewpoint. What's missing, in my humble opinion, is bringing in someone who can task your arguments from a more passionate, hardliner perspective. The fact is, you've wrung Scott out so where else can you go? (Sorry, Scott, this is no reflection on you-- I think you're great, funny, endearing most of the time, have a skillful grasp of scriptures and a great resonate voice... but I think you're just at the end of the run).

Emery, your debating skills should be challenged by confrontation with a more devoted type of theist. Someone more difficult and intractable. Because part of what makes this podcast valuable is that listeners can learn from you how to do this (and while I advocate your methods for awhile, at some point, I also advocate a more ball's-out approach myself. I get why you're a "nicer" atheist, and there's need for your approach, but there's also a need for the more strident, "We're Here, we're Not Believers, Get Used to it!" brand of atheists as well.)

[Dr Mundo]

It always amazes me that people like the podcast, and are so kind with their reviews of my performance. Often I listen to the shows and cringe.

You speak so negatively about yourself and have done so on a many number of occasions if I am remembering it correctly, I honestly can't see why. At least to me, you sound like an articulate, reasonable guy with a good perspective on issues and a genuinely honest and good natured personality. From what I know of you, I like you as a person. You are doing a really good job with the podcast although I do have some issues I would like to be critical about which I will get to in a sec.

is this a lost cause, and a new atheist co-host is needed?

Defiantly not, at least not in my opinion.

First, I'd like to identify the problems. What are the biggest issues you see on my side of the podcast? Biggest annoyances?

With Tony, you let him get away with arguments that were not valid and sound, I know for the sake of discussion sometimes its okay to let someone make an argument and then argue it from the inside and show where it is also flawed. But the thing was you should have corrected him after having the discussion. The ones that stick out the most in my mind right now were the ones about the nature of the beginning of our known universe, I understand that none of us are astrophysicists but we could still identify his flawed arguments. Not to much to comment on Norton, So I will just talk about Scott now. I think my issue with those discussions is that Scott is more like an pseudo atheist type of thinker and it feels like a lot of the time he is just agreeing with your overall point, and I like how you press him to address how it somewhat conflicts with what his religion traditionally accepts as accurate portrayals of God, I just don't think you press on deep enough. The implications of a liberal interpretation of Christianity seem to be at odds with what it seems the message of Christianity is.

Thanks for all the support over the years you guys. I am in your debt.

Thanks to you, Scott, Norton, Tony, and all the other guest hosts you have had on in the past, You guys have done a solid job and I hope to continue to listen to far more of it in the future.

[humanguy]

Oh hell, Emery. Just continue to be yourself. No, you don't do it the way I would but then I can't do what you do.

But let's get down to brass tacks here, and talk about how Scott can improve...

[ScottBarger]

Ha! Thanks for the feedback, I guess. Speaking for the "wrung out" part of the podcast who is clearly at the "end of my run" I'd have to say that I rarely - if EVER - have heard a profitable discussion between an atheist and theist who both take hardliner positions. Why would you want to listen to it? The discussion would go nowhere as both parties insisted that the position of the other was illogical, unreasonable, or whatever.

To me, the strength of the podcast has always been in the dialog, two people with radically different views learning how to talk to each other in a productive way. The funny thing is we have had hardliner theists on in the past, and have consistently received feedback that the shows were somehow lacking because the theist wouldn't budge. Oh well, you can't please all the people all the time.

Personally, I like the way the shows play out and wouldn't change a thing about Emery's presentation.

[Aaron]

Oh hell, Emery. Just continue to be yourself. No, you don't do it the way I would but then I can't do what you do.

Yeah.

Since I'm a Christian and I like C.S. Lewis I'll use one of his quotes : )

Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.

It doesn't really fit, but I think it does. Keep trying your best Emery, I think you're doing a great job.

You know the other day I was thinking about you and how I should send you a PM to tell you thanks for doing all this (I wanted to send you a PM cause I didn't want other members to think I was butt kissing, but who cares). Arguing on here has actually helped to shape me into the person I am today, and its been for the better (well maybe an atheist would think otherwise). I've really enjoyed discussing my thoughts on here and reading other peoples and it takes balls to do what you do. So thanks Emery.

[Dr Mundo]

Ha! Thanks for the feedback, I guess. Speaking for the "wrung out" part of the podcast who is clearly at the "end of my run" I'd have to say that I rarely - if EVER - have heard a profitable discussion between an atheist and theist who both take hardliner positions. Why would you want to listen to it? The discussion would go nowhere as both parties insisted that the position of the other was illogical, unreasonable, or whatever.

To me, the strength of the podcast has always been in the dialog, two people with radically different views learning how to talk to each other in a productive way. The funny thing is we have had hardliner theists on in the past, and have consistently received feedback that the shows were somehow lacking because the theist wouldn't budge. Oh well, you can't please all the people all the time.

Personally, I like the way the shows play out and wouldn't change a thing about Emery's presentation.

I am actually very happy with the Podcast. Just nitpicking to find something to critique, I would listen to more for sure. I like listening to you on the podcast better than any other theist that has been on in the past, but I think the conversations can go a bit deeper into one subject instead of being so superficial, meaning just scratching the surface of a topic. but either way Keep it up guys. I was working service for my company for a while and I would be on the road for up to 6-7 hours per day so I listened to so many eps. back to back, And I think I still could. Hasn't got boring to me, and while it is hard if not impossible to please all the people all the time, I at least have been pleased, if it matters to anyone.

[Keep The Reason]

Ha! Thanks for the feedback, I guess. Speaking for the "wrung out" part of the podcast who is clearly at the "end of my run" I'd have to say that I rarely - if EVER - have heard a profitable discussion between an atheist and theist who both take hardliner positions. Why would you want to listen to it? The discussion would go nowhere as both parties insisted that the position of the other was illogical, unreasonable, or whatever.

To me, the strength of the podcast has always been in the dialog, two people with radically different views learning how to talk to each other in a productive way. The funny thing is we have had hardliner theists on in the past, and have consistently received feedback that the shows were somehow lacking because the theist wouldn't budge. Oh well, you can't please all the people all the time.

Personally, I like the way the shows play out and wouldn't change a thing about Emery's presentation.

There's more to it, Scott, and again, I'm sorry if I sound harsh on you because I do really like you but I'm not the first to point out you're a swinging pendulum sort of theist. My point is that Emery's skills against a less flexible theist would result in a good lesson for people listening to the podcast.

I listen to debates with Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens against equally powerful theists, and these are all rousing exciting and entertaining debates between intractable persons. There's a lot to be learned from such encounters,and Emery could do likewise well using his own unique approach. I live in LA and am lucky to be able to access guys like Michael Shermer in debates live, and I think Emery could easily hold his own in that crowd. Atheists are the minority here, and the fact is, there are many theists who can step up to the plate, but fewer well versed atheists. Emery's a rare commodity, because the side he represents is a minority position.

Now, if you want to swap sides... Which I sometimes think you're an inch or so away from doing... You'd be an AWESOME addition on the atheists side. I'd champion you both! But as the theist, I think... Well, you know. Sorry.

[Dr Mundo]

I think Emery could easily hold his own in that crowd.

I agree.

[mitchellmckain]

Emery you demonstrate that that atheists can be rational, reasonable and tolerant by doing as you have done. That is a worthwhile acheivement don't you think? So... you disappoint those who are less rational, reasonable and tolerant when you don't insist that people who disagree with you are stupid or delusional. I am afraid that you cannot do both of these things, and I am glad that you choose the one that I think is more worthwhile.

[mikedsjr]

Emery, If I could make one request it is to get a reformed Christian pastors or apologist on the show. You have never had one on. I'm not asking for an reformed apologist on all the time, but you are catering to liberal Christianity on your show and i reject liberal Christianity as Christian. It might be true that you would have never made it to 100 if you had a Bible Believing Christian on your show. If the point of your podcast is to have lots of shows, then by all means you need to keep liberal Christians on your show because they will give you all the material you need for that. If the point of your podcast is dialogue between Atheist and Christians who believe Scripture is true then you need a Bible believing Christian on which you have not had. And to be honest, that doesn't have to be a Reformed Believer. Bible Believing Arminian apologist would be good too.

[Dr Mundo]

If the point of your podcast is dialogue between Atheist and Christians who believe Scripture is true then you need a Bible believing Christian on which you have not had. And to be honest, that doesn't have to be a Reformed Believer. Bible Believing Arminian apologist would be good too.

Mike that sounds a bit disrespectful to Scott and others who find themselves to be Bible believing Christians, They may not interpret the bible in the same way as you, but for them their belief is just as sincere as yours. To say that they are not bible believing Christians because they have a different interpretation than you is a bit much. I do agree with your point though that we need a more traditional dialog between what Christianity is predominantly like (esp here in the US where I believe most of us are in).

What if Scotts version of Christianity is true and yours is not, We have more (tons more) evidence that the way in which diversity of life here on earth has proliferated has been through a natural process we know as evolution, as apposed to what the bible describes in genesis. and we have no record of a world wide flood, a few thousand years ago. many many more examples of how evidence supports a liberal interpretation of the bible than a literal one. I believe its just mythology obviously and I am of the opinion that the evidence or lack thereof would make a stronger case for my position than that of Scott's, but that's besides the point. Either way talking to a "true" (according to mike) Christian would be a good episode to listen to.

[Keep The Reason]

Mike that sounds a bit disrespectful to Scott and others who find themselves to be Bible believing Christians, They may not interpret the bible in the same way as you, but for them their belief is just as sincere as yours. To say that they are not bible believing Christians because they have a different interpretation than you is a bit much. I do agree with your point though that we need a more traditional dialog between what Christianity is predominantly like (esp here in the US where I believe most of us are in).

Let's count our blessings, Dr. M. In the old days, this would have been decided with a mass slaughter of Scott's erntire town, or Mike's, depending on where the majority of power was centered.

Effectively, however, mike is saying much the same as I am in looking for a harder lined Christian.

[Dr Mundo]

Mike that sounds a bit disrespectful to Scott and others who find themselves to be Bible believing Christians, They may not interpret the bible in the same way as you, but for them their belief is just as sincere as yours. To say that they are not bible believing Christians because they have a different interpretation than you is a bit much. I do agree with your point though that we need a more traditional dialog between what Christianity is predominantly like (esp here in the US where I believe most of us are in).

Let's count our blessings, Dr. M. In the old days, this would have been decided with a mass slaughter of Scott's erntire town, or Mike's, depending on where the majority of power was centered.

Effectively, however, mike is saying much the same as I am in looking for a harder lined Christian.

I agreed to that point. But how far would you guys think of going that direction? Replacing Scott all together or just on occasion? I just want some deeper conversations with more emphasis on the implications of a belief. I don't want to stop listening to Scott but I also do want to have a more traditional Christian to represent the Christian side so I don't know what to say other than, I hope the moves are thought out well before implementing them.

[Keep The Reason]

I agreed to that point. But how far would you guys think of going that direction? Replacing Scott all together or just on occasion? I just want some deeper conversations with more emphasis on the implications of a belief. I don't want to stop listening to Scott but I also do want to have a more traditional Christian to represent the Christian side so I don't know what to say other than, I hope the moves are thought out well before implementing them.

Honestly, I don't really see how much further he can go with Scott. In a way, this is like comedy-- you have to bounce the ball of comedy against a hard wall of reality in order for it to be effective. Scott's not the "hard wall" -- as even some of the theists seem to agree (to the point of insulting him). He's a liberal, which makes him far nicer a guy, and like I said I can't fault him for his knowledge or for his excellent sense of humor-- hell, I like Scott too!

But if I were the producer of the show, and wanted to break more ground, I'd have to make this decision without emotions and opt to get someone in who would really confront Emery hard, in order to raise the stakes. And the reward would be seeing how Emery's approach could work, or not work, against such an opponent. I think it would be an opportunity to expose the intractable nature of that degree of belief, which by the way does get exposed here, but doesn't have the fuller enriching support of a "face-to-face" type of talk.