Thursday, October 21, 2010

New LIVE Non-Prophets return this Saturday

The rabble are banging away at Martin's post with torches and pitchforks, demanding to know: when, oh when will there be a new non-guerilla episode?

Wonder no more! The first new "official" Non-Prophets Radio will air LIVE this Saturday, October 23. It will feature Matt, Denis, and me... and if all goes according to plan, a special phone-in mystery guest. (I've been known to make these claims before and look foolish later, so apologies in advance if the guest can't make it. Forget I ever said anything! What guest?)


  1. Well it's about fucking time!

  2. Please, please for the love of all that is awesome in the world have Jeff record the announcements in his Pat Robertson voice and interject "true story" right after the worlds "bi-weekly podcast."

    I may be the only one that laughs but I'll laugh for a month.

    Also, y'all rock.

  3. Rasputin, they'll be a lot of laughter at that one.

    I started picking the show up live in the beginning of the 8th season and they've come less frequently as time went by. Was it something I did?

    Anyway, mild giddiness at the return, hopefully back to biweekly. Welcome back.

    I won't ask any questions I have about the format/lineup of the show, hopefully everyone is back, I'll just wait and see. Um, hear.

  4. Maybe Jeff will be the phone-in guest.

  5. If the phone-in guest doesn't work out just say we didn't have enough faith.

  6. I bet the pope just had a shiver down his spine and Pat Robertson's voice faltered for a moment.

    The Non-Prophets are back!

  7. When will the podcast be published?

  8. Assuming that this is also going to be an open thread on the episode, I have a comment. Regarding the Christine O'Donnell debate, Russell was right about her trying to pull out the old "the phrase never appears" apologetic. In fact, at one point when there's crosstalk, she clarifies, and says "the phrase 'separation of church and state' is in the First Amendment?" or something along those lines.

    Where the whole thing falls apart for her, including her attempted apologetic, is at this point: Coons said "Government shall make no establishment of religion," and O'Donnell replied "That's in the First Amendment?" He derailed her apologetic by paraphrasing the Establishment Clause, and her response only made her look like a fool.

    It didn't help that, earlier, she couldn't remember what the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments were, despite associating with a group who largely wants to repeal them. Especially when she's constantly talking about how the Constitution will guide all her decisions and every vote she makes will be based on whether or not it's Constitutional, and how she's participated in a Constitutional fellowship.

  9. Sorry for the second post, still listening to the awesome new episode. On DADT, while I have a problem with how the President is handling it, I have heard a fairly reasonable justification for why they've appealed the decision. It was suggested that if they chose not to appeal the court ruling, then it sets up a precedent where any low court can declare some legislative act unconstitutional, and if the ruling party is sympathetic to that decision, they can change the law by just refusing to appeal, circumventing the legislative process. By appealing, the administration may be prolonging things, but they're also helping to ensure that this matter of Constitutionality gets settled where it ought to be: in a higher court.

    But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how sound that is. It made sense to me, however, that we don't want a precedent where some backwoods judge can rule abortion or something unconstitutional and make federal law by fiat because a conservative administration declines to appeal.

  10. I'm about to speak 'ex cathedra' so listen up:

    The special guest will NOT be the pope.

    Contain your disappointment, please.

  11. @Robert

    The episode is up at the iTunes feed now. You can also find it at the website archive.

  12. Tom,

    I heard this excuse from Obama and I addressed it in the post I wrote on the subject here.

    Basically I feel like that line falls apart, because if in fact the power exists for the president and a judge to overturn any ruling all by itself, the fact that Obama did not exercise this power will not deter any future Republican president. I mean, seriously, is there ANY doubt that the next Republican president would use any means at his or her disposal to eliminate the health care plan, whether or not Obama used a similar tactic?

  13. a point on the last topic of the forced marriage - the UK government has a unit set up for it in the border Agency.

    and there is procedure in place to stop legal weddings which happen in the UK from this happening.

  14. With regards to the disappointment in Obama, which, as expressed in the episode, was not limited to just the recent "don't ask don't tell" misstep, and well beyond dealing with "atheist/secular" issues, and pretty much sticking to any campaign promises, it makes me think one thing:

    Fool me once, shame on you . . .

    Now I just have to ask, how MANY times do you have to get fooled?

  15. Ah, now I see the podcast. I don't use iTunes and, because the date is the same as the last guerilla episode, it appears *below* that one! (as it does in the archive list too)

  16. @gdw: Still shudder to think where we'd be at with president McCain, though.

  17. This election is frightening. More so than the 2008. The outcomes in a few select races will determine whether the Tea party is a flash in the pan or the new standard for politics in America. We're either going to be able to breath a sigh of relief or be seriously fucked.

  18. @ kazim
    I agree, but how long are people going to be satisfied with "at least he's not the other guy?"
    Is that really an acceptable standard for who you want to run a country?

  19. It is when members of one party are now actively campaigning on grounds of violent revolution, as well as forcing women to carry their rapists' babies.

    Seriously, we are not talking about two evil parties. We are talking about a group of individuals who are actively evil, compared to a party that is trying to do the right thing but is not doing it well enough or soon enough. The issue with DADT is not Obama's intentions, it's his effectiveness.

  20. @ kazim, I would agree that the goals of the one party are evil, and the goals of the other are, often, more noble, but if the method is clearly failing, and the methods themselves are often "evil," intentions don't mean much anymore.

    The road to hell and all.

    Trust me, by no means am I advocating the other party, just advocating something more than the lesser of two evils.

    Douglas Adams and voting for lizards and such.

  21. " intentions don't mean much anymore.

    The road to hell and all."

    "You will be judged not by your actions but by people's perceptions of your intent." -Me.

    Of course, I don't fully believe that, but it sounds good :)

  22. "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." - Batman

    Your argument has been rendered invalid.

  23. "The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No."


  24. magx01: You do realize that Alan Moore wrote Rorschach as intentional satire of certain objectivist comic book heroes, right?

    "Rorschach from Watchmen was intended to be a deconstruction of the objectivist superheroes created by Steve Ditko, most notably The Question and Mr. A: the embodiment of all that is repellent about Ditko's worldview and, at the same time, all that is noble about it. Rorschach is intelligent and uncompromising to evil with absolute moral integrity, but is a completely Ax Crazy dog kicker insane brand of character as a result. He is delusional and paranoid, but sometimes properly so when no one else is. He is a loner, unfettered by society's restrictions, but an ugly person with disgusting habits and prejudices who constantly rejects those who try to help him, and so on."

  25. No, but then again I am unaware of just about everything relating to the character and the books/movie. I have never read ny of the books nor have I seen the movie.

    I only posted the comment in jest. I just like the comment, is all :) I didn't actually mean to put it forth as though it was a legitimate response.

  26. Oh boy, did I start this?

    I should have done the Batman quite as a Demotivational Poster or the like.


PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.