I thought to relate that the reason that won’t be on an Atheist’s podcast is because the Atheist doesn’t want me on the podcast and here’s why.
Now, since this discussion too place behind the scenes, I won’t divulge who it is nor the name of the podcast.
I simply noted, “I am a Bible believer and have written some contra Atheism books: I wondered if you may be interested in having me on as a guest (not to sell books, just to have a discussion).”
The entirety of the reply was, “No thank you. Not our format.”
I replied, “Appreciate you letting me know. So it is more about Atheists speaking to Atheists about Atheism without being challenged in public?”
The reply began with “Honestly, I recommend you listen to a show before you ask to use someone else’s platform.” Yet, whoever said that formats are written in stone? I thought to nudge them outside of their in-house comfort zone.
The rest of the reply was:
Having you on doesn’t offer us or our listeners anything I find compelling and doesn’t benefit my show since you appear to have limited reach of your own.
That you are unfamiliar with the show and you are still trying to be a guest tells me that your goal here is to use my platform and audience as a shortcut to broadcast your message, and that you are too lazy to bother researching our shows format and style before trying to use our reach for your benefit.
Your books on Amazon have very few reviews, the same is the case for Goodreads. If my reach surpasses yours, you have to offer me something compelling to gift you access to my platform. You didn’t do that.
It’s not that I am concerned about being publicly challenged, it’s that you’re trying to use my public in the absence of your own to do so.
Pass.
I replied:
You jumped to a conclusion of what my goal is based on my limited reach so when you positively affirm that I am trying to use your public in the absence of my own you are playing mind reader.
You are literally claiming to know things you simply do not know–I suspect that is a window into why you converted to Atheism.
How about this: have me on as “Anon” and don’t share my website or any contact info?
I figured that would solve all of the invented problems, right?
Not quite because since I received no reply, I thought to contact them again to, or so it seems to me, pinpoint the one remaining problem, “Well then, I will, sadly, conclude that it is a case of you not wanting your views challenged in public.”
UPDATE:
Now, due to what any reasonable person would just call and “Oopsy!” and move on with their lives: since I have been attempting to have discussions on Atheists’ own shows I looked up any that I could find and did not realize that I accidentally contacted the one in question again. I initially receive a very nice reply of:
At this time, we are not interested.
Thus, I replied as I had done above:
So sorry to hear that.
Out of curiosity: is it a matter of not wanting your worldview challenged in “public.”
Do you know of any likewise shows who may be interested?
Anon:
We already went down this road. We had this exchange the first time I turned you down.
We are not a debate show. It’s not our structure, it’s not an interest of ours. We don’t do debates. Other people do. We don’t.
Debate is not how scientific questions are tested. It’s a format that presumes that it is reasonable to choose from one or the other position. I disagree with the premise that debate has value in evaluating scientific claims.
Mostly though, and I want to be very clear here, you, specifically and personally, don’t add any value to our show. You have no reach , no audience. So far as I can tell, all your press is self generated. You offer nothing I want in exchange for giving you a platform. I want nothing from you and never will because I don’t value you.
I think an interview with you would bore me and the audience, though I don’t know which would happen first.
You can’t even be bothered to keep track of the fact that I already rejected you a few months ago, which also means you are either lazy or disorganized.
Ken Ammi:
Oh yes, sorry: I’ve been reaching out to so many Atheist shows that I lost track and didn’t realize that, that was you.
Well, it’s too bad since you really need to discuss such issues with someone who can challenge you since, for example, your statements are not only merely asserted jumps to conclusions based on hidden assumptions but this has nothing to do with science.
As for that I don’t add any value, etc. keep in mind that I solved that problem for you by offering to come on the show anonymously and not mentioning my site, etc. so you clearly have other reasons for refusing to engage.
Anon:
We do. And we list them in previous messages.
Perhaps the most important one that you keep intentionally ignoring is that we are not a debate show you daft [a very crude word for a women’s private parts].
Ken Ammi:
Wow, you seem to be exhibiting some psycho-emotional problems.
Well, that was the end of it this time: I would rather be disorganized than being so saturated with hatred that it spills out the side—capiche?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.