Yes people are stupid! That is why I don't really bother trying to debate anyone anymore unless they agree to come to some sort of conclusion. Most of the time they run away to apologetics and other excuses.

I mean... it's a little suspicious that you guys aren't even trying to contest this very prominently written rebuttal.

Are his arguments, perhaps, stronger than you would like to admit?

Are you writing this BEFORE or AFTER reading his side of the story?

Here you go: http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

"Formal debate". As in, debate without getting interrupted every ten seconds? Would that have been too "formal"?

Yes, I suppose people like Matt -people with actual arguments to make- do like "formal debate".

No it's not, it's great press.

If it's such bad press... wtf are you doing here?  Shouldn't you want to leave now?  Surely you wouldn't want to debate us now knowing the shit coming out of slicks ass like we value "method over substance."   Wait, you did say something about debating us!  Why? 

Excellent!  Would've never thought that show would help us so much!

No.  Matt died a slow death in that show, his article is his attempt to save face.  Subscribers and those that have heard it are in the know. 

Here's little snips from the listeners on Matt Slick...

"Matt Slick is a complete moron.  Someone would ask a question and then someone else would clarify or just add their 2 cents and he would go on for like 10 minutes about how he can't respond to multiple people, or that someone is interrupting.  Or my favorite:  He would say that you guys were having a "Scholar War" and then someone would explain for several minutes why you weren't and when he spoke again he would say that you guys are having a "Scholar War".  Again and Again. " - Systemnate

"I agree that Matt Slick was definitely the worst guest ever - even worse than the wacko (this was a very early show) from MySpace who thinks he is Jesus. Matt Slick refused to answer questions and just cried like a bitch the whole time. What a loser." - MattShizzle

Another thread with thoughts from the Matt Slick show.

"I thought Matt Slick was immature."  - American Atheist

"I'm sorry to say I didn't hear the Matt Slick show.  However, given the history I've had with Slick I doubt it was very intellectually stimulating.  I debated with Matt when he first started up his website.  He relies heavily on the insults, ad hominems and censorship.  He isn't terribly bright or educated but there's no such requirement to be a bible thumping fundy.  Needless to say I'd love to hear it for the entertainment value." - D-Cubed

"Matt Slick got annoying and rude to the point where you hung up on him. that was pretty funny. all through the shows rook PWNed and once again the Rational Responders have succeeded!" - SAVAGEone

"I only heard the Matt not-so-Slick debate. Basically he was a joke, he turned into a parody of himself IMO.

Brian I do hope you dub in wind howling/dog barking/church bell tolling in the background, during the bit's where he was waiting to respond even when you muted the rest of the RRS. That would be hilarious "   Klarky

"The Matt Slick show was damned entertaining, and at the same time incredibly depressing. If every really devout theist is as irrational and as nonsensical as Matt Slick, I really can't see reason ever winning out at least in this generation. And I didn't think Matt was being dishonest. He sounded like he really convinced himself of his own BS. This guy refuses to acknowledge experts or knowledge in any way, calling it opinion. And he's so backwards in his thinking that he only asked if you wanted to hear his evidence or sources rhetorically because he actually believed you wouldn't be interested in that. Rook showed far greater knowledge of scriptural history, and he refused to accept it or even admit that he didn't know everything and agree to look up Rook's facts for himself. He dodged so much I don't think he satisfactorily answered one question. He devoted plenty of time that could have been spent arguing his case, whining about how persecuted he wanted to believe he was. And he bitched that the show wasn't in the format of his liking. I'm embarrassed as a human being that people actually admired this guy enough to insist you interview him. And you said it yourself at the end of the show that even an undisciplined Christian is better at defending Christianity than this douche or Caner for that matter. I know you guys wanted to like Caner but he made just as much sense as this dumbass. They've got their minds so far up their own asses that the can't even see the forest from the trees anymore and are completely incapable of intelligent, rational thought. " - Amodestproposal

Were you replying to me?  I was looking more for one of his "good arguments."  I am sure one of our members can point you to where they have been discussed thoroughly before.  If not, discuss them in a new thread.

I find it odd that his RRS article is titled "RRS: method over substance," but when he was on the show, Matt seemed to complain more about the method than address the substance, more so than most of the theists that the RRS has interviewed.  Being a "prominent apologist," I would have expected that he would have been better able to handle the format of handling four atheists with their own backgrounds better than other RRS show guests.  But this was not the case because it seemed that Matt used methods to avoid addressing the substance.  So it seems more appropriate for an article about the show to be called "Matt Slick: method over substance."

He really was an asshat. That show sucked - it was so bad because even the RRS couldn't help when the guest is that stupid - kind of like when MST3K was on - some movies were so horrible even they couldn't help it.  I would have almost thought listening to that show that Matt Slick was an atheist trying to make Christians look bad. Unfortunately we don't need to do that. He epic failed.

There are prominent apologists and then there is Matt Slick.  Perhaps you ought to find one of those prominent apologists and have them on the show.  Slick is perhaps a "prominent apologist" among those who fancy themselves intelligent but can't argue their way out of a jello mold.

Slick was a guest a few times on an Oregon radio show as an apparent cult expert.  He called himself an expert therefore, in the fundy realm, that's enough of a qualification.  His definition of a cult was anything that didn't match his brand of Christianity.

Tell you what, the moment Matt has a decent argument to make then perhaps he would be worthy of wasting some time for.  Until then, he's about as brilliant as this guy: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14590

Yes he was whining about us interrupting (without validity), and so I told him I'd turn all the mikes off, as I did it he took the time to bitch about how we were treating him.  

There was more to that, I'll make the show a free download...

Matt Slick on the Rational Response Squad.

This whole thing was a trainwreck and yes, there was fault on both sides.

That said, Kelly hit the bull's eye (BOOM! Headshot!) when she pointed out that you cannot insist that varying competing scholarly views cancel each other out and therefore we "stick with the text."

Why? Because the integrity, source and formation of the text is the very point of contention. Classic question-begging, in other words.

Christians - and believers in general, really - just cannot accept this. Even the so-called modern, "reasonable" ones cannot help but put their sacred scrolls (Planet of the Apes reference intended) above and apart from any other kind of historical document.

Because, for them, scriptures are NOT historical documents. They are special, different... divine.

I wish believers would just be up front about that. It would save so much time.

I stopped listening to the MP3 after 26 minutes, when Rook tried to address Matt's claim about the number of available manuscripts suitable for correcting scribal errors and Matt was trying to dodge the question, then proceeding to whine and make accusations of what amounts to aural-gangrape (without validity). He acted like a spoiled child and I couldn't stand anymore of his douchebaggery.

Aw man, you should keep listening!  It gets so much better! 

He did invite her on the show, and she accepted his invitation. I actually had the pleasure of hearing the show the first time around, and a recording of it may still be on Mr. Slick's blog (he saves the particularly funny ones). She really began to lose footing when Slick realized that she was being prompted off-mic by the rest of the team. After he pointed that out, she began losing confidence and her arguments got a lot worse really quickly. (I guess they stopped feeding her script after that?)

Mr. Slick records his account of the show in the article I posted above. I know most of you won't believe the article, because a theist wrote it, so I'm just providing this for the open minds. It seems like a more-or-less accurate rendition of what happened, though he is a little too charitable I think:

On June 15, 2007 I had Kelly, one of the four(?) in the "rational response squad", on my radio show.  I tried to treat her with respect and when she would interrupt, I let her finish her statements.  Of course, the interruptions with both ways but it was obvious that she tried to dominate the conversation -- at least for the first part of the show.

At one point, she was being coached by someone (I think it was Brian Sapient, though I'm not sure).  I responded about her being coached and that I was willing to have him on my radio show anytime in the future to discuss Christianity and atheism.  I don't recall any further interruptions or coaching after that point and he certainly did not take me up on the offer.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

Mr. Slick has also devised a way of reciprocating the allegedly "fair" treatment he was given on the RRS show. He concludes his article with this challenge to Mr. Sapient:

I would like to get Brian Sapient, the apparent head of the squad, to engage myself and three other Christian apologists simultaneously.  This would be the same arrangement, except reversed, that he likes to work in when tackling Christians.  I figure that if it is okay for him to be on the giving end, then he shouldn't have any problem being on the receiving end.  Fair is fair, right?  If he says he doesn't want to waste his time because we don't have anything good to offer, and/or that I (and my fellow apologists) would be easy to refute, then that's all the more reason for him to accept since we would be so easily defeated.  So, why pass up such a great opportunity if believing in God is such an obvious mental delusion?  The challenge is out there. I await his reply.

I wonder if Sapient will take him up on that. Somehow, I suspect that Mr. Sapient will decline, tacitly admitting that FOUR ON ONE is not a fair fight. Somehow, I suspect that Mr. Sapient will be content to let the exchange stop where it is, never engaging Mr. Slick himself. Well actually I can do a good bit more than "suspect", since Matt Slick's article has been out for about a year now and Sapient has failed to respond.

Regards,

~Presuppositionalist

Hmm, that's funny. By Sapient's account, Matt got significantly less time than the RRS (listen toward the end of the show where Sapient admits to editing the tape).

my fav show is still the where ms kels was fooled by the fake thest group. . . i forget their name but ms kels was pissed. . . she didnt know they werent real. . . she got so mad. . . .i was scared for you guys in the room when you revealed that they were like the bible, complete fiction. . .

I'm about halfway through, and so far all I've heard from Matt was a lot of incompetent hillbilly bumbling, extreme butt-hurt, and logical fallacies.

---

Two-thirds through. Does Slick have a learning disability?

---

And he's off.

This is my second time hearing this, but it was a while ago. I noticed that virtually nothing was discussed on that show. Matt was right with his comment about the scholar war. He kept accusing you guys of doing the scholar war thing like 3 times and after EACH one Rook kept talking about scholars refuting, and how the scholars say. Classic.

And Matt Slick's knowledge of scholarship seems to be limited to those who died thirty years ago, or those he can get on the phone now (who might be dead).  Seriously, you really think Matt had something?  You cannot read the Bible as a serious student without consulting scholarship.  There is simply no way.  Otherwise, you are reading without the knowledge of modern historical methods and evidence-based research.  Like Matt did in the show, he is arguing with faith-based apologetics.  Imagine if you drive into a gas station, but instead of filling it with Gas you filled the tank with water from a water bottle.  Your excuse for this is "Well water is better than gas, so it should work."  This is a complete disregard for science and the mechanics of chemistry and physics that explain how your car uses gas to run the engine and propel it in a forward motion.  This is no different than Matt just idly waving off modern historical inferences into the Bible.  He is interested in interpreting the Bible as he sees fit, not as the authors intended it to be read.  Do you see a difference, or do I have to spell it out for you monosyllabically?

Rook, John-boy doesn't need that heathen "scholarship". He's got Matt and his Jesus.

If Matt had his way he'd spend an entire show arguing about Lamarkian theory of evolution and how presenting the theory of natural selection is a scholar war.  Or I suppose, if you want to go the biblical route, Matt will still present refuted scholars who think Egyptian pyramids were built with slave labor.

Matt is an intellectual lightweight.  A skidmark in a teenager's underwear could out debate him but Matt would still whine about how the skidmark is beating up on him.

Borg?  Ok, I'll call you Borg. 

Of all the internet radio shows I've listened to you guys may be the worst hosts. And here's why...

• 1. You guys were disrespectful toward Matt.
• 2. You were condescending.
• 3. You wouldn't let him finish talking - sure, at times he interrupted you guys; but that was nothing compared to what you guys did to him. Matt was much more patient and logical. And unlike some of you, he actually did want to deal with what you guys said.
• 4. You were way out of your element - might I suggest you get someone who knows what they're really talking about? Rook Hawkins did more spins and dodges than a child at dodgeball. Maybe putting Richard Carrier against Matt Slick would have been useful.
• 5. You guys were immature - Honestly, you guys were not professional at all.

Here's some suggestions I hope you guys can take:

• 1. Don't use profanity - it makes you guys seem unprofessional.
• 2. Be patient with your guests - Let him finish speaking. Matt came on your show on good faith, the least you can do is have his full say.
• 3. Try to ask questions in an orderly fashion - maybe it would be better if only one person hosts the show. Having 4 people against 1 is quite a cowardly action. And when Kelly went on Matt's show it was so much more better and easier to listen to without everybody talking at once.
• 4. Don't filibuster - Rook maybe you should try listening to Matt for a change instead of trying to talk over him all the time. I can't believe you hesitated to define "redaction." You almost sounded silly when you conceded that the manuscript copies had errors in them.
• 5. Don't ridicule - You guys did that during the show and you guys are doing that in this forum.

If you guys don't follow these suggestions, good luck trying to get more theists on your show.

Would you like to come on the show and see how useful I am?

What are you talking about?  I wrote a whole blog article about the redaktiongeschichte schule of the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries in my blog.  I'm more familiar with their flaws and usefulness than I'm sure Matt is.  His discussion of the manuscript values was pathetic.  He tried to pull the "5000 manuscripts exist to verify the tradition" line.  Except according to the NA27, the authority, only 6 date from before the third century, and they are badly beaten and poor in quality.  The earliest actual codices we have date to the fourth century CE, at the behest of Constantine's order that, what was it...something like 20 copies of the Christian bible be copied by scribes?  Probably the two codices we have from that period (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) come from that period.  90+% of the manuscripts we have are miniscules which date the ninth century or later.  Do you really want to go down this road with me?  I am more than willing to discuss this with you on the show live, but I don't think you have the balls.  Offer is on the table.