kelly, why do you debate twits like Matt Slick?
Offline Oh kill me now if I have to hear another word from Matt Slick. He is so fucking annoying. His crap doesn't even make him worthy of being called a pseudo-intellectual. He is many levels below that. His use of "logic" in arguing the relevance of "historical" documents such as the gospels or his personal experiences of the presence of God just made me want to soak my head in a bucket of lye, jump off a cliff and wallow in my pool of blood and vomit (that is if I lived). Anything that you say will never convince these folks to reason.
He claimed to enjoy debating atheists but as I listened to your debate with him there was distinct anger in his tone. The claim that there are alternate forms of evidence for the existence of God other than scientific evidence is a non-starter and it is a total waste of time speaking to these people. I actually thought debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort was worth the time and effort. I just felt more and more anger after listening to Matt Slick.
- Login to post comments
how bout a link to the arguement so the rest of us can see him stupidity and arrogance?
There's a thread that has it in "Guests and Musicians." Matt Slicks picture should be in the dictionary next to either "asshat" or "douchecanoe." I don't think either of those words made the regular dictionary yet.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Here's the link:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=38454591
Thanks i will watch them tonight...
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
As a radio debate it was poor - Kelly edged out the interviewer when it came to appeals to logic but defeated herself by allowing Slick to dictate the points under discussion. When faced with a strong rebuttal Slick simply a'hemmed and moved on to his next choice of loaded question. In other words it was not a debate - it was an orchestrated interview which was designed to make Slick appear to be reasonable and his interviewee unreasonable any time she tried to affect the pace of the conversation (for example, by dwelling longer on a difficult concept to convey than Slick had the inclination, or even the intelligence, to allow).
I know neither party to this debate on previous form, and would concur with the Slick supporter who posted the interview in myspace.com that Slick emerged as the winner in terms of sounding reasonable. But he never once sounded rational, and that weakness should have been exploited to the full by his adversary.
Never, ever let your opponent sound reasonable while talking shite. Always, always ask him or her to justify assertions before they can be countered. You might come across as pedantic, but heck - it's better than coming across as ceding inane points to a cynical manipulator.
Kelly was too nice. Slick was a shit. But he achieved what he wanted (admittedly to his own audience and on his own terms). Smug shits like that are easy to pull asunder, especially when they think they're the ones pulling all the strings in the encounter. It was a glorious opportunity missed.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
The Matt Slick thing was prearranged when he came on our show (which just may be the best show ever and I think Brian recently uploaded it) and that day, not only did I totally forget until about one hour before it started, I was sick and felt like I was going to puke the whole time we were talking. Which Mr. Slick knew at the time, BTW. I should have just rescheduled, but I felt that backing out at the last minute would be another excuse for him to criticize atheists for our poor manners. At any rate, I didn't take it very seriously because I already knew the guy was a douche and I had completely obliterated him on our show.
Atheist Books
Figured you weren't firing on all cylinders that day - it certainly wasn't that he was stunning you with well-thought out rebuttals, but you did let him deftly hop away from answering difficult ripostes a few times, and he even had the gall to "summarise" the "weakness" of your argument while doing so.
What's his listenership like number-wise? If it's just his mom, two dogs and his lawyer, I'd be inclined myself to have gone for the jugular, and hang defending my reputation as a polite atheist (not that I have one, of course).
Good to see you up on the barricades though - that's the main thing!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy