Atheists should call Matt Slick
Posted on: March 5, 2011 - 10:52am
Offline
Atheists should call Matt Slick
Professional Christian apologist Matt Slick has a radio show that airs M-F 7 pm EST.
Atheists here should call in and debate him; it will be good ol' fashioned one-to-one dialogue, where you need to think on your feet and have no opportunity to Google search your answers or ask other people for ideas.
The website is www.carm.org; go to the section on Faith and Reason radio.
- Login to post comments
Slick's been here and on the Atheist Experience.
He's been smoked both places.
Has he got something new or do you just enjoy seeing his hind parts get handed to him?
And you speak as though he and his staff don't use google when they broadcast. he also has the option to drop the call "accidentally" when he gets something he doesn't have an answer for.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
His staff consists of one other person working at the radio station, and her responsibility is to screen the callers before they get put on.
He was on the Rational Responders show about, let's say, 4 years ago? The Atheist Experience was 2 years ago. If you think he is so easily defeated, why don't you call in? You do not even have to use your real name. Matt had enough integrity that he actually would call into a show and debate four different atheists at the same time; would you be willing to debate four different Christian apologists at the same time?
Slick has also called into the Infidel Guy show (a few times), and he has participated in formal debates with Dan Barker, Eddie Tabash, and Edwin Kagin. I don't guess that you would be willing to put yourself out there.
Still doesn't change the fact that his arguments have been destroyed by many already.
The problem with the verbal 'debate' context is that in many cases, an 'argument' that is easy to throw 'out there' may require a relatively detailed analysis to show its flaws, including an understanding of some technical or scientific discipline.
This applies particularly to popular misconceptions, like God, which are highly intuitive and superficially 'obvious', but require rigorous logical refutation, using language and concepts which go straight over the head of pretentious dumbasses like Slick and Mr.M and WLCraig.
Imagine back in the middle ages how you would dispute the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth. There was evidence even back then, but it involved knowledge and understanding which was not common.
The context on this web-site, where each side has enough time and opportunity to research their response and check the arguments of the other side, is far more conducive to a proper comparison of the strength and validity of each position.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Of course it is, this isn't speed dating. If you're trying to prove that you can throw more facts at your opponent and have more knowledge, then a live debate is for you. If you're interested in making sense, then how is the amount of time relative to the conclusion in the slightest bit? People like Slick are professional debaters on this one subject. Of course they have a LARGE array of concepts and counterarguments at their disposal. They do this FULL TIME. Anyone else has less knowledge on the subject, but that doesn't make them any less right. This isn't about quantity, it's about logic and as Bob said, dissecting the argument logically, not talking over your opponent.
What kind of an idiot would suggest that someone is correct simply because they can talk over their opponent?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
"I understand that the atheists are intimidated. Live debate is difficult because they have to think on their feet and actually articulate what it is they believe. This can be difficult for atheists. Personally, I won't do anymore written debates with atheists because I know that they like to work behind the scenes with each other to develop the best possible and most typical responses. This way I end up debating more atheists than one. Furthermore, I been written debates that end of it to be thousands upon thousands of words. So, I've been there and done that. Is better on the radio because when an atheist makes a mistake, which happens quite often, I can stop him and make a correction. But of course, an atheist wouldn't like that. An atheist would rather build upon his error and make it sound as though he knows what he's talking about. Personally, this is why I believe atheists don't want to have any real public debate with me. They know it would be difficult not because I wouldn't give them a fair shake, but because I can call them, real-time, on their errors."
--Matt Slick
True that. People like Bob will post a response, and when I respond to the post with something totally unexpected, he will remain silent for several hours (no doubt he is digging up articles or quotations from other atheists' counterarguments) and then respond with something completely out in left field, building upon errors that he made in the first place. ubuntuAnyone was even worse with this.
People like Bob and ubuntu would never be able to defend their beliefs in real time, because their beliefs are not based on any genuine research; text debates allow them to continuously ad hoc their responses (without having to worry about dead air) and make it easier for them to present this stuff as if it was what they held to from the very beginning.
So my second point was valid? If he can't handle the caller he drops them (if they get on at all)? And neither he or his assistant have laptops for googling or accessing information? He does repeat that tired argument often enough that he's internalized it, I will grant you that.
You mean you want me to come in after he's been beaten by so many? I wouldn't be adding any more to the discussion than the people you listed. If he can't handle the old stuff why should I add anything new? since you bring them up as a positive for Slick I can assume you've not actually listened to the debates.
Do you just enjoy seeing Slick's tush handed to him?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hey Tough Guy, I've accepted your challenge to me for a 1 on 1 debate. So, why are you ignoring me know?
I've been wondering what your problem is.
Now I know.
Matt Slick is a hero of yours?
That filibustering strawman generator?
Has she still got that radio show?
I will check that out for sure.
In the meantime, when are you wanting to debate me 1 on 1?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
If I say yes, then will you call his show?
Pick a topic, and have the moderators set up something in the debate forum.
No it's more difficult because Slick has had time to rehearse his arguments and chances are most callers are first timers and didn't prepare their notes before hand as Slick does.
If you've actually looked at the debates with the opponents you cited, you know that Slick has a much more difficult time when his opponents have notes with them as well.
Or are you just mad that some people think about what they say before they say it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Will Slick have a new argument?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Right, their beliefs are not based on any genuine research.
Isn't that what I just said?
You can pick any topic you'd like, and he will discuss it with you.
So you are seriously claiming that the speed with which someone can come up with a response is some measure of the validity of the argument?
The more that is time is invested in coming up with a response, the greater the likelihood of it being valid.
This is to be expected, since reality is far more complex than philosophers and metaphysics specialists can imagine, truth is not accessible by sound-bite.
I didn't think even you were this illogical, Mr M...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Oh please. People like you will trot out your ignorant drivel, repeat it over and over with no evidence to substantiate it and then you have the audacity to act like carefully thinking about a response is somehow a liability. Slick and his ilk are popular with Christians for the same reason Beck is popular with neo-cons. THey spout little sound bites and nobody has to think much to "get it".
Not needing to think deeply and critically about the defense of a position, particularly one based on immaterial concepts, is not a badge of honor. It is an indication of gullibility and arrogance.
Wisdom lies not in thinking outside the box. Wisdom is the realization that there is no box. Truth and reality extend as far as the eye can see and infinitely further.
No they don't have the research on hand with them all the time. Slick does.
Oh, and you don't have to have research for a belief. Only when you claim that you have knowledge.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
-double post-
Unless his call screener gets the order from Slick to block me.
Do I get to pick the time to get my stuff together as Slick does or do you want me to call immediately?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So you are looking for a debate that requires responses fast enough that only people who can win Jeopardy can handle the matter?
That is not going to be the type of thing that most people can do.
I am up for the challenge if that is what you want. Locally, bars turn the volume down of the TV so they can watch me play against the real contestants. Actually, I am being told by a couple of people to go in the damned show because I totally smoked the damned computer.
Post the phone number and the schedule. I will call in through skype and record the conversation for later review.
=
Thank you for admitting that you don't have it together right now--I'm not surprised though.
You can take as much time as you'd like; his show is 5 days a week.
Everything you need to know is right here:
http://carm.org/radio
Oh, there's no topic.
Trivial knowledge, and personal opinion and perspective.
It's just 1 on 1.
Rapid fire.
I'm at my best 'On the Fly'.
See, the problem with you clowns, is that you're chock full of 'sound bites' that are non sequiturs, fallacies, and paraphrases that are strawmen, and you string them together all in succession, and then conclude 'obviously that's illogical, and makes no sense, checkmate!'
Although there are different ways to measure intelligence, one of the most significant ways, is pure speed.
On that front, there's not a theist on the planet that I wouldn't debate in front of a room of university level scientists.
Not 1.
Because, if points are taken away for any non sequiturs, category errors, fundamental attribution errors, simple rheotoric and hyperbole, as red herrings, you guys lose by default.
I just did that with a fellow here named 'caposkia' (or whatever), and he'd lose by a landslide just for noncogent objections, which are defaults.
The debate boggs down, because you guys are all about fallacies and false premises, false dichotomies.
That's why my posting style is the way that it is.
Debating you clowns, is like debating retards, or schizophrenics.
You post a string of bullsh1t that's a rat's nest of non sequiturs, fallacies, FAE's, category errors, and I have to sift through them, to cancel them as even being cogent thoughts, or even proper english.
'Atheism is false', is a classic example.
That's a syntax error. That statement is bankrupt in meaning. It's simply a rhetorical device.
First of all, there is no 'atheism' (logical fallacy), just as there is no 'non-illnessism'.
Further, it's completely retarded to categorize a state of being as 'false'.
As in: 'Being healthy (non illnessism) is false'.
So, saying sh1t like 'atheism is false, and that's why religion is true', is completely void of any cogent meaning.
I don't think you understand why having any 'dialogue' with you people, is virtually impossible. It's like you just got to this planet, and aren't able to articulate your thoughts clearly.
The problem with you, is that you appear to be a very intelligent, and articulate guy, and a guy who would be extremely talented in a science and technology field, and incredibly fun to collaborate with on solving abstract problems, but your perspective on subjective ideas, and opinions is completely (scripture) biased and perpetually skewed.
You cannot have a dialogue with someone, about music (for example) that starts off with the false premise of 'that's bad music, this is 'good' music'.
Not only is that a false premise, and a non sequitur, it's an assertion that is a category error.
The topic has changed from 'music', to 'music I hate, music I like'. The topic now is that person's feelings about a category (that's subjective and arbitrary).
That's a rabbit hole. That's not about 'music' anymore. It's a about 'them' and 'them' being the protagonist.
I'm not interested in a pissing contest with a god.
Statements like 'we know this is true/false, because god says so', are completely bankrupt.
I don't drink any 'koolaid'. I don't buy 'koolaid'.
Don't market 'koolaid' to me.
I want to debate an individual person.
I want to hear what your 'personal' thoughts, and opinions are. And you to hear about mine.
I don't want a god sermon thrown at me. I don't want the 'same' biblical' lecture thrown at me, by a different 'agent'.
I want 'man to man' debate.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You don't need to thank me because I'm intellectually honest. I do understand your desire to do so. It is such a foreign concept to Christianity, after all. I don't like going in to any discussion without being as informed as I possibly can or without finding the support for my positions. Does that scare you?
Or do you really think Slick doesn't do research during his broadcasts?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ok, here's the topic:
Personal Reasoning
We'll debate on whose is more rational, and more comprehensive; yours, or mine.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
The problem with verbal debates, especially unregulated ones, is that you set up a "GOTCHA" situation which doesn't allow for full review or full scrutiny. Theists often take the pause or quick answer as "SEE SEE SEE".
I like text debates because it allows you to go over everything and ALSO allows you to filter out the bullshit and cut to the chase.
I don't care if you are calling into Rush Limpdork or Howard Stern, those situations are set up to make them look good, they are not there to weigh anything. That is on the top of the professional scale. Mat is nowhere near that scale.
The best debates I have seen have been Hitchens vs a multitude of people. BUT those are regulated.
Matt Sells the same thing any other god believer of any label sells. He sells a fictional being. And he has as much capability of proving "God did it" as someone would trying to prove "Thor makes lighting".
He is no different to me than a Muslim, Jew or Hindu and his "evidence" for his god is as impressive to me as all the others claims of "evidence" for theirs.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Thinking on one's feet is not the mark of an intelligent person. Some if us prefer careful, thought out, well researched positions rather than off the cuff, unsubstantiated claims.
I've posted in CARM. It was less than satisfying.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
The last time a Rational Responder attempted to debate Slick, it turned out pretty bad for the atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMyfQBUMoM4
(By the way, Kelly is now prostituting herself and starring in porn films--at least she was last time I checked.)
These theists have somehow convinced themselves that live improvisation and rhetoric is better for determining truth than a long, well researched investigation just because their obfuscatory tactics work better live? That is some impressive cognitive dissonance if that is the case.
I guess it makes sense that way. If they do better in a live debate, then it must be because a live debate is better for determining truth. Then, you just have to come up with weird rationalizations.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Style over substance...isn't that another fallacy? It appears to me that theists are resorting fallacies in order to "win" debates because they are lacking good arguments and substance.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
ah yes, the ambush
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Do you want to keep going in circles, or do you want to have an actual debate with me, and try and score some points for theists?
I've chosen the topic.
Let's discuss any ideas, on how each of us think we might like to do this.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeGN08IsYb0&feature=related
At 3:34 in this video Matt Slick actually recognizes that ML begs the question with the first premise...
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
ML is either weak, where it only uses the classic operators of possibility and necessity, or inconclusive, where some specific additional axiom is assumed in order to better address a particular context.
But even it that context, these other versions cannot be conclusive, but may have some utility in thinking thru certain issues and propositions.
The Modal version of the OA relies on one of the most contentious axioms, and so has no strength in proving anything.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I just listened to the first 2 parts.
I'm not seeing why this guy would be a problem to debate, at all.
He's not very bright, and he fucks up everywhere.
Does he still debate atheists?
I'd do it.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
For the fifth time, if the moderators set up something on the Debate forum, then I will do it.
The rules are that posts are limited to 500 words, and no pejoratives are allowed.
I'm not going to debate you here, because then about 10 different atheists will try to jump in and assist you.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Have either of you contacted the mods directly or are you both blowing smoke?
You want to set up a thread I'll leave you alone as well. if you want to bring your friends to this thread- I'm OK with that as well.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
How about you actually do as you were clearly instructed to do? You really want a challenge, then post complete information. I could have clicked the first link and fount that info just as easily. Now be a good little xtian and post a proper response.
OK, what in the seven hells does that have to do with anything? Oh yes, character assassination at it's lowest. You can't handle a proper debate with her so you go after her for her morals. And she hasn't even bothered to post since a good while before you even joined the site.
In any case, even if it happened to be true, it is fully irrelevant. Who really cares how moral someone is if they can handle a debate?
In all honesty, if Hitch weren't so sick, I could see getting into a drinking contest with him. I have personally been breathalyzed at 0.330 so I know I could handle him when he was at his peak form. However, that would not say anything about either his ability to debate or mine.
=
I don't want to help his case here, but Bob also has a beard... and I just can't really trust someone with a beard every since that mall Santa molested me... My wife told me I was too old to go on his lap, but he did say he had a puppy. And I mean, who would want to debate with someone with a beard? wtf? Check mate atheists!
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Ummm, you only said it once, and asked me to pick a topic, and then never got back to me. So quit lying about having repeated yourself to me 5 times.
You also said no 'question dodging'.
So that better still be a rule.
I never intended to debate you here.
But, I still want to collaborate with you on the details.
I suggest that we both find a nice block of time, that works for both of us, where we are both not going to get distracted, and can go quickly back and forth.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
OK, I missed that one before. I will see what I can do but you need to know that I will not accept a 500 word rule.
The rule will be five sentences which will follow the subject/predicate/object standard. Run on sentences will not be allowed. Make one point and your opposition will have to respond in a similar fashion. I will not penalize you for an extra sentence if it is on topic.
As far as the whole “no pejoratives allowed” thing, this includes statements like “Kelly is a whore”. Honestly, I don't give a shit.
To my knowledge, there is no proof that it is even true. Kasey Grant could be someone who just looks like her. Even if it were true, it would not be relevant to the matter at hand. Think about this for a second. If true, she would be a whore who can handle debates. Of what relevance would the whole whore thing be in that case?
For the record, I have been in video chat with her and the subject just does not come up. I fail to see what the point would be in that context.
If I met her in person, how would that conversation even work?
Me: Are you a whore?
Her: [yes] or [no].
If the answer was no, the I would just have called someone I have respect for a whore. If the answer was yes, then I would have to be ready with the obvious followup, “Well I have a couple of Benjamins in my pocket, what does that buy me?”
Don't get me wrong dude. I am an atheist. Hookers and beer are great. But I just can't see how it would be a moral thing for me to even ask the question.
=
Where is there an outline for these rules?
How can we set this up? Contact Sapient?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I've contacted Sapient.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
v
Well, there is not a set of rules as such. Even so, a challenge exists.
In order for that to happen, rules need to be agreed upon.
My rule will be that verbal diarrhea shall not be acceptable. Make one pint succinctly and allow the interlocutor to respond in similar manner.
That and out OP must provide specific details on his challenge.a
=
So your total lack of response shall be taken as your position on a debate where you need to actually hold to a topic?
Very Christian of you.
=
I haven't heard back from Sapient.
Can you set up the debate?
I've already given the topic.
Anytime Mr_Metaphysics is ready, is good for me.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Maybe Mr_Metaphysics' parents won't let him out of his room to use the computer in the family room...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
He can always use the church's computer, it's probably blessed, and so, holier then thou art.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc