Again, you display a lot of bravado when you get to hide behind a veil of text, but you refuse to actually call up Matt and debate him live on his radio show.

If he treats you unfairly on the show, you can easily save the podcast and flaunt it for everyone to listen to.  

There is no excuse; the only real reason why you would want to debate him here is that you know live debate requires you to think on your feet, and that text debates allow you to work behind the scenes with other atheists so that you will not get stumped.

Plainly and simply, you are a turkey.  You are a typical wimpy atheist who is not secure enough with his own worldview to be able to defend it in a real setting. Discussion boards are not reality.

I cannot say that I am surprised, however.  It was quite easy for me to defeat you in the text debate that we had; imagine how poorly you would do in a live debate.  

And why would this be a problem?

Seriously, if anyone here benefits from that much, then so would Matt Slick. He could take as much time getting his shit together before posting a reply as anyone else in a text debate.

Believe me, I have. Many times. And I can be quick when needed as well. I just fail to see the point in engaging with that asshole.

If I had a greatest hits album, one entry would be the time I was evangelized by Mormons at a bus stop.

One thing that I learned was that they believe that the head of the church has god's cell phone number or something. They called him a living prophet. At the time, the guy was a dude named Gordon Hinckley.

At that, you might think that I would go for the obvious and ask if he was related to John Hinckley, the guy who shot Ronald Reagan. I did much better.

In the early 80's, there was a bad network TV show called “the Greatest American Hero” about a guy with super powers but no clue how to use them. He did not fly so much as plummet out of control through the sky.

In the series, his name was always Ralph. However, in the pilot, he was named Ralph Hinckley. The last name was dropped from the series because of the assassination attempt. So when I heard the name of the supposed prophet, that is what I went for.

Mormon: There is a living prophet. His name is Gorden Hinckley.

Me: Is he any relation to Ralph Hinckley?

Mormon: Who?

Me: you know, Ralph Hinckley, the Greatest Anerican Hero.

Mormon: ???

Me: Well, They both have super powers and the same last name. They must be related.

It has been about ten years and I have never been approached since. I think that my picture must be in the official book as someone to never go anywhere near.

No, I can just spot pure bullshit in real time. It only took Slick 3 minutes to run his mouth before he demonstrated how 'mistaken' his reasoning is.

There was really no reason to continue the debate, as he was just 'pleading' his case. You cannot have 'reasonable' discourse with someone who doesn't realize his mistakes, and/or won't acknowledge them, when pointed out.

Obviously, you have an extreme double standard, when it comes to the law of parsimony.

Matt Slick's game is balderdash, and equivocation. Long convoluted narratives that he thinks somehow are 'correct' interpretations of reality.

The loon thinks 'logic' is some kind of 'universal constant', instead of a method that humans utilize to attempt to make predictions.

Ummm, every one of these scheduled live debates I've seen, he's prompting himself from his laptop, or reading from something written.

And it always comes full circle to his same lame duck argument.

Where do you see that he's thinking on his feet, when he's simply regurgitating the same old routine?

He's an egomaniac and spoiled brat in verbal debate.

I haven't made any excuses. I've told you how many times that I dare him to try and debate me, with his stupid arguments??

Have you told him?

What's your excuse? What's his excuse?

Pick your favorite, and invite them here. I'll debate any of them.

In any event, I will blog about their BS 'arguments', regardless, at some point, and expose the fraud and deception in such a way that is easy to comprehend.

He doesn't 'stump' anyone. He doesn't make sense, and has to be shown where his mistakes are, and then he wants to argue in circles with bogus analogies, to attempt to prop up his argument.

The fool thinks, much like you, that you can define something into actuality.

It's pure snake oil salesmanship. "I've defined the snake oil as effective; if it wasn't effective, it wouldn't effect anything, and what I'm telling you wouldn't be true, and it wouldn't be snake oil, which is defined as being 'effective' "

No, just avoiding histrionics.

But, you could always invite him here to demonstrate that I have no game, which would back your allegations that I was concerned about being proven mistaken.

I'm quite atypical. Have you ever heard of the Bell curve? As a kid I was actually tested many times by professionals and declared a prodigy.

You keep making that same retarded claim. I'm an engineer. There are tons of forums that have engineers, and we debate all the time, about what is viable, or not.

Nobody gets pissy about that method of dissecting and analyzing ideas.

So why would you and Slick have any issues with it? You want to see if your theories work? That's how you do it.

What did you think? The strength of an argument makes something viable?

Just saying so, does not make it so.

Discussion boards are dialogue. Not monologue. Nobody 'controls' the dialogue.

If you consider being terribly mistaken, and not comprehending words properly, a victory, then congratulations; you're a certified retard, in comparison to intelligent people.

I told you that 'fuzzy logic' deals with 'degrees of truth', and you said there are no 'degrees of truth'. But, that's what 'Fuzzy Logic' uses. Just because you're unaware of it's existence, or how it works, does not mean it not an 'actual' methodology that 'works'.

And you simply don't understand how anyone can model anything and make things 'work' exactly as intended, with values between 0 and 1.

Do you understand 'rotation' and 'phase angle' principles?

Both you and Slick don't understand how 'facts' and attributes are 'relative'. It's not even difficult to understand. A child could understand it, and realize that not everything is as it seems peripherally, under varying circumstances, and how permutations and combinations work.

You and Slick seem to be 'boxed in'; into a crude 'linear' method of thinking. You both think in elementary ways, and that x=x, and that's it. You don't factor in logarithmic differentiation, which can make x= an x that has changed.

You 'telegraph' your weakness. It's so easy to see.

It's always been clear to me where you have an Achilles Heel, and where you are lame. You try and circle in such a way that it doesn't show.

I've just been toying with you.

I'll use that thread to clearly map out the equivocations, the pathetic strategy, and the linguistic web of deceipt that underpin all these 'arguments'.

You people are just con artists. Who rely on 'the hand is quicker than the eye', except with convoluted narratives in rapid succession, delivered with zeal.

Some of you people are great illusionists and showman.

But you're still frauds and charlatans.

Just because one can't quite 'see' or 'put their finger on' where the deception was, while it was happening, does not mean it was not there.

You mean Matt Slick has evidence of a god?

Of course you don't.

Necessarily, he would have to, in order to actually 'own' any skeptic.

He would need to have at least a better grasp of reality than what is taught at a high school level of education, or available in high school textbooks, or libraries.

But he doesn't.

None of you losers do.

Hi OPie,

Heck, I'll debate Matt Slick. I know atheism so well, I'd love to play devils advocate. However, what is his view on Eastern Orthodoxy? I've never heard of him.

I'll sign up and harass him a little. In Jesus' Name.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin  (Jude 3).

Well, it's not possible. Because they're just automatons. They admit their thinking came from somewhere else, and that it's not questionable.

Which is insane.

And then they just go in circles, with that, yet assert the fallacy and lie that it's their 'critical thinking'.

That's why they can't explain why anyone else should think it.

It's quite insane, and deluded.

Complete batshit crazy.

Here's a great clip where Matt Slick admits that he is arming people to be 'arbitrarily' divisive and militant towards others who don't conform to this 'mystery' thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J380oWAsTE&NR=1

'And you can find out basically, every single Christian doctrine you need, documented, examined, explained...'

'...compared to false systems, and false ideologies, like atheism, or abortion, or homosexuality':  Matt Slick

I still can't get over how insanely troubled he is, with someone having the same rights that he does...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E8bWz10I3w

Are you on glue?

The atheist clearly points to the bible, talking about smashing babies against rocks, and that he thinks that is wrong.

Slick, while acknowledging the inhuman act, his response is to sidestep the verse, and begin being obtuse by asking the atheist how he determines between right and wrong.

The atheist clearly states he has problems with the bible's moralities and wants to challenge them, and Slick who is in a losing position, desperately turns to "The best defense, is a strong offense".

On the specific topic of smashing babies against rocks, Slick's response is:

"I'd say, why is it wrong?

I'm not playing games; I'd say why is it wrong?" :  Matt Slick

This is the man you admire?

You're completely mentally disturbed...

LOL

I could give a flying rip what you do.

Call him on his radio show... oh wait, you are too much of a turkey.  You know he will make a complete ass out of you, just as I did in our debate thread.

Where can one find the number to this radio show?

I would love to be the "atheist who got owned" by Matt Slick.

haha, it's not possible to have a debate over "nothings". So, there is nothing to win or lose by being owned.  Kudos for winning a debate over nothing.  I'll bring a whole box with me.

Matt Slick is a moron.  Who can do nothing but avoid and deflect questions so he doesn't have to answer any.  Like any other good con man.  It's admirable in a way to see this kind of self-righteous arrogance.

Give me the number. I will call and gladly let the forum know when it happens.

mr. O.

A debate in written form like this is a more honest 'debate' context, where a quick come-back and a repertoire of standard responses gives no advantage.

Only the merits of the argument count in such a context.

Of course, Slick would not be interested, first because he hasn't the depth of knowledge to counter detailed arguments, and it is not going to be something he could use effectively on his radio show, which is about skipping around from one point to another to try and keep his 'opponent' from landing a solid hit.

Go to http://carm.org/radio

Never mind that. He can't even string together a sober thought.

Listen to this gobbledygook of him trying to define the mind of God into existence, on The Atheist Experience radio show.

It's fricken' hilarious. And he declares himself the 'winna!'

Is there anyone drunk, who can translate this?  

- "When minds are different.... your mind is different than my mind, since the logical absolutes, are themselves absolute, they cannot be the products of human minds, because human minds are different. "

- "It cannot be the product of human minds, and it cannot be the product of human minds thinking as a tool"

- "If you're going to tell me, that logic is not absolute, then we have no basis of any rational discourse."

-"I will offer you a sentence, if logic is not absolute : 'Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday'....and therefore, because you can't think linearly, with going hopscotch backwards, I win the debate."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7EMIiysboc&feature=related

So?  Let's assume that you call up, present a cogent argument, and Slick just cuts you off.  
 

Wouldn't that just make him look bad?

So what is the big deal about giving him complete control over the mic?  If you have a good argument, then it shouldn't matter if he has complete control over the mic.  Todd Sungenis defeated him in a debate on his own radio show; why can't you?

Hahahaha

So all of a sudden you care what "Christian sheep" think?  

Wouldn't such sheep be convinced that Matt Slick won even if it was a text debate?  

What is the difference?

I don't think you are worried about them.  I think you are worried about your atheist friends, and what they will think of you if you should call in and fall flat on your face.

Did you know that Matt Slick called into the Rational Responders radio show (is that even still on?) and debated 4 different atheists at the same time?  Did you know he called the Atheist Experience and debated that fat bald atheist for 40+ minutes?  Did you know that he called the Infidel Guy show and debated dozens and dozens of atheists who called in, in addition to debating Reginald?

Why is Matt Slick able to do this, but not you?

Because his style too easily allows him to cut of the mic at a time and manner that can convey a false impression to his audience of the reason and the state of the argument at that point.

We let him and others on for a similar reason, to show him up, and his style, which we more-or-less did. That two can play at that game.

Doesn't change the fact that you want the substance of two points of view to be compared and contrasted, to be given adequate airing, a forum debate is far better. 

The verbal competition is more for showing of fast thinking and rhetoric.

IF both parties are well-matched in those areas, and no one side is allowed to cut things off prematurely, it CAN work relatively well, this is true.

If you have a good argument, then it will not matter if he cuts you off.  He will come out looking bad, and you will smell like a rose.  There will be no false impressions.  Christians already think you are stupid, so they cannot be reason you are not calling in.

Obviously, the real reason you are not calling in is that you know he will win the debate.  I know this, because when I debated you, you couldn't stick to one answer, and you kept changing your answers until you found something that stuck.  My guess is that you worked with other atheists behind the scenes or kept on Google searching until you found some material you could work with.  Debating someone live will not permit that.

You weren't even there.  It was Rook, Brian, Kelly, and someone else.  

The verbal competition is also far more entertaining, and can really expose someone who has not thought their position through adequately (hence, why you wish not to do it).

I'd love the entertainment.

1. Only the ones who don't care to learn (like yourself).

2. No you haven't asked for money you're one of the donation machines slick lives. I apologize for the misidentification.

3. I'm even less of an expert than those who defeated him. If he did beat me, it wouldn't be an accomplishment. Why would I be afraid? I don't have an issue with learning new things. Slick just doesn't have anything to teach me.

I have not read if any one has repiled to you but just because someone has time to rebutt an argument doesnt make it any less valid if its still deafeated it doesnt matter if they can do it on the spot your the one who only has the ability to defeat someone in a live setting you can't beat someone in a text setting cause they can refute your argument everytime.