Atheists should call Matt Slick

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
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.

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
That's kosher with me...

ktulu wrote:

He can always use the church's computer, it's probably blessed, and so, holier then thou art.  

That's kosher with 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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Calling William Lame

Calling William Lame Craig

Calling Mudd Slick

Calling John Atkinks

 

Wassa matta?

Can't figga out how ta uze dem computa thingeez and gits togedda?

 

Were eez y'all hiden?

I'm gittin bored ova heeya.

 

Let's git it on boyz...

 

Bring 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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
14 hrs after my last

14 hrs after my last post....

 

Still no sign of the Master Debatur(s)...

 

I guess they're cramming....

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Another 19 hrs later, and

Another 19 hrs later, and still no Master Debatur.

Guess his worldview ain't really that defensible...

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Another 19 hrs

redneF wrote:

Another 19 hrs later, and still no Master Debatur.

Guess his worldview ain't really that defensible...

We can never know about the days to come
But we think about them anyway, yay
And I wonder if I'm really with you now
Or just chasin' after some finer day

Anticipation, anticipation
Is makin' me late
Is keepin' me waitin'

Gee I love Carly.... Hang in there... He is posting elsewhere go ask him WTF While I do not care for debates I would do a one on one discussion with him sorta like Alexister McGrath (nice polite theist) vs Dawkins. My popcorn has gotten stale. 

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Nah...I'm not going to stalk

Nah...I'm not going to stalk him for a debate.

I'm just going to use this thread to demonstrate that he's just another theist pussy who likes to run his mouth.

He's no better than any other theist, although he likes to thump about being scholarly and sophisticated.

 

He's just a 1 trick pony, who's not that good at the 1 trick he knows.

 

Just this OP alone, demonstrates who he thinks is a devastatingly good theist master debatur.

 

Theists can't debate when they have to think on their feet. They have a 'bag of tricks', and only play ball within those confines.

 

 

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Nah...I'm not

redneF wrote:

Nah...I'm not going to stalk him for a debate.

I'm just going to use this thread to demonstrate that he's just another theist pussy who likes to run his mouth.

He's no better than any other theist, although he likes to thump about being scholarly and sophisticated.

 

He's just a 1 trick pony, who's not that good at the 1 trick he knows.

 

Just this OP alone, demonstrates who he thinks is a devastatingly good theist master debatur.

 

Theists can't debate when they have to think on their feet. They have a 'bag of tricks', and only play ball within those confines.

 

 

What is the exact topic that will be debated? 


 

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
IOW Let the best

IOW Let the best MASTERdeBATER win!

lol, I know it's immature but I couldn't help it. 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: What is the

TGBaker wrote:

 What is the exact topic that will be debated? 

The topic of the debate I chose for Mr_Metaphysics and I, was Personal Reasoning.

 

We were to debate his vs 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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Hey redneF watch Matt Slick

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Hey redneF

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

I oughtta slap the skin off your face for replying before I could edit my previous post...

 

 

For Matt:

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

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.

 

 

Whatya fussin about? I'd hit that shit sideways...

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Hey redneF

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

Cool.

Let's see what Mr_Metaphysics' hero, is all about...

 

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:TGBaker wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

I oughtta slap the skin off your face for replying before I could edit my previous post...

 

 

For Matt:

 

 

fastest click in the west sorry dude


 

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Hey redneF

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

Got to part 2, and it ain't lookin' too good for Slick...

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

Got to part 2, and it ain't lookin' too good for Slick...

I d/led it and am gonna convert it to DVD.  It ain't pretty. I think there's a follow up too.


 

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Got to part 2, and it ain't lookin' too good for Slick...

I d/led it and am gonna convert it to DVD.  It ain't pretty. I think there's a follow up too.

It's ironic that Mr_M would point us to Slick, when this video clearly shows the fallacy which makes Mr_M's whole 'argument' in the other threads, a complete logical fallacy.

How many of us pointed it out, in soooooooooooooooooooooo many different ways.

 

Both Slick and Mr_M (and all theists/theism) make, is that they conflate 'conceptual' reality, with 'actual' reality, and ATTEMPT to make the 2 mutually inclusive.

a= personal conceptual mental model of x

b=absolute universal reality of x

a is possibly (but not necessarily)= b

a is possibly (but not necessarily) completely incompatible with universal reality (IOW: out to lunch)

 

Why these 'scholars' need to have such a simple basic concepts like that 'taught' to them (in order to explain the logical fallacy they've made), probably gives a clear indication of some kind of mental 'block'.

It's weird.

I don't get it.

They're really dense. There's no other way to describe it.

Or, they're just cons, who are simply trying to get away with equivocating...

 


 

 

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Got to part 2, and it ain't lookin' too good for Slick...

I d/led it and am gonna convert it to DVD.  It ain't pretty. I think there's a follow up too.

It's ironic that Mr_M would point us to Slick, when this video clearly shows the fallacy which makes Mr_M's whole 'argument' in the other threads, a complete logical fallacy.

How many of us pointed it out, in soooooooooooooooooooooo many different ways.

 

Both Slick and Mr_M (and all theists/theism) make, is that they conflate 'conceptual' reality, with 'actual' reality, and ATTEMPT to make the 2 mutually inclusive.

a= personal conceptual mental model of x

b=absolute universal reality of x

a is possibly (but not necessarily)= b

a is possibly (but not necessarily) completely incompatible with universal reality (IOW: out to lunch)

 

Why these 'scholars' need to have such a simple basic concepts like that 'taught' to them (in order to explain the logical fallacy they've made), probably gives a clear indication of some kind of mental 'block'.

It's weird.

I don't get it.

They're really dense. There's no other way to describe it.

Or, they're just cons, who are simply trying to get away with equivocating...

 


 

 

It's the need to believe and to cling on to a limitless mind that creates our conceptual thoughts so they are valid I guess.  If our concepts are really god's then we ain;t delusional. If they are our own thoughts we piss our pants because we're afraid of the dark.  The Eastern thing is similar Absolute , boundless consciousness.  Take both put them in a bag and it's look mama it's shake and bake and I helped. ( I miss that old commercial ). I think from our perspective we are left with are our physical laws generated and or contained within the continuum that we call the universe? Or is it that our universe is limited from the source of which it came about?  If they are contained then it COULD BE that 2+2=5 in the multiverse next door. It would reek havoc on our property value.  If so perhaps that is what closes off one multiverse from another I prefer (continuum ).


 

"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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Yah, the 500 word rule

 

Yah, the 500 word rule should have been the giveaway on that one. If you need that much to make a point, then you are already lost.

 

For the record, the rules in AvT are not so dramatic. Each debate can have the rules worked out in advance by the specific participants. I just don't see how allowing verbal diarrhea is going to help Mr. M make his point. Not that he had any intention of making a point but still....

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 Yah, the 500 word rule should have been the giveaway on that one. If you need that much to make a point, then you are already lost.

He tried to 'box me in' in the thread I started that he totally hijacked, with his BS.

It's not going to happen.

There's no 'negotiating' for 'facts', or for 'proof'.

As soon as someone starts to negotiate, you know they have NOTHING, in reality, to 'show' you, that is:

1- Actual fact

2- Actual proof

 

Facts and proof are unequivocal.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
For the record, the rules in AvT are not so dramatic. Each debate can have the rules worked out in advance by the specific participants. I just don't see how allowing verbal diarrhea is going to help Mr. M make his point. Not that he had any intention of making a point but still....

The irony is, they're not 'debating', but want to complain that their opponents posts are too long.

They're 'arguing'. And they're arguments are full of fallacies, non sequiturs, equivocations etc, etc, and you have to spend 3/4 of your post ripping them apart.

Listen to this debate that TG Baker linked to. It's 50 minutes of trying to get that Slick guy to even grasp the distinction between 'conceptual', and 'actual'.

 

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Yah, the 500 word rule should have been the giveaway on that one. If you need that much to make a point, then you are already lost.

 

For the record, the rules in AvT are not so dramatic. Each debate can have the rules worked out in advance by the specific participants. I just don't see how allowing verbal diarrhea is going to help Mr. M make his point. Not that he had any intention of making a point but still....

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Hey redneF

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

 

Hey TG, I think you'll get a total kick out of this. The audio is terrible, but Slick loses his mind, with this young kid who keeps clearly pointing out the logical fallacies in Slick's 'TAG' argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-P3GuzVQ_I&feature=related

 

Then there's some more from this TBS guy, dismantling Slick's TAG argument here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8dePAhDMh4

 

And TBS's analysis of the Matt/Matt debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GET502pP3go&feature=relmfu

 

This Slick guy's whole career was based on his strawman, and now the burning of his strawman TAG has gone viral, and he's fucked...

 

The strawman burning also destroy's the OA, and the KCA arguments as well.

 

Hat trick checkmate!

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am already missing our

I am already missing our chew-toy Mr_M.

He was away for a few days before, maybe he'll come back.

Especially now I have finally nailed the technical flaw in his argument (I think!).

Any OA, trying to argue the existence of any aspect of reality purely from reason and logic, ie no empirical evidence, is inherently flawed, but it can be tricky to pin the problem down in a strict sense when it is based on slippery interpretations of words like 'great', 'unlimited', etc.

The flaw in the Modal version is actually easier to pin down, because it relies on terms which are well-defined, but it can still be a bit tricky to work through.

I do like TBS's videos.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

 

Hey TG, I think you'll get a total kick out of this. The audio is terrible, but Slick loses his mind, with this young kid who keeps clearly pointing out the logical fallacies in Slick's 'TAG' argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-P3GuzVQ_I&feature=related

 

Then there's some more from this TBS guy, dismantling Slick's TAG argument here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8dePAhDMh4

 

And TBS's analysis of the Matt/Matt debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GET502pP3go&feature=relmfu

 

This Slick guy's whole career was based on his strawman, and now the burning of his strawman TAG has gone viral, and he's fucked...

 

The strawman burning also destroy's the OA, and the KCA arguments as well.

 

Hat trick checkmate!

 

 

 

Lol, Slick is such a condescending prick.  I love the smell of Christian love, it just wafts off him like a fog.

 

But I bet if he repeats himself enough, he'll win, amirite?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:redneF

mellestad wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey redneF watch Matt Slick get slicked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

 

Hey TG, I think you'll get a total kick out of this. The audio is terrible, but Slick loses his mind, with this young kid who keeps clearly pointing out the logical fallacies in Slick's 'TAG' argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-P3GuzVQ_I&feature=related

 

Then there's some more from this TBS guy, dismantling Slick's TAG argument here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8dePAhDMh4

 

And TBS's analysis of the Matt/Matt debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GET502pP3go&feature=relmfu

 

This Slick guy's whole career was based on his strawman, and now the burning of his strawman TAG has gone viral, and he's fucked...

 

The strawman burning also destroy's the OA, and the KCA arguments as well.

 

Hat trick checkmate!

 

 

 

Lol, Slick is such a condescending prick.  I love the smell of Christian love, it just wafts off him like a fog.

 

But I bet if he repeats himself enough, he'll win, amirite?

It's even better on the barbie with a little garlic salt and soy sauce. 


 

"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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I think this might apply to

I think this might apply to Mr. M as well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GET502pP3go&feature=relmfu

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I am

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am already missing our chew-toy Mr_M.

He was away for a few days before, maybe he'll come back.

Especially now I have finally nailed the technical flaw in his argument (I think!).

Any OA, trying to argue the existence of any aspect of reality purely from reason and logic, ie no empirical evidence, is inherently flawed, but it can be tricky to pin the problem down ...

Nah.

You're trying too hard to be 'compelling' enough for him to concede defeat.

You, I, and a number of posters have defeated his 'theorum' as it stood, and within his structure and guidelines. The obvious flaw that is implicit, is that his formula inherently adds a superfluous 'constraint', by making it a hard physical value, of 1.

That's one flaw right there.

There are NOT dedcutively reasoning at all, about the origins of the universe, and biological life. They are 'boxed in' to desperately confirming their presuppositions.

It's simply ad nauseum navel gazing, and circular reasoning that should be in the Guinness Book of World Records of longest ad nauseum Null Hypothesis argument on a topic.

 

Apart from that, the overall 'method' of trying to prove anything a priori, is nothing more than an educated guess. Any 'guess' (educated or not) cannot overcome Boole's Inequality Theorum, and have any better odds that a simple coin toss.

As an electrical engineer, this is old hat for you. There are hundreds of patents issued on circuit designs that simply 'don't work', even though they can be argued to be 'logical'.

The same applies to 'medical devices'. I had a book on hundreds of medical devices that patents were granted to, that nobody could proved to be 'practical', or 'workable'.

 

Logic is simply intuition based on the past. It is NOT knowledge of the future, or a 'crystal ball' into what exists beyond our 'natural' PAST experiences and factual knowledge.

Any claims that a 'logic' can unequivocally accurately predict that a god exists, are not worth the paper they were written on. Otherwise they would have receieved a Nobel Prize, and would completely change the scope of the entire world, and all of humanity.

That would make a god retarded POS if he saw all the earthly human conflict surrounding him, to not just make an appearance, and settle the conflict.

It's completely logical to be skeptical of any claims of the supernatural.

I think if there were a god, he'd be impressed with how some of us, don't just go 'biting an apple' that's offered to us...

 

 

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Matt Slick is a slimy

Matt Slick is a slimy bigoted con artist, and a bold faced liar.

His videos are simply 'commercials' for techinques to 'attack atheists', and non theistic worldviews, and how to boost self esteem among Christian minions, using his 'techniques' and arming them with strawman and logical fallacy arguments, so they can overcome their feelings of inadequacies that are part and parcel of the 'lack' of empirical evidence to be able to verify that they have more than a placebo god (delusion).

He offers nothing more than a technique to 'agree with yourself that you are 'logical', and they are not'.

By his own 'disclaimer', Slick (I love that name...lol) does NOT claim he can prove a god exists in reality, but merely he has an defensive'offering' (that sets a groundwork for an offensive), of a subjective (personal) 'logical' intuition that one can use to make themselves feel better about themselves, and a reason to feel justified in a prejudice towards secularist skeptics, naturalists and humanists.

 

"Christians often have to face various challenges to their faith. 

One of the most daunting, is to "prove" that God exists. Usually, it's the atheists that offer this challenge, and when the Christian doesn't respond with some proof, the atheist feels like he's been vindicated in his atheism.

Well, do you think it's possible to prove God's existence? I'll do, and I'll attempt to do so, using the TAG (transcendental argument for god's existence)"

 

He will then go on babbling about some made up phenomenon based on a vacuous placebo concept called 'Logical Absolutes', which is nothing but a human construct of one's own imagination, in an attempt to arbitrarily attribute scientific 'Natural Laws of Physics', into design and order 'Made Absolute By God'.

 

We should label this guy Professor Slick Bullshit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLWm_123lZU&feature=related

 

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, I can't really watch

 

OK, I can't really watch that video right now. There is a limit to how much Matt Slick I can take at one time and I blew that by watching his whole damned show last night. He spent over twenty minutes reading passages from the OT that show the existence of the trinity.

 

Granted, you can find anything in the bible but still, since the bible is not correct, the crap that you find there is hardly proof of anything.

 

But Hey! He seems to have a cross shaped spaceship at the beginning of the video. I wonder if he knows why that would be a huge problem? No, actually I don't wonder. He is so brain dead that he could never see the issue which it presents.

 

First off, there is little perspective in space. Think about this for a second, when you see a huge passenger jet flying overhead, it probably appears as smaller than they toys you player with as a kid. So you can't tell how big the flying cross thing is. It could be a tiny thing that is a few thousand miles above the earth.

 

That being said, I think he meant it to be a huge thing at fairly low earth orbit.

 

Well, then the side bits where the arms would have been nailed to would have to flex under even modest acceleration. When that happens, the lever arm force is going to be measured in units of G (the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth). It will be at least a wild ride and probably fatal. Heck but even the strongest cargo will be crushed.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=