So..

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

Did any atheists here take up my offer and actually call into Matt Slick's radio show?

Or are you all a bunch of turkeys who act tough behind a computer but are unable to handle the rigors of live one-on-one debate?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Is it me or do I smell a

 Is it me or do I smell a false dilemma fallacy in this thread?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Did any

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Did any atheists here take up my offer and actually call into Matt Slick's radio show?

Or are you all a bunch of turkeys who act tough behind a computer but are unable to handle the rigors of live one-on-one debate?

I'm debating you right now, 1 on 1, and you're not doing much better than Matt has done on YouTube.

So what's your point?

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Is it me or

Sapient wrote:

 Is it me or do I smell a false dilemma fallacy in this thread?

Matt Slick was bold enough to go on your show and debate four atheists simultaneously.

Would you be willing to go on his show and debate him one-on-one?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Would

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Would you be willing to go on his show and debate him one-on-one?

You could invite him to debate me 1 on 1, here.

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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Would

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Would you be willing to go on his show and debate him one-on-one?

Is he still a presupper?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

Sapient wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Would you be willing to go on his show and debate him one-on-one?

Is he still a presupper?

Probably.

Remember when your old lady went on the show and got absolutely humiliated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMyfQBUMoM4


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Sapient

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Would you be willing to go on his show and debate him one-on-one?

Is he still a presupper?

Probably.

Then probably not.  I don't talk to presuppers, their too stupid to understand anything I'm saying.

 

Quote:
Remember when your old lady went on the show and got absolutely humiliated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMyfQBUMoM4

I didn't think she did that well in that one. Possibly because she was sick and didn't prepare.  I had to remind her that she had to call him a few minutes before she was set to be on air.  Even though I didn't think she did that well, I though Matt humiliated himself as I do almost every time I hear him speak.

Does it bother you at all that I see your hero as someone with some form of learning disability who interacts with atheists as if he is a moron?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Contact him, and tell him to

Contact him, and tell him to register an account here, and I'll debate him 1 on 1.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Is it me or

Sapient wrote:

 Is it me or do I smell a false dilemma fallacy in this thread?

I do.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
All I see is Mr_Meta,

All I see is Mr_Meta, oh-so-slowly stroking the shaft of his tiny penis while staring at this .jpeg:

 

 

I'm pretty sure that sums up the totality of his posting.  Slick the exact same argument Mr Meta has been vomiting out, only Slick is about ten times as vile.  Mr_Meta, if you can't convince anyone about the veracity of your argument, what do you expect Slick to do besides repeat the same drivel seen in ten youtube videos while being an ass?

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
To follow up, I can just

To follow up, I can just hear the condescending glee that would pour of of Mr Meta's mouth if we met every argument with a demand to go debate some random youtube hero.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
If anyone knows Matt Slick

If anyone knows Matt Slick personally, email him, and tell him to come here.

His 'arguments' aren't for smart people. They're for people who just aren't smart enough.

Tell him I said that.

 

TAG isn't even an 'argument'. It's a 'test'.

A total Snake Oil con job to call it an 'argument'.

It this how he makes his living? People send him money for his 'arguments' and 'logic'??

I guess the axiom "A sucker born every minute" is obviously applicable.

 

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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think he's a

 I don't think he's a con-man.  I think he has a learning disability. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I don't

Sapient wrote:

 I don't think he's a con-man.  I think he has a learning disability. 

Ignorance is never a defense for lying you know the 'truth'...

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
 No thank you. I did watch

 

No thank you. I did watch one of his shows just to see what he is like when not challenged. The thing is that when given the ability to ramble, he spent most of the show listing out what he perceived as occurrences of the trinity in the OT.

 

The jerk clearly did not know that that was not even a concept until after the second century and not fully formed until the fourth.

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

=


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Just to clarify, presupper =

Just to clarify, presupper = presupposition? As in the presuppose that logic, etc rely on christianity in the first place? If so, then that's a bit...absurd. :


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, I shall not speak to

 

OK, I shall not speak to others use of a term, especially when it is an abbrevation and the context is external to what is written. That being said, Matt Slick (as owl shit) is pretty much a standard presuppotionalist.

 

The usual meaning of the term is that there can be no coherent world view that is not derived from scripture. Anything that is not done scripturally and which is inconsistent with scripture is clearly incoherent.

 

Of course, this idea is rather easily overturned. Take anything from the bible which cannot possibly be true and see how it stacks up to known things which are in contradiction to that bit.

 

One of my favorites is the whole flat earth theory. The presuppers don't much care for that one because they are so weak in that area but if you are careful, you can back them into having no choice. Here is how it works:

 

In the gospels, there is a scene where the devil takes god jr. up to the top of a mountain so high that he can see all the knigdoms of the world. Really? The Olmec civilization of central America? The Chinese empire? The only way to make that work is with a flat earth.

 

The problem here is that the only instruments which are needed to measure the circumference of the world are two yard sticks. Well, that and a big empty flat place such as a public park but yah, it is really trivial. So trivial, that the idea was already known to the Greeks before the supposed time of god jr.

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

=


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OK, I shall not speak to others use of a term, especially when it is an abbrevation and the context is external to what is written. That being said, Matt Slick (as owl shit) is pretty much a standard presuppotionalist.

 

The usual meaning of the term is that there can be no coherent world view that is not derived from scripture. Anything that is not done scripturally and which is inconsistent with scripture is clearly incoherent.

 

Of course, this idea is rather easily overturned. Take anything from the bible which cannot possibly be true and see how it stacks up to known things which are in contradiction to that bit.

 

One of my favorites is the whole flat earth theory. The presuppers don't much care for that one because they are so weak in that area but if you are careful, you can back them into having no choice. Here is how it works:

 

In the gospels, there is a scene where the devil takes god jr. up to the top of a mountain so high that he can see all the knigdoms of the world. Really? The Olmec civilization of central America? The Chinese empire? The only way to make that work is with a flat earth.

 

The problem here is that the only instruments which are needed to measure the circumference of the world are two yard sticks. Well, that and a big empty flat place such as a public park but yah, it is really trivial. So trivial, that the idea was already known to the Greeks before the supposed time of god jr.

Yea, but you know it doesn't matter to them.  That is the danger with the entire idea behind the belief, you can't disprove it.  Any evidence to the contrary just means the evidence is wrong, or the interpretation of the Bible is wrong.  They won't put their beliefs in a position to be falsified.  Talking to them is a total waste of time because there core axiom is literally, "I can't be wrong (about theism)".  That's the problem with everything that comes out of Meta's/Slick's mouth...he can't be wrong, and if he is wrong, he isn't wrong.  To top it off, they can "prove" it by showing you their axioms!  So silly.

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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Sapient doesn't talk to presuppers (odd abbreviation) because he's scared. Come on Sapient, the real reason is because you will lose. Smiling

Ray Comfort is on the fence regarding this. I talked to him about it, and he's not sure. Though he once gave a lecture on this subject in Portland, Oregon where I'm from.

Who's Matt Slick? Is he related to Slick Willy? Or Willy Slick?

Debating atheists is extremely easy. Look at Rednef and I, he couldn't even get off the ground. He was like an old lady who has fallen and can't get up. Smiling

Though is Slick Will Matt a Roman Catholic? If so, he's going to hell like the atheists he's debating.

This is a very funny website.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Sapient doesn't talk to presuppers (odd abbreviation) because he's scared. Come on Sapient, the real reason is because you will lose. Smiling

Ray Comfort is on the fence regarding this. I talked to him about it, and he's not sure. Though he once gave a lecture on this subject in Portland, Oregon where I'm from.

Who's Matt Slick? Is he related to Slick Willy? Or Willy Slick?

Debating atheists is extremely easy. Look at Rednef and I, he couldn't even get off the ground. He was like an old lady who has fallen and can't get up. Smiling

Though is Slick Will Matt a Roman Catholic? If so, he's going to hell like the atheists he's debating.

This is a very funny website.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Unfortunately for you I did look at what you and redneF did. Why else do I think he schooled you?

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Though is

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Though is Slick Will Matt a Roman Catholic? If so, he's going to hell like the atheists he's debating.

Heaven must be a pretty empty place.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:Just to clarify,

lalib wrote:

Just to clarify, presupper = presupposition? As in the presuppose that logic, etc rely on christianity in the first place? If so, then that's a bit...absurd. :

Yes.  And yes, it's absurd.  It's fucking retarded.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13488
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Jean

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Though is Slick Will Matt a Roman Catholic? If so, he's going to hell like the atheists he's debating.

Heaven must be a pretty empty place.

This also address, even without the moral repugnant claim that kissing someones ass or get tortured forever, the efficiency of their god as a claim.

You look at all the males that have lived, are living and will live. They ejaculate millions of sperm per load and even  pee it out more than they actually make attempts. Only one sperm gets the egg. On average a human will have 1-3 kids in a lifetime, more poor societies, even more, but still not a one sperm to one egg ratio.

So, just the 7 billion living now, not counting the billions dead from the past, are a mere fraction to the attempts at life that do nothing.

And for what? So only a select few can get past the velvet ropes? All the major religions claim this. Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Seems like a ton of manufacturing waste just to produce very little.

AND on top of that what would a perfect being need with even this "select few". They can never give you their methodology as to even a ballpark number as to the capacity of this cosmic club.

Is it 10 people? Is it 100? Is it 1,000? Is it 10,000? Is it 100,000? Is it 1.000,000? Is it 10,000,000? Is it a billion? Is it all of us?

If we all turn to their god(insert god name here) what would a god need with 7 billion friends? If he doesn't need all of us, why do the inhuman thing and torture us forever even for the mere act of picking the wrong club?

A one to one ration sperm to egg would be efficient and should be possible for an "all powerful" being, if one is claiming that. But that is not reality and does not fit in with the the utopia myth that life is part of some sort of magic plan.

If any manufacturing plant had a CEO that had to face Trump in the boardroom with the same type of waste this fictional god has AS A CLAIM, Trump would say, "You're fired".

Life makes sense without fiction in that life is not perfect and biological life ALL BIOLOGICAL life makes many more attempts than it does in having success.

It makes no sense to postulate a god who "poof" did it and can do what he wants only to end up with this kind of waste. Much less one who not only won't let you into his club, but puts you in a torture chamber forever.

FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED WHOM WILL RESPOND, I AM STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT GOD AS A CLAIM not a provable reality.

I do not buy such absurd claims, especially claims that require emotional blackmail and stalker mentality to get one to comply.

The fictional character in the myth book called the bible is written like a tyrant, which WAS reflective of the REAL tribal mentality of the region of the time. You rooted for your tribe and you defended your tribe or else. So the myths they invented back then were nothing but political propaganda written for the audience of the time BACK THEN.

The the books of the Abraham tradition are the perfect manifesto for a street gang or fascist political party. It is all about obedience to one being with no ability to leave or question.

The only reason these traditions survive in the west today is because the believer(insert religion here) cherry picks.

I'll give Jean this, he is more true to his belief than liberals, which should scare the shit out of anyone who values freedom. He really believes in his bully of a god and to do that he has to take the bible literally, and their is tons in that vile book for him to justify his violent fantasies.

He is merely the Christian counterpart of the Taliban and Bin Laden.

What dip shit would claim "I have the right god, they dont" which misses the point, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK, your mentality of justifying violence as a form of control over others through emotional and physical threats, IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

"When my god uses violence and threats it's ok" That is what you advocate Jean.  I do not believe in your fictional god. AS A CLAIM it is horrible claim and worth every bit of scorn in a civil society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 That's it brian, the issue

 That's it brian, the issue is that followers of these gods can never see the fact that their god has all the pitfalls of mankind, anger, jealousy, hatred, fear and the desire for absolute control. God is just a larger version of the perversion of man's desire for control and order, as we are social creatures we need order. What is better than saying you have this god on your side and that your beliefs are right and that your wrong and going to hell. It is always a fear tatic used for almost all religions. The claim that god is perfect is illogical, he has all the fallacies of man. A perfect being has no need for anger, jealousy and hatred, to punish others eternally. A perfect being with a perfect understanding of the universe would, in my opinion, understand the problems with mankind, the reasons for those types of emotions, accept that of mankind and guide them towards peaceful co-existance, not one of warfare and absolute control. 

The whole idea that god is perfect but gets angry and jealous if someone doesn't follow his rules of ideology is stupid, why would a perfect being be upset about giving his creations a choice and then upset if they don't choice his way. It really is illogical. But rationality and logic are not part of faith, it never has been. There is no evidence whatsoever that god exists, yet one must have faith, the reason is because it contradicts our way of thinking, how can something exist if there is absolutely no evidence that it does exist, even more so, how can it contradict everything we know and understand of the universe and exist as per the believers statements? A perfect being has no use for anger, jealousy and hatred, yet god, a man-made creation has all the qualities you need to control a population, much like dictators around the world. 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Latin

Hi Latin,

God does not have emotions. These are figures of speech.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Remember when your old lady went on the show and got absolutely humiliated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMyfQBUMoM4

At about 3:37 into the video, Kelly says that there is no evidence of god other than personal experience. Mat replies by saying she is making a category mistake since god is the creator of the universe and not a product of the universe, and means other than material evidence are required to prove his existence.

When asked what evidence he has that god exists, Matt says 'personal experience and what is written in the bible'.

He then brought up the old argument that one can not show proof of love... to which Kelly said there is evidence in measurable activity in the brain.

To things come to mind...

First about brain activity: it has been proven that the human brain can convince itself of performing some activity when in reality it has not. This means that one can convince themselves of the existence of god even if god does not exist or, convince themselves they are in love when they are not.

Second, why didn't Matt quote Romans 1:18 to the question about evidence of god?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Why did Matt say that because god is not a product of the universe, there is no natural proof of his existence?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Latin,

God does not have emotions. These are figures of speech.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So we weren't made in the image of God because we have something God does not?

Or are you claiming that before the Fall we were all sociopaths like God?

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Latin,

God does not have emotions. These are figures of speech.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

God states in the commandents that he is a jealous god, that is an emotion, try try to void that all you want, make a figure of speech, it's just you ignoring the obvious as you always do in order to make believe your god as real as you want.....but anger, jealous and hatred are emotions, and god has them because he is a construct of man.