Matt Slick demonstrates he doesn't have a debate

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Matt Slick demonstrates he doesn't have a debate

In the debate of Reverend Matt Slick versus Doctor Edwin Kagin debate held at the University of West Florida in Pensacola, FL, April 17, 2008, Matt Slick defaults and demonstrates that he does not have a sound reasoning, upon which he can build any theory for any gods, at 3:23 of his opening statements.
 

" Simple Logical principle

If there are only 2 possibilities, and if 1 of the possiblilities is incapable of explaining it, then by default, the other is validated. ":  Matt Slick

 

The underlined segment of Matt Slick's statement shows the equivocation, and logical fallacy.

 

" Without logic, we don't have a debate. ":  Matt Slick

 

He has refuted his own (TAG) argument for the existence of a god.

There are more than 2 possibilities, to explain reality.

 

These people are really not too bright...

 

 

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
Again, you display a lot of

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.  


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again,

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.  

I'm willing to give you that, Mr Slick is very good in a life debate.  He is an expert in his field, this is his full time job.  He studies, debates and has about one hundred and one tricks up his sleeve that he has had time to practice countless times.  He knows when to back out of an argument that he will likely lose, he knows how to twist an argument to sound as if he's correct.  He is VERY good at what he does... 

What does that have to do with the validity of his arguments?  His argument should stand the dissection regardless of the medium through which is transmitted.  Time constraint or clever rhetorics have nothing to do with logic.

If Mr. Slick was indeed more then a clever preacher that speaks well, he would have no issue with a team of 100 atheists working together and taking their sweet ass time.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Mr_Metaphysics wrote:There

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
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.

 

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.

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

=


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 He seems to equate being

 He seems to equate being 'quick' with being 'correct'... you should meet some of those street corner scam artists, they're VERY quick.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Believe me, I have. Many

 

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.

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

=


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

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.

Smiling funny story , I have a few, mostly with the door to door types, but nothing that involved.

As for Mr. Slick, I'm sure there are those who can easily stand up to him, and have as proof all over youtube.  The point is, he practices the same arguments day in and day out.  This is what he does... of course he would be good at it.  We are all experts in our fields, if someone approached me regarding my field, that had a passing interest in it, I could easily make them look like fools if that was my intent.  And often, from what I see of Mr. Slick his intent is exactly that.  Not to present a valid argument, but to WIN an argument through clever misuse of logic.  Most arguments such as TAG or even some versions of OA need time to be dissected and shown the fallacies.  It took said proponent Years to reason all the fallacies through, if brought up in a debate, one shouldn't be expected to find all the flaws right away.  

The point that Mr Metaphysical is trying to make is completely idiotic and nonsensical.  It's the playground my dad can beat up your dad thing when the reality is that the dads would go to fucking jail if they fought... it's completely missing the mark.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Again, you display a lot of bravado when you get to hide behind a veil of text

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.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
but you refuse to actually call up Matt and debate him live on his radio show.

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.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
There is no excuse 

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.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
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. 

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' "

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Plainly and simply, you are a turkey. 

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.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You are a typical wimpy atheist

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.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
who is not secure enough with his own worldview to be able to defend it in a real setting.

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?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Discussion boards are not reality.

Just saying so, does not make it so.

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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 It was quite easy for me to defeat you in the text debate that we had

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.

 

 

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
Matt Slick owns an

Matt Slick owns an atheist:

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
You mean Matt Slick has

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.

 

 

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: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Matt

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Matt Slick owns an atheist:

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

2 minutes and 29 seconds of Matt Slick's infantile, moronic, passive aggressive bullying attempts at a 'group' of individuals, caught on film...

Thanks for the laugh!

 

The atheist clearly articulates what you morons can't seem to get through your incredibly dense skulls.

Morality is subjective.

 

What Matt Slick's objection appears to be, is the legal right for individuals to preach morality, of which, he has made a career. It seems he's objecting to his own rights to preach morality.

 

Matt Slick's dishonesty is astounding.

 

I love his contradicting himself and castigating an individual who agreed to have dialogue with him:

' Ok, so, as an atheist, you make up your moral base, on what you prefer.'

' Well, I'm not talking about 'others', making them up from other sources, I'm talking about you, and yours.'

' Well because, the atheists here.....'

'Thank you for rudely walking away...'

 

The BEST is when he starts pulling out his 'notes', and uses that as a basis to attack the idealogy of *cough* atheists.

 

Ever read the fucking ideologies in the Holy Babble you moron??

 

I love his 'tough guy' mafia henchman type stance and body language...

 

 

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


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

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).

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).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I haven't seen one single

I haven't seen one single christian debate worth an angel fart. I see some atheists that haven't given enough thought to certain issues that is all.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I haven't seen

robj101 wrote:

I haven't seen one single christian debate worth an angel fart.

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

 

 

 

 


 

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
 Matt Slick owns another

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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 Matt Slick owns another atheist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSw8Gh-PPA0&feature=related

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...

 

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: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: Matt

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 Matt Slick owns another atheist

Are you keeping my challenge to debate him here 1 on 1, away from him?

If so, why are you afraid to pass the challenge along?

If you have, why is he reluctant to accept and debate me here?

What is he afraid of?

 

Tell him that he's invited to debate me 1 on 1, here.

I dare you.

I dare him.

 

Go ahead, little fanboy, do your duty...

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
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 Matt Slick owns another atheist

Are you keeping my challenge to debate him here 1 on 1, away from him?

If so, why are you afraid to pass the challenge along?

If you have, why is he reluctant to accept and debate me here?

What is he afraid of?

 

Tell him that he's invited to debate me 1 on 1, here.

I dare you.

I dare him.

 

Go ahead, little fanboy, do your duty...

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.


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 You know he will make a complete ass out of you, just as I did in our debate thread.

I flipped you on your head, like a turtle.

Not only are you not very bright, but you wouldn't be a good fighter.

You lead with your chin, and telegraph so far in advance, it's not even funny.

 

Tell Slick, if he's the big man, to bring it on.

I'll have him for breakfast.

If not, fine.

I'll just blog about him here, and humiliate him, after I'm done putting a fine point on your moronic failures in our debate, and what sham tactics you clowns are all about.

 

He keeps boasting that he likes a fight.

It's clear to me he doesn't really...

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


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Where can one find the

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.

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mrOriginal wrote:Give me the

mrOriginal wrote:

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

This guy is just a fucking shill for Slick's radio show.

It could be Slick himself.

 

He doesn't want a debate, because he doesn't have a clue, much less an argument.

He doesn't want to debate out in the open. Everytime he does, he gets pissy after he gets his ass handed to him.

 

He just wants to showboat for his fanboys and girls, and give themselves the delusion that if they mimic Slick, they'll actually come off sounding smart.

He's a salesman for himself.

He's not trying to be objective.

 

 

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: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A debate in written form

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.

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:A debate in

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

Slick isn't interested in such an argument, but neither is Mr Meta. He's exhausted his (somewhat limited) complement of philosophical arguments, so he goes to a back up of galling people to attack his hero of the moment.

“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)


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

mrOriginal wrote:

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.

Go to http://carm.org/radio


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

mrOriginal wrote:

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.

Go to http://carm.org/radio

Interesting solution Mr. M.

You read where Mr. O complains about slick avoiding questions so the only option you offer is for him to go where Slick has complete control over the mic (i.e., cutting a person's mic and not letting them know it or dropping a call and saying that his opponent "gave up&quotEye-wink.

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:A debate in

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

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

 

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: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 Matt Slick owns another atheist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSw8Gh-PPA0&feature=related

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...

 

RedneF owns Mr_Metaphysics.

- 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
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

mrOriginal wrote:

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.

Go to http://carm.org/radio

Interesting solution Mr. M.

You read where Mr. O complains about slick avoiding questions so the only option you offer is for him to go where Slick has complete control over the mic (i.e., cutting a person's mic and not letting them know it or dropping a call and saying that his opponent "gave up&quotEye-wink.

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?


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

mrOriginal wrote:

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.

Go to http://carm.org/radio

Interesting solution Mr. M.

You read where Mr. O complains about slick avoiding questions so the only option you offer is for him to go where Slick has complete control over the mic (i.e., cutting a person's mic and not letting them know it or dropping a call and saying that his opponent "gave up&quotEye-wink.

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?

Not to you Christian sheep (especially when he convinces you that the caller he cut off gave up because he was out-matched).

I know of Robert Sungenis - who's Todd?

"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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not to you

jcgadfly wrote:

Not to you Christian sheep (especially when he convinces you that the caller he cut off gave up because he was out-matched).

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?


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not to you Christian sheep (especially when he convinces you that the caller he cut off gave up because he was out-matched).

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?

I've always cared what people think. That's why I try to help people accept as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Christians like Slick and yourself treat people like donation machines. Not into feeding that mentality, thanks.

You do know that Slick got his hind parts handed to him in all those instances you cited, right? He is an expert in his field and gets paid for this and got schooled by amateurs. Why should I add to his misery? Can you answer that? I thought you liked this guy.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Because his style too easily

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.

 

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I've always

jcgadfly wrote:

I've always cared what people think. That's why I try to help people accept as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Christian sheep already think you are a moron; what difference does it make if they think that Matt Slick beat you in a debate?

Quote:
Christians like Slick and yourself treat people like donation machines. Not into feeding that mentality, thanks.

Hahahaha, where did I ask for donations?  You don't have to donate anything.  Just call in and debate him.  If you have a good argument, then it will not matter if he cuts you off.  He will be the one who looks bad, not you.  Don't tell me that the reason is that Christian sheep will think you are foolish; they already do.  

There's no excuse.  You are afraid because you know he would defeat you.

Quote:
You do know that Slick got his hind parts handed to him in all those instances you cited, right? He is an expert in his field and gets paid for this and got schooled by amateurs. Why should I add to his misery? Can you answer that? I thought you liked this guy.

Hahaha, now you are changing the subject.  I'm not going to let you do that.  Call into his show.  Make him be schooled like an amateur.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Because his

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

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).

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:If you

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If you have a good argument, then it will not matter if he cuts you off. 

Of course he could still come to the online arena, where the playing field is perfectly level -no exceptions, no excuses- and save us the trouble of facing him when he has control of all the fancy toys. He won't, because all the advantages he maintains on his show would quickly evaporate. We'll continue to read about you moaning and groaning, because we probably will never bother with your token philosopher (not when he could come here himself.)

 

What difference could it make if don't, anyways? What do you stand to gain from that? Why do you grasp on to our confronting Slick like diamonds? What's the POINT?  What difference does it make?

“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)


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

Kapkao wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If you have a good argument, then it will not matter if he cuts you off. 

Of course he could still come to the online arena, where the playing field is perfectly level -no exceptions, no excuses- and save us the trouble of facing him when he has control of all the fancy toys. He won't, because all the advantages he maintains on his show would quickly evaporate. We'll continue to read about you moaning and groaning, because we probably will never bother with your token philosopher (not when he could come here himself.)

 

What difference could it make if don't, anyways? What do you stand to gain from that? Why do you grasp on to our confronting Slick like diamonds? What's the POINT?  What difference does it make?

I'd love the entertainment.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 
BobSpence1 wrote:
 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.
 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. 
 The fallacy of your argument here has repeatedly been pointed out to you. This format most definitely does add extraneous factors, such as the verbal fluency and style, and ability to respond quickly to affect the overall impression conveyed of which side 'won'. THAT is the problem, 
Quote:
 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. 
 Winning a verbal debate is simply not a good test of ideas. Each side in a forum debate has ample opportunity to 'Google' or update themselves on points they are not initially familiar with, which is what I was doing in that debate to come to grips exactly what modal logic and S5 was about. This makes it a far better and fairer test. There was nothing stopping you doing the same, and I wish you had, it might have been more interseting. The number of points you clearly didn't understand, and even said so, was a sad indictment of the shallowness of your true understanding of the topic, and how much time you spent researching widely, That is what makes it almost completely fair. There could still be an issue if one person has poorer ability to express themselves in composing a written response, even given adequate time. 
Quote:
Quote:
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.
 You weren't even there.  It was Rook, Brian, Kelly, and someone else. 
 WTF has that to do with it? I, and many others, heard it live, and some of us even posted live responses. I was using the word 'we' to refer to RRS, not me individually, if that was your 'point'. 
Quote:
Quote:
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.
 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). 
 It can show that, but that doesn't mean their position is invalid, in any case. It puts someone who has poorer verbal skills and prefers to think through his responses and ideas more carefully, and is aware of subtle difference in different contexts, at an unfair disadvantage. Of course it is more entertaining, a major reason why Slick does it! He is not trying to learn from his debates, or inform his listeners about alternative views, he already 'knows' in his own mind he is 'right'!

 

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I've always cared what people think. That's why I try to help people accept as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Christian sheep already think you are a moron; what difference does it make if they think that Matt Slick beat you in a debate?

Quote:
Christians like Slick and yourself treat people like donation machines. Not into feeding that mentality, thanks.

Hahahaha, where did I ask for donations?  You don't have to donate anything.  Just call in and debate him.  If you have a good argument, then it will not matter if he cuts you off.  He will be the one who looks bad, not you.  Don't tell me that the reason is that Christian sheep will think you are foolish; they already do.  

There's no excuse.  You are afraid because you know he would defeat you.

Quote:
You do know that Slick got his hind parts handed to him in all those instances you cited, right? He is an expert in his field and gets paid for this and got schooled by amateurs. Why should I add to his misery? Can you answer that? I thought you liked this guy.

Hahaha, now you are changing the subject.  I'm not going to let you do that.  Call into his show.  Make him be schooled like an amateur.

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 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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: He seems to

Ktulu wrote:

 He seems to equate being 'quick' with being 'correct'...

 

    Exactly.  What a flimsy way of measuring mental acumen.   Let's see, in a debate between Creationist Kent Hovind and theoretical physicists and cosmologist Stephen Hawkings who do you think could best quickly rattle off pithy "responses" ?  Hovind of course.   It's his stock in trade.

 

   On the other hand, who do you believe actually has valid academic credentials, an accurate understanding of the topic at hand and the resources to validate his observations ?   The slow "speaking", wheel chair bound Stephen Hawkings. 

 

  One can be "quick speaking" and still be an imbecile.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again,

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.  

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.


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I don't think you are worried about them.

Nobody here cares what theists 'think', or 'believe'.  

It's about what can be proved.

Matt Slick is an idiot, and irrational. That is not an opinion, it's a fact. It's demonstrable.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
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.

That's not a possibility, for me at least.

Slick has a learning disability, and is mentally retarded.

You both equivocate, and talk over, and past people.

So, there's no possible way to have an honest dialogue with people like that.

Both you and he, are dishonest, as well.

 

I'll illustrate clearly, just how his level of discourse is not even sober.

Keep in mind as well, that this is something he has rehearsed and is his 'thesis'...

 

- "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. ":  Matt Slick

This non sequitur is a basic tenet of his 'thesis'.

It is also one of the most retarded tautologies to overcomplicate and obfuscate that 1 thing is not another thing.

 

Here is another completely retarded tenet of his 'thesis' and 'argument' :

-"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." : Matt Slick

I don't even know what he thinks that is supposed to illustrate, other than assuming that assumptive logic can predict a priori events and occurrences based on 'linear' assumptions, which is completely retarded, as any physicist, chemist, or dynamicist knows.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
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?  

You're equivocating, by saying he 'debates' anyone, when he's not at the intellectual level of the person he is having dialogue with. He likes to 'fight' above his 'intellectual' weight class, is a good analogy.

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

1- Because he has no shame.

2- Because he's too ignorant to even grasp the limitations of his spacial-temporal and qualitative reasoning, and mistakenly assumes he's at a peer level with everyone he's talking to.

3- Extreme hubris.

4- Because he's equivocal and thinks no one will pick up on it.

 

Based on every debate I've seen, or heard him in, he appears to be completely irrational and inconsolable.

IOW, in his own little world.

Just like you...

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