Any Thoughts about Kelly Vs Matt Slick Debate [Trollville]

Karma2Grace
Theist
Karma2Grace's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Any Thoughts about Kelly Vs Matt Slick Debate [Trollville]

Kelly was childish and frequently failed to backup her claims!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not true. Matt Slick was a

Not true. Matt Slick was a total dumbass and dickwad. He refused to answer questions and just cried the whole time. Crybaby.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to hear a

I'd like to hear a recording or read a transcript....

 

Otherwise it's all just hearsay. 


Karma2Grace
Theist
Karma2Grace's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Here you go

Here you go

http://www.carm.org/audio/pod/fnr_06_15_07.mp3

 

To List some obvious points

1. She didn't backup her claim that Mithraism predates christianity by thousands of years  (It is totally FALSE)

2.  There is no external reference to historical Jesus (She could't refute the list of references provided by Matt)

 

Here it yourself!


Karma2Grace
Theist
Karma2Grace's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Not

MattShizzle wrote:
Not true. Matt Slick was a total dumbass and dickwad. He refused to answer questions and just cried the whole time. Crybaby.

 Is that a best you could do? Attacking personality than his views? I am ready for your attack on my personality..go on...


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Calling Kelly childish is

Calling Kelly childish is attacking her as a person as well.  I suggest both of you put away your claws and have a reasonable debate. 

I'm not quite sure what you're point is in this thread.  Do you care to refute Kelly?  Do you have something to add?  If so, please do so.  Or at least do more than attach a link and tell us exactly what you think of the debate, other than the fact that Kelly acted 'childish'.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Five minutes into the show

Five minutes into the show and Matt's arguements are already so absurd they defy stupidity.  Perhaps Kelly has a problem of dumbing herself down to Matt's level. I find it hard trying to simplify things to the willfully mentally retarded, especially one like Matt who contradicts himself and is too stupid to realize it.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Karma2Grace wrote: 2.

Karma2Grace wrote:
2. There is no external reference to historical Jesus (She could't refute the list of references provided by Matt)

The problem with that argument is that giving anyone a list about a field they don't know like the back of their hand while limiting their time isn't going to say much about the claims. You might have something if it was rook on the show, but thats because he studies this subject a lot.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
As I was listening to the

As I was listening to the debate, the first impression I got was Kelly began with several assumptions that Matt was about and when Matt brought up most of the main points of his discussion, Kelly was obviously shaken up by it and tried to go back to the basic RRS arguments. For example her immediate statement of Matt making claims of God's attributes when it should have been understood that he wasn't making a claim of God's existence but if God existed, these would be his characteristics. You could tell that Kelly was being VERY subjective and began the argument with prejudice. "Atheism is the default position" or "Until someone is taught God beliefs..." and a few others I heard are all subjective.

Case in point...

D-cubed wrote:
Five minutes into the show and Matt's arguements are already so absurd they defy stupidity. Perhaps Kelly has a problem of dumbing herself down to Matt's level. I find it hard trying to simplify things to the willfully mentally retarded, especially one like Matt who contradicts himself and is too stupid to realize it.

What makes his arguments absurd?  Because they are simple and don't use 50 dollar words? 

It was interesting to listen to Matt try to differentiate between scientific and historical evidence.

It was also interesting that its OK for no evidence to support atheism vs. it's invalid to say God exists without evidence. Proving a negative: Prove God exists with evidence. Nothing there? OK then the default has got to be atheism even if there isn't proof of that.

It was very rude of Brian to step in. It was not his debate and if he wanted to participate he needs to set up a debate. That was very poor form.

Sarcasm is also very rude "Why don't you pray to God to give you the question" was very rude.

Lastly, Kelly does need to learn how to allow others to speak but in perspective, heated debates often are hard to control turn based style.

My overall impression of the chat was what my overall impression of many RRS members has been: stop the assumptions and justifications by various fallacies and out of context statements and debate the specifics.

I wonder who else would debate Matt Slick?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: What

razorphreak wrote:

What makes his arguments absurd? Because they are simple and don't use 50 dollar words?

It was interesting to listen to Matt try to differentiate between scientific and historical evidence.

It was also interesting that its OK for no evidence to support atheism vs. it's invalid to say God exists without evidence. Proving a negative: Prove God exists with evidence. Nothing there? OK then the default has got to be atheism even if there isn't proof of that.

I only listened to the first five minutes seeing it as the limit of Matt's intellectual discourse.  Kelly presents her as an agnostic atheist so Matt asks her what evidence she has a god doesn't exist.  Well, Kelly already said she was an agnostic atheist so that should have been enough but Matt wants her to disprove a negative, already using illogical arguments.

Next Matt claims god is separate from this universe however he believes in the bible.  So a god is separate from the universe he creates and interacts with.  That is a contradiction.  Kelly is apparently dumbfounded at Matt's contradiction and can't believe his utter stupidity in failing to see this contradiction.

This was in the first five minutes.  Am I to believe a miracle happened and Matt got more intelligent?

By all means present the most brilliant argument Matt presented for the existence of his god because I'm not going to sift through an hour of stupidity waiting for one to appear. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: By all means

D-cubed wrote:
By all means present the most brilliant argument Matt presented for the existence of his god because I'm not going to sift through an hour of stupidity waiting for one to appear.

For a second I thought about starting the debate on the points you made but I remembered this thread is about the conversation.  If you feel his arguments were stupid yet you never listened to the whole thing, sounds to me like a ad hominem attack anyway.  Whatever then... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: For a

razorphreak wrote:

For a second I thought about starting the debate on the points you made but I remembered this thread is about the conversation. If you feel his arguments were stupid yet you never listened to the whole thing, sounds to me like a ad hominem attack anyway. Whatever then...

I've known of Matt for years and have debated him in the past.  He used the same refuted arguments then as he does now.  Will my listening to an hour of stupidity present something new?  I doubt it.  Since you clearly couldn't present any good arguments of his then I know I made the proper decision.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I thought that show was

I thought that show was painful to listen to. In my opinion the RRS cut him WAYYYY to much slack and was too nice to him. Still, his ass was completely PWNED!

Anytime he was asked a legitimate question he dodged it by accusing them of interrupting him, and he interrupted constantly. He also whined that there were 3 of them. Worst guest ever.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: I've known

D-cubed wrote:
I've known of Matt for years and have debated him in the past. He used the same refuted arguments then as he does now. Will my listening to an hour of stupidity present something new? I doubt it. Since you clearly couldn't present any good arguments of his then I know I made the proper decision.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize you wanted me to do your job.  Why does that sound so familiar...

MattShizzle wrote:
I thought that show was painful to listen to. In my opinion the RRS cut him WAYYYY to much slack and was too nice to him. Still, his ass was completely PWNED!

Anytime he was asked a legitimate question he dodged it by accusing them of interrupting him, and he interrupted constantly. He also whined that there were 3 of them. Worst guest ever.

Funny, I thought Kelly did the exact same thing.  When Brian interrupted, he told him to schedule a debate...has he?  When Kelly twisted his words into trying to say something that he didn't, what did you call that?  When she kept interrupting him when he was trying to make a point, what do you call that?  You could hear it for yourself he speaks like two words and she kept speaking her previous point changing the subject and going back to the "prove it to me" argument when they weren't even talking about that.  So what do you call that?

Dude you really need to chill out. 

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Oh I'm

razorphreak wrote:

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize you wanted me to do your job. Why does that sound so familiar...

Oh okay, so I'm supposed to present Matt's best argument.  Hmmm, so far I've gone 45 more seconds and found another flawed argument claiming that Kelly must have omniscience to know that she isn't aware of any evidence for god presented to her (another illogical argument).

When Kelly asked for evidence Matt admitted he couldn't provide any (using the same love argument that he used 10 years ago so he hasn't developed anything new).  Kelly provided scientific fact to rebut him but Matt was too stupid to realize it. (7.5 minutes into the debate).

 So I should expect something more intelligent from Matt in the following 52 minutes?

At least Matt admitted he has a hearing deficiency, he just needs to admit to the learning disability.  Since you clearly can't present any intelligent arguments by Matt I'll safely assume that he has none. 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
My goodness, 16 minutes

My goodness, 16 minutes into this garbage.  This is painful to listen to.  Matt is sooooo utterly ignorant, he doesn't even believe in the concept of fiction.  Whenever asked to support his claims Matt avoids and dodges, like he has done for years.

Can any theist provide any reason why I should assume this "debate" (debates are often 2 sided, this is just Kelly pwning Matt)? 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He'd just gab on about

He'd just gab on about something that had nothing to do with the question asked. Ray Comfort was an intellectual compared to this asshat.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Karma2Grace

Karma2Grace wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Not true. Matt Slick was a total dumbass and dickwad. He refused to answer questions and just cried the whole time. Crybaby.

Is that a best you could do? Attacking personality than his views?

 Hey Christ-tard, that is exactly how you started you fucking hypocrite.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: D-cubed

razorphreak wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
By all means present the most brilliant argument Matt presented for the existence of his god because I'm not going to sift through an hour of stupidity waiting for one to appear.

For a second I thought about starting the debate on the points you made but I remembered this thread is about the conversation. If you feel his arguments were stupid yet you never listened to the whole thing, sounds to me like a ad hominem attack anyway. Whatever then...

Sounds like you probably shouldn't use the words "ad hominem" in a sentence, you don't have a grasp of the meaning.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Funny,

razorphreak wrote:

Funny, I thought Kelly did the exact same thing. When Brian interrupted, he told him to schedule a debate...has he?

First of all, I don't debate Christians, I have conversations with them when the situation warrants it. One conversation with Matt was all that was necessary. Asking me to "schedule a debate" instead of allowing my points to be heard shows that Matt has no interest in pursuing the truth. In fact after I presented my arguments he dogmatically adhered to the same ones I had just debunked by ignoring what I said and dodging the point.

 

Matt has the prowess of a 4 year old. It's an insult to us just to speak with him. It's an insult to both you and us that we should entertain the notion. My apologies to the children of the world who aren't as immature as Matt, it's the closest I can come up with.

 

Quote:
When Kelly twisted his words into trying to say something that he didn't, what did you call that? When she kept interrupting him when he was trying to make a point, what do you call that? You could hear it for yourself he speaks like two words and she kept speaking her previous point changing the subject and going back to the "prove it to me" argument when they weren't even talking about that. So what do you call that?

I call it "shameful" that Kelly has to hold Matt to answer a point that he doesn't want to answer on his own show.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: So I should

D-cubed wrote:
So I should expect something more intelligent from Matt in the following 52 minutes?

At least Matt admitted he has a hearing deficiency, he just needs to admit to the learning disability. Since you clearly can't present any intelligent arguments by Matt I'll safely assume that he has none.

Man don't listen to it already.  You are already have a prejudice against him so what's the point? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
As for the content of the

As for the content of the discussion, I think D-Cubed has done a great job of representing the intelligent rational persons response to Kellys appearance on Matt Slick.

 FWIW: We've never mentioned it, but Kelly was in fact sick and tired that day, and also didn't realize she had a discussion with Matt Slick planned until the moment the show began.  This point wasn't brought up at any point so far because it only takes a sick tired (yet still rational) person to expose Matt, I'm agreeing the point is moot.  I thought it should at least be known though.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: D-cubed

razorphreak wrote:
D-cubed wrote:
So I should expect something more intelligent from Matt in the following 52 minutes?

At least Matt admitted he has a hearing deficiency, he just needs to admit to the learning disability. Since you clearly can't present any intelligent arguments by Matt I'll safely assume that he has none.

Man don't listen to it already. You are already have a prejudice against him so what's the point?

It's not a prejudice when you judge someone after you know them. D-Cubed makes the point that throughout his experience and knowledge of Matt, Matt has shown himself to be ignorant, dishonest, immature, smarmy, and dodgy. He's not making a pre-judgement, he's reasonably expecting that if he adds his past knowledge of Matt and the first ten minutes of this discussion he has little to no reason to believe Matt will act anything other than ignorant and dishonest in the remaining fifty minutes.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Sounds like

Sapient wrote:
Sounds like you probably shouldn't use the words "ad hominem" in a sentence, you don't have a grasp of the meaning.

Sure sounded like a personal attack on the guy to me. 

Sapient wrote:
First of all, I don't debate Christians, I have conversations with them when the situation warrants it. One conversation with Matt was all that was necessary. Asking me to "schedule a debate" instead of allowing my points to be heard shows that Matt has no interest in pursuing the truth. In fact after I presented my arguments he dogmatically adhered to the same ones I had just debunked by ignoring what I said and dodging the point.

Would you accept it if the person you were debating had others "coaching" in the background?  What would that tell you about who you were debating? 

Sapient wrote:
Matt has the prowess of a 4 year old. It's an insult to us just to speak with him. It's an insult to both you and us that we should entertain the notion. My apologies to the children of the world who aren't as immature as Matt, it's the closest I can come up with.

Was this the first time you had a on air/phone debate with him?

Sapient wrote:
I call it "shameful" that Kelly has to hold Matt to answer a point that he doesn't want to answer on his own show.

From what I heard, I kept hearing about 50 points being brought up instead of holding on to just one.  For example he asks to hear the proof as to why she believes God doesn't exist and it was really never offered.  Instead of answering, a different question was asked (at least twice) diverting the conversation into all kinds of directions.  Exactly how is that debating when you won't answer someone's question.  And please don't give me it's a stupid question that you've heard thousands of times; when I first started posting here I didn't know half the stuff you guys have already seen asked so for me, I know it's a genuine inquiry to find out from your point of view. Insulting the person who asked the question as being stupid or delusional or whatever the hell is hardly a reasonable way to hold a conversation with someone especially when you don't even know them (ref this thread).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Karma2Grace wrote:

Karma2Grace wrote:

To List some obvious points

1. She didn't backup her claim that Mithraism predates christianity by thousands of years (It is totally FALSE)

2. There is no external reference to historical Jesus (She could't refute the list of references provided by Matt)

"Obvious" point 1--

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/mithra_khshatrapati.htm

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/answer.htm

http://www.mithraism.erudition.net/origins/indo-ira.htm

http://www.williamgaddis.org/recognitions/29anno1.shtml

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp10/ot_mithraicon_20060113.html

http://www.mithraism.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?file=origins.txt&part=2&total=8

 

Your mistake is in assuming that Roman Mithraism was the beginning of that myth. It originated from the Pre-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian area and subsequently influenced Persian, Middle Eastern, Greek and Roman religions, including Christianity. Nice try, though.

 

"Obvious" point 2--

 

All of Matt's evidence was already disqualified based on the fact that not a shred of it was contemporaneous with the supposed life of Christ and those documents are all spurious at best. In order to be historically valid there needs to be more external corroborating evidence. I said that many times and that is exactly why talking to Matt is completely pointless. He tried to shift the burden of proof onto me to "prove it was false" when that cannot be done. I knew exactly how the conversation was going to play out based on our previous conversation with him and so I didn't have high hopes of being able to rely on him staying within the bounds of logic. So, you guys can keep sitting around and patting each other on the back because you are still the clear winners in the Irrational Thinking category.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: D-cubed

razorphreak wrote:
D-cubed wrote:
So I should expect something more intelligent from Matt in the following 52 minutes?

At least Matt admitted he has a hearing deficiency, he just needs to admit to the learning disability. Since you clearly can't present any intelligent arguments by Matt I'll safely assume that he has none.

Man don't listen to it already. You are already have a prejudice against him so what's the point?

As I recall, you challenged him to listen. Your definite prejudice for Slick balances out d-cubed's possible prejudice against him so it's pretty even-handed.

 

"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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So... Matt Slick: Crazy,

So... Matt Slick: Crazy, ignorant or lying?

Personally I don't think he's crazy, but I do think he is both ignorant and dishonest.Not sure which he's more of. Any input?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Schroedinger's Cat,

Schroedinger's Cat, Corralary 7B:

If you don't listen to the recording the person in question is neither stupid nor not stupid. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Karma2Grace wrote: Kelly

Karma2Grace wrote:

Kelly was childish and frequently failed to backup her claims!

Ad hominem much?

(Yeah, I'm a little late to the party, but I read your post before it had any replies and that was my initial thought.  I should have gone ahead and expressed it, but I thought maybe ignoring you would make you go away.)

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Sapient

razorphreak wrote:

Sapient wrote:
Sounds like you probably shouldn't use the words "ad hominem" in a sentence, you don't have a grasp of the meaning.

Sure sounded like a personal attack on the guy to me.

It was. You have just illustrated my point, you don't understand the meaning of ad hominem and shouldn't use the term.

AD HOMINEM:

  • A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
    highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007256296x/student_view0/glossary.html
  • attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument. Ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.
  •  

    Notice the "RATHER." D-Cubed was actually attacking the argument, and then adding the personal attack as a method of factually describing the argumentation he had just exposed.

     

    Quote:
    Sapient wrote:
    First of all, I don't debate Christians, I have conversations with them when the situation warrants it. One conversation with Matt was all that was necessary. Asking me to "schedule a debate" instead of allowing my points to be heard shows that Matt has no interest in pursuing the truth. In fact after I presented my arguments he dogmatically adhered to the same ones I had just debunked by ignoring what I said and dodging the point.

    Would you accept it if the person you were debating had others "coaching" in the background?

    Yes. I might find it funny, but I would accept and allow the persons views to be heard.

    Quote:
    What would that tell you about who you were debating?

    That they were in the company of another human being.

    It wouldn't say much if anything at all about the persons character if that is what you are trying to infer.

     

     

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Matt has the prowess of a 4 year old. It's an insult to us just to speak with him. It's an insult to both you and us that we should entertain the notion. My apologies to the children of the world who aren't as immature as Matt, it's the closest I can come up with.

    Was this the first time you had a on air/phone debate with him?

    It was, however it was far from the first time I had heard him.

     

    Sapient wrote:
    For example he asks to hear the proof as to why she believes God doesn't exist and it was really never offered.

    This question is loaded and unanswerable by Kelly. Matt is most likely simply being dishonest (the other possibility is the learning disability that D-Cubed points out) when he asks questions like that. The fact that you bring up questions like this illustrates too that you are fundamentally ignorant of Kellys position.

    Kelly doesn't have a belief that God doesn't exist.

     

    Quote:
    Instead of answering, a different question was asked (at least twice) diverting the conversation into all kinds of directions.

    Good for Kelly, avoiding his dishonest trap. That should be your response.

     

    Quote:
    Exactly how is that debating when you won't answer someone's question.

    It wasn't a debate.

     

    - Brian Sapient


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


    MattShizzle
    Posts: 7966
    Joined: 2006-03-31
    User is offlineOffline


    Roisin Dubh
    Roisin Dubh's picture
    Posts: 428
    Joined: 2007-02-11
    User is offlineOffline
    I just listened to that

    I just listened to that whole crapfest. My $.02, and this is coming from someone who believes that you can't "defeat" theism if you can't do it in the court of public opinion.:

    I don't know who this Matt Slick guy is, but it seems apparent that Brian & Kelly have known him for quite some time. They have seen his arguments refuted numerous times, I'm guessing. Here's what bothers me; If I'm an average catholic (or whatever), someone who hasn't dug too deeply into the ongoing issues that theists and atheists debate, and I decide to turn into Matt's show because I'm intrigued by what an atheist may bring to the table, I am coming away from this with the impression that atheists are petulant, bitter people that haven't thought out their position very well. I am NOT saying that Kelly is a petulant, bitter atheist who hasn't researched what she believes, but from the way she sounded in the conversation, and from the way Matt "slickly" steered her into areas in which he was clearly prepared to argue his points and Kelly wasn't, this is how it sounded.

    I am aware that Brian, Kelly, et al, have put a lot of heart and a lot of effort into something they (and I, and most people here) feel is absolutely necessary in order to make the world a better place. But, each time one of these shows airs, there are no doubt numerous doubters, fence-sitters, and misinformed folks that are tuning in looking for truth. Looking for someone to tell them their doubts are justified. Looking for some reason to believe atheists aren't simply angry, arrogant, rebels-without-causes. I would hate to think that even one of them would turn off their radio, and come to the conclusion that theism is either the more sensible, the friendlier, or the more accurate position. However, if you listened to the first half of that radio? show, it would be relatively easy to come away thinking any or all of those fallacies were true. And wouldn't that be a shame?  I guess my point is if an atheist debates a theist in public, and doesn't bring his or her 'A' game every time, how many steps backwards did you just take?

     

    "The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    Sapient wrote: It

    Sapient wrote:
    It was....Notice the "RATHER." D-Cubed was actually attacking the argument, and then adding the personal attack as a method of factually describing the argumentation he had just exposed.

    So when he said, "I find it hard trying to simplify things to the willfully mentally retarded", how was that attacking the argument?  Forgive me because I don't see it.  He didn't even mention the argument.  See what I'm getting at?

    Sapient wrote:
    This question is loaded and unanswerable by Kelly. Matt is most likely simply being dishonest (the other possibility is the learning disability that D-Cubed points out) when he asks questions like that. The fact that you bring up questions like this illustrates too that you are fundamentally ignorant of Kellys position.

    ... 

    Good for Kelly, avoiding his dishonest trap. That should be your response.

    Interesting position.  I'll have to remember that when someone asks me to prove God exists since I also consider that a dishonest trap since the honest answer is one you are unwilling to accept.

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


    MattShizzle
    Posts: 7966
    Joined: 2006-03-31
    User is offlineOffline
    Don't be an asshat.

    Don't be an asshat.


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    MattShizzle wrote: Don't be

    MattShizzle wrote:
    Don't be an asshat.

    Right back at you.


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    by the way, I completed

    by the way, I completed agreed with what Roisin posted.  jcgadfly assumed (as expected) incorrectly that I was somehow sticking up for Matt Slick when I have been commenting on the conversation and the points addressed.

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


    D-cubed
    Rational VIP!
    D-cubed's picture
    Posts: 715
    Joined: 2007-01-04
    User is offlineOffline
    razorphreak wrote: Man

    razorphreak wrote:

    Man don't listen to it already. You are already have a prejudice against him so what's the point?

    You might have had a point but I already listened to some of that diarreah fest and pointed out many errors that Matt already produced and his inability to grasp simple concepts like brain physiology, psychology and logic.  So I simply asked you if you could actually provide a decent argument by Matt and you couldn't.

    Would it serve my any better by listening to another 45 minutes and find a hundred errors?  It would just convince me further that Matt is a knuckledragging moron who couldn't outdebate a squid in a salt mine.

    So was your entire purpose in starting this thread simply to insult Kelly or did it actually have some point in discourse about the debate?  It sounds like you have some worn out kneepads for Matt so I doubt you'll have much intellectual discourse to offer, certainly no more than Matt did in his "debate" with Kelly.

    It would appear that you are nothing more than a troll. 


    jcgadfly
    SuperfanBronze Member
    Posts: 6789
    Joined: 2006-07-18
    User is offlineOffline
    razorphreak wrote: Sapient

    razorphreak wrote:

    Sapient wrote:
    It was....Notice the "RATHER." D-Cubed was actually attacking the argument, and then adding the personal attack as a method of factually describing the argumentation he had just exposed.

    So when he said, "I find it hard trying to simplify things to the willfully mentally retarded", how was that attacking the argument? Forgive me because I don't see it. He didn't even mention the argument. See what I'm getting at?

    Sapient wrote:
    This question is loaded and unanswerable by Kelly. Matt is most likely simply being dishonest (the other possibility is the learning disability that D-Cubed points out) when he asks questions like that. The fact that you bring up questions like this illustrates too that you are fundamentally ignorant of Kellys position.

    ...

    Good for Kelly, avoiding his dishonest trap. That should be your response.

    Interesting position. I'll have to remember that when someone asks me to prove God exists since I also consider that a dishonest trap since the honest answer is one you are unwilling to accept.

    There's a simple way to avoid the problem of having to prove the existence of god. Don't be one of those that runs around saying, "I KNOW God exists" 

    "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


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    D-cubed wrote: So was your

    D-cubed wrote:
    So was your entire purpose in starting this thread simply to insult Kelly or did it actually have some point in discourse about the debate?

    Ummm I didn't start the thread; I just gave an opinion on the conversation and I don't remember ever calling Kelly anything. 

    Might want to pay attention since it seems all your posts are only to fling insults around.  Hope it makes you feel better.

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    jcgadfly wrote: There's a

    jcgadfly wrote:
    There's a simple way to avoid the problem of having to prove the existence of god. Don't be one of those that runs around saying, "I KNOW God exists"

    I know what I know from what I have experienced and from sharing my experience with others I know others have experienced something similar.  Not everyone is going to share in that so what I know will most likely not be accepted by those who have not experienced the same thing (as shown).  You can probably liken it to a UFO/ET sighting; even with many unexplainable pictures, videos, and eye witness accounts, no one is sure they do exist but it is possible they do exist.  Who am I to say they are wrong because we don't have "proof" since it is possible they exist.  Sounds crazy?  Yep.  Sounds irrational?  No.

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


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

    razorphreak wrote:

    jcgadfly wrote:
    There's a simple way to avoid the problem of having to prove the existence of god. Don't be one of those that runs around saying, "I KNOW God exists"

    I know what I know from what I have experienced and from sharing my experience with others I know others have experienced something similar. Not everyone is going to share in that so what I know will most likely not be accepted by those who have not experienced the same thing (as shown). You can probably liken it to a UFO/ET sighting; even with many unexplainable pictures, videos, and eye witness accounts, no one is sure they do exist but it is possible they do exist. Who am I to say they are wrong because we don't have "proof" since it is possible they exist. Sounds crazy? Yep. Sounds irrational? No. 

    So you and others had some experiences (most likely postive) and decided to attribute them to a God (negative experiences would be attributed to Satan, right?). The only thing I know is that you all have had experiences. Attribution doesn't imply existence.

    For me I never said a God was impossible. I really hope it isn't the God of the Bible, though. 

    "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


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    jcgadfly wrote: So you and

    jcgadfly wrote:
    So you and others had some experiences (most likely postive) and decided to attribute them to a God (negative experiences would be attributed to Satan, right?). The only thing I know is that you all have had experiences. Attribution doesn't imply existence.

    My experiences, both good and bad, are not attributed to God or Satan because good and bad things are part of life, typically based upon my decisions (i.e. free will).  My experiences that are from God or Satan are a little different and very hard to explain but I will say this; existance came from influential experiences that will sound odd to someone else who has no idea what that is like.  Those influential experiences affect how I choose to live my life and if I choose to listen.

    I'm not going to go into super detail here since this thread is about the conversation that Kelly and Matt had.

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


    Fish
    Posts: 315
    Joined: 2007-05-31
    User is offlineOffline
    razorphreak wrote: My

    razorphreak wrote:
    My experiences, both good and bad, are not attributed to God or Satan because good and bad things are part of life, typically based upon my decisions (i.e. free will). My experiences that are from God or Satan are a little different and very hard to explain but I will say this; existance came from influential experiences that will sound odd to someone else who has no idea what that is like. Those influential experiences affect how I choose to live my life and if I choose to listen.

    I'm not going to go into super detail here since this thread is about the conversation that Kelly and Matt had.

    Would you mind starting a new thread outlining your experiences and explaining how they lead you to believe in god? I am very curious, since I have no idea what sort of experiences those might be, having never had them, or a belief in god, myself.

    thanks. 


    Karma2Grace
    Theist
    Karma2Grace's picture
    Posts: 19
    Joined: 2007-07-18
    User is offlineOffline
    kellym78 wrote:To List

    kellym78 wrote:


    Your mistake is in assuming that Roman Mithraism was the beginning of that myth. It originated from the Pre-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian area and subsequently influenced Persian, Middle Eastern, Greek and Roman religions, including Christianity. Nice try, though.


     
    I don't see any support for your '1000 years' claim, Probably you can put a text instead of links!

    kellym78 wrote:

    "Obvious" point 2--
     
    All of Matt's evidence was already disqualified based on the fact that not a shred of it was contemporaneous with the supposed life of Christ and those documents are all spurious at best. In order to be historically valid there needs to be more external corroborating evidence. I said that many times and that is exactly why talking to Matt is completely pointless. He tried to shift the burden of proof onto me to "prove it was false" when that cannot be done. I knew exactly how the conversation was going to play out based on our previous conversation with him and so I didn't have high hopes of being able to rely on him staying within the bounds of logic. So, you guys can keep sitting around and patting each other on the back because you are still the clear winners in the Irrational Thinking category.

    A repeated lie cannot be a truth. This is a most ignorant claim. The beauty people who say "No Historical Jesus" accepts the "true" account of Dan Brown and James Cameron's of the world! That is the beauty of being rational
     
    Also you asked a wonderful question to Kirk and Ray on a debate to refute the "Eternal Universe".

    Hawking Quoted "Personally, I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang"
    Anything material has a beginning. The universe now minus X Billion years would give a different universe (in terms of time, matter and space) but take the numbers, Infinite minus 10000000000 is still infinite. Time, Space and Matter should have been created by one who is timeless, space less and matter less which are the very attributes of God!


    D-cubed
    Rational VIP!
    D-cubed's picture
    Posts: 715
    Joined: 2007-01-04
    User is offlineOffline
    razorphreak wrote: Ummm I

    razorphreak wrote:

    Ummm I didn't start the thread; I just gave an opinion on the conversation and I don't remember ever calling Kelly anything.

    Might want to pay attention since it seems all your posts are only to fling insults around. Hope it makes you feel better.

    Looks like you haven't proven me wrong.  I did bring up some points regarding the issue of this thread, you on the other hand continue to prove yourself a troll.  Have you contributed anything to the subject other than attacking anyone who is smarter than Matt and yourself (and that would be everyone)? 


    Roisin Dubh
    Roisin Dubh's picture
    Posts: 428
    Joined: 2007-02-11
    User is offlineOffline
    Karma2Grace wrote: I don't

    Karma2Grace wrote:

    I don't see any support for your '1000 years' claim, Probably you can put a text instead of links!

    Here, lazyass, I found it in 22 seconds: " Originally an Iranian religion, of which the male god Mithra was the most important deity. Mithraism was the state religion of Mitanni around 1400 BCE."

     

    Quote:
    A repeated lie cannot be a truth. This is a most ignorant claim. The beauty people who say "No Historical Jesus" accepts the "true" account of Dan Brown and James Cameron's of the world!

    No, they're going by the respected biblical historians, approximately 45% of whom have come to the conclusion that jesus never existed. And that number is significantly higher than it was, say, 10 years ago I'm guessing.

     

    Quote:
    Hawking Quoted "Personally, I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang"
    Anything material has a beginning.

    Really? prove it.

    Quote:
    The universe now minus X Billion years would give a different universe (in terms of time, matter and space) but take the numbers, Infinite minus 10000000000 is still infinite. Time, Space and Matter should have been created by one who is timeless, space less and matter less which are the very attributes of God!

    Hallelujiah! You've solved the question of origin! You can go away now, there's nothing left to debate!

    "The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


    Karma2Grace
    Theist
    Karma2Grace's picture
    Posts: 19
    Joined: 2007-07-18
    User is offlineOffline
    Roisin Dubh

    Roisin Dubh wrote:

     

    Here, lazyass, I found it in 22 seconds:

    Did you read the full article? The point is about Mitra rising from death which was 2nd century invension.

    Roisin Dubh wrote:

    A repeated lie cannot be a truth. This is a most ignorant claim. The beauty people who say "No Historical Jesus" accepts the "true" account of Dan Brown and James Cameron's of the world!

    No, they're going by the respected biblical historians, approximately 45% of whom have come to the conclusion that jesus never existed. And that number is significantly higher than it was, say, 10 years ago I'm guessing.

    Do you have a reference for that '45%' claim. I also wanted to see who are those 'respected' historians. However there are more than 90% of respected people are theists, Any bells ringing??

    Roisin Dubh wrote:

    Quote:
    Hawking Quoted "Personally, I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang"
    Anything material has a beginning.

    Really? prove it.

    Yes, What is your reaction if i posted from an authentic web site?

    Roisin Dubh wrote:

    Quote:
    The universe now minus X Billion years would give a different universe (in terms of time, matter and space) but take the numbers, Infinite minus 10000000000 is still infinite. Time, Space and Matter should have been created by one who is timeless, space less and matter less which are the very attributes of God!

    Hallelujiah! You've solved the question of origin! You can go away now, there's nothing left to debate!

    Do you have anything to offer other than sarcasm?


    Fish
    Posts: 315
    Joined: 2007-05-31
    User is offlineOffline
    Karma2Grace wrote: The

    Karma2Grace wrote:

    The universe now minus X Billion years would give a different universe (in terms of time, matter and space) but take the numbers, Infinite minus 10000000000 is still infinite. Time, Space and Matter should have been created by one who is timeless, space less and matter less which are the very attributes of God!

    Infinity is not a number. You cannot perform arithmatic on it and expect to get any meaningful result.

    "timeless, space less and matter less" is existance-less, which also happens to be an attribute of god.


    Roisin Dubh
    Roisin Dubh's picture
    Posts: 428
    Joined: 2007-02-11
    User is offlineOffline
    Karma2Grace wrote: Did you

    Karma2Grace wrote:

    Did you read the full article? The point is about Mitra rising from death which was 2nd century invension.

    No, that wasn't the point. You can't even keep your own fucking arguments straight:

    Karma2Grace wrote:

    1. She didn't backup her claim that Mithraism predates christianity by thousands of years (It is totally FALSE)

    Every link that was posted alluded to Mithraism existing at least 1000 years before the proliferation of christianity.


    Quote:
    However there are more than 90% of respected people are theists, Any bells ringing??

    Respected people? What the hell does that mean? If you're referring to the scientific community, you've got your numbers backwards.

    Quote:
    Yes, What is your reaction if i posted from an authentic web site?

    As opposed to a fake website? Give me all you got, chuckles.

    Quote:
    Do you have anything to offer other than sarcasm?

    Yes, but your arguments aren't worth it. I'm in Trollville because it makes me laugh. Entertain me, monkey!

    "The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


    razorphreak
    Theist
    razorphreak's picture
    Posts: 901
    Joined: 2007-02-05
    User is offlineOffline
    D-cubed wrote: Looks like

    D-cubed wrote:
    Looks like you haven't proven me wrong. I did bring up some points regarding the issue of this thread, you on the other hand continue to prove yourself a troll. Have you contributed anything to the subject other than attacking anyone who is smarter than Matt and yourself (and that would be everyone)?

    I don't know if you even realize who you are talking to anymore.  You just finished accusing me of starting the thread (which I didn't) and now of attacking people when I did no such thing.  Please tell me what attack or attacks am I guilty of?  You sure you are on the right thread anymore?

    What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


    Magus
    High Level DonorModerator
    Magus's picture
    Posts: 592
    Joined: 2007-04-11
    User is offlineOffline
    Does god lie was a

    Does god lie was a particular interest to me in this discussion in that.

    Doesn't Genesis 22: 1-2 makes god a lier?

    God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac (a lie). Isn't that a clear example that god can lie or did god change his mind?

    Sounds made up...
    Agnostic Atheist
    No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.