Show 61 with Matt Slick [now with free download]

systemnate
Silver Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Show 61 with Matt Slick [now with free download]

[FREE DOWNLOAD OF THIS SHOW EDITED AND ADDED TO THIS THREAD JULY 11th 2008]

DOWNLOAD MATT SLICK ON THE RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD RIGHT HERE.

 

'Jesus Christ'.  I just listened to both Show 61 with Matt Slick (carm.org) and Show 60 with Greg Cooper (Christian Intervention).

Those are the worst guests I've ever heard Sticking out tongue.  Matt Slick is a complete moron.  Someone would ask a question and then someone else would clarify or just add their 2 cents and he would go on for like 10 minutes about how he can't respond to multiple people, or that someone is interrupting.  Or my favorite:  He would say that you guys were having a "Scholar War" and then someone would explain for several minutes why you weren't and when he spoke again he would say that you guys are having a "Scholar War".  Again and Again.  

Greg Cooper didn't understand circular reasoning or any other logical fallacies and just tried to witness the whole time.

Those shows made me angry.  People are so fucking stupid. 

 


Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I agree

Yes people are stupid! That is why I don't really bother trying to debate anyone anymore unless they agree to come to some sort of conclusion. Most of the time they run away to apologetics and other excuses.

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I agree that Matt Slick was

I agree that Matt Slick was definitely the worst guest ever - even worse than the wacko (this was a very early show) from MySpace who thinks he is Jesus. Matt Slick refused to answer questions and just cried like a bitch the whole time. What a loser.



[POSTS 3-10 ARE POSTED IN REVERSE ORDER UPON MERGING THE THREAD CREATED BY PRESSUPOSITIONALIST IN POST 10.]

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


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
I mean... it's a little

I mean... it's a little suspicious that you guys aren't even trying to contest this very prominently written rebuttal.

Are his arguments, perhaps, stronger than you would like to admit?

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I listened to that show. He

I listened to that show. He was a crybaby. He made no valid arguments and all he did was whine that the squad didn't debate the way he wanted. 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


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I listened

MattShizzle wrote:

I listened to that show. He was a crybaby. He made no valid arguments and all he did was whine that the squad didn't debate the way he wanted. Worst. Guest. Ever.

Are you writing this BEFORE or AFTER reading his side of the story?

Here you go: http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I read it. AND I listened to

I read it. AND I listened to the actual show. He's full of shit. They catered to that fucktard. They tried everything. As soon as they'd get the better of him (right away) he'd have some butthurt complaint about how the debate was done. It was actually a boring show because he had no way of defending his position no matter what. All he did was bitch.  They were way too easy on him. I would have been playing the sound of a crying baby and talking to him in baby talk "Oh whats the matter. Doesn't baby get catered to by letting him say whatever baby wants without responding?" They were WAY too easy on him I thought. People like him like the style of formal debate because they know how to manipulate it dishonestly.

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


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I read it.

MattShizzle wrote:

I read it. AND I listened to the actual show. He's full of shit. They catered to that fucktard. They tried everything. As soon as they'd get the better of him (right away) he'd have some butthurt complaint about how the debate was done. It was actually a boring show because he had no way of defending his position no matter what. All he did was bitch.  They were way too easy on him. I would have been playing the sound of a crying baby and talking to him in baby talk "Oh whats the matter. Doesn't baby get catered to by letting him say whatever baby wants without responding?" They were WAY too easy on him I thought. People like him like the style of formal debate because they know how to manipulate it dishonestly.

"Formal debate". As in, debate without getting interrupted every ten seconds? Would that have been too "formal"?

Yes, I suppose people like Matt -people with actual arguments to make- do like "formal debate".

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Such as?

Presuppositionalist wrote:
...  -people with actual arguments to make- ...

Example please?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

This is bad press for the RRS.

No it's not, it's great press.

If it's such bad press... wtf are you doing here?  Shouldn't you want to leave now?  Surely you wouldn't want to debate us now knowing the shit coming out of slicks ass like we value "method over substance."   Wait, you did say something about debating us!  Why? 

 

Quote:
It's posted on one of the most heavily frequented Christian websites in the USA.

Excellent!  Would've never thought that show would help us so much!

 

Quote:
Has anyone considered writing an article in rebuttal, in case someone decides to research the claims he makes?

No.  Matt died a slow death in that show, his article is his attempt to save face.  Subscribers and those that have heard it are in the know. 

Here's little snips from the listeners on Matt Slick...

"Matt Slick is a complete moron.  Someone would ask a question and then someone else would clarify or just add their 2 cents and he would go on for like 10 minutes about how he can't respond to multiple people, or that someone is interrupting.  Or my favorite:  He would say that you guys were having a "Scholar War" and then someone would explain for several minutes why you weren't and when he spoke again he would say that you guys are having a "Scholar War".  Again and Again. " - Systemnate

"I agree that Matt Slick was definitely the worst guest ever - even worse than the wacko (this was a very early show) from MySpace who thinks he is Jesus. Matt Slick refused to answer questions and just cried like a bitch the whole time. What a loser." - MattShizzle

 

Another thread with thoughts from the Matt Slick show.

"I thought Matt Slick was immature."  - American Atheist

"I'm sorry to say I didn't hear the Matt Slick show.  However, given the history I've had with Slick I doubt it was very intellectually stimulating.  I debated with Matt when he first started up his website.  He relies heavily on the insults, ad hominems and censorship.  He isn't terribly bright or educated but there's no such requirement to be a bible thumping fundy.  Needless to say I'd love to hear it for the entertainment value." - D-Cubed

"Matt Slick got annoying and rude to the point where you hung up on him. that was pretty funny. all through the shows rook PWNed and once again the Rational Responders have succeeded!" - SAVAGEone

 

"I only heard the Matt not-so-Slick debate. Basically he was a joke, he turned into a parody of himself IMO.

Brian I do hope you dub in wind howling/dog barking/church bell tolling in the background, during the bit's where he was waiting to respond even when you muted the rest of the RRS. That would be hilarious Laughing"   Klarky

 

"The Matt Slick show was damned entertaining, and at the same time incredibly depressing. If every really devout theist is as irrational and as nonsensical as Matt Slick, I really can't see reason ever winning out at least in this generation. And I didn't think Matt was being dishonest. He sounded like he really convinced himself of his own BS. This guy refuses to acknowledge experts or knowledge in any way, calling it opinion. And he's so backwards in his thinking that he only asked if you wanted to hear his evidence or sources rhetorically because he actually believed you wouldn't be interested in that. Rook showed far greater knowledge of scriptural history, and he refused to accept it or even admit that he didn't know everything and agree to look up Rook's facts for himself. He dodged so much I don't think he satisfactorily answered one question. He devoted plenty of time that could have been spent arguing his case, whining about how persecuted he wanted to believe he was. And he bitched that the show wasn't in the format of his liking. I'm embarrassed as a human being that people actually admired this guy enough to insist you interview him. And you said it yourself at the end of the show that even an undisciplined Christian is better at defending Christianity than this douche or Caner for that matter. I know you guys wanted to like Caner but he made just as much sense as this dumbass. They've got their minds so far up their own asses that the can't even see the forest from the trees anymore and are completely incapable of intelligent, rational thought. " - Amodestproposal

- Brian Sapient


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


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Slick on the RRS

A prominent apologist by the name of Matt Slick debated the RRS on their radio show last year (June 2, 2007). He was apparently upset by the way he was treated, and wrote an article in response: http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

This is bad press for the RRS. It's posted on one of the most heavily frequented Christian websites in the USA. Has anyone considered writing an article in rebuttal, in case someone decides to research the claims he makes?

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Matt Slick: Method over Substance

Presuppositionalist wrote:
A prominent apologist by the name of Matt Slick debated the RRS on their radio show last year (June 2, 2007).

Were you replying to me?  I was looking more for one of his "good arguments."  I am sure one of our members can point you to where they have been discussed thoroughly before.  If not, discuss them in a new thread.

I find it odd that his RRS article is titled "RRS: method over substance," but when he was on the show, Matt seemed to complain more about the method than address the substance, more so than most of the theists that the RRS has interviewed.  Being a "prominent apologist," I would have expected that he would have been better able to handle the format of handling four atheists with their own backgrounds better than other RRS show guests.  But this was not the case because it seemed that Matt used methods to avoid addressing the substance.  So it seems more appropriate for an article about the show to be called "Matt Slick: method over substance."

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
The best part of that show

The best part of that show was when Matt was trying to address my claims for the late dating of Luke, and he said something like, "I can get a guy on the phone right now, I don't know if he is still alive, but he'll tell you you're wrong." - Poor Matt.  This was right after I exposed his source, William Albright, had been dead for thirty years.  He tried to use Redating the New Testament, which was written decades ago, and which Albright never revised in spite of its ill-received status even upon publication (he was laughed at for it).  Matt could not bring up a single source for his position that the New Testament should be dated before the year 70.  He was truly one of the silliest apologists I've had the pleasure of debating.  Ergun Caner was at least goodly enough to admit he had to fact-check his sources, admitted he didn't know.  Pathetic, Matt, and dishonest. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He really was an asshat.

He really was an asshat. That show sucked - it was so bad because even the RRS couldn't help when the guest is that stupid - kind of like when MST3K was on - some movies were so horrible even they couldn't help it.  I would have almost thought listening to that show that Matt Slick was an atheist trying to make Christians look bad. Unfortunately we don't need to do that. He epic failed.

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


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
If I recall correctly, that

If I recall correctly, that was one of THE funniest shows there are.  Constantly accusing the RRS of things he himself was guilty of on a ratio of 4:1!  Everything he accused the RRS of doing he did four times as much as them at LEAST.  You can't possibly get more hypocritical than that.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


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

Presuppositionalist wrote:

A prominent apologist by the name of Matt Slick debated the RRS on their radio show last year (June 2, 2007). He was apparently upset by the way he was treated, and wrote an article in response: http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

There are prominent apologists and then there is Matt Slick.  Perhaps you ought to find one of those prominent apologists and have them on the show.  Slick is perhaps a "prominent apologist" among those who fancy themselves intelligent but can't argue their way out of a jello mold.

Slick was a guest a few times on an Oregon radio show as an apparent cult expert.  He called himself an expert therefore, in the fundy realm, that's enough of a qualification.  His definition of a cult was anything that didn't match his brand of Christianity.

Tell you what, the moment Matt has a decent argument to make then perhaps he would be worthy of wasting some time for.  Until then, he's about as brilliant as this guy: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14590


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I was going to jump in on

I was going to jump in on this but I fugured Presup probably hadn't listened to the show.

Thanks folks for coming in on this.

"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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:If I recall

thingy wrote:

If I recall correctly, that was one of THE funniest shows there are.  Constantly accusing the RRS of things he himself was guilty of on a ratio of 4:1!  Everything he accused the RRS of doing he did four times as much as them at LEAST.  You can't possibly get more hypocritical than that.

5:1?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:thingy

JillSwift wrote:

thingy wrote:

If I recall correctly, that was one of THE funniest shows there are.  Constantly accusing the RRS of things he himself was guilty of on a ratio of 4:1!  Everything he accused the RRS of doing he did four times as much as them at LEAST.  You can't possibly get more hypocritical than that.

5:1?

1. Don't remember if everyone was there.

2. Wasn't there points where Brian shut off the mikes on their end to give Slick uninterrupted time (that he wasted complaining)?

"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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:2. Wasn't

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Wasn't there points where Brian shut off the mikes on their end to give Slick uninterrupted time (that he wasted complaining)?

Yes he was whining about us interrupting (without validity), and so I told him I'd turn all the mikes off, as I did it he took the time to bitch about how we were treating him.  

There was more to that, I'll make the show a free download...

Matt Slick on the Rational Response Squad.


 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


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

Sapient wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Wasn't there points where Brian shut off the mikes on their end to give Slick uninterrupted time (that he wasted complaining)?

Yes he was whining about us interrupting (without validity), and so I told him I'd turn all the mikes off, as I did it he took the time to bitch about how we were treating him.  

There was more to that, I'll make the show a free download...

Matt Slick on the Rational Response Squad.


 

 

 

Any bets Presup still won't listen to the show?

"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


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
CRASH

This whole thing was a trainwreck and yes, there was fault on both sides.

That said, Kelly hit the bull's eye (BOOM! Headshot!) when she pointed out that you cannot insist that varying competing scholarly views cancel each other out and therefore we "stick with the text."

Why? Because the integrity, source and formation of the text is the very point of contention. Classic question-begging, in other words.

Christians - and believers in general, really - just cannot accept this. Even the so-called modern, "reasonable" ones cannot help but put their sacred scrolls (Planet of the Apes reference intended) above and apart from any other kind of historical document.

Because, for them, scriptures are NOT historical documents. They are special, different... divine.

I wish believers would just be up front about that. It would save so much time.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The asshat should have been

The asshat should have been muted when he was interrupting.

 

BTW it seemed like Slick did at least 75% of the talking. He seemed to think he should have been able to give an hour and a half sermon rather than an actual discussion.

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


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Yes he was

Sapient wrote:
Yes he was whining about us interrupting (without validity), and so I told him I'd turn all the mikes off, as I did it he took the time to bitch about how we were treating him.

There was more to that, I'll make the show a free download...

Matt Slick on the Rational Response Squad.


 

I stopped listening to the MP3 after 26 minutes, when Rook tried to address Matt's claim about the number of available manuscripts suitable for correcting scribal errors and Matt was trying to dodge the question, then proceeding to whine and make accusations of what amounts to aural-gangrape (without validity). He acted like a spoiled child and I couldn't stand anymore of his douchebaggery.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Did he ever formally invite

Did he ever formally invite Kelly on his show or was he just blowing smoke?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote:Sapient

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Sapient wrote:
Yes he was whining about us interrupting (without validity), and so I told him I'd turn all the mikes off, as I did it he took the time to bitch about how we were treating him.

There was more to that, I'll make the show a free download...

Matt Slick on the Rational Response Squad.


 

I stopped listening to the MP3 after 26 minutes, when Rook tried to address Matt's claim about the number of available manuscripts suitable for correcting scribal errors and Matt was trying to dodge the question, then proceeding to whine and make accusations of what amounts to aural-gangrape (without validity). He acted like a spoiled child and I couldn't stand anymore of his douchebaggery.

Aw man, you should keep listening!  It gets so much better! 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
After listening again to a

After listening again to a few of the old shows, I can say Matt Slick was easily the most ignorant guest ever on the show. I was going to argue that Laura Ingraham (that retarded cunt) came close, but she was technically never a guest on the show.

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


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Did he

MattShizzle wrote:

Did he ever formally invite Kelly on his show or was he just blowing smoke?

He did invite her on the show, and she accepted his invitation. I actually had the pleasure of hearing the show the first time around, and a recording of it may still be on Mr. Slick's blog (he saves the particularly funny ones). She really began to lose footing when Slick realized that she was being prompted off-mic by the rest of the team. After he pointed that out, she began losing confidence and her arguments got a lot worse really quickly. (I guess they stopped feeding her script after that?)

Mr. Slick records his account of the show in the article I posted above. I know most of you won't believe the article, because a theist wrote it, so I'm just providing this for the open minds. It seems like a more-or-less accurate rendition of what happened, though he is a little too charitable I think:

On June 15, 2007 I had Kelly, one of the four(?) in the "rational response squad", on my radio show.  I tried to treat her with respect and when she would interrupt, I let her finish her statements.  Of course, the interruptions with both ways but it was obvious that she tried to dominate the conversation -- at least for the first part of the show.

At one point, she was being coached by someone (I think it was Brian Sapient, though I'm not sure).  I responded about her being coached and that I was willing to have him on my radio show anytime in the future to discuss Christianity and atheism.  I don't recall any further interruptions or coaching after that point and he certainly did not take me up on the offer.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

Mr. Slick has also devised a way of reciprocating the allegedly "fair" treatment he was given on the RRS show. He concludes his article with this challenge to Mr. Sapient:

I would like to get Brian Sapient, the apparent head of the squad, to engage myself and three other Christian apologists simultaneously.  This would be the same arrangement, except reversed, that he likes to work in when tackling Christians.  I figure that if it is okay for him to be on the giving end, then he shouldn't have any problem being on the receiving end.  Fair is fair, right?  If he says he doesn't want to waste his time because we don't have anything good to offer, and/or that I (and my fellow apologists) would be easy to refute, then that's all the more reason for him to accept since we would be so easily defeated.  So, why pass up such a great opportunity if believing in God is such an obvious mental delusion?  The challenge is out there. I await his reply.

I wonder if Sapient will take him up on that. Somehow, I suspect that Mr. Sapient will decline, tacitly admitting that FOUR ON ONE is not a fair fight. Somehow, I suspect that Mr. Sapient will be content to let the exchange stop where it is, never engaging Mr. Slick himself. Well actually I can do a good bit more than "suspect", since Matt Slick's article has been out for about a year now and Sapient has failed to respond.

Regards,

~Presuppositionalist

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Any bets

jcgadfly wrote:

Any bets Presup still won't listen to the show?

I listened to it. I'll say two things.

1. I took notes, and Mr. Slick didn't lose anything. Not a single issue. They may have dragged him off certain issues before he was done with them, but he never lost any. The only things that might possibly have been interpreted as "losses" were the many times the RRS interrupted him to change the topic before he was done, so anything you're interpreting as a loss is more likely just evidence of the RRS's rampant interrupting and impoliteness. As evidence, I submit that Mr. Slick had already written lengthy rebuttals to every single point made by the RRS on his website, www.carm.org, before the debate even began. It's insane to suggest that he just forgot all of these articles he wrote. It's much more likely that the RRS interrupted him enough that he couldn't get the information out.

2. By Sapient's own admission, the tape is edited. He comes on the tape near the end of the recording, and admits it's edited. What was cut out? What was put in? Draw your own conclusions, people.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:The asshat

MattShizzle wrote:

The asshat should have been muted when he was interrupting.

 

BTW it seemed like Slick did at least 75% of the talking. He seemed to think he should have been able to give an hour and a half sermon rather than an actual discussion.

Hmm, that's funny. By Sapient's account, Matt got significantly less time than the RRS (listen toward the end of the show where Sapient admits to editing the tape).

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

The asshat should have been muted when he was interrupting.

 

BTW it seemed like Slick did at least 75% of the talking. He seemed to think he should have been able to give an hour and a half sermon rather than an actual discussion.

Hmm, that's funny. By Sapient's account, Matt got significantly less time than the RRS (listen toward the end of the show where Sapient admits to editing the tape).

I edit every tape, however I believe the time was counted by a listener.  Someone point out the minute marks, including you presuper.

- Brian Sapient


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


MrGawn
Rational VIP!
MrGawn's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
no no no, its the delusionals that crack me up. . .

my fav show is still the where ms kels was fooled by the fake thest group. . . i forget their name but ms kels was pissed. . . she didnt know they werent real. . . she got so mad. . . .i was scared for you guys in the room when you revealed that they were like the bible, complete fiction. . .

I am the radical and variable to counter act on your alpha and omega! The One True Juggernaut, and. . . I WILL BASH AND CUT DOWN THOSE THAT CANNOT BE TAUGHT!!!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That one was funny. I

That one was funny. I realized about the same time she did it was a parody.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 I'm about halfway through,

I'm about halfway through, and so far all I've heard from Matt was a lot of incompetent hillbilly bumbling, extreme butt-hurt, and logical fallacies.

---

Two-thirds through. Does Slick have a learning disability?

---

And he's off.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Two-thirds

magilum wrote:

Two-thirds through. Does Slick have a learning disability?

I think he refers to it as some sort of disability interpreting what's being said, an auditory problem.  I forget what he officially refers to it as, but nevertheless he's obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.  Unless you consider weaving a dishonest con game as sharp.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I think he

Sapient wrote:
I think he refers to it as some sort of disability interpreting what's being said, an auditory problem.  I forget what he officially refers to it as
"Selective Hearing"


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


johnwave
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-07-28
User is offlineOffline
I like the part where Kelly

I like the part where Kelly is trying to give him an advice on how to have a "friendly discourse" while sapient says twice "yeah, man the fuck up" at about 5 seconds later when Matt responds Sapient screams "why are you interrupting! Stop interrupting!!!!!!!! CHRIST!!" - Friendly discourse? holy cow

 

Classic RRS


johnwave
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-07-28
User is offlineOffline
This is my second time

This is my second time hearing this, but it was a while ago. I noticed that virtually nothing was discussed on that show. Matt was right with his comment about the scholar war. He kept accusing you guys of doing the scholar war thing like 3 times and after EACH one Rook kept talking about scholars refuting, and how the scholars say. Classic.

 


johnwave
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-07-28
User is offlineOffline
Pathofreason wrote:Yes

Pathofreason wrote:
Yes people are stupid! That is why I don't really bother trying to debate anyone anymore unless they agree to come to some sort of conclusion. Most of the time they run away to apologetics and other excuses.

 

What? Debate only exists among those who have different conclusions! Holy cow, you're the Co-Founder of a site called "the pathofreason" holy smokes.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
johnwave wrote:This is my

johnwave wrote:

This is my second time hearing this, but it was a while ago. I noticed that virtually nothing was discussed on that show. Matt was right with his comment about the scholar war. He kept accusing you guys of doing the scholar war thing like 3 times and after EACH one Rook kept talking about scholars refuting, and how the scholars say. Classic.

And Matt Slick's knowledge of scholarship seems to be limited to those who died thirty years ago, or those he can get on the phone now (who might be dead).  Seriously, you really think Matt had something?  You cannot read the Bible as a serious student without consulting scholarship.  There is simply no way.  Otherwise, you are reading without the knowledge of modern historical methods and evidence-based research.  Like Matt did in the show, he is arguing with faith-based apologetics.  Imagine if you drive into a gas station, but instead of filling it with Gas you filled the tank with water from a water bottle.  Your excuse for this is "Well water is better than gas, so it should work."  This is a complete disregard for science and the mechanics of chemistry and physics that explain how your car uses gas to run the engine and propel it in a forward motion.  This is no different than Matt just idly waving off modern historical inferences into the Bible.  He is interested in interpreting the Bible as he sees fit, not as the authors intended it to be read.  Do you see a difference, or do I have to spell it out for you monosyllabically?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
johnwave wrote:about 5

johnwave wrote:

about 5 seconds later when Matt responds Sapient screams "why are you interrupting! Stop interrupting!!!!!!!! CHRIST!!" -

I think that part was Rook.  I would never talk to my good friend Matt like that!

- Brian Sapient


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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Rook, John-boy doesn't need

Rook, John-boy doesn't need that heathen "scholarship". He's got Matt and his Jesus.

"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


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

Presuppositionalist wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Did he ever formally invite Kelly on his show or was he just blowing smoke?

He did invite her on the show, and she accepted his invitation. I actually had the pleasure of hearing the show the first time around, and a recording of it may still be on Mr. Slick's blog (he saves the particularly funny ones). She really began to lose footing when Slick realized that she was being prompted off-mic by the rest of the team. After he pointed that out, she began losing confidence and her arguments got a lot worse really quickly. (I guess they stopped feeding her script after that?)...(other bullshit)

I believe I addressed this in the thread entitled Kelly, why do you debate twits like Matt Slick? Oh, and them "feeding me a script" was Brian telling me where I could find evidence for ONE point that I made. That said,


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

johnwave wrote:

This is my second time hearing this, but it was a while ago. I noticed that virtually nothing was discussed on that show. Matt was right with his comment about the scholar war. He kept accusing you guys of doing the scholar war thing like 3 times and after EACH one Rook kept talking about scholars refuting, and how the scholars say. Classic. 

If Matt had his way he'd spend an entire show arguing about Lamarkian theory of evolution and how presenting the theory of natural selection is a scholar war.  Or I suppose, if you want to go the biblical route, Matt will still present refuted scholars who think Egyptian pyramids were built with slave labor.

Matt is an intellectual lightweight.  A skidmark in a teenager's underwear could out debate him but Matt would still whine about how the skidmark is beating up on him.


zack
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Damn... this one show is

Damn... this show is golden! One of the best, gotta have him on again.

"My name is BORG"!@!!!!! YES!

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
zack wrote:Damn... this one

zack wrote:

Damn... this one show is golden! One of the best, gotta have him on again.

"My name is BORG"!@!!!!! YES!

Borg?  Ok, I'll call you Borg. 

 

ROTF

- Brian Sapient


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


Blake32
Blake32's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Lmfao, this show... I lay in

Lmfao, this show... I lay in my bed with the speakers on listening to your shows sometimes and i was literally rolling that shit was so funny.

Brian: "Please, answer the question."
2 second pause

Matt: "The only way the rubber is going to meet the road is if you quit attacking me."

Jesus titty fucking christ, that was the bomb.

Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. - Steven Colbert


walter_asbury
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
A few suggestions...

Of all the internet radio shows I've listened to you guys may be the worst hosts. And here's why...

  • 1. You guys were disrespectful toward Matt.
  • 2. You were condescending.
  • 3. You wouldn't let him finish talking - sure, at times he interrupted you guys; but that was nothing compared to what you guys did to him. Matt was much more patient and logical. And unlike some of you, he actually did want to deal with what you guys said.
  • 4. You were way out of your element - might I suggest you get someone who knows what they're really talking about? Rook Hawkins did more spins and dodges than a child at dodgeball. Maybe putting Richard Carrier against Matt Slick would have been useful.
  • 5. You guys were immature - Honestly, you guys were not professional at all.

 

Here's some suggestions I hope you guys can take:

  • 1. Don't use profanity - it makes you guys seem unprofessional.
  • 2. Be patient with your guests - Let him finish speaking. Matt came on your show on good faith, the least you can do is have his full say.
  • 3. Try to ask questions in an orderly fashion - maybe it would be better if only one person hosts the show. Having 4 people against 1 is quite a cowardly action. And when Kelly went on Matt's show it was so much more better and easier to listen to without everybody talking at once.
  • 4. Don't filibuster - Rook maybe you should try listening to Matt for a change instead of trying to talk over him all the time. I can't believe you hesitated to define "redaction." You almost sounded silly when you conceded that the manuscript copies had errors in them.
  • 5. Don't ridicule - You guys did that during the show and you guys are doing that in this forum.

 

If you guys don't follow these suggestions, good luck trying to get more theists on your show.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why should they let him

Why should they let him spout bullshit for 90 minutes without responding? And when did he actually answer anything rather than bitching? Even when they muted the microphones all he did was cry. They were not nearly harsh enough on him. Howard Stern and such would be calling him a crybaby and playing recordings of babies crying every time he talked. They were way more patient and respectful to him than he deserved. You want to see disrespectful and not letting somewhat talk, look at what that bitch (retarded cunt) Laura Ingraham did when Brian was on the show - she muted him most of the show, kept changing the question and was otherwise totally dishonest. When Kelly was on that fuckwad's show she was sick.

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


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
walter_asbury wrote:4. You

walter_asbury wrote:
4. You were way out of your element - might I suggest you get someone who knows what they're really talking about? Rook Hawkins did more spins and dodges than a child at dodgeball. Maybe putting Richard Carrier against Matt Slick would have been useful.

Would you like to come on the show and see how useful I am?

Quote:
4. Don't filibuster - Rook maybe you should try listening to Matt for a change instead of trying to talk over him all the time. I can't believe you hesitated to define "redaction." You almost sounded silly when you conceded that the manuscript copies had errors in them.

What are you talking about?  I wrote a whole blog article about the redaktiongeschichte schule of the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries in my blog.  I'm more familiar with their flaws and usefulness than I'm sure Matt is.  His discussion of the manuscript values was pathetic.  He tried to pull the "5000 manuscripts exist to verify the tradition" line.  Except according to the NA27, the authority, only 6 date from before the third century, and they are badly beaten and poor in quality.  The earliest actual codices we have date to the fourth century CE, at the behest of Constantine's order that, what was it...something like 20 copies of the Christian bible be copied by scribes?  Probably the two codices we have from that period (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) come from that period.  90+% of the manuscripts we have are miniscules which date the ninth century or later.  Do you really want to go down this road with me?  I am more than willing to discuss this with you on the show live, but I don't think you have the balls.  Offer is on the table.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
walter_asbury wrote:Of all

walter_asbury wrote:

Of all the internet radio shows I've listened to you guys may be the worst hosts. And here's why...

  • 1. You guys were disrespectful toward Matt.
  • 2. You were condescending.

 

When speaking to a child, can a person be faulted for stooping a bit?

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 3. You wouldn't let him finish talking - sure, at times he interrupted you guys; but that was nothing compared to what you guys did to him. Matt was much more patient and logical. And unlike some of you, he actually did want to deal with what you guys said.

 

They muted their own mics to accommodate him, and Slick used that time for persecuted hand-wringing.

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 4. You were way out of your element - might I suggest you get someone who knows what they're really talking about? Rook Hawkins did more spins and dodges than a child at dodgeball. Maybe putting Richard Carrier against Matt Slick would have been useful.

 

I bow to the king of metaphors.

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 5. You guys were immature - Honestly, you guys were not professional at all.

 

You smell like poached catfish.

walter_asbury wrote:

Here's some suggestions I hope you guys can take:

  • 1. Don't use profanity - it makes you guys seem unprofessional.

 

Fuck you, cunt.

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 2. Be patient with your guests - Let him finish speaking. Matt came on your show on good faith, the least you can do is have his full say.

 

LOL. I'd call his being slighted your second most powerful delusion I know of.

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 3. Try to ask questions in an orderly fashion - maybe it would be better if only one person hosts the show. Having 4 people against 1 is quite a cowardly action. And when Kelly went on Matt's show it was so much more better and easier to listen to without everybody talking at once.

 

The ones that were muted, you mean. Your last sentence made my skin crawl, grammatically.

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 4. Don't filibuster - Rook maybe you should try listening to Matt for a change instead of trying to talk over him all the time. I can't believe you hesitated to define "redaction." You almost sounded silly when you conceded that the manuscript copies had errors in them.

 

Oh, when they weren't muted?

walter_asbury wrote:

 

  • 5. Don't ridicule - You guys did that during the show and you guys are doing that in this forum.

 

"Oh, you believe there's a vague supernatural force at work? Tell me more! No, it's not asinine at all! You can't produce any evidence for your wild claims? Marvelous! Good job on thaaaaaaaat."

walter_asbury wrote:

 

If you guys don't follow these suggestions, good luck trying to get more theists on your show.

I know obsessing over divine authority can cause some people to speak in the royal "we," but rest assured you speak for no one.

[Disclaimer: I don't represent the show in any way. I'm just shooting loaves and fish in a barrel for fun.]