Home » Forums » The Rational Response Squad » Show Guests

Show 61 with Matt Slick [now on youtube]

Posted on: October 24, 2007 - 2:34pm
systemnate
atheist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Show 61 with Matt Slick [now on youtube]

'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. 

 

‹ Doug Stanhope Rev. Oglethorpe's Prayer ›

Posted on: August 5, 2008 - 6:35am #51
thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
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.
  • 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.

Were you even listening to the right show?  Everything you're accusing the RRS of, Matt was between two and five times worse.  The RRS only degraded after trying to put up with him for a while but never got even remotely near his level.  He dodged more than all of them combined, he was more immature, disrespectful and condescending than all of them combined.  When ever Matt was asked a question he'd start talking about something else.  He'd interrupt them constantly.  

I'm not saying the RRS team were perfect.  They were far from it, but with a guest like Matt it would be impossible to actually have a show without doing many of the things they did.  He turned the show in to a joke so they just enjoyed it.  If you listen to earlier shows the RRS improved in their hosting a lot over the time.  The first 10 were terrible in regards to what you're accusing them of but by grew in professionalism a lot and turned it in to a great and fair show.

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/


Posted on: August 5, 2008 - 10:12am #52
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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.

I'm glad you listened to the show. I wish you'd listened to it without the "Matt Slick won" viewpoint you brought in beforehand. 

1. Easy to not lose a single issue when you don't bring one. The RRS kept trying to get him to answer a question that he kept dodging. Insane to suggest that he forgot his points, maybe. However, it's not insane to believe that Matt wh9ined through his time and didn't bring up his points.

2. Why listen to all the other times Matt whined? I'd think the first 7-8 times he whined more than established that he's a whiner.

"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


Posted on: August 5, 2008 - 1:49pm #53
magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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.

I'm glad you listened to the show. I wish you'd listened to it without the "Matt Slick won" viewpoint you brought in beforehand. 

[...]

Note the username.


Posted on: August 5, 2008 - 1:54pm #54
jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:jcgadfly

magilum wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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.

I'm glad you listened to the show. I wish you'd listened to it without the "Matt Slick won" viewpoint you brought in beforehand. 

[...]

Note the username.

I know, I know. Didn't Slick back off his presuppositionalist stance at one time?

"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


Posted on: August 5, 2008 - 10:31pm #55
DJ
DJ's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-07-02
User is offlineOffline
What?

He doesn't agree that a scholar that has been repeatedly refuted can't be trusted?


Posted on: August 6, 2008 - 12:15am #56
Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
DJ wrote:He doesn't agree

DJ wrote:

He doesn't agree that a scholar that has been repeatedly refuted can't be trusted?

This is because scholars that have repeatedly been refuted (or that have been dead for thirty years) are the only scholars who buy into his ideology.

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


Posted on: January 5, 2010 - 2:34am #57
Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

That debate was awesome.  Matt Slick got owned. 

This part was great,

Sapient:  are some presuppositions wrong or are all presuppositions right?

Matt Slick:  .................................what?

Sapient:  are some presuppositions wrong?

Matt Slick:  of course some presuppositions are wrong.

Sapient:  so, how do you tell if your presupposition is right versus anybody elses?

Matt Slick:  .................on what topic?

Sapient:  the existence of god.

Matt Slick:  the existence of god?

Sapient:  yeah.

Matt Slick:  .............................................................I'm not sure I'm following you.

Mike:  How can you not follow that?

 

 

 

 


« first‹ previous12