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

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!

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'.

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.

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. 

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...

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. 

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)? 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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? 

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

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).

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.

Schroedinger's Cat, Corralary 7B:

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

It wasn't a debate.

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?

Don't be an asshat.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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."

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.

Really? prove it.

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

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.

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?