Matt Slick makes no sense. He says god exists outside of the universe and is undetectable to science, while at the same time saying that he has experienced evidence which he can't be bothered mentioning. He's intellectually dishonest.
Matt Slick can't prove his god or any god/creator exists. He claims reason and logic given to him from the bible and from experience, yet he doesn't give this evidence.
Ecc 9:4-6 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
A saw Matt Slick masturbating while looking at porn in a book store. He was doing it right where many people could see him. He has like a 2 inch penis. It was disgusting.
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
No matter how far Kell . Dumbs it down these Theists just don't get it. Ever. Arrogant loud mouths trying to feel like they're right. Dodging questions then demanding answers.
@njtech2005 Like I said (Just Don't Get It.) Matt dodging questions then asking stupid questions forcefully as if he was actually on to something. What a joke. Theists are a joke at attempting to defend there FAITH.
answer to the love question should have been that love does not entail the truth of that which is loved. You may love an imaginary friend yet that feeling of love still fails to prove its existence
"the facts, by reason, by logic and qualities in the bible"... She didn't ask how he looks for evidence, she asked for EXAMPLES of it. And of course he has none other than that stuff happens to exist, and so he jumps tracks to some vague emotional "feeling as evidence" thing. If god exists in your own mind thats fine, but it can not be PROVEN to others. They seem to think that filling in the blanks in their own lives equals filling in the blanks in others'.
By mortal eyes only those things can be perceived that are mortal, for eyes of flesh cannot behold an immortal God and spiritual beings. For instance, you yourself cannot see your own spirit, therefore how can you behold its Creator? But when the spiritual eyes are opened, then you can surely see Him who is Spirit, (John iv.24), and that which you now see of Me you see not with eyes of flesh, but with the eyes of the spirit.
SLick is such a dick.... can't understand how péople swollow him and his bs... his intellectual facade is just that... a facade... he's such an egotistic prick....
@opengates777 jajaja... wht truth? and who's mad?? Slick is not enough to get me mad... his arguments are so weak that they just don't follow through...
You could use his logic and apply that to my new religion that I created yesterday.
He does not provide evidence for anyhthing.
Showing evidence of love and a creator of the universe that provides miracles are seperate things , in stories of the bibles many miracles were witnessed by people why did they stop all of a sudden when we invented camcorders.
Wow kelly is such an incredible idiot! She has no idea how to debate, instead of giving counter arguments she just sits there and goes "Ummm.... well.....uhh". This is just embarrsing.
This clown Matt Slick said that Kelly is being illogical, WTF is he talking about, he is sooooo wrong it's pathetic.You Go Kelly, debate this so called grown-up,your showing him that it is he that is illogical,not you.
Who told this little fool (Kelly) to call the other fool (Slick) in the first place? RRS needs to police its arguments better. These two are hilariously destined to engage in a sordid affair. Stupidity attracts (stupidity). LOL
Strawman defence. At least debate the content. Just calling names is not constructive. The majority of the "anti-God" comments here are at least attempting to reference the video or some generalized "Christian theme" (usually out of context). Take some time to really study both sides of the debate with an open mind...
@n8tron25 you need to shore up on your logical fallacies. i didn't make an argument, i just insulted someone. a straw man would be if i misrepresented slick's position by putting forth a different position from what he holds, and then attacking that. take some time to study such things instead of bluffing and picking a logical fallacy from the hat, accusing someone of it, and hoping they don't know better. mmmkay? thanks.
"apologists are so sleazy"- sleazy basically means dishonest right?
The whole POINT of commenting here is in response to a YouTube video. Insulting Mr. Slick in response to the video .. or more accurately attempting to invalidate his defense by attacking the accuracy (honesty) of his argument is the CLASSIC straw man defense. The topic here is the evidence for God's existence, not Mr. Slick's "sleazyness" mmmkay. No, thank you.
@n8tron25 this is what i love about you TAG groupies. you learn a little about logic then prance around accusing people of them all day long. i didn't make an argument. if i was, the closest fallacy you can pin on me would be ad hominem, but you would be wrong because i just insulted the guy. i wasn't making an argument of my own, i simply insulted him. it's not a straw man in any way, shape or form. i would have to misrepesent a position, then attack that, for it to be a strawman. dipshit.
@n8tron25 you see, me adding "dipshit" at the end of my statement is not a fallacy of any kind either, it's just me adding an insult to the end of my statement. fucktard. stick to faith.
Thanks for "enlightening" me. I'm still not convinced you fully understand this whole logic thing.. I'm certain you do not have a clue about faith...but you do a fantastic job of "insulting" people.
Speaking about god doesn't even sound logical, logic can only apply with what we can experience in this reality not beyond it was the bible that asserted god into our reality it didn't come naturally through instict. Why is that not rational to theists its clear to me don't acknowledge things we can find in this reality none of us have experience on the outside of this realm so why believe or assume its real it sounds very unrational pure and simple.
Atheism isn't truth. Atheism is simply a position on a belief. If you think Atheism is a truth you need to take another look. There's no doctrine, no writings, no claims. Its just a lack of a belief in a god. No more, no less.
@Mattm1986 : Yes it its. There are no gods. To claim there are gods is to lie. To say there are no gods, is to tell the truth.
Or did I get this backwards somehow? Atheists reject the notion of gods, and since there is no evidence for any gods, that should be the default position of any rational human. And since no evidence has been or ever will be presented, is it not fair to say that atheism is the "right" position. And if you ask and Atheist if there is a god, the answer is no, right? =truth
Asking them if there is a god is not a square question, the proper question is"do you believe there is a god?". Because your question is not a yes/no question.
The problem is that the average person equates a rejection of a claim with a positive position, which is not the case. Atheism may be the base position, but calling it the 'right' position adds pointless emphasis.
@Harizl : Pointless and pointless, I think it is a necessary provocation. Its like we now have to call evolution a fact and not "just" a theory, just to shut up creationist morons. We can call religion a lie, and Atheism the truth, just in the name of clarity. After all the poetic sentences and dancing around that honest scientific people have to do before they can say anything, that is what it boils down to. So that there is no chance of missunderstanding and leeway for superstition.
I am a Canadian, so I don't get much as far as idiots pushing YEC.
That said, in the name of clarity* we don't need to label atheism at all, far easier just to say theism is baseless bunkum.
I see where you are going, but where I'm from unless someone brings up their religious beliefs then it is kept to themselves and is a non-factor. No one walks up to you in the street about Jesus, and if they did they would get a lot of discussion about their illogic or laughter about their voodoo.
@Harizl : That sounds really good, you live in a good country. Same deal here, Finland is also practically atheistic like rest of scandinavia. Problems come with muslim immigration, and to oppose their nonsense we have to have proper attitude towards all superstitions. Christians want to tolerate muslims, and respect their beliefs. Thats absolutely idiotic approach to a medieval barbaric cult, but they cant do anything else because they have a similar medieval barbaric cult.
isn't it annoyingand even more dishonest when christian apologists appeal to Skepticism to shoot down other's arguments,but fail to apply the same standard of proof to their own arguments?when debating slick,atheists should make slick agree with them that we do not know what is unknown,and that can't be used as evidence for or against,so let's disregard what we don't know and only debate what we do know.it's pathetic that this would have to be said,but slick's dishonest methods make it necessary
By Matt Slick's own definition of his god, god is undetectable (see: 4:18). Yet, this does not prevent him from making the claim that god does exist. WOW.
The Rational response squad is another example on the disrespect from Atheist. They never treat their guest's with respect, and there is always ridicule.
Matt Slick has demonstrated that he knows NOTHING about his beloved "philosophy!" Just another immature loudmouth raised christian and afraid to escape it.
@MrKevMan I never said Christians don't do it, there is a lot of people who do it, but, this rule goes for everyone, you must you logic and not just subjective or condescending attitudes.
@FighterDoken agreed. he simply cherrypicks a few things here and there that he thinks can help him, without truly comprehending it. he also does what every good theologian does, he appeals to Skepticism when it suits him, in a manner that is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Whatever happened to looking at the things created as proof... Oh never-mind, that was just chance. We are all just a part of chance. Sorry for being condescending. Please keep seeking truth with an open mind and heart. There you will find the way, the truth, and the light, Jesus.
@capnlong13 that idea of "looking at things created" left in the late 1700s, actually.
and nothing in evolution, physics, cosmology, relies on blank "chance" the way you use it. the rules all work together. if i roll a dice, it's a 1 in 6 "chance" of getting a 3, but the REALITY is that number is decided by angle, twist, weight, bounce, gravity, surface resistance... ect ad nauseum, the word chance in science is used to show a lack of active control of the variables.
All this is a massive play on words and semantics designed to pander to Christians that need to reinvest their beliefs. His arguments are styled to confuse. They are hollow.
The short of it is that there is not and never has been any evidence of a "god".
I'm Muslim, but Matt (a Christian) is slapping her around on this show. He's smart. Kelly is on the defense here. You can hear it in her voice and how she's trying to find ways to discredit what he's saying. What Atheist don't understand is that they will/can never win a debate with religion. This is comical. lol
@IsaHamzaBilal isnt it odd you think religion wins debates and atheist think they win debates? Cant we all just agree on the flying spaghetti monster?
This girl Kelly is so mentally challenged. She had been fed crap all her life. And she prolly feels that God never helped her. But I know for certian, that when she is at the brink of death, she WILL Call out for God to help.
@IsaHamzaBilal I don't think you understand what atheism is. It's not disappointment or anger with god, then they would still be theists. Atheists don't believe because the only "proof" is from holy books, flawed logic and the occasional personal experience (which, by the way, differ depending on your religion). Also, saying atheists can never win a debate is laughable. Unless you consider putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" when you can't answer is considered winning.
@IsaHamzaBilal i'm an atheist who's faced death multiple times (100+ mph car crash, 4 IEDs, 3 firefights, 1 purple heart).
the ONLY things i called for help from were the men to my left and right, when i lived the ONLY things i thanked were the men and women who were actually there to help me.
@orionmetzger: Well you should thank God for him putting those people in your immediate area. There is more to life than living and then passing away and nothing happens after that. If you believe that you simply die and that's all than you believe that you are insignificant. I served 4 years HHC 2/87 INF during 9/11. I know what it is like. You should be blessed that God gave you those chancs. You are here for a reason. Don't waste it not knowing God. Peace be with you brother.
@IsaHamzaBilal well I will say you're better than the standard Theist (by not going on the offensive), as far as life being insignificant, that couldn't be farther from the truth! by not believing in immortality it makes EVERY SECOND of my life of supreme importance and significance, eternity LESSENS the value of life by making an unrealistic comparison (from my world view).
Douglas Adams, "isn't it enough to say a garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies at the bottom as well?"
@orionmetzger: In a sense you are, right, but that is not entirely true. I would imagine more people would see it as life being precious because everyone "will" die. And the very person next to you that you love dearly may not be there with you when you make it to your final resting place. We will not be here anymore once we pass. So we have to secure our reward of everlasting life by doing what God has ordained for us. But, my friend, just think, nothing in this planet can be a coincidence.
@orionmetzger: There are too many things of science and just life-known things that you would have learned thereof. There are no coincidences. This is the only planet in this emense galaxy that sustains life. We are the perfect distance from the sun that we do not burn nor freeze. Think about these things. And know that, no, I am not trying to get you to become a Muslim. That is not my objective. I am simply making you aware that there is more to life than just life itself.
If god wanted it to be, it would be with or without your endorsement. No one needs anyones prayers. God will do what he wants to regardless of anyone chiming in giving their 2 cents.
Let's pray for Kelly so she can stop being a dumb bimbo & that she can beg for mercy before Sat. May 21st 2011 when it is too, too late to beg for forgiveness from our Lord& Saviour Jesus Christ!!!
@DarkKnightBob1o1 I didn't presume what you think you put it in the comment: "Matt Slick is a master of semantic bullshit." - "A master of bullshit" is what you think of Matt Slick. You apparently don't understand your own trolling so my comment stands by your own hand, Sir.
At 4:20 Matt Slick said the the creator of the universe (God) can not be a product of the universe. By his own "logic" Jesus Christ (who likely existed) can not be God.
@DarkKnightBob1o1 I'll answer that one since, DKB is tearing into my comments: The universe is the product of God, JC is the product of God. Cannot the universe and JC co-exist even though they are fundamentally made of different stuff? And about the Jesus and God being the same: read about the wave-particle duality and then try again.
a: so you have proof that a macroscopic being can demonstrate the wave-particle duality of a quantum structure. QM doesn't give a magic bullet to some super etheral being. If you're going to try and use QM, don't try it with a physicist.
b: amazing how you admit that science is able to understand the world in such detail and is able to admit they don't know everything yet you somehow have some magical access to categorically KNOW without question that a religious deity exists from just a book
The universe and J.C. if he existed are both made of atomic matter. If you want to say that both the holy spirit, Jesus Christ AND a deity are the same thing then prove it rather than relying on a claim in a 2000 year old book. we're living in an age where you need to back your claim up not just expect people to buy it because "it is written". Don't think that an appeal to intuition is going to prove anything in this case.
His affliction of plugging his ears with his fingers when he hears something he doesn't like or understand, is a common one amongst Christians, and other "beleivers" I for one, can't wait for the wizard, prince, ninja, envestment banker, pie eating champ of scanton Ohio, and nicest zombie frog you'll ever meet, Doug, that's right, it's in the bible people, look it up, gives everyone a unicorn, and great credit for all time, the end.
@hdregmore I'm not playing a game with you. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement. I would urge you to, instead of simply spouting ad hominem attacks, to actually come up with an argument that supports your beliefs. It's not too much to ask I think.
@BiggestOfDaddies You mean like calling me an "idiot" on my own channel. You pointed out no such fallacy you merely mirrored my statement. What particular argument do you have with my beliefs. Please advise us as to why the belief in a creator is not a rationally evident idea.
@hdregmore actually, I called you a moron. Why? Because you're being a moron. That's not an ad hominem attack, that's just insulting your intelligence, or stating a fact depending on your POV. I was pointing it out to you by mocking the very technique you were using in hopes you might see your error without having it spelled out for you. It's called "Reading between the lines". I guess I gave you too much credit. Care to try again, or you could just apologize for your thoughtless comments.
@BiggestOfDaddies Whatever you were attempting you were being a smug dickhead. Why don't you mock your own self indulgent ineffectual attitude. Oh and that's not an "ad hominem attack" because you are by definition a dickhead. I do not accept YOUR apology.
@hdregmore I never apologized to you. I have no reason to apologize to you. You earned my smug response to you when you made dickhead remarks on channels insulting and degrading the thoughts of people you don't even know. You earned every bit of it and I was justified in giving it to you. Lose the attitude and stop spouting your crap opinions as though they're fact and you won't get responses like mine. Had you presented anything intellectual, I would have responded accordingly, but you didn't.
@BiggestOfDaddies Okay, exactly where have I been "insulting and degrading the thoughts of people"?Please let us know the exact location of these offenses. Also,where have I failed to respond to a civil request for information?You are just dummy spitting because your DEMANDS for irrelevant information are not met. Guess what?People can have differing opinions and they DON'T have to justify them to idiots like you.Answer these challenges or everyone will know you're just full of churlish crap
@hdregmore I've already pointed them out, but here it goes again. Your original comments on here of "Yeah, atheists are not intimidating. Annoying sometimes but not intimidating" Great, you've stated your opinion. It proves nothing.
Then there's the videos on your channel which are not only ridiculous and stupid but also not an accurate representation of atheist behavior at all. "Dudley Brown" shows us what? "Some Atheists Can't Be Helped"...no atheist acts that way and still, shows us what?
@BiggestOfDaddies That was a perfectly normal response to your - "Yeah, Christians are not intimidating. Annoying sometimes but not intimidating."Your second proof of being "insulting and degrading" is the content of my videos which are cartoons for amusement. Is that seriously all you have after that gigantic dummy spit? If you call cartoon parody "insulting and degrading" you really can't be helped.Looks like you can give it out to Christians but not take it. Suck it up.
@hdregmore First of all, my quote was a response to yours. I said "Yeah, Christians are not intimidating..." after you said "Yeah, Atheists are not intimidating..." Your response to that was something about agnostics and then you said "your turn".
Second, my problem was that was all you have to offer. Parody would be one thing, but that's not what you're doing. Parody is making fun of the way someone actually behaves, like SNL did with Sarah Palin. cont...
@hdregmore Your videos completely misrepresent (lie about) the way an atheist would actually behave in the same situations. You don't defend your beliefs, you just attack those who take an opposing side. There's nothing intellectual about doing that and I, and I'm sure others, take issue with it. You can't address us on a common ground because you know you've got nothing to present. You've demonstrated that all you've got are jeers, lies and finger pointing. That's pretty pathetic.
@BiggestOfDaddies Lie?How ridiculous is that misinterpretation?Go away and argue with South Park or Family Guy presenters?What makes you think that I have to answer to YOU regarding my views?You are obviously a sad little man who has nothing better to do than take imaginary umbrage to harmless cartoons.Why don't you direct your misguided anger towards NonStampCollector or Edward Current?Now they are incredibly offensive to religious people.You can dish out shit but you can't handle it.HYPOCRITE
@hdregmore Way to dodge the point tool. I figured as much. Yes, you do have to answer to me. When you post your rhetorical bullshit on a public forum, who do you think reads it? The fact of the matter still remains that none of the things you post bare any resemblance to an actual argument. Everything you post is just your crap opinion about atheism, but you never say why or address what the actual issue is. You just feel it more pertinent to demean those who disagree with you. That's..PATHETIC.
@BiggestOfDaddies Listen idiot, I am not interested one bit in your anti-intellectual McCarthyism. Nor am I impressed with you continually calling me PATHETIC. As if it would mean anything coming from a mental midget who is bereft of credibility. I am dodging nothing. I do not respond to infantile demands. I demean no-one however I believe I have made an exception with you. That's........THE WAY IT IS, FOOL.
@hdregmore If you're not interested why are you still responding to me? The fact remains that nothing you've said so far is any kind of actual argument about why people should believe what you do. If it is, I'd like you to show me where you actually make a real argument. Then, perhaps we can discuss it like civilized people. But you've demonstrated you don't really want that. You just want to kick the dirt and whine about atheists are "idiots". Guess what tool, that's not an argument.
@BiggestOfDaddies You are the idiot with the abuse. Try not using "tool" so much, it loses it's effect after the 10th time. I am not interested in your lunacy. I am however happy to respond when a mental jackass makes a random attack on myself and my videos. Either come up with a tangible and coherent point or piss off.
@hdregmore You're just loaded with dishonesty. I've only said tool twice..TOOL! It would lose emphasis if I had used it 10 times, but I didn't, so lucky for me, it's still working.
I've made plenty of coherent points, all dealing with your lack of ability to make any kind of legitimate argument. You can't do it can you?
@hdregmore That's what I figured. Way to bail and just throw out insults. You'd think after so many times I'd be used to theists bailing like this. I just never can get used to it though.
@hdregmore You're right, it's not rhetoric, because calling it rhetoric would mean you're using language effectively and persuasively. You're clearly not, so I guess it was a poor choice of word on my part. Oh well.
The Bible can be compared to a pedophile. "You can trust me." "How do I know?" "I said you can trust me!" "Okay sounds great." Did I tell you there'd be candy if you come with me?" "Oh boy sounds like fun!"
as for kelly's catagory mistake. the existence of god does not proof god created the universe thats also wrong slick. for all you know something created the universe and the god yuor sow illing to worship killed the creator of the universe. this is of course theoretical since god has yet to be proven.
personal experience is a very easy way out slick true or not.
I don't know how anyone can listen to this debate and think that Kelly won. Later on in the interview, she is actually getting coached by her boyfriend Brian. It is embarassing. Kelly is constantly stumped. She comes off as totally clueless.
@kalyoub On the contrary, its not even theoretical. It doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. Much like the God claim itself, this is just a made up story posing as conjecture. The difference is that you are at least aware of its false nature. The God claim barely (if at all) qualifies as a hypothesis because people site the bible and its claim of observation. But without actual evidence to support it, it doesn't go beyond that. Just thought I'd make the distinction clear.
Matt Slick has a hearing deficiency, where he has to put his fingers in his ears to stop the ringing. THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!!! All religious people must have the same deficiency, and they mistake FACTS for ringing in the ear. With their ears plugged they can't hear the evidence! And all these years I just had them all pegged as morons, but it's truely a medical condition.
She didn't commit a category mistake. She said only things that can be observed in some way warrant belief. Not only things that can be observed in some way exist. He keeps trying to shit the burden like all religious people do.
@rumblefishism ...and ''Green Eggs and Ham'' is evidence that Sam did not green eggs and ham. oddly enough Jesus' magical techniques like groanin,looking up at the sun and using spit were in use long before he did his magic tricks.Not an original character...was he??? =/
Matt completely dodged Kelly's question about providing evidence, and instead trying to tie her up with questions that have NOTHING to do with the existence of God. Unfortunately, Kelly fell for it.
Matt Slick makes no sense. He says god exists outside of the universe and is undetectable to science, while at the same time saying that he has experienced evidence which he can't be bothered mentioning. He's intellectually dishonest.
Slanguaj 2 weeks ago
it's funny he uses logic and reason but he never gives a logically reason for the exist of god.
DoktorSick 1 month ago
Good job Matt.
ChessArmyCommander 1 month ago
It does not take long to detect that Kelly knows she is in real trouble in this debate.
wittymcwitterson 2 months ago
Matt Slick can't prove his god or any god/creator exists. He claims reason and logic given to him from the bible and from experience, yet he doesn't give this evidence.
digitalbeachbum 3 months ago in playlist Matt Slick roasts Kelly
way to go Mat Slick i like the way u talk God Bless u
Dale65378 3 months ago
what about the bible its proof that god done it... lol
FUwogs 4 months ago
Matt's voice reverb makes him sound like a robot, kinda like HAL from '2001' mixed with a broken transformer :P
TheRenoReviews 5 months ago
What happens after we die? Watch "GOD'S PRISON" and find out. It's worth the 4 minutes considering your eternal stake.
Electfilmproductions 5 months ago
@Electfilmproductions
Ecc 9:4-6 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
The dead are sleep till Judgement day.
TheTriumph777 3 months ago
Kelly is a porn star now and she s an ugly plastic whore
SonofJaphet 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A saw Matt Slick masturbating while looking at porn in a book store. He was doing it right where many people could see him. He has like a 2 inch penis. It was disgusting.
MrSupernova890 6 months ago
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
MrSupernova890 6 months ago
@MrSupernova890 Typical atheist libelous response
SonofJaphet 5 months ago
i got to admit....im a strong athiest.....but this guy actually has a sound logical argument,
revelation1234 7 months ago
@revelation1234 his basic argument at the beginning is just the basic argument from ignorance.
TheDcac 6 months ago
junior varsity against an Olympian. Kelly had no business being in this discussion.
I'm not ridiculing atheism but a better match up would have been appropriate.
njtech2005 7 months ago
I appreciate the calm, respectful discourse.
twistedH3L1X 7 months ago
If Matt nit picked and questioned the bible as much as atheists he would be an Atheist.
Pantera4LifeXTX 7 months ago
No matter how far Kell . Dumbs it down these Theists just don't get it. Ever. Arrogant loud mouths trying to feel like they're right. Dodging questions then demanding answers.
Pantera4LifeXTX 7 months ago
@Pantera4LifeXTX
Kelly didn't "dumb" anything down, she just didn't present her case very well. she's too preoccupied getting her "career" started i suppose
njtech2005 7 months ago
@njtech2005 Like I said (Just Don't Get It.) Matt dodging questions then asking stupid questions forcefully as if he was actually on to something. What a joke. Theists are a joke at attempting to defend there FAITH.
Pantera4LifeXTX 7 months ago
answer to the love question should have been that love does not entail the truth of that which is loved. You may love an imaginary friend yet that feeling of love still fails to prove its existence
randomhobbyist 7 months ago 2
"the facts, by reason, by logic and qualities in the bible"... She didn't ask how he looks for evidence, she asked for EXAMPLES of it. And of course he has none other than that stuff happens to exist, and so he jumps tracks to some vague emotional "feeling as evidence" thing. If god exists in your own mind thats fine, but it can not be PROVEN to others. They seem to think that filling in the blanks in their own lives equals filling in the blanks in others'.
Damienf77 7 months ago
By mortal eyes only those things can be perceived that are mortal, for eyes of flesh cannot behold an immortal God and spiritual beings. For instance, you yourself cannot see your own spirit, therefore how can you behold its Creator? But when the spiritual eyes are opened, then you can surely see Him who is Spirit, (John iv.24), and that which you now see of Me you see not with eyes of flesh, but with the eyes of the spirit.
DeborahFaith78 8 months ago
SLick is such a dick.... can't understand how péople swollow him and his bs... his intellectual facade is just that... a facade... he's such an egotistic prick....
JuanAndreful 9 months ago
@JuanAndreful
Don't get mad at the truth!!!!!!!
opengates777 7 months ago
@opengates777 jajaja... wht truth? and who's mad?? Slick is not enough to get me mad... his arguments are so weak that they just don't follow through...
JuanAndreful 7 months ago
But why does that justify the christian god.
You could use his logic and apply that to my new religion that I created yesterday.
He does not provide evidence for anyhthing.
Showing evidence of love and a creator of the universe that provides miracles are seperate things , in stories of the bibles many miracles were witnessed by people why did they stop all of a sudden when we invented camcorders.
Master8laster 9 months ago
Trying to reach the logical part of a theist's brain is impossible. They are HIGHLY illogical. There's a reason it's called blind faith.
TheAlexacaius 9 months ago
Kelly talking about an orgasm? Now things are getting interesting.
blarson12 9 months ago
Wow kelly is such an incredible idiot! She has no idea how to debate, instead of giving counter arguments she just sits there and goes "Ummm.... well.....uhh". This is just embarrsing.
Darkfoxle 10 months ago
This clown Matt Slick said that Kelly is being illogical, WTF is he talking about, he is sooooo wrong it's pathetic.You Go Kelly, debate this so called grown-up,your showing him that it is he that is illogical,not you.
k9a2g6 10 months ago
Who told this little fool (Kelly) to call the other fool (Slick) in the first place? RRS needs to police its arguments better. These two are hilariously destined to engage in a sordid affair. Stupidity attracts (stupidity). LOL
epigenomical 11 months ago
These pathetic fools embarrass both sides of the argument.
epigenomical 11 months ago
apologists are so sleazy. they're worse than politicians and used car salesman.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
@BillKiernan
Strawman defence. At least debate the content. Just calling names is not constructive. The majority of the "anti-God" comments here are at least attempting to reference the video or some generalized "Christian theme" (usually out of context). Take some time to really study both sides of the debate with an open mind...
n8tron25 11 months ago
@n8tron25 you need to shore up on your logical fallacies. i didn't make an argument, i just insulted someone. a straw man would be if i misrepresented slick's position by putting forth a different position from what he holds, and then attacking that. take some time to study such things instead of bluffing and picking a logical fallacy from the hat, accusing someone of it, and hoping they don't know better. mmmkay? thanks.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
@BillKiernan
logical fallacies are "shored".
"apologists are so sleazy"- sleazy basically means dishonest right?
The whole POINT of commenting here is in response to a YouTube video. Insulting Mr. Slick in response to the video .. or more accurately attempting to invalidate his defense by attacking the accuracy (honesty) of his argument is the CLASSIC straw man defense. The topic here is the evidence for God's existence, not Mr. Slick's "sleazyness" mmmkay. No, thank you.
n8tron25 11 months ago
@n8tron25 this is what i love about you TAG groupies. you learn a little about logic then prance around accusing people of them all day long. i didn't make an argument. if i was, the closest fallacy you can pin on me would be ad hominem, but you would be wrong because i just insulted the guy. i wasn't making an argument of my own, i simply insulted him. it's not a straw man in any way, shape or form. i would have to misrepesent a position, then attack that, for it to be a strawman. dipshit.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
@n8tron25 you see, me adding "dipshit" at the end of my statement is not a fallacy of any kind either, it's just me adding an insult to the end of my statement. fucktard. stick to faith.
BillKiernan 11 months ago
@BillKiernan I see I've hit a nerve.
Thanks for "enlightening" me. I'm still not convinced you fully understand this whole logic thing.. I'm certain you do not have a clue about faith...but you do a fantastic job of "insulting" people.
n8tron25 11 months ago
Speaking about god doesn't even sound logical, logic can only apply with what we can experience in this reality not beyond it was the bible that asserted god into our reality it didn't come naturally through instict. Why is that not rational to theists its clear to me don't acknowledge things we can find in this reality none of us have experience on the outside of this realm so why believe or assume its real it sounds very unrational pure and simple.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan
"logic can only apply with what we can experience in this reality "
There are many things that "this reality"can NOT explain.
Start here:
(from Wikipedia... but you can find this in any textbook) FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS:
The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed"
So... where did the "energy" come from ?? Was it "always" there ? All the energy in the UNIVERSE?
n8tron25 11 months ago
@n8tron25 Wouldn't a god have to use logic himself? he couldn't be the author if he has to use it too.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan There are several steps missing here. Apparently, I jumped into the middle of something here. Sorry.
Just so I can catch up... who said God was the author of logic?
Are we talking about the genesis of logic, or "what we can experience in reality"...?
n8tron25 11 months ago
@n8tron25 I guess, this subject is very hard to get into i have spoken my thoughts but i am open to anything really.
wachnathan 11 months ago
Love ya Kelly....stick it to 'em
EddieCurrentFan 11 months ago
Atheism is the truth. Get over it.
Religion is embarrassing ridiculous superstition.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234
Atheism isn't truth. Atheism is simply a position on a belief. If you think Atheism is a truth you need to take another look. There's no doctrine, no writings, no claims. Its just a lack of a belief in a god. No more, no less.
Mattm1986 11 months ago
@Mattm1986 : Yes it its. There are no gods. To claim there are gods is to lie. To say there are no gods, is to tell the truth.
Or did I get this backwards somehow? Atheists reject the notion of gods, and since there is no evidence for any gods, that should be the default position of any rational human. And since no evidence has been or ever will be presented, is it not fair to say that atheism is the "right" position. And if you ask and Atheist if there is a god, the answer is no, right? =truth
bary1234 11 months ago
@bary1234
Asking them if there is a god is not a square question, the proper question is"do you believe there is a god?". Because your question is not a yes/no question.
The problem is that the average person equates a rejection of a claim with a positive position, which is not the case. Atheism may be the base position, but calling it the 'right' position adds pointless emphasis.
Harizl 11 months ago
@Harizl : Pointless and pointless, I think it is a necessary provocation. Its like we now have to call evolution a fact and not "just" a theory, just to shut up creationist morons. We can call religion a lie, and Atheism the truth, just in the name of clarity. After all the poetic sentences and dancing around that honest scientific people have to do before they can say anything, that is what it boils down to. So that there is no chance of missunderstanding and leeway for superstition.
bary1234 11 months ago
@bary1234
I am a Canadian, so I don't get much as far as idiots pushing YEC.
That said, in the name of clarity* we don't need to label atheism at all, far easier just to say theism is baseless bunkum.
I see where you are going, but where I'm from unless someone brings up their religious beliefs then it is kept to themselves and is a non-factor. No one walks up to you in the street about Jesus, and if they did they would get a lot of discussion about their illogic or laughter about their voodoo.
Harizl 11 months ago
@Harizl : That sounds really good, you live in a good country. Same deal here, Finland is also practically atheistic like rest of scandinavia. Problems come with muslim immigration, and to oppose their nonsense we have to have proper attitude towards all superstitions. Christians want to tolerate muslims, and respect their beliefs. Thats absolutely idiotic approach to a medieval barbaric cult, but they cant do anything else because they have a similar medieval barbaric cult.
bary1234 11 months ago
isn't it annoyingand even more dishonest when christian apologists appeal to Skepticism to shoot down other's arguments,but fail to apply the same standard of proof to their own arguments?when debating slick,atheists should make slick agree with them that we do not know what is unknown,and that can't be used as evidence for or against,so let's disregard what we don't know and only debate what we do know.it's pathetic that this would have to be said,but slick's dishonest methods make it necessary
mebe84 1 year ago
This guy has decided that undetectable is evidence that something exists. He must believe very strongly in leprechauns.
leavesof3 1 year ago
By Matt Slick's own definition of his god, god is undetectable (see: 4:18). Yet, this does not prevent him from making the claim that god does exist. WOW.
sKIPper76M 1 year ago 9
@sKIPper76M
Not only that, to assign god properties. THAT'S impressive - assigning properties to something he can't detect!
JMUDoc 8 months ago
Paz en el mundo abajo la religion que viva la razon humana
thefardox 1 year ago
How do i know that there is no evidence for god?
I know i havent been presented with any, how does that sound, mr semantic.
Can he say there is no proof of Zues' existance?
Hes being dishonest on purpose.
MrKevMan 1 year ago
The Rational response squad is another example on the disrespect from Atheist. They never treat their guest's with respect, and there is always ridicule.
meeene4 1 year ago
Matt Slick has demonstrated that he knows NOTHING about his beloved "philosophy!" Just another immature loudmouth raised christian and afraid to escape it.
FighterDoken 1 year ago 3
@FighterDoken Leave it to another Atheist, to slander and put down another person, Good job.
meeene4 1 year ago
@meeene4
So when a Christian does it, its love right?
MrKevMan 1 year ago
@MrKevMan I never said Christians don't do it, there is a lot of people who do it, but, this rule goes for everyone, you must you logic and not just subjective or condescending attitudes.
meeene4 1 year ago
@FighterDoken agreed. he simply cherrypicks a few things here and there that he thinks can help him, without truly comprehending it. he also does what every good theologian does, he appeals to Skepticism when it suits him, in a manner that is inconsistent and hypocritical.
mebe84 1 year ago
Whatever happened to looking at the things created as proof... Oh never-mind, that was just chance. We are all just a part of chance. Sorry for being condescending. Please keep seeking truth with an open mind and heart. There you will find the way, the truth, and the light, Jesus.
capnlong13 1 year ago
@capnlong13 that idea of "looking at things created" left in the late 1700s, actually.
and nothing in evolution, physics, cosmology, relies on blank "chance" the way you use it. the rules all work together. if i roll a dice, it's a 1 in 6 "chance" of getting a 3, but the REALITY is that number is decided by angle, twist, weight, bounce, gravity, surface resistance... ect ad nauseum, the word chance in science is used to show a lack of active control of the variables.
orionmetzger 1 year ago
Love for his Wife v God:
Well another mute arguement... His Wife Exists, god does not.
What reason could this possibly have for or against god?
FatRakoon 1 year ago
All this is a massive play on words and semantics designed to pander to Christians that need to reinvest their beliefs. His arguments are styled to confuse. They are hollow.
The short of it is that there is not and never has been any evidence of a "god".
sumosword 1 year ago
Didn't take Kelly long to get all condesending and arrogant. She's really not interested in evidence.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms Haha! Not really surprising, considering the fact that this guy is using kindergarten logic in his arguments.
DonutDazzler 1 year ago
Actually, I thought she pretty much owned this, considering how totally theoretical this dipshit drove the conversation.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
Lol, this is the same hoe-bag that WOTM pwned, lol. When will trailer park, Barbie, learn?
CrimsinStar 1 year ago
@CrimsinStar I'm pretty sure you're joking, because WotM is a complete and utter joke.
DonutDazzler 1 year ago
I'm Muslim, but Matt (a Christian) is slapping her around on this show. He's smart. Kelly is on the defense here. You can hear it in her voice and how she's trying to find ways to discredit what he's saying. What Atheist don't understand is that they will/can never win a debate with religion. This is comical. lol
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal About 90% of Americans are christians. And about 90% of American scientists are atheists. Go figure
mysteryg 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal isnt it odd you think religion wins debates and atheist think they win debates? Cant we all just agree on the flying spaghetti monster?
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal
Fool.
Mrgyn 1 year ago
This girl Kelly is so mentally challenged. She had been fed crap all her life. And she prolly feels that God never helped her. But I know for certian, that when she is at the brink of death, she WILL Call out for God to help.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsaHamzaBilal
That was a creepy comment...brink of death? You are a little sick.
mfentruck 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal I don't think you understand what atheism is. It's not disappointment or anger with god, then they would still be theists. Atheists don't believe because the only "proof" is from holy books, flawed logic and the occasional personal experience (which, by the way, differ depending on your religion). Also, saying atheists can never win a debate is laughable. Unless you consider putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" when you can't answer is considered winning.
omgwtfbbqzorz 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal You know no such thing.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal i'm an atheist who's faced death multiple times (100+ mph car crash, 4 IEDs, 3 firefights, 1 purple heart).
the ONLY things i called for help from were the men to my left and right, when i lived the ONLY things i thanked were the men and women who were actually there to help me.
orionmetzger 1 year ago 28
@orionmetzger: Well you should thank God for him putting those people in your immediate area. There is more to life than living and then passing away and nothing happens after that. If you believe that you simply die and that's all than you believe that you are insignificant. I served 4 years HHC 2/87 INF during 9/11. I know what it is like. You should be blessed that God gave you those chancs. You are here for a reason. Don't waste it not knowing God. Peace be with you brother.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal well I will say you're better than the standard Theist (by not going on the offensive), as far as life being insignificant, that couldn't be farther from the truth! by not believing in immortality it makes EVERY SECOND of my life of supreme importance and significance, eternity LESSENS the value of life by making an unrealistic comparison (from my world view).
Douglas Adams, "isn't it enough to say a garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies at the bottom as well?"
orionmetzger 1 year ago
@orionmetzger: In a sense you are, right, but that is not entirely true. I would imagine more people would see it as life being precious because everyone "will" die. And the very person next to you that you love dearly may not be there with you when you make it to your final resting place. We will not be here anymore once we pass. So we have to secure our reward of everlasting life by doing what God has ordained for us. But, my friend, just think, nothing in this planet can be a coincidence.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
@orionmetzger: There are too many things of science and just life-known things that you would have learned thereof. There are no coincidences. This is the only planet in this emense galaxy that sustains life. We are the perfect distance from the sun that we do not burn nor freeze. Think about these things. And know that, no, I am not trying to get you to become a Muslim. That is not my objective. I am simply making you aware that there is more to life than just life itself.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
@orionmetzger: May God's guidence, love and protection come to you and your family many times over. Peace be with you.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal
No.
If god wanted it to be, it would be with or without your endorsement. No one needs anyones prayers. God will do what he wants to regardless of anyone chiming in giving their 2 cents.
MrKevMan 1 year ago
@IsaHamzaBilal
God did that? God interviened and suspended peoples free will to manipulate them into being at that time and place?
God does not use people. We have free will.
MrKevMan 1 year ago
@MrKevMan: I am lost. I have made amny conmments on youtube. Please tell me what you are talking about.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
@MrKevMan what about egypt and Pharoh ? God hardened his heart so he would not let Gods peple go. Thats not allowing free will.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@orionmetzger -you should consider thanking God for putting those people near you in your time of need.
it's odd that you refer to those people as "things".
tubelvr08 6 months ago
@orionmetzger well thank god for the men and women he created......
lilbeaveymac 5 months ago
Let's pray for Kelly so she can stop being a dumb bimbo & that she can beg for mercy before Sat. May 21st 2011 when it is too, too late to beg for forgiveness from our Lord& Saviour Jesus Christ!!!
YAHUSHUAisELOHIM 1 year ago
@YAHUSHUAisELOHIM You stupid fuck, work better in school or GO BACK TO SCHOOL you dumb fuck!
Hermoor 1 year ago
@Hermoor just read ur msg...May our LORD have mercy on u, may HIS Peace b with u, hope HE saves u. sorry I dont know who u r.
YAHUSHUAisELOHIM 3 months ago
@Hermoor oh I SAW my comment about Kelly, and I am sorry for calling her a dumb bimbo, I pray for her, n u Hermoor, that Our LORD blesses u.
YAHUSHUAisELOHIM 3 months ago
matt slick is aight.... he's way too doctrinal and can't wrestle with scrip..
aiv14 1 year ago
Matt Slick lost to Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience.
Key2daUnderground 1 year ago
@Key2daUnderground Arguments are never lost, they are just never responded to.
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
Matt Slick is a master of semantic bullshit.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you should troll it.
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
I do understand it and perhaps you should not presume to know what other people think based on one single comment.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkKnightBob1o1 I didn't presume what you think you put it in the comment: "Matt Slick is a master of semantic bullshit." - "A master of bullshit" is what you think of Matt Slick. You apparently don't understand your own trolling so my comment stands by your own hand, Sir.
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
Comment removed
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
At 4:20 Matt Slick said the the creator of the universe (God) can not be a product of the universe. By his own "logic" Jesus Christ (who likely existed) can not be God.
cappercastro 1 year ago
@cappercastro Jesus Christ is a product of God. Doh!
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
ugh, but God and jesus are one and the same thing. aka the trinity.
unless you want to claim somehow humans are genetically capable of morphing into some interchangeable alien lifeform.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 I'll answer that one since, DKB is tearing into my comments: The universe is the product of God, JC is the product of God. Cannot the universe and JC co-exist even though they are fundamentally made of different stuff? And about the Jesus and God being the same: read about the wave-particle duality and then try again.
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
a: so you have proof that a macroscopic being can demonstrate the wave-particle duality of a quantum structure. QM doesn't give a magic bullet to some super etheral being. If you're going to try and use QM, don't try it with a physicist.
b: amazing how you admit that science is able to understand the world in such detail and is able to admit they don't know everything yet you somehow have some magical access to categorically KNOW without question that a religious deity exists from just a book
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
The universe and J.C. if he existed are both made of atomic matter. If you want to say that both the holy spirit, Jesus Christ AND a deity are the same thing then prove it rather than relying on a claim in a 2000 year old book. we're living in an age where you need to back your claim up not just expect people to buy it because "it is written". Don't think that an appeal to intuition is going to prove anything in this case.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
His affliction of plugging his ears with his fingers when he hears something he doesn't like or understand, is a common one amongst Christians, and other "beleivers" I for one, can't wait for the wizard, prince, ninja, envestment banker, pie eating champ of scanton Ohio, and nicest zombie frog you'll ever meet, Doug, that's right, it's in the bible people, look it up, gives everyone a unicorn, and great credit for all time, the end.
TheFightfirewithbaco 1 year ago
I don't believe in the bible because God never signed it.
berner 1 year ago
Slick is an idiot.
grundgemonster 1 year ago
Yeah, atheists are not intimidating. Annoying sometimes but not intimidating.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore Yeah, Christians are not intimidating. Annoying sometimes but not intimidating.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Yeah, agnostics are not complacent. Disinterested sometimes but not complacent. Your turn.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore I'm not playing a game with you. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement. I would urge you to, instead of simply spouting ad hominem attacks, to actually come up with an argument that supports your beliefs. It's not too much to ask I think.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies You mean like calling me an "idiot" on my own channel. You pointed out no such fallacy you merely mirrored my statement. What particular argument do you have with my beliefs. Please advise us as to why the belief in a creator is not a rationally evident idea.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore actually, I called you a moron. Why? Because you're being a moron. That's not an ad hominem attack, that's just insulting your intelligence, or stating a fact depending on your POV. I was pointing it out to you by mocking the very technique you were using in hopes you might see your error without having it spelled out for you. It's called "Reading between the lines". I guess I gave you too much credit. Care to try again, or you could just apologize for your thoughtless comments.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Whatever you were attempting you were being a smug dickhead. Why don't you mock your own self indulgent ineffectual attitude. Oh and that's not an "ad hominem attack" because you are by definition a dickhead. I do not accept YOUR apology.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore I never apologized to you. I have no reason to apologize to you. You earned my smug response to you when you made dickhead remarks on channels insulting and degrading the thoughts of people you don't even know. You earned every bit of it and I was justified in giving it to you. Lose the attitude and stop spouting your crap opinions as though they're fact and you won't get responses like mine. Had you presented anything intellectual, I would have responded accordingly, but you didn't.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Okay, exactly where have I been "insulting and degrading the thoughts of people"?Please let us know the exact location of these offenses. Also,where have I failed to respond to a civil request for information?You are just dummy spitting because your DEMANDS for irrelevant information are not met. Guess what?People can have differing opinions and they DON'T have to justify them to idiots like you.Answer these challenges or everyone will know you're just full of churlish crap
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore I've already pointed them out, but here it goes again. Your original comments on here of "Yeah, atheists are not intimidating. Annoying sometimes but not intimidating" Great, you've stated your opinion. It proves nothing.
Then there's the videos on your channel which are not only ridiculous and stupid but also not an accurate representation of atheist behavior at all. "Dudley Brown" shows us what? "Some Atheists Can't Be Helped"...no atheist acts that way and still, shows us what?
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies That was a perfectly normal response to your - "Yeah, Christians are not intimidating. Annoying sometimes but not intimidating."Your second proof of being "insulting and degrading" is the content of my videos which are cartoons for amusement. Is that seriously all you have after that gigantic dummy spit? If you call cartoon parody "insulting and degrading" you really can't be helped.Looks like you can give it out to Christians but not take it. Suck it up.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore First of all, my quote was a response to yours. I said "Yeah, Christians are not intimidating..." after you said "Yeah, Atheists are not intimidating..." Your response to that was something about agnostics and then you said "your turn".
Second, my problem was that was all you have to offer. Parody would be one thing, but that's not what you're doing. Parody is making fun of the way someone actually behaves, like SNL did with Sarah Palin. cont...
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@hdregmore Your videos completely misrepresent (lie about) the way an atheist would actually behave in the same situations. You don't defend your beliefs, you just attack those who take an opposing side. There's nothing intellectual about doing that and I, and I'm sure others, take issue with it. You can't address us on a common ground because you know you've got nothing to present. You've demonstrated that all you've got are jeers, lies and finger pointing. That's pretty pathetic.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Lie?How ridiculous is that misinterpretation?Go away and argue with South Park or Family Guy presenters?What makes you think that I have to answer to YOU regarding my views?You are obviously a sad little man who has nothing better to do than take imaginary umbrage to harmless cartoons.Why don't you direct your misguided anger towards NonStampCollector or Edward Current?Now they are incredibly offensive to religious people.You can dish out shit but you can't handle it.HYPOCRITE
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore Way to dodge the point tool. I figured as much. Yes, you do have to answer to me. When you post your rhetorical bullshit on a public forum, who do you think reads it? The fact of the matter still remains that none of the things you post bare any resemblance to an actual argument. Everything you post is just your crap opinion about atheism, but you never say why or address what the actual issue is. You just feel it more pertinent to demean those who disagree with you. That's..PATHETIC.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Listen idiot, I am not interested one bit in your anti-intellectual McCarthyism. Nor am I impressed with you continually calling me PATHETIC. As if it would mean anything coming from a mental midget who is bereft of credibility. I am dodging nothing. I do not respond to infantile demands. I demean no-one however I believe I have made an exception with you. That's........THE WAY IT IS, FOOL.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore If you're not interested why are you still responding to me? The fact remains that nothing you've said so far is any kind of actual argument about why people should believe what you do. If it is, I'd like you to show me where you actually make a real argument. Then, perhaps we can discuss it like civilized people. But you've demonstrated you don't really want that. You just want to kick the dirt and whine about atheists are "idiots". Guess what tool, that's not an argument.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies You are the idiot with the abuse. Try not using "tool" so much, it loses it's effect after the 10th time. I am not interested in your lunacy. I am however happy to respond when a mental jackass makes a random attack on myself and my videos. Either come up with a tangible and coherent point or piss off.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore You're just loaded with dishonesty. I've only said tool twice..TOOL! It would lose emphasis if I had used it 10 times, but I didn't, so lucky for me, it's still working.
I've made plenty of coherent points, all dealing with your lack of ability to make any kind of legitimate argument. You can't do it can you?
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Yeah, and you are loaded with shit. The only point you have is your bullet headed cranium.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore That's what I figured. Way to bail and just throw out insults. You'd think after so many times I'd be used to theists bailing like this. I just never can get used to it though.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies You should try being approachable rather than reproachable.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore See, just proving my point for me. All you've got is mindless rhetoric and no argument whatsoever.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies No rhetoric here arse-face.Only direct comments on your shortcomings.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore You're right, it's not rhetoric, because calling it rhetoric would mean you're using language effectively and persuasively. You're clearly not, so I guess it was a poor choice of word on my part. Oh well.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Wow, incorrectly critiquing your own nonsense now. Oh dear.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore You can't even troll right. Just keep talking crap, you might even start believing it yourself.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@BiggestOfDaddies Yeah, you are not intimidating. Blah.
grahamsaccount 1 year ago
The Bible can be compared to a pedophile. "You can trust me." "How do I know?" "I said you can trust me!" "Okay sounds great." Did I tell you there'd be candy if you come with me?" "Oh boy sounds like fun!"
TehKign12356 1 year ago 2
@TehKign12356 Lol :)
berner 1 year ago
Matt slick is so full of shit.
cachimadrid 1 year ago
I don't mind that Matt Slick is an idiot, I just wish he wasn't so smug and patronising
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
A 3-O god cannot doom people to hell for not believing in him without making knowledge of his existence necessary.
acidgawd999 1 year ago
that background voice is so creepy
FOOFlGHTERS 1 year ago
I thought better of you Matt...but you are stupid.
cachimadrid 1 year ago
lol, I love christians. SO funny.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago
Kelly creamed you and matt D creamed you.
as for kelly's catagory mistake. the existence of god does not proof god created the universe thats also wrong slick. for all you know something created the universe and the god yuor sow illing to worship killed the creator of the universe. this is of course theoretical since god has yet to be proven.
personal experience is a very easy way out slick true or not.
kalyoub 1 year ago
@kalyoub
I don't know how anyone can listen to this debate and think that Kelly won. Later on in the interview, she is actually getting coached by her boyfriend Brian. It is embarassing. Kelly is constantly stumped. She comes off as totally clueless.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@kalyoub On the contrary, its not even theoretical. It doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. Much like the God claim itself, this is just a made up story posing as conjecture. The difference is that you are at least aware of its false nature. The God claim barely (if at all) qualifies as a hypothesis because people site the bible and its claim of observation. But without actual evidence to support it, it doesn't go beyond that. Just thought I'd make the distinction clear.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
kelly's voice is pretty annoying.. but her juggs are enormous!
SecularSwede 1 year ago
Matt Slick has a hearing deficiency, where he has to put his fingers in his ears to stop the ringing. THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!!! All religious people must have the same deficiency, and they mistake FACTS for ringing in the ear. With their ears plugged they can't hear the evidence! And all these years I just had them all pegged as morons, but it's truely a medical condition.
cherylsalo 1 year ago
She didn't commit a category mistake. She said only things that can be observed in some way warrant belief. Not only things that can be observed in some way exist. He keeps trying to shit the burden like all religious people do.
sandform 1 year ago
Matt worships God of the Bible, I can perceive it from his speech: Kelly worships the god of sex I can hear this in her speech.
The rest of the atheist crowd keep talking so the doctor (aka Jesus Christ) can cure your sickness.
srglepore 1 year ago
@srglepore What is your evidence that this Jesus character can cure anything?
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@lipoicacid
The Bible.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@rumblefishism ...and ''Green Eggs and Ham'' is evidence that Sam did not green eggs and ham. oddly enough Jesus' magical techniques like groanin,looking up at the sun and using spit were in use long before he did his magic tricks.Not an original character...was he??? =/
lipoicacid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@srglepore
"Kelly worships the god of sex I can hear this in her speech"
Wow, sexual repression much? Sounds like someone needs to put down their bible and go out and get laid.
moduscorp 1 year ago
Religious idiots are just that, Idiots. Medieval superstitions are so weak and pathetic, you have to be absolute moron to believe them.
bary1234 1 year ago
Matt Slick quotes the same retarted Christian lines I've heard everywhere else!
244Ohiro 1 year ago
In other words if there are evidence,then there is God.Yes,there are evidence.So there is God.
frankielee77 1 year ago
@frankielee77 You can label anything ''evidence''.The question is how strong and convincing is it to properly reasoning people.
lipoicacid 1 year ago
She is now a porn actress with her deformed fake boobs ugh that s ugly ,i prefer natural ones
SonofJaphet 1 year ago
@SonofJaphet Which porn?
sandform 1 year ago
Matt completely dodged Kelly's question about providing evidence, and instead trying to tie her up with questions that have NOTHING to do with the existence of God. Unfortunately, Kelly fell for it.
Springheel01 1 year ago
Great debate!
jamesjeffreypaul 1 year ago
kelly sounds so smug and bratty.
oohlalalaohhlala 1 year ago