Matt Slick vs Kelly

[Gods0n1]

another good video is william lane craig on the micheal corren show.

[gongme]

show me where the romans talk about jesus or even the jews . the romans hate christanity thats a differant thing but christanity beat them so sad . this happened long after jesus was suposed to live it was after all a religion of jesus . the jews dont believe in jesus because its crap and so is what they believe . we are stardust trying to understand stars . we know we are alive and want to know so lets not make it all up truth be authority not AUTHORITY the TRUTH that means.dont be a sheep .

[djtony12inch]

Why Jesus (Yahweh)? Why not believe in Xenu, Thor, Ganesha, Muhammad, or John from? What if you have faith in the wrong divine being? Xenu is going to be pissed at you for not accepting the word of L. Ron Hubbard !!!

[gneisenau321]

"Why not believe in Xenu, Thor, Ganesha, Muhammad, or John from?"

First of all, no one outside of their ancient individual culture even acknowledged that Thor or Ganesha even existed. Jesus on the other hand was acknowledged as a real life person(some of them though he was a human and not God)by the ancient Jewish, Roman and Greek people.

Second, Xenu is a fictional character.

Third, you need to learn some history because Muhammad was a real life (false)prophet, and did not claim to be "God".

[elvismilk]

You kind of mean like the prophet Rachel Carlson, but your real life Muhammad prophet talked about the fake life of theology, so what good is he again?, or how is he any different that the other myth believers?

[djtony12inch]

The operative word is believe, I know the difference from gods and prophets and real life and make-believe. Im talking of what people believe in.

[bdenniso]

is this kid stoned?

[TheotherPrometheus]

This kid is 28 years old and has never taken any drugs.

But maybe he should...

[gneisenau321]

"But maybe he should..."

What why!

[bdenniso]

you look like one of my roomates from college...needless to say he was always stoned.

[legodesi]

you should check out the conversation between Allister McGrath and Richard Dawkins over McGrath's "Dawkin's Delusion".

[motile]

B O R I N G

[PhreakStep]

It is very funny how many people are describing the god what he is and what he does but at the same time they say that god is not only unknown but unknowable.

[gneisenau321]

"It is very funny how many people are describing the god what he is and what he does but at the same time they say that god is not only unknown but unknowable."

Well, this is because he has revealed himself through Scripture.

[PhreakStep]

Yes but is Scripture the truth?

[gneisenau321]

Wha...? Which of my comments did you reply to?

[gneisenau321]

Yes Scripture is true.

[PhreakStep]

Do you have proof to back up your silly claims?

How do you know the bible is word from god?

Where you there when it was written?

Did god spoke to you and said it is correct?

If god is your moral authority why does bible have so many immoral things (slavery, stoning)?

If you want to prove bible is real with personal expiriance and because it makes you happy just dont thats not the proof.

[gneisenau321]

"How do you know the bible is word from god?"

All of it's Messiahnic prophecies were fulfilled.

"Where you there when it was written?"

Don't you mean (were) you there?

"Did god spoke to you and said it is correct?"

In a way, yes. Through the Holy Spirit.

"If god is your moral authority why does bible have so many immoral things (slavery, stoning)?"

By slavery you mean ANE slavery which is more similar to a maid agency than slavery. Stoning is just a capital punishment.

[elvismilk]

Is this satire? If it is, EdwardCurrent better watch out.

[gneisenau321]

EdwardCurrent should get a real job.

[rrpostalagain]

[slavery which is more similar to a maid agency ]

CLASSIC. I love that particular argument. What must go through your mind to make this assertion. I suppose it's OK to beat your "maid" as long as they don't die within 2 days?

[gneisenau321]

"I suppose it's OK to beat your "maid" as long as they don't die within 2 days?"

Which part of the Bible said this? Or are you just pulling this one out of your rear end?

[rrpostalagain]

This came from someone's ass, but not mine.

You asked for it remember

:

Exodus 21:20 And if a man strikes his servant or his female servant with a rod so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21:21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

[djtony12inch]

true crap.

[gneisenau321]

What is this "true crap"? Atheism?

[elvismilk]

1) Scripture exists

2) Some scripture must be true

3)Yes Scripture is true

LOL

4)It's true Scripture is Scripture

[LikesCartoons]

Kelly was DESTROYED in there discussion. It wasn't ''Civil'' on Kelly behalf, she was being completely childish, perpusly overpowering his voice, and just repeating the same thing over and over again, even after Matt already refuted her arguments.

[gneisenau321]

That why it should be called "Irrational Response Squad."

[gneisenau321]

I like cartoons too!

[vanmartinmpg]

THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

I am currently working on a TV documentary idea that explores modern day religious miracles to see if we can capture or find compelling evidence for one having occurred in recent times. The idea is to be sceptical while genuinely inquisitive. I am sourcing stories and potential participants. Please PM me if you can help, specially if you are based in the UK. Again, THIS IS NOT A JOKE, so please, no timewasters.

Thank you.

[gneisenau321]

I hope you succeed in making your film. All the best. :)

[vanmartinmpg]

Cheers. That was a while ago. I put out a lot of PMs to believers and didn't get one lead or one offer of assistance of participation. I have since abandoned this idea. But I might come back to it, if I can find a believer willing to help me.

[VeronicaMoser1]

Next time get the shit out of your mouth before you speak. Matt slick is a complete douche.

[ColoradoMikeyS]

God is Santa Claus for adults.

[vanmartinmpg]

BTW. I commend our host for having an open comments thread. So many believers censor comments and they frequently ignore questions they don't like. I find that most disappointing.

[totallyturtles]

Yes! People should definetely should look into almost EVERY religion (and evolution) and see which is the logical and moral choice and then follow that! The problem with now-days is that people only look into one religion and then says 'this makes sense' and follow it.

[bablusagar]

because no historian noted his name, does that mean that he never existed ?!

that is what she believes...

[bablusagar]

she has no answers .... she just had a little knowledge and talkative power to simply say" what proof... what proof" .. she is just a silly minded girl...

Many atheists became christians.. she has to know that.. eg C S Lewis

She can't prove Atheism... then why is she so stuck to it ?? She is not searching for truth.. but she is simply denying everuthing because she has no proof.

she talks about Alexander... what proof can she offer about his great great grandfather ? what is his name ??

[bablusagar]

you are righbt brother

[blastdude12]

kelly made claims with anything to back up, such as atheism is the default position and not explaining how, ect. and then had the nerve to be a hypocryte to say that to Matt.

[blastdude12]

have you ever thought, maybe, just maybe matt slick isn't just a great debater but his points are valid, and that he might be right?

[vanmartinmpg]

Slick is not a great debater! See Dr Craig for a powerful Christian debater. He understands Christianity and has much better arguments than anything Slick has ever offered. In fact he HAS arguments, as opposed to Slick's ambulance-chasing act.

And I don't think Kelly had good arguments either. If she makes positive claims she has to back them up. The problem is any theist claim I have ever encountered is usually flawed in some fundamental way, hence I find theism unconvincing. But I'm open.

[glitzag]

Walter Martin does lots of Debates on the John Ankerberg Show, topics include Mormonism, Catholicism, Bahai, etc etc.

Well worth watching these videos on Youtube.

Enjoy

[Zetrick]

Man, she just won't let him talk very much.

[irishmauddib]

What I cant understand about Slick is his common comment that without gods morals cant be absolute and therefore you think it might one day be ok to rape.

I cant see how it follows that a lack of an absolute automatically means that one day a given moral position will completely reverse itself. It seems like a rather opportunistic leap to me.

[felicia6118]

Great job Matt Slick. Way to put Kelly in her place. She sounded so disrespectful and unintelligent. Typical atheist.

[rrpostalagain]

[She sounded so disrespectful and unintelligent.]

Disrespectful? Listen to the first 30 seconds of the debate again. He insults her immediately. She states she's seen no proof and he says she is uneducated and irrational. It was an intentional personal insult. He sounds calm, but don't mistake that for civility.

[Whistlegip]

I watched those debates. As a christian there is certainly nothing to fear with athiesm.

God bless..

[maeon3]

Which God? Poseidon? Thor? Muhammad? Gabriel? Christ? Athena? The great JuJu up the mountain?

Beginning now, Christianity is not right by default, it is your job to justify your faith in the superstitious.

[jmartin6514]

Do you realize how dumb you sound? You should be embarrassed by this comment. Muhammad wasn't claimed as a god, nor was Gabriel. Quit regurgitating the nonsense of pseudo-philosophers like Dawkins . It's almost painful to read. Get your facts straight, then get original. Then perhaps we can have a debate, ok?

[maeon3]

Poseidon was God for millions of people for thousands of years.

Jesus was God for a few more people and a few more years. My argument stands.

Christianity is a myth, all the questions that you can't answer are answered easily if you simply suppose God is just a superstition. Why doesn't God heal amputees? Because he's imaginary. He's a projection, Man created God.

[jmartin6514]

"Poseidon was God for millions of people for thousands of years.

Jesus was God for a few more people and a few more years. My argument stands." You're argument stands?? What argument? All I see is a bunch of random gibberish that barely amounts to the logical deduction of a 3 year old. This line of reasoning doesn't offer any tenable, logical conclusion whatsoever.

[jmartin6514]

Christianity is a myth? First you must define what you mean when you say Christianity is a myth. Secondly, you must provide evidence for your contention. As for the whole "God doesn't heal amputees," I think that you need to actually think about how philosophically bankrupt that argument is before go repeating. Just because it's the main theme of a site on the internet doesn't mean it's a sound argument. Why is God obligated to heal amputees?

[vanmartinmpg]

There is a very pertinent point behind this argument. If God is powerful enough to heal amputees, and Christians can, in accordance with God's will, ask for God to heal amputees, why don't we see amputees having their limbs restored? If they were, it would prove God exists. The fact that it doesn't occur, may be evidence that he does not. That is why I ask any Christian who believes in the gift of healing to try it on as many amputees as the care, to see if eventually, God will heal one. Point?

[blastdude12]

god doesn't need observalble proof(proof for skeptics), it is a straw man argument, the amputee question.

[vanmartinmpg]

My above point does not go to God proving himself to me. It is the apparent absence of a phenomena. And I might even argue the apparent absence of Christians who believe in diving healing to even consider praying for such a miracle. So, no. This is not a straw man as you assert. Though in a round-about way you might categorise it as an argument from silence.

[rrpostalagain]

[Why is God obligated to heal amputees?]

Obviously he isn't. I think the point is that it would end all the doubt. It's just wondering aloud as to why all of the healing and prayer answering and "miracles" are all things that are completely natural and more easily explainable in other ways.

If you don't agree or you believe there is a reason for god to behave as if he's camouflaged, that's fine. But have the respect enough to understand why it's questioned.

[jmartin6514]

"all the questions that you can't answer are answered easily if you simply suppose God is just a superstition." I'm glad that you admit your suppositions. What you fail to realize, however, is that it's a ridiculous one. I'll call this "the atheism of the gaps." What questions must be answered in order for you to reverse your supposition?

[irishmauddib]

Oh im sure any good reason to beleive that there is an invisible god would do

[Skavar4000]

Jmartin6514...

Religious arrogance and stupidity at its finest!

You sound like a scientologist... never defend, only attack!

Are you capable of defending you r faith (belief without proof)in your particular brand of superstition?

Or do you just enjoy stringing meaningless words together in hopes of impressing someone more ignorant than yourself?

Put forth your best evidence based religious profundity and let us decide who the dumb one is... Wait evidence and religion?? Is that a oxymoron?

[vanmartinmpg]

It's not about one debate. Or a hundred debates. Its about reasoning. As I have said, be careful in lauding Mr Slick. I genuinely believe he is employing a bit of debating sleight of hand (I know I've used the same tactic in debates). Have another listen to the debate and analyse what is going on rather than just listen to hear who is winning. You'll find it illuminating.

[blastdude12]

Matt slick won, its a simple it gets, kelly wasn't very good to protect the atheist position at all.

[sablechicken]

Thanks for the link

[ocpud2999]

Here how it usally works in debates. if your A Christian you agree with Matt. if your an athiest you agree with Kelly. You have already formed an opinion therefore if one happens to agree with that opinion your going to favor that view. There is not anything that anyone will say will change that. So to say that one person is better than then the other is subjective.

[devourerofbabies]

except that there are rules to debates and people can actually make solid points, or you can resort to cheating tactics like Matt did. So it's not subjective at all really.

[mjr256]

I agree with her. The god of the bible did exist is a sadistic, genocidal, meglomaniacal dictator who demands people to murder their own children, rape women, kill anyone who works on the Sabbath, and sell everything they own.

[devourerofbabies]

OMG, nice headset. Makes you look SEXAY!

[brianmsbc]

Dude, did you just wake up when you filmed this? I know I almost fell asleep watching it.

[TheotherPrometheus]

No dude. I was wide awake.

"Public" speaking, unscripted, anyway, is a bit difficult for me. I talk slow.

[vanmartinmpg]

Its cool brother. While I disagree with what you say, I think you should keep right on saying it, anyway you choose. I wouldn't disregard what you say simply because you say it slowly. Nice to see a christian willing to accept debate. BTW: I am an atheist and I think Slick killed Kelly. That's because he used rhetorical games. When Slick can explain why his beliefs aren't fallacious in absolute, without debating strategies, he will win me as a new convert.

[rrpostalagain]

I tend to agree. He's overtly insulting, but he's good at setting up the rhetorical word games. Personally as soon as he tells me I'm uneducated in the first 30 seconds of this debate I'd be stuck on that the whole time.

Then he starts labeling assumed mistakes and frames the whole debate right of the bat. He's succinct and practiced. The only time he ever cedes a point it's as though he "allows" it. He's professional. Bullshit, but professional.

[lycurgus33]

I think Slick came of as condescending. His "Oh really?" remark in particular.

[1rightopinion]

Matt did a good job on talking in circles. He did not give any evidence for his proof. The burden of proof is on the believer not the skeptic. He sets up God as out of our universe and unverifiable. If this is true, anytime God interacts with our universe, he will leave a fingerprint. This fingerprint should be able to be found and proven by science.

[devourerofbabies]

I like how he makes statements like "Well, I believe X" and then just moves on.

[irishmauddib]

Indeed, what slick needs is to go up against someone who doesnt let the debate flow in one never ending line and can hold it on point.

Slick is never held to one point for too long. He is a master of the "make point A, listen to counter point B, then make barely connected point C so you dont have to answer point B" style of debate.

[vanmartinmpg]

Agreed. But Kelly did fall into his traps. A college debater would have seen Slick's switching of the burden of proof gimmick a mile away. she only cottoned on half way through the debate.

[waves7]

Yeah, Kelly got blown out. Good stuff. I feel one of the other posters too; for a moment during the debate it appeared that her "atheism" wasn't as strong as it might seem. May God guide her.

[Veritas48]

Kelly was simply out of her league with Slick.

[mjr256]

Slick is aptly named. He resorts to poor god of the gaps arguments and extreme relativity. If we accept the argument that experiences are not comparable as a meaningful contribution to the debate, that nullifies everything he says as much as anything she does.

[tekno2600]

Slick's arguments amount to nothing but solipsism, or the mental world fallacy, where supposed no one can prove that 2 people agree on anything and the whole world might just be your imagination. Philosophers long ago rejected this as an intellectual deadend.

[devourerofbabies]

Matt Slick is a douche.

[mauka96813]

I think she will leave atheism.

[TheotherPrometheus]

How? Full agnosticism? I don't see her adopting theism, as she rejects any evidence for a god.

[LouGojira]

"I think she will leave atheism."

I think she'll leave Sapient before she leaves Atheism.

[dp2500]

dibbs

[LouGojira]

BTW, thanks for bringing this to the attention of youtube TheotherPrometheus. The RRS are talking and posting about the Comfort and Cameron debate with no problem, but the silence is deafening over this one.

Gee, I wonder why...? *lol*

[TheotherPrometheus]

Of course! As Kelly said, many Christians expressed disappointment over the quality of Cameron and Comfort's performance.

[LouGojira]

"Don't get me wrong she comes off as smart but also as condescending and angry."

I don't know that she comes off as 'smart'. She had Sapient coaching her when the going got rough, and she still couldn't hold her own with Slick. Condescending and angry I definitely agree with...

[mjr256]

Admittedly, this wasn't Kelly at her best. She faired much better when he was on their show. But I found Matt far more of a condescending ass. He talked to her like a child, frequently explaining to her things that she already knows.

[MattMan1744]

except that she doesn't know what she believes... She would believe a group of people that said they seen a flying saucer.. yet she wouldn't believe John and other people from the bible...

[mjr256]

What? Exactly how did you make this gigantic leap? The scientific method requires evidence for anything. Why do you think she'd blindly accept one extraordinary claim but not another? This sounds like a straw man argument.

[TagametHB2000]

You can't use the scientific method to prove anything in history. You would need to use the historical analysis method, not science. For example, can you prove by science that Aristotle existed without a body? This is an issue with history, not science.

[mjr256]

Science - "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Are you suggesting history doesn't fit this definition & is not determined by observable evidence? Historians look for archaeological evidence, contemporary & corroborating accounts, enemy attestation & a general consistency w/ what is true today to assess authenticity of historical claims. It's indeed a scientific process & we can prove beyond reasonable doubt Aristotle existed.

[TagametHB2000]

You just refuted your own statement. The scientific method deals with a formulation of an hypothesis to explain phenomena, which is then researched and becomes a scientific law. You cannot prove the existance of anyone with the scientific method; only through historical analysis and research, which is a form of science, but NOT the scientific method. I never said you can't use any science. And what would you say prove's Aristotle's existance beyond a resonable doubt? Writings? Archaelogy?

[mjr256]

Again, Science - "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." The scientific method a system of forming conclusions drawn by a consensus of experts based on observable evidence. Specifics vary btw. disciplines. I have no interest in quibbling over semantics. We have tons of Aristotle's writings, writings of contemporaries, teachers & students about him, detailed family history, enemy attestation, lack of myth elements related to him etc

[TagametHB2000]

Science alone can't prove it. Other criteria and methods from other fields are necessary, and that's what I said. It seems you subscribe to the "Jesus Myth". The consensus of most biblical scholars and historians (Christian and Non-Christian alike) is that Jesus was a historical figure; the hypothesis of his non-historicity is rarely discussed in current academic literature. Interestingly, most proponents of this theory aren't even historians, such as G.A. Wells.

[mjr256]

You're committing 2 logical fallacies: Ad Populum & Argument from Authority. Claims stand or fall on their own merits regardless of how many experts accept it. This is not to say that experts' opinions don't matter; they matter a lot, just not enough to replace burdon of proof. Jesus still fails all major criteria for good historicity. Also, given we live in a Judeo-Christian culture, it's not surprising historians would have a bias towards the local myths.

[mjr256]

What about historians like Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier? Dismissed because you disagree w/ them?

[alanpfuhl]

Yes if you had the remains or that of somekind you could pull up DNA or forensic evidence that could be compared to a census rcord of some kind it's possible.

[rrpostalagain]

That really was a silly leap of logic. I would say her point would be that YOU should believe in UFO conspiracies if your standard of evidence is simply "it's written in a book".

[indignant99]

Guam: agreed.

[TheotherPrometheus]

Makes you wonder if she's afraid of God then. If she went to heaven, then God might be able punish her for leading people away from him... Oh, wait. That's hell...