Did Matt Slick Just Say He is Agnostic? (Atheist Experience 419)

[JaggLion]

Very well explained =)

[Ematched]

Slick is such a douchy troll.

[Ematched]

You know Slick personally? That's unfortunate.

[TheArtofTaxidermy]

Not Slick. I know him personally. Definitely not him.

[badger500]

They should do more with the constant slow typing sound effect that accompanies many of their callers. The extra challenge in listening is good for one's self-discipline.

[TheGamerDrone]

My thoughts are that Theism is the belief in a personal, interfering God, while Deism is the belief of a God with no interest in humanity so to speak. Therefore Atheism would be the rejection of the theistic idea of God, while Agnosticism is simply the admittance of lack of knowledge in respect of a God. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong

[Eosimias100]

@TheGamerDrone Deism is the belief in some vague form of a creator. It's a weak theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. (Literally: A = without. Theism = belief in a deity.) Agnosticism is a philosophy of skepticism and is basically an admission of doubt. There are agnostic theists (who have belief in a deity, but don't claim any certainty or to know any specifics about the deity), and there are agnostic atheists (who lack belief in a deity, but similarly don't claim any certainty).

[Gravija1980]

Can you be an agnostic deist?

[juvi12321]

@Gravija1980 yes. You can be Atheist agnostic or gnostic. It depends on how sure you are, not your direct beliefs. You can also be a theist agnostic or gnostic. Also then deist agnostic or gnostic.

[smawshot]

@Gravija1980 deism is theism, just one form of it.

[Erap1muzik]

no way that's not matt slick

[eternityeverlasting1]

Thats not matt slick. Matt slick will eat those three debater for breakfast.

[mushroomartist]

@eternityeverlasting1

Did you see the TAG debate Slick had with Dillahunty? Dillahunty absolutely tore him to pieces and demolished his argument.

[eternityeverlasting1]

@mushroomartist

Yes i saw it. Come off it, Dillahunty became stuck all the time, he put his head where he couldn't reach it. Lol

[Barbershop666]

/watch?v=cXx89HeVWJA

In that video, in the first 30 seconds of his call, the dialogue begins. They ask a question based on the premise of the email,

"How would you define atheism?"

"Well, there's strong atheism, there's weak atheism, I.E. agnostic atheism, nostic atheism . . . "

Demonstrating what he probed out to learn in this call. I agree with greyeyed. The voice patterns are similar, and more importantly, if this clip is older than the one I listed, it is DEFINITELY slick.

[greyeyed123]

This caller uses "right", "right-right-right", "yeah-yeah-yeah", "I got ya," the distinctive and quick "you know", the "ok" after a response, "right" after a response, and uses "you guys" in referring to the atheists on this show. Matt Slick, who is also named Matt, uses all of these also, with the same cadence, and the same energy. Clearly this is Matt, trying to feel out his opponents' position, trying to erode his idea of atheism (strong atheism) with agnosticism, and failing.

[greyeyed123]

@greyeyed123  He also uses "um" a lot, uses "ok yeah", and the quick repetition of "I-I" when starting a sentence with "I". Slick does this also.

[greyeyed123]

I actually think this IS Slick. It is possible the voice is only coincidentally similar, but the cadence of his speech, the words he uses, the repetition of "right right right", the repetition of "you know", the mention of raliens (which Matt Slick mentioned on other occasions), etc. I think if one looked at a transcript of this call in comparison to those of other Matt Slick calls, the idiosycratic use of language would match up very well. Just listening you can hear the same rhythm.

[gulbirk]

Is it possible to an agnostic theist. Yes that must be possible.

[86Corvus]

id say there are no agnostic theists as to be a theist you have to belive in god and by believe is to asume there is and act on this asumption, be 100% convinced that its there. in that sence there is no agnostic theists as a person canot be sure there is a god and be doubtfull about it.

[MacabreManifesto]

You are theist or atheist, it is literally impossible to be neither one or the other

[Quintinohthree]

@MacabreManifesto

You are gnostic or agnostic , it is literally impossible to be neither or other. Agnosticism is not supposed to be a middle ground, but an extra distinction.

[MacabreManifesto]

@Quintinohthree I know, so I'm an agnostic atheist. If we are arguing semantics then I'm an irreligious agnostic atheist because I do not believe in any of the atheistic religions either.

[MeetYourMeaker]

Agnosticism and theism\atheism aren't exclusive.

[MrMZaccone]

Southern accent is all wrong. Not Matt Slick. I'm quite certain. I could be wrong but I'm certain.

[burnlaugh]

I just listened to many videos and this certainly sounds A LOT like Matt Slick.

[WaywardSonCRO]

Ok there are more positions that Jeff acknowledged. You believe that there IS NO GOD, and you're agnostic to the posibility because you can't claim absolute knowledge. Regarding any position on any claim, there can also be a neutral position.

[robertwc82]

"a agnostic is an atheist in denile". i would disagree with that and say its not denial but thinking that the strawman that religious people present as atheism is what atheism actually stands for.

[Nemesis0300]

I'm Agnostic-Athiest now I guess. lol

[Spectre11B]

I cant stand these befuddled definitions. None of it makes any sense.

[bozzutoman]

@Spectre11B — The definitions aren't really too complicated... Gnostic = Assured knowledge; Agnostic = Lack of assured knowledge... Theist = Belief in gods; Atheist = Lack of belief in gods.

[Spectre11B]

@bozzutoman It's a null argument or non-sequitor. You can't have a position of knowing or believing what X is until you can accurate define what exactly is X.

For all I know, the Moon is God. It wasn't that I lacked knowledge or belief in it but that I had no clue what God was. All of these cute categorizations are just a complete waste of time.

[bozzutoman]

@Spectre11B — In the case of theism X = gods (sapient superbeings). The capabilities of these superbeing's powers might vary based on religion, but the essence is the same.

[Spectre11B]

@bozzutoman If by super you mean their attributes, then this would also need to be defined and demonstrated.

However all you did was replace God with Superbeing, you haven't moved any closer at defining what a God is. Any classification of belief beyond this point is moot.

[bozzutoman]

@Spectre11B — As gods are unobserved outside personal testimony,... a rough description is probably the best we can expect.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B its easy. i know for a fact i exist = gnosticism

i dont know for a fact Leanardo Da Vinci existed. =agnosticism

i believe Leanardo Da Vinci existed. =believer (theist equivilent)

i do not believe Santa Claus exists or ever did = unbeliever (atheist equivelant)

there arnt many things one can claim to know for certain. all i know is i exist for i think, everything else is a matter of belief.

for example, i believe im not in "the matrix", but how can i be sure?

[Spectre11B]

@robertwc82 I have already addressed this. In each of your examples, the "objects" are well defined.

However, to claim to be atheistic, you have to first acknowledge that the belief in God does actually exist. Yet this is impossible because you have no clue what God is and I posit that the theist doesn't either.

It's a false dichotomy. Just because one professes that something exists, doesnt automatically preclude that its opposite exists also.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B how do you know i have no clue as to what "god" is?

theist create a concept in their heads and i reject the concept. its as simple as that. the christian concept of god is an intelligent agency which is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, with a human like visage.

but all gods from all religions can be basically defined as a disembodied intelligent agency that creates the world and or the creatures in it.

what is not a false dichotomy? belief and nonbelief?

how is it not?

[Spectre11B]

@robertwc82 What you have done is defined God by his attributes and even if I give you this poor definition; define everywhere, time or what is knowable. These are all things we have no definition for ourselves.

All while escaping the most important question, what is God?.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B we caould say the same about rocks. define rock? hard, solid, mineral, inanimate.....oh wait these are attributes....so what is a rock?

pull your head out your arse. particular concept god is defined by the people claiming its existence, i reject all the concepts of god that have ever been claimed to exist. its not complicated to understand

[Spectre11B]

@robertwc82 Rocks are usually a composition of one or more minerals. These tend to be a carbon derivative but are also found to be containing sulfur, phosphate, silicon and many others. Notice how I never used any attributes but their actual physical properites.

Try again.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B so you describe the physical materials. now what is the physical material, fundamentally? is it not a form of energy? can you define what energy is? what is it made of?

i caN EASILY DESCRIBE god as being "energy" or "love" or "magic". if this is what you define god as i am justified in rejecting it.

how people concieve what god is is up to them. they invent a concept i reject it. thats the bottom line

[Spectre11B]

@robertwc82 Energy is very well defined. I would love to hear how you can equate that to God since you stated that God is intelligent and can perform actions. Energy has neither.

Bottom line is neither you or theist have provided a "conceivable" definition for God. It is only common sense to ask first "What is God" before you can move on to whether he exist or not. Look up ignosticism for a better explanation.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B perhaps you should look up Agnosticism. to be gnostic means to know. to be agnostic means to not know.

to be a theist means to believe in gods, to be atheist is to lack beliefs in god.

everyone alive is agnostic, so you are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

i am an agnostic athiest. i dont know for a fact there is no god but based on what the theists define as god, i reject the concept.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B ......if you define god as the sun i wouldbe a gnostic believer, as i know the sun exists.

now if "energy" is well defined, what is it?

[Spectre11B]

@robertwc82 If you reduce the definition of God to the physical properties of the Sun, then you are tacitly saying that you believe in the existence of hydrogen and helium plus a few others.

In essence, you have reduced the term God to the same level of any of other physical element making the term meaningless. I still have no clue what you mean by God (in the context of helium and hydrogen). Knowing the Sun exists doesnt require belief, explaining the nature of God does.

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B "If you reduce the definition of God to the physical properties of the Sun, then you are tacitly saying that you believe in the existence of hydrogen and helium plus a few others." that is exactly what i am saying, except i am not the one to define god as the sun. im saying if someone else was to define god as the sun, the i would not deny its existence. but if they define god as immortal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, sentient, transcendant, supernatural. i reject the concept

[robertwc82]

@Spectre11B ..cont...now either you believe that such a thing exists or you do not. thats the dichotomy. you are either a believer (theist) or you are not a believer (atheist).

as god is defined by others, i reject the notion it exists. if someone was to come up wih a new definition, thats a different matter. (and yes, i agree it is pointless to relable something with the sound "God")

i am rejecting the concept of god as it is defined by all the religions of the world

[ArcticWhiteZ]

i was just listening to a half hour long debate between him and someone else.... thats not matt. I can tell in the voice pitch

[GermanChocolateCake]

Idon't believe in god(s), but can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such, do to a lack of substantial lack of evidence to make such a determination.

[avalsonline2]

@GermanChocolateCake you have no evidence that santa clause does not exist either. in fact, i bet there is no way you can give evidence that any mythical claims are false.

[GermanChocolateCake]

@avalsonline2 Entirely true, that's why the burden of proof must always lie on the person making the claim. The religious miss this point of logic with an almost obsessive compulsive fervor.

[joey05beast]

thats definitely not matt slick. it KINDA sounds like him, but all in all, if Matt Slick did actually say he was agnostic, i would think they would've had a really big reaction to that considering what people know him for.

[lipoicacid]

If that ain't him he has a clone somewhere.Maybe he was testing them before he revealed himself later.

[Domzdream]

That's NOT Matt Slick!

[neoarcadezr]

its funny how religious people always call in and talk a about evolution because that's what their masters/shepherd's told them to rebel against

[0spiker]

Smith's distinction and by extension the distinctions offered on the show are simply wrong. Agnosticism is not the absence of gnosticism. This sort of fallacy is the result of using root words to as if they represent the real definition. Would we call an acorn an oak tree? Agnosticism is clearly defined by Huxley in agnosticism and christianity. Since Huxley coined the term, his definition, is correct

[0spiker]

Huxley writes:

"between Agnosticism and Ecclesiasticism, there can be neither peace nor truce. The Cleric asserts that it is morally wrong not to believe certain propositions, whatever the results of strict scientific investigation. He tells us " religious error is, immoral " He prejudged certain conclusions, and looks upon those who show cause for arrest of judgement as emissaries of Satan.for him, the attainment of faith, not the ascertainment of truth, is the highest aim of mental life."

[Catholicist]

these guys are contridicting themselves, left and right, up and down! bunch of none sense!!!

[BillTheWaterDrinker]

That's not punctuated equilibrium Russel. You don't know what punctuated equilibrium is.

[Myxril]

I wish the religious folks of this world would listen to the man's description of a/theism and a/gnosticism.

Too much indoctrination is going on stating that atheists believe God doesn't exist, atheism is a religion, and atheism wants to destroy religion.

So many sheeple are too dumb to realize that everyone is technically born atheist, and theism is spread via family and/or church.

[BigBake88]

Thats def. not Matt Slick

[freakOFtheNature]

sounds like him, the laugh...the "yeah yeah yeah" but unless slick was using some sort of texas hillbilly voice changer or putting on a fake accent i don't think it's him

[darkwingppk]

holy clipping....wow thats annoying

[keggerous]

totally not a jerk off named matt slick....the TAG video pisses me off to no end!!

[BruNoLoCc]

Yeah it pisses you off because Matt Slick murders Matt dil.

[keggerous]

hahaha what are u def or just dumb?

[BruNoLoCc]

You are the one that is deaf and blind, Matt Dil contradicts himself, you just willfully block it out, TOOL!

[keggerous]

great logic fuck nutz... cuz we all know matt D. being wrong automatically means matt S. is right...... go read a book u fucking joke of a human

[village1diot]

After listening to more of the older shows I have come to the realization that about 1 in 3 callers sound like Matt Slick. I guess the audio equipment left a lot to be desired. Definitely not Slick.

[Averagegamer100]

@village1diot

It's his evil twin brother. Didn't you see the beard?

[afro777777]

@village1diot agreed go to dillahunty ( I think thats correctly spelled) VS matt slick. thats definitely him OR CARM debate 2008 is another good one.

[TheGiftofChrist]

This does not strike me as Matt Slick, but he seems like a nice guy irregardless.

[StayWellYouKn0w]

"a" (Greek) - without

"gnōsis" (Greek) - knowledge

[rasmusfribble]

Matt Slick spoke way, way slower than this guy.

[InLucidReverie]

Not Slick, but good call.

[AHPMB]

I can't imagine this being Matt Slick. For one, Matt is too invested in his religion to lie about being an agnostic. Even if he did lie about it, presumably he would use that lie as a means of trapping or tripping up the hosts, which this guy didn't.

[Lpoolboy]

There's no way this is Matt Slick, he sounds too rational.

[GermanChocolateCake]

@Lpoolboy My thought exactly.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I see no reason to think that was Matt Slick unless he's into some weird sort of role playing and I've never known him to be.

[TETSUno1]

Nah... doesn't interrupt once... and doesn't whine.

[FUCKYOURGODINTHEASS]

Sounds just like him.