Atheist Debates - Debate Review vs Matt Slick (Pt 1)

Part 1 of this debate review gives an analogy that covers the overview of this debate, followed by a discussion of how we decided on the topic. Why did I reject several suggested topics and why did I settle on "Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?"

In part 2, we'll cover specifics from the debate, itself.

[JMUDoc]

"Everything is either physical or conceptual."
"OK - is your god physical?"
"No."
"Then he's conceptual. Good night."

[werelemur]

That debate was SO FRUSTRATING to watch.

I'd love to see you have a debate on the same topic with someone who actually honestly wants to engage on the subject, rather than try to dodge the question.

[TheToddBGreen]

"Well, Matt's view and strategy of chess isn't as good as mine because it doesn't explain the rules of the game." PERFECT summation of Matt Slick's dodge!

[alchemicalheathen]

after watching Matt Slick get his TAG torn to pieces in real time, and then witnessing him lying about it afterward, I'm convinced he is a terrible logician or a fundamentally dishonest person. This was then confirmed by his awful debate ideas. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a scientist, and I still could understand the fallacies in his argument.

[martinpfefferle]

C'mon, man, if you're gonna use the pigeon analogy, get it right. The pigeon will knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around victoriously.

[ZRQUON]

Like Sye, Matt Slick`s argument boiled down to jamming his thumbs in his ears and yelling, ``I DON`T HAVE TO TALK TO YOU!!``

[whynottalklikeapirat]

Hmm. Matt knocked over the pieces but he did not poop on the board. Metaphor should be fully deployed, I feel.

[mcft]

I practiced "Dillahunty Patience" waiting for this review :)

[CollapseSurvivalSite]

I can respect Christian apologists who are actually convinced their position is true. At least they're honest. But I think Matt Slick knows his arguments are bullshit, yet he defends them anyway. How the hell does he sleep at night?

[mike]

Hey Matt. Thanks for these videos. I love to discuss topics regarding religion and politics and watching your videos helps me to identify fallacies which I use in my own arguments as well as those used by others.

[SteveFrenchWoodNStuff]

Thanks for another thoughtful, articulate analysis.

P.S. The content of your videos is always great but the volume of your voice is always really low. It would be a welcome improvement if you'd crank it up a bit in editing.

[ursidae]

Damn man. Your a legend. I'll be honest, if I only got one in the end I'd rather hear the debate but hell best case is hearing both. Your an incredible speaker and quite frankly a genius and I hope you end up very influential in history.

[BeowulfandCoffee]

I watched the live debate with slick on the btwn show quite on accident. Cant wait to see the review. Keep it up Matt, you helped me and i know you help others.

[Impostleable]

Thanks for putting this video out Matt. I look forward to the deconstruction of the debate.

To be honest I don't know how you bring yourself to debate the "expert logician" Matt Slick. For him to fail to understand such basic fundamentals like the difference between asserting something is true vs demonstrating something WITH LOGIC is just incredible.

[AndresB]

hey Matt, love your videos I love the show. Just a slight suggestion if I might. The audio levels on this video and the other videos like it could stand to be a bit higher.

[tomatensalat]

I propose a new definition of the Dillahunty Dodge:
It's if you point out an invalid conclusion by noticing that something is not a true dichotomy ;)

[GandalfThePlaid]

I keep finding myself assuming Slick is knowingly using bad logic but continues anyway as it's all he's got. But while there is evidence of his dishonesty in maters related to this debate, I have to keep reminding myself that he may not actually understand some of this and some of it could be ineptitude rather than dishonesty. The old "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" can be tough sometimes.

[amirkb]

He didn't present anything because if he did compare the two views, the debate would be over.
he'd be saying "Unchangeable moral absolutes are better than arguing and thinking for ourselves"

[RNAlh]

Great, been waiting on this for ages!

[AbleAnderson]

Great video, I love the backstory and think it was especially relevant and interesting here. Can't wait to see part 2