ApostateAbe versus Matt Slick

[Chatter]

God exists by two falls to a submission.

That's right. Our very own ApostateAbe, AKA Abe-the-athevangelist, AKA Conan, participated in a radio debate earlier this week with Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (www.carm.org) creator and webmaster Matt Slick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Slick). Download now, and stay tuned for next week's rematch!

http://www.carm.org/audio/pod/Matt_Discussion_Atheist_and_Logic_9_27.mp3.

[Crumb]

Oh no. Has he gone and made atheists look foolish?

/me makes mental note to listen to this this weekend...

[Clutch Munny]

In the land of the witless, the half-wit man is king. Radio preacher kicks Abe's ass.

[Miss Shelby]

Oh no. Has he gone and made atheists look foolish?
Considering his opponent, I seriously doubt it. In fact, the opposite is probably true.

Michelle

[SharonDee]

Matt Slick, huh? Gosh, I'd forgotten all about him.

[viscousmemories]

If Abe had only Googled a little bit faster he might not have sounded completely clueless. If he doesn't find himself a Cyrano before the next "debate" these interviews are going to be in Slick's trophy case for a long time coming.

[D. Scarlatti]

In the land of the witless, the half-wit man is king. Radio preacher kicks Abe's ass.

:laugh:

That's a pretty fair assessment of the ten minutes or so I could stand listening to.

[erimir]

Not in the first ten minutes.

There wasn't really much said in the first ten minutes in the way of argument, just review of basic logic.

From what I've heard so far, neither person has said much of value.

Ok, so this twit is using the Transcendental Argument, and Abe doesn't seem to be at all familiar with that argument. So it looks like he's gonna run into problems...

Oy... this is just bad. All around. Reverend man doesn't know shit about evolution.

[D. Scarlatti]

Ten minutes, whatever it was. I turned it off shortly after Abe agreed to stipulate to p v ~p because he finally found it in a book. I didn't think there was much use in listening further. "Slick" is rather an apt moniker, however. I will say that.

[erimir]

Ah... I kinda just skipped through that cuz I was like... I have no need to hear a lecture on the law of identity.

[D. Scarlatti]

I don't understand why Abe didn't seize on p = God and make him prove it. Then at least Abe could have stuck with ~p.

Maybe Abe's new placard will read, "p is fake, therefore, ~p."

[LadyShea]

I think he fucked up right off the bat. If I was asked "Why are you an atheist", I would have said "Because I have not been convinced by any of the arguments or evidence presented to me for the existence of deity". I would have made it all about my subjective interpretations and feelings.

By uttering the word "truth" Abe opened that door to the formal logical arguments he was ill equipped to handle (as I would be as well).

[IRON MAN]

Let me say right here that Abe is a hero of mine, but he sure was on the back foot in this interview for whatever reason.

The argument Slick was putting forward was of course bullshit. To suggest that the rules of the universe pertaining to human perception are an objective independent entity is the same as suggesting that a tree falling in the forest makes a sound in a universe where nobody has ears.

His initial statements were a total set up, where he crapped on about not knowing anything - implying that he is about to introduce an atheist who "knows" there is no God, (and is therefore claiming absolute knowledge).

Weasel words and comments:

"... why atheism is true ..." Atheism isn't true dickwad, xianity is bullshit not the same thing. Shifting the burden of proof.

"... why is atheism true for you ..." Reducing atheism to a choice of belief making it equivalent to a religion. That's like saying that a plausible and supported scientific theory is "just a belief".

"... I believe in evolution ..." Ditto.

His argument goes on to be based on a very common equivocation:

That because you don't believe in his God, you are somehow claiming that you know there is no god in a deistic sense.

This is the trick that monotheistic religions take full advantage of. Their God is sometimes a guy who writes bibles and makes rules, and sometimes a nebulous deistic god who is impossible to discern.

In other words, you can look at the bible and say that JHWH is bullshit, but you can't look at the bible and say there is no god of any sort anywhere, (especially one that sets the universe in motion and then takes no further part in it, and therefore generates no evidence for his existence).

But if there were such a god, he has not given us any rules to obey, so there is no logical justification for religion, or at least religious practises/policies/conclusions other than the choice to believe and/or not believe in an existence.

As soon as a god starts interfering with the affairs of mankind, His rules can be analysed and judged to be internally inconsistent, as is the case with the xian God.

So the xians are using an equivocation of the word "god" in order to generate a strawman argument against atheists suggesting that when they say they do not believe in the xian God, that they are claiming absolute knowledge of the origin of the universe, and know there is no god, (even one who does not interact with the universe - which obviously nobody could ever know).


I wont bother with the lame and standard anti-evolution bullshit. Slick's basic tactic there was to make a unfounded assertion that couldn't be proved/disproved right then and there on the radio and continue from that premise. Boring. :yawn:

[Chatter]

Check it out! (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/carmorgpodcasting/~5/31461157/fnr_AtheistDiscussionTwo_10_2.mp3)

[D. Scarlatti]

I'm not sure what to make of that exclamation point beside "Check it out."

Is this one even worse?

[Chatter]

I'm only half way through the discussion, but I think Abe had a good chance with this one: "can you conceive of a universe without God?". Of such a universe, all logical theorems are true. Therefore, arguing along Matt's same lines, logic transcends God.

[Chatter]

I'm not sure what to make of that exclamation point beside "Check it out."I am giving an order.

Is this one even worse?It's a sequel. What do you think? This one has thermodynamics in it!

[IRON MAN]

"... logic is part of God's nature ..."

How exactly do you know that slick?

Fucking Hell Abe, stop pussy-footing around and get stuck into this guy.

Maybe Abe has to lay off the pot or something.

[IRON MAN]

Fuck, slick is doing it again.

He is arguing that because there may be something beyond space and time*, (he may well be right for all I know), that somehow adds up to JHWH, his bible, and his internally inconsistent pithy little rules about how we should live being correct. :rolleyes:

Equivocating his God to a god.

I could believe or not believe in Atlantis - hell I don't know for sure, it's possible. But all the evidence indicates it does not exist. Either way I can't claim to know anything meaningful about it, and further, it would be fair to say I know jack-shit about it.


*Another fuck up on slicks part. According to Hawking, time is not an independent quality in and of itself, hence 'space-time'. In other words, the Big Bang didn't occur at time x, there was no time before the beginning of the Universe because there was no space-time.

So if you don't even have time as an independent law of the Universe, how does he figure anything else is?

[livius drusus]

Slick is just doing his job. Unless Abe's job is fucking dogs, he's falling way, way short. Again.

[IRON MAN]

Slick is doing his job if it's his job to crow about logic and then make bald-faced unfounded assertions and obvious fallacy. Maybe he should take up dog-fucking too.

Just another xian smack-tard who thinks he got it ALL figured out.

All you have to do is assume one single false premise to continue on to make a make a continuous chain of real logic and arrive where you want. That might make you sound smart to anyone who isn't concentrating, but if you believe it yourself you're a fucking moron Slick. If you don't, you're a lying sack of shit who's pushing an agenda.

[livius drusus]

The more crap your opponent talks the easier it should be to trounce him. Slick's debate failings only underscore Abe's embarassing incompetence.

[IRON MAN]

Well, on the one hand I wouldn't dis anyone for poor verbal skills. I'm more 'slick' myself on paper than in person, but on the other hand I personally might reconsider calling the radio myself if I thought I was gonna wind up getting used as the token atheist fall guy.

But anyone is entitled to state their opinion if they wish - I wish a lot more people would stand up and be counted. And the fact that Abe is taking such a definite public stand in itself makes him a legend in my book.

Besides you can't develop your verbal skills sitting in your parents basement typing on a message board either. In ten years Abe might be the atheist equivalent of Martin Luther King for all we know, becasue he is doing this now.

[Ari]

Wow a Legend?

I haven't listened to these but if this is the same Abe of the last year, I like him but don't find him that great of a representative. Frankly I thought Abe was smarter than to get drawn up into a spoken debate on a complex and polarized issue with someone who does that for a living.

[viscousmemories]

Yes, he's the same ApostateAbe who used to post here. He's become a minor celebrity to a circle of posters at IIDB since he took up standing in front of churches with a "God is Fake" sign on Sunday mornings.

[Dingfod]

Weekly convincing hundreds that atheists are idiots.

[Ari]

I know him mainly from CF, where I thought many of his arguments were good.
Unfortunately he seems to have drifted into the area of funny antics of childish rebellion.

[IRON MAN]

Wow a Legend?

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/1794/godisfakemekn7.jpg

Yep you heard right. Legend.


There was debate at iidb about him supposedly, "giving atheists a bad name", in one way or another, but that's the same argument as saying that American women are giving the US a bad name in the Middle East by walking around Miami in mini-skirts and boob tubes.

Abe is an atheist. That means he doesn't belong to an organisation of any kind, and is free to do and say whatever the fuck he wants. That's the whole goddamned point.

Oh, and Abe is also the world's most dangerous ninja (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=160794). :D

[Ari]

Congrats I'm glad he can say whatever he wants, I don't think anyone is complaining about that, the question is should he say it and if so how will it reflect on his cause. (if you search I'm sure you can find a similar discussion here).

I wouldn't call someone making a sign and standing in-front of a church a legend.

Your definition of atheist seems to include a lot of junk and leaves out the one factor that makes someone an atheist.

[IRON MAN]

Congrats I'm glad he can say whatever he wants, I don't think anyone is complaining about that, the question is should he say it and if so how will it reflect on his cause.

So what should American women wear to reflect America in a better light to extremist Muslim whack-jobs in the Middle East? Obviously open and overt sexuality is just pissing them off and not helping the cause of freedom.

Your definition of atheist seems to include a lot of junk and leaves out the one factor that makes someone an atheist.

No. My definition of atheist is not complicated at all, and in that way similar to my definition of "free".

It's people like you who are adding their subjective opinions about what people should do when they are an atheist.

[Dingfod]

I'm not saying that Abe shouldn't do what he's doing, that's his thing. As an atheist (note the lower case 'a') I think he's doing more harm than good as a "representative" of atheists. My opinion is worth no more than his, about 2 cents.

[Clutch Munny]

Frankly I thought Abe was smarter than to get drawn up into a spoken debate on a complex and polarized issue

...about which he is clearly ignorant...

with someone who does that for a living.

I never thought that about Abe, myself.

[Ari]

So what should American women wear to reflect America in a better light to extremist Muslim whack-jobs in the Middle East? Obviously open and overt sexuality is just pissing them off and not helping the cause of freedom.
For Extremist Muslim Whack-jobs they should wear whatever they wanted because it's obvious something simple like that wont change their mind (same for Abe's sign).
For normal muslims, if the goal is to show respect, then a less revealing attire would be good.

No. My definition of atheist is not complicated at all, and in that way similar to my definition of "free".
Really? Cause right now it seems like you left out anything about God, and added in a bunch of junk about not belonging to organizations.

I prefer the simpler "An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God, period, end of sentence."

It's people like you who are adding their subjective opinions about what people should do when they are an atheist.
Ah yes, "people like me."
So you have a problem with people having opinions that aren't yours?

My opinion has very little to do with him being an atheist, it does have a lot to do with his childish displays, and some to do with how they reflect on rights for atheists in the US.
Why doesn't he just take it the rest of the way and put horns on and pretend to worship satan with a bunch of teens while getting drunk on winecoolers they snuck into the metal concert. :P

[IRON MAN]

I'm not saying that Abe shouldn't do what he's doing, that's his thing. As an atheist (note the lower case 'a') I think he's doing more harm than good as a "representative" of atheists. My opinion is worth no more than his, about 2 cents.

It's a matter of opinion of course.

But I find that most people who complain about what he does, selectively ignore the fact that playing it soft doesn't get the "atheist message" through to some people either.

You have the same problem in sales. Some customers respond to a soft-sell and are repelled by a hard sell, and some people wouldn't know or care about your product unless you were dressed in a tell gallon hat on TV barking about how great it is and how crazy your prices are.

Abe's doing his part, but it's not the only way to do things. Neither is anyone else's way.

To suggest otherwise is like saying Ron Popeil shouldn't do what he does because it makes it harder for anyone to sell kitchen appliances. It obviously hasn't adversely affected Wal-mart.

[viscousmemories]

Some atheists (like me) don't believe there is an "atheist message", much less feel compelled to preach it on streetcorners.

[IRON MAN]

Some people (like me) don't believe there is an "atheist message", much less feel compelled to preach it on streetcorners.

I thought someone might, that's why I put it in quotation marks.

[Clutch Munny]

"maybe it's not so much logic as... existentialism or empiricism... maybe if we see things coming into existence that... wouldn't... break any logic."

[viscousmemories]

I changed 'people' to 'atheists' just to clarify.

[Ari]

Maybe not in Australia but in the US it is reasonably common for people to see atheists as a whining anti-religious fringe group that is only atheistic because they hate God for killing their pet cat when they were 3.

Abe is selling two different products and for everyone that buys the hard-sell for atheism I can guarantee there are at least two that buy his hard-sell against it.
(How many people have turned to Scientology thanks to Tom Cruise and his antics?
How many have called it a crackpot cult thanks to Tom?)

[Clutch Munny]

Oh, flaming dogdish... his phonecard runs out halfway through the ass-kicking!

I can't believe this complete bonehead Slick is :beathead:ing someone who fancies himself an "athevangelist".

[viscousmemories]

I can't believe you listened to the whole thing. After the first episode I couldn't bear to hear more.

[Clutch Munny]

I didn't. I quit not long after AA fished another 80 cents out of his pocket, or whatever the hell he was doing, and phoned back.

[IRON MAN]

[QUOTE]...about which he is clearly ignorant...

Or perhaps has difficulty comprehending, processing and expressing at the speed of verbal debate. Have you ever seen Hovind's debate with Michael Shermer? I don't agree with Shermer about everything, but I would hardly say he was ignorant of the subject, but he wound up looking like a total dick.

You're bitching people making unsupported claims is still ringing in my ears from another thread, so why are you making this one without checking your facts smart arse? Anyone who's read Abe's posts knows he is not "clearly ignorant" of this general subject.

It's people with that attitude that are declaring victory for Hovind's point of view at those debates because the way he talks sounds better to them.

To me, slick sounds like a total fuckwad making those obviously bullshit arguments, no matter how well he says it, or what Abe is saying/failing to say.

[viscousmemories]

Anyone who's read Abe's posts knows he is not "clearly ignorant" of this general subject.
I completely disagree.

[IRON MAN]

Maybe not in Australia but in the US it is reasonably common for people to see atheists as a whining anti-religious fringe group that is only atheistic because they hate God for killing their pet cat when they were 3.

Abe is selling two different products and for everyone that buys the hard-sell for atheism I can guarantee there are at least two that buy his hard-sell against it.

Unfounded assertion.

And maybe you'll find two that say they are against it because a big bad nasty ranting atheist killed their cat when they were 3, accosted them on the street and asked them a tough question that made them think for a change.

(How many people have turned to Scientology thanks to Tom Cruise and his antics?

I don't know, but I know from personal experience with Amway, that mentioning the name of a movie star who's in it, (no matter how unpopular they are), is actually a selling point.

Look at how many people were outside the court room in support of Michael Jackson.

How many have called it a crackpot cult thanks to Tom?)

And how many people are still signing up?

Good questions all. But that doesn't make your case, just restates your opinion.

[Ari]

Unfounded assertion.
Where?

And maybe you'll find two that say they are against it because a big bad nasty ranting atheist killed their cat when they were 3, accosted them on the street and asked them a tough question that made them think for a change.
Unfounded assertion. :)
Quality mind reading and hoping for the best. All I have to go on is what many people say who are still christians, and that's a big laugh at atheists in general.

Good questions all. But that doesn't make your case, just restates your opinion.
It was an obviously failed attempt to give an example of where doing something stupid doesn't always help the cause. In the case of Tom Cruise it made both him and Scientology the laughing stock of many shows and people. Not the best ad out there.

[IRON MAN]

Anyone who's read Abe's posts knows he is not "clearly ignorant" of this general subject.
I completely disagree.

Even if that were the case - and I'm not saying it is - there is no accademic qualification level required to make a meaningful contribution in activism.

Like I say, standing up and being counted is in itself a positive act of activism, and engaging in debate forces people to, (or attempt to in this case), justify their beliefs.

The less these fuckers just steamroll in with their unfounded assertions unopposed, and the more thinking they have to do, the better in my opinion.

[D. Scarlatti]

Anyone who's read Abe's posts knows he is not "clearly ignorant" of this general subject.

Dude, he had to look up 'p or not p' in a book during the first "debate."

[IRON MAN]

Unfounded assertion.

You can guarantee me that there are two for every one apparently.

Unfounded assertion. :)

Bzzz. Wrong. I said maybe that's a possibility too. I wasn't dishing out guarantees, and blatantly saying that's the way things are.

Quality mind reading and hoping for the best. All I have to go on is what many people say who are still Christians, and that's a big laugh at atheists in general.

Could that be because they are told what atheists are like? According to Abe, xians who actually talk to him instead of continuing to live in their insular little world where they are told all about atheists, aren't so sure anymore. It's analogous to a white supremacist shaking hands with a black man and discovering to his surprise that the colour doesn't come off.

Ask most Australians what they know about yanks and they'll give you a mouthful of bullshit opinions, and many of these people have never even met one - let alone can tell you anything about the US. They just parrot what they've heard.

It was an obviously failed attempt to give an example of where doing something stupid doesn't always help the cause. In the case of Tom Cruise it made both him and Scientology the laughing stock of many shows and people. Not the best ad out there.

I agree that doing something stupid doesn't always help your cause, but in Tom Cruises case, signing up with Scientology is the "something stupid", not the cause, (ie. Tom Cruise is discredited more by Scientology that the other way around).

[viscousmemories]

Even if that were the case - and I'm not saying it is - there is no accademic qualification level required to make a meaningful contribution in activism.
That's true, but the point was that he volunteered to engage in a debate on a subject he knows little about.

Like I say, standing up and being counted is in itself a positive act of activism, and engaging in debate forces people to, (or attempt to in this case), justify their beliefs.
I don't see anything wrong with atheists standing up and being counted, but I don't feel any need to force people to justify their beliefs.

The less these fuckers just steamroll in with their unfounded assertions unopposed, and the more thinking they have to do, the better in my opinion.
Which fuckers? Abe is the one going to their church to proselytize.

[IRON MAN]

Anyone who's read Abe's posts knows he is not "clearly ignorant" of this general subject.

Dude, he had to look up 'p or not p' in a book during the first "debate."

Hey, I know it's frustrating to listen to. But like I say, the Hovind debates are the same, and he's talking to evolutionary biologists in some cases. I mean you're sitting there thinking, "Hey why don't you just say this?", or "Don't let him get away with that", but it doesn't mean they don't know the subject.

And neither do I believe that you need to have formally studied the above to justify being an atheist. I might be surprised that he'd apparently never heard of that, but that hardly justifies saying he is ignorant of the entire subject.

The adoring public is always ready to jump to the conclusion that you're a babbling idiot when you're not bashing out your point like Marlon freakin' Brando. It's the same bullshit perception that leads people to treat spastics like they are retarded.

Besides, Abe has specifically mentioned on more than one occasion that he is not the best orator on the block.

[Ari]

You can guarantee me that there are two for every one apparently.
Well it was a figure of speech, however judging by responses from events like Newdow and other odd vocal atheists I can tell you he is affirming more beliefs than he is challenging.

Bzzz. Wrong. I said maybe that's a possibility too. I wasn't dishing out guarantees, and blatantly saying that's the way things are.
It was a joke.

Could that be because they are told what atheists are like? According to Abe, xians who actually talk to him instead of continuing to live in their insular little world where they are told all about atheists, aren't so sure anymore.
The key part there, Those that talk with him. His signs aren't exactly atheist beacons of hope for those that just walk by him (hell I would just walk by him, just the same as the guy on the corner with the "repent now or burn" sign).

signing up with Scientology is the "something stupid", not the cause,
Well sure, if you know what Scientology is. For those that don't it's meaningless. On the other hand, even those who have no clue about scientology got a good laugh at crazy Tom jumping on coaches and ranting about psychiatry. For many that was their first exposure to scientology. Not the best marketing system.

[IRON MAN]

That's true, but the point was that he volunteered to engage in a debate on a subject he knows little about.

Addressed in my last post.

I don't see anything wrong with atheists standing up and being counted, but I don't feel any need to force people to justify their beliefs.

Who's forcing anyone? He is on a public street.

I certainly understand how some atheists have get a sick feeling in their gut when it comes to proselytising, but that doesn't make it anymore inappropriate than writing a book, or indeed a post on the internet, supporting atheism. It is just another form of broadcast free speech.

Which fuckers? Abe is the one going to their church to proselytize.

Yes, and inside that church the preachers can tell one side of the story, up to and including using logical fallacy. Outside they don't have that "right".

Abe is just standing on the side of the road with a sign saying, "I'm lactose intolerant", while the cows go past on their daily trip to the milking shed.

[IRON MAN]

Well it was a figure of speech, however judging by responses from events like Newdow and other odd vocal atheists I can tell you he is affirming more beliefs than he is challenging.

Even taking into account the figure of speech it was, and still is, an unfounded assertion.

It was a joke.

Just wanted to make sure you knew the difference.

The key part there, Those that talk with him. His signs aren't exactly atheist beacons of hope for those that just walk by him (hell I would just walk by him, just the same as the guy on the corner with the "repent now or burn" sign).

On the contrary, I think that sign in itself is fucking great. It is quite simply exposing everyone, including children, to the idea that some people have reason to believe that all the stuff they hear in church is a steaming pile of horse manure - in only three words. That possibility might come to mind the next time their preacher says something that doesn't make sense - which I feel certain he will sooner or later.

And who's selling hope? One of Abe's hook lines is: Have you heard the bad news? Atheists don't sell hope, they just offer you a choice between the blue pill and the red pill.

Well sure, if you know what Scientology is. For those that don't it's meaningless. On the other hand, even those who have no clue about scientology got a good laugh at crazy Tom jumping on coaches and ranting about psychiatry. For many that was their first exposure to scientology. Not the best marketing system.

You think that's a shit marketing system? Try Xenu the intergalactic overlord. Any way you cut it Scientology sucks donkey gonads.

And I know I got a laugh out of it, and I knew exactly what Scientology was. What a dick. :laugh:

[viscousmemories]

Who's forcing anyone? He is on a public street.
You said "...engaging in debate forces people to, (or attempt to in this case), justify their beliefs".

I certainly understand how some atheists have get a sick feeling in their gut when it comes to proselytising, but that doesn't make it anymore inappropriate than writing a book, or indeed a post on the internet, supporting atheism. It is just another form of broadcast free speech.
I didn't say it was inappropriate, I just don't view anti-religious activism as particularly good or necessary.

Which fuckers? Abe is the one going to their church to proselytize.Yes, and inside that church the preachers can tell one side of the story, up to and including using logical fallacy. Outside they don't have that "right".

Abe is just standing on the side of the road with a sign saying, "I'm lactose intolerant", while the cows go past on their daily trip to the milking shed.
That doesn't really answer my question. Which fuckers and "steamroll in" where? You said "The less these fuckers just steamroll in with their unfounded assertions unopposed, and the more thinking they have to do, the better in my opinion." Do you mean churchgoers going to church?

[viscousmemories]

It is quite simply exposing everyone, including children, to the idea that some people have reason to believe that all the stuff they hear in church is a steaming pile of horse manure - in only three words.
"Mommy, why is there a creepy looking man holding a cardboard God is Fake sign across the street from church?"

"He's an atheist, honey. Remember, there but for the grace of God."

[IRON MAN]

You said "...engaging in debate forces people to, (or attempt to in this case), justify their beliefs".

Oh, I see what you are getting at. Sorry.

So let's take the opposite perspective. What's stopping Abe from standing on the street with a sign stating his opinion? He should be able to do that without justification either.

But people choose to approach him, and he in turn chooses to debate them.

When they walk over and engage him in debate, they are exercising the same right as he does to stand outside their church in the first place. His face is like the front door of their church.

And if they are gonna do that in a public street, (proselytise back at Abe), then they probably aren't going to get very far unless they can justify their beliefs to him.

They are free to disengage the debate at any time, but are drawn into it because they don't like having some guy promoting what they see as a false idea in front of their church unopposed. Which is funny, because Abe doesn't seem to like having a building promoting what he sees as false ideas in his town unopposed.

And I happen to agree. Except I probably should say, that I am not particularly partial to hearing people talk bullshit in my favourite Universe unopposed.

I didn't say it was inappropriate, I just don't view anti-religious activism as particularly good or necessary.

It depends on the situation I'm sure. I certainly don't support activism just for the sake of it, as I mentioned in another thread. But that doesn't mean I'll just stand there and let religious whack-jobs send my country back toward the Dark Ages unopposed, or talk smack about me unopposed just because I don't buy their brand of bullshit.

Look at the US evolution debate, if they want to force their crap into a science classroom they had better be able to justify that and expect opposition. Do you think it is 'good and necessary' to actively oppose that nonsense?

Like I say, it is something one is drawn into, but either party has the right to withdraw from the debate at any time by simply withdrawing their own assertions, or ceasing to oppose those of the opposition.

That doesn't really answer my question. Which fuckers and "steamroll in" where? You said "The less these fuckers just steamroll in with their unfounded assertions unopposed, and the more thinking they have to do, the better in my opinion." Do you mean churchgoers going to church?

No I mean DJ's on radio shows that could be spouting off about their beliefs on the airwaves as if they were incontrovertible fact, without having to make any kind of argument to back it up. Having even a poorly spoken atheist there, means they have to at least try to make a decent argument. In my view this is when the hard to swallow fallacies really start coming out. And perhaps even other Christians will have a hard time beleiveing it.

[IRON MAN]

"Mommy, why is there a creepy looking man holding a cardboard God is Fake sign across the street from church?"

"He's an atheist, honey. Remember, there but for the grace of God."

Just wait until they get older and, perhaps, don't find Abe so creepy, and perhaps, find out their parents aren't necessarily right about everything. Even if Abe is long gone they might remember ...

God is Fake

God is Fake

God is Fake

God is Fake

Smoke Marlboros

God is Fake

Pepsi - The choice of a New Generation

[Ari]

How many here are repenting because the end is near?

[seebs]

In a way, I sort of respect this.

Not everyone could lose a debate with Matt Slick.

[seebs]

I can't believe you listened to the whole thing. After the first episode I couldn't bear to hear more.

Abe's best argument is the existence of this debate. How can we reconcile this with the notion of a benevolent God?

... But then, think about Charlie Chaplin. I think there's some room for the notion that slapstick is an objective moral good which may be great enough to justify the human cost of things like this.

[Chatter]

Besides, Abe has specifically mentioned on more than one occasion that he is not the best orator on the block.Yes. That is why it was a bad idea to call in to a show with such an eloquent presenter.

Abe came off an ignoramus. Even when he was allowed to present his own arguments for evolution, he still came off an ignoramus, in what he said was his subject. Perhaps he is just glib, but then he should be choosing a more appropriate format for debate. Perhaps he is also unprepared. Slick asked him to do some research on the logic arguments before calling in again, but it was clear that Abe had done virtually none.

It is no sin not to have heard of the three classical laws. They were not once mentioned when I studied mathematical logic last year, nor are they mentioned in my textbooks. As I understand it, those laws are relics from antiquity and have been irrelevant to logic since Frege. Nowadays, logics (plural) are defined by formal systems and formal semantics.

But I was surprised that Abe was so clueless, because Matt's general argument has been pedelled numerous times across the forums that Abe frequents. A thread opened only last week at IIDB to discuss presuppositionalism, and the TAG and other TAG-like arguments have made several rounds there over the years. Abe sounds like he has never heard the word "transcendent" before. He also appears to be ignorant of First-Cause and Cosmological arguments, which is inexusable if you intend to debate an apologist.

I am also surprised Abe agreed to this:

"You're not used to talking to a Christian like this, are you?"
"You've not met too many Christians who speak like this, have you? [...] ...because most Christians don't study, and most Christians don't want to think."

Lurking at IIDB, I have encountered Christians far more sophisticated in their arguments than Matt can ever hope to be. Abe needs to spend more time reading their arguments, along with the traditional ones, from intelligent theists, and less time at CARM where most of the posters are as ignorant as he appears to be.

I wouldn't say Abe is giving atheists a bad name. I doubt the sample of atheists I have interacted with on the net has been representative, and so for all I know, Abe could be giving atheists the name they generally deserve, or even doing them a favour.

[IRON MAN]

I still don't ascribe his poor performance entirely to lack of knowledge. If you were to do so based on that show, you could just as easily make the argument that Abel doesn't know what a sentence is, which we know for a fact is not the case.

People who are not familiar with difficulties in verbal communication may be unaware just how low an otherwise intelligent person's performance can drop under duress.

You think Abe is painful? Click on this fuckin' freakshow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k). God doesn't need to send me to Hell for eternity, because he's already compressed it into the three hours of pure pain of watching this video.

What do ya say God? Shall we call it time served?

Rainbow comes across as unintelligent, ill-informed, and especially ill-prepared. Meaning that they have either lowered the bar in molecular biology serverely at some point, or the guy is not as dumb as he looks.

The question is: Which is more plausible?

Two hundred years ago, Hovind could have got this guy lynched if he wanted to. That doesn't make Hovind right or Rainbow stupid.

[Clutch Munny]

[QUOTE]...about which he is clearly ignorant...

Or perhaps has difficulty comprehending, processing and expressing at the speed of verbal debate. Have you ever seen Hovind's debate with Michael Shermer? I don't agree with Shermer about everything, but I would hardly say he was ignorant of the subject, but he wound up looking like a total dick.

You're bitching people making unsupported claims is still ringing in my ears from another thread, so why are you making this one without checking your facts smart arse?

He was debating on the relation of logic to God (none). He is clearly ignorant of this topic -- viz., clearly lacking fundamental knowledge. My evidence for this is that he explicitly stated that he needed to look up the law of excluded middle on the web on the fly (and haltingly read it aloud). Pretty straightforward. Abe was engaged in a debate about something of which he was clearly ignorant, with someone who does it for a living. That's what I said, and it's rather obviously true -- as anyone who both read my claim and listened to the debate would recognize.

[Clutch Munny]

The less these fuckers just steamroll in with their unfounded assertions unopposed, and the more thinking they have to do, the better in my opinion.

Modulo the tone and context (church-going, after all), I basically agree. What I'm saying is, Abe got steamrolled; he wasn't so much as a speedbump. The currently-unreflective-but-potentially-reflective theists to whom you allude got nothing from those exchanges save a perception that atheists are muddled and ill-informed.

[TomJoe]

Rule #1: Don't ever go onto a show run by the guy you're about to debate.
Rule #2: The guys name is Slick ... that should not inspire confidence in you.
Rule #3: If you're going ignore #1 and #2, spend time at his website and see how "fair" he is.

Abe obviously didn't heed #1, #2 or #3.

When I saw the title of this thread, it was easy to predict the final outcome before even reading the thread.

[viscousmemories]

Abe's best argument is the existence of this debate. How can we reconcile this with the notion of a benevolent God?
:giggle:

Lurking at IIDB, I have encountered Christians far more sophisticated in their arguments than Matt can ever hope to be. Abe needs to spend more time reading their arguments, along with the traditional ones, from intelligent theists, and less time at CARM where most of the posters are as ignorant as he appears to be.
Exactly! The problem is that Abe and other would-be evangelists of atheism presuppose that "intelligent theist" is an oxymoron, and thus spend more time at forums like IIDB trumpetting their assumed intellectual superiority, seconding and thirding each other's vacuous arguments and clapping each other's backs than actually engaging the thoughtful, intelligent theists who don't rely on lame apologetics.

[viscousmemories]

I don't know, TomJoe. I thought Slick was pretty fair. Hell, in the first debate he explicitly asked for (and received!) Abe's permission to trick and trap him into agreeing to something bogus.

[TomJoe]

I don't know, TomJoe. I thought Slick was pretty fair. Hell, in the first debate he explicitly asked for (and received!) Abe's permission to trick and trap him into agreeing to something bogus.

Did Abe know the topics for discussion prior to his coming onto the show?

I don't know ... I can't bear to listen to the transcripts. Matt DSlick is a jerkoff IMO*.

*Yah, I'm biased. I've been banned several times from CARM.

[livius drusus]

TomJoe, I love the Halloween paw. :aww:

[viscousmemories]

Did Abe know the topics for discussion prior to his coming onto the show?
Slick asked Abe if he wanted to discuss anything in particular, and Abe was all (paraphrased) "not really, you can pick the topic."

[Clutch Munny]

The second time Abe knew a week in advance.

[IRON MAN]

Exactly! The problem is that Abe and other would-be evangelists of atheism presuppose that "intelligent theist" is an oxymoron, and thus spend more time at forums like IIDB trumpetting their assumed intellectual superiority, seconding and thirding each other's vacuous arguments and clapping each other's backs than actually engaging the thoughtful, intelligent theists who don't rely on lame apologetics.

Even so, Match Dick doesn't qualify even on that score. His apologetics were lamer than Stephen Hawking singing kareoke.

[Dragar]

I didn't listen, but the result doesn't surprise me. Abe was an idiot for even trying.

I wouldn't debate Kent Hovind in an audio debate. The guy knows about as much science as a cabbage, but he doesn't need to - Hovind has a skill with rhetoric and a charisma that make his arguments convincing even when there is nothing to them.

I rather suspect it was the same with this guy Abe debated. Except on a much more defendable topic.

[livius drusus]

Not really, Dragar. Abe just plain ol' sucked. He could have been debating Rain Man and he still would have come off as an ignorant, juvenile jackass.

[Dragar]

I remember from CF, he'd usually be okay with his arguments. I wouldn't have said he was formal debate standard though.

[livius drusus]

He barely made any arguments. As mediocre as I've found his posts, they were a thousand times more erudite, reasoned and coherent than his "debating". Just listen to the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean.

[viscousmemories]

Even so, Match Dick doesn't qualify even on that score. His apologetics were lamer than Stephen Hawking singing kareoke.
Absolutely, but if Abe spent more time actually engaging theistic arguments charitably in the years he's been doing this, a feeble apologist might not have beat him like a red-headed stepchild on public radio.

[Dragar]

Eugh. Okay, that really is awful. On both sides.

"Can I offer a definition of truth?" :doh:

I'm sure I wouldn't come off much better, though. Especially against a guy who does it for a living. Slick has good delivery, even if he delivers awful lines like the above.

[Sock Puppet]

Just wait until they get older and, perhaps, don't find Abe so creepyIf they're female, I hope they don't ever come by that perception, because it would be incorrect, and perhaps dangerous. Especially if they're around age 14. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12969#post12969)

It's probably unfair to dredge that up yet again. I don't particularly care; especially as a father to a young girl, I find Abe to be a despicable piece of sociopathic horseshit.

But even that aside, I spent way too much time observing sophomoric protests at Berkeley to have any respect for the sign-carrying sort of demonstrator, of any stripe. At least he attempted something more worthwhile this time, even if he did fail miserably at it.

[viscousmemories]

I skimmed IIDB looking for the "Abe the Athevangelist Pwns Xtian Apologist" thread but didn't see one. Is it possible he and his fanboys are actually aware that he bombed, or am I just not looking hard enough?

[erimir]

Even so, Match Dick doesn't qualify even on that score. His apologetics were lamer than Stephen Hawking singing kareoke.
Don't be dissin' MC Hawking (http://www.mchawking.com). He ain't lame in any way but physically.