Atheist Debates - Debate Review vs Matt Slick (Pt 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
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.
"Everything is either physical or conceptual."
"OK - is your god physical?"
"No."
"Then he's conceptual. Good night."
As if abiogenesis, chemicals to life isn't conceptual? Why can't you prove life has a natural origin?
@@VernonChitlen Because I don't have to.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
@@JMUDoc You're not claiming there's is a natural origin of life, therefore no need for a creator? My claim is there is a Creator and the evidence is the appearance of design and purpose in biology and scientists inability to duplicate it's simplest example. And there is enough research data from studies of origin of life that the basic chemistry couldn't take place in any natural scenario. It cannot be done in a laboratory by scientists, how could it be rational it could in a mindless, "warm little pond?" (darwins words)
@@VernonChitlen
*You're not claiming there's is a natural origin of life, therefore no need for a creator?*
I'm not claiming there IS a natural origin for life; I'm claiming that a creator has not been PROVEN to have been necessary.
*My claim is there is a Creator and the evidence is the appearance of design and purpose in biology and scientists inability to duplicate it's simplest example*
Evolution by natural selection can also explain the _appearance_ of design, and the fact that a scientist can't do something is irrelevant.
*And there is enough research data from studies of origin of life that the basic chemistry couldn't take place in any natural scenario.*
"Enough research" in your opinion - are you a biochemist? If not, your opinion on the research is worthless to me.
*It cannot be done in a laboratory by scientists, how could it be rational it could in a mindless, "warm little pond?" (darwins words)*
Scientists have been trying for how long? A hundred years? How long did nature have to "try"? Billions of years.
And even if scientists NEVER manage it, so what? Concluding that something never happened because it can't be duplicated would be idiotic.
@@JMUDoc The burden of proof fallacy? I'm not talking about evolution. You have to get from chemicals to life where evolution supposedly could begin with an organism that can replicate itself. You are fine with Bo Derek ultimately being one example of time and randomness? You don't understand "natural selection" is non sequiter? What is there to select from? Only the random mutation of the previous organism. Getting cold, need hair? Tough potatoes until that mutation occurs to "select" from, nada. Hello? Scientist have a working model to reverse engineer from that a warm little pond provides them with. What did it have? No direction, guidance, purpose, goal?
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.
werelemur1138 sadly, I have yet to see a debate like that, at least with a religious opponent
@@bookwermofthefandoms that's because so long as your not dodging, everything you say falls apart even more than it already has.
"Well, Matt's view and strategy of chess isn't as good as mine because it doesn't explain the rules of the game."
"The Slick Dodge"
That fine chess board you have there.
No shit, I want one.
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.
Martin Pfefferle when making a classical reference, it's acceptable to allude rather than directly quote the subject of the allusion ;-)
I was waiting until he started a victorious strut before adding that. :)
Matt Dillahunty Since Bill Craig won't debate you, will the other better known Christian apologists debate you? Like D'souza and Lennox? Or are they similar to Craig, PhD only?
@Joe .... and a criminal record.
Please no more debates with D'Souza ever... the brains of both theists and atheist alike have suffered enough.
As for Craig, there's not much point since his brilliant philosophical approach is to always make the same argument, wave away any criticisms without answering them and then claim his opponent hasn't made any case of their own to prove a negative.
Lennox ... maybe? I seem to remember him being just sort of fudgily dishonest and arrogant, not an *outright* brainfrazzler.
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!!``
Hmm. Matt knocked over the pieces but he did not poop on the board. Metaphor should be fully deployed, I feel.
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?
On proverbial piles of money from the people that listen to him and buy(in both senses of the word) his arguments.
Slick as shit. His stinking thinking has consistency of diarrhea. Matt D is a saint for maintaining composure while enduring this arrogant, patronizing terd
Matt is not the brightest in the apologetics circle. He needs to phrase his arguments in a way that would actually exude meaning and veracity.
He prays for sleep.
And takes two Nytol.
@@Avicaris the ones that fill his rice bowl.
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.
I think the problem is that he's just bad at reasoning and logic. Which is perfectly fine by itself, those aren't really survival skills. But he is frequently surrounded by and communicates with some of the greatest logical/rational minds in the world...how could he not pick up something from them?
FighterDoken Right, no one is a perfect thinker...which is why we often bounce ideas off each other to look for flaws and weaknesses in our positions. The honest person will accept those criticisms and either fix or abandon their position. The dishonest person, as Matt Slick seems to be (though I genuinely don't like insulting people) will ignore all of that input. And the MOST dishonest people will fall back to presuppositional apologetics.
To be fair, he could just be so compartmentalized in his beliefs that his mind refuses to let new information in.
+Michael Gorka The thing is, while he may make fun of Sye, Slick **is** a presuppositionist! He just doesn't fully understand what presuppositional apologetics are (he has just heard that they are worthless/indefensible) and so he acts like he is not that.
FighterDoken
ha! are you serious?! I never heard him say that, but it's both hilarious and ironic.
Really, the only difference between them is that Slick uses bigger words.
DId you make these assumptions after analyzing both sides or after watching M.D.s response?
I practiced "Dillahunty Patience" waiting for this review :)
Oh I love that chess set
I can't wait to see part 2.
That's a beautiful chess set.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
Great video, I love the backstory and think it was especially relevant and interesting here. Can't wait to see part 2
Great, been waiting on this for ages!
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"
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.
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.
8:30 The irony is Matt Slick seems to have used an appeal to ignorance while claiming your logic is fallacious. Some master of logic, can't even avoid basic logical fallacies?
I'm sure he knows what he's doing. There seems to be an unwritten law of apologetics that if you can appear to "win" by dishonesty, your god will permit lying as long as it's attacking an atheist.
Windwar attack No, but the idea that I'm better than you did. Thank you for that wonderful comment.
Windwar attack I cam
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.
I've been looking forward to the review of this debate. It was head poundingly frustrating to watch.
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.
Yes and 6 naked women dancing would be a nice addition also
You are one of my favorites. Thank you for all that you do.
How can a supposed expert in logic offer "Is Atheism or Chrisitianity a logical position to hold?" as a debate topic?!
Matt S is playing Tic Tac Toe while Matt D is playing chess
I'm forever grateful to you Matt for being the main focus point on my realisation of weather my beliefs were true. Keep up the great work.
Thank you Matt. Loved the chess analogy, i used to play quite a bit. Thanks for the show, thanks for the videos. You're awesome.
Excelent as always
When Mat started with the chess analogy, my first thought was "oh my god, I hope he doesn't just knock all the pieces over and crap on the board"
I had been thinking that Matt Slick's performance did t quite sink to the Sye10 level of "I already won so I don't need to present an argument" but now I'm not so sure
Ashamanic haha yes, Matt S went with the 'I'm gonna take my ball and go home strategy"
When i was SUPER active in my PC(usa) church, both me and my pastor USED sec humanism as a goal for the congregation
Why should anyone consider this argument for an absolute moral law giver or the argument of "necessary preconditions for intelligibility" without proof of such a being? Apologists seem to think this argument shuts down any point an Atheist can make as if this were some sort of "trump card" for lack of a better term. However, the apologist hasn't yet proven that God, their absolute law giver, even exists. At least an Atheist can provide evidence of their ability to reason. We shouldn't be ashamed to admit that "our brain made us say that" because a brain actually exists. The apologist is appealing to something they haven't proven exists. Until this happens, they have no ground to stand on.
You're definitely not wrong. I wish at one point Matt D. would have said in response to slick, "Your God made you say that."
These are good way of learning how to debate as well as specifics of this one debate ,
I'm so glad you did this review. Mr. Slick was infuriating with no intelligent arguments.
Thank you! I have learned so much from you. Also, I love the atheist experience!
Here's an alternate version of Matt Slick's argument about "chemicals" in the brain:
"Turning electricity in a circuit on and off doesn't lead to calculations, so you can't trust calculations coming from a computer. Its self refuting."
that's...actually a great metaphor for what happened
26:14 Affirming I am the intended audience for this ⚡
Always appreciate the debrief.
So he wanted you to defend philosophical naturalism, and when you agreed to defend a position that doesn't include philosophical naturalism, he still went after philosophical naturalism.
The lady at the end of the q&a almost got him with a question that no presuppositionalist/apologist had ever answered. "How do you separate the human brain/mere chemical fallibility that they insist prevents the non-believer from accounting for reason, but it's not a problem for the believer when they claim divine revelation?"
Those weren't her exact words, but that was the gist. Slick admitted he didn't really understand the question.
They have answered it, they just appeal to magic, ie even though their cognitive faculties are flawed god is omnipotent and therefore can make them know in a way they can be certain.
Slick’s little “I don’t understand” dance was exactly how I knew that he understood the question *perfectly*
I rewatched the debate, and in hindsight it's clear that Slick was not interested in dealing with any of your arguments on any topic. Instead he believes he has a universal defeater, that you Matt Dillihunty can't be correct about anything because, in his flawed epistemology, you can't account for the logic on which your arguments are based. QED. It's his perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card, which I could call the Slick Manouver. So while you may have thought the proposed debate topics were offered in good faith, they were all pointed at this one fallacious proposition. Whether you were defending methodological naturalism, scientific skepticism, or secular humanism, Slick's bone-headed answer is always the same: you can't account for the laws of logic so you lose. This is so obviously bogus, not to mention dishonest.
The first topic that Matt suggested "Is atheism or christianity a logical position to hold" reminds me of Mitch Hedberg bit about how some interview questions don't make any sense. "Have you ever had sugar or PSP?"
This cant be as good as the Matt vs Sye Debate Review. But lets give it a chance
That's not much different than the one with Slick. 'THAT'S YOUR BRAIN TALKING, NOT YOU'.
Sye: "Same as you do. God revealed it." omg facepalm!
Talking to a religious person is like talking to Naruto. Every time you ask for an answer, all you get in return is - BELIEVE IT!!!
I would definitely like to see you debate Frank Turek. His argumentation is horrible to listen to. I've watched both David Silverman and Hitchens debate him, and enjoyed both of their performances in tackling the apologetic nonsense from Turek, who just makes assertions and shows blatant scientific ignorance.
a waste of time to debate turek. i would like to see dillahunty pummel slick again.
EvilToaster cosmic skeptic debated him on morality
Matt Slick did not participate in the debate. He merely spit out worn-out religious "arguments" that offer no support for his assertion the God does, indeed, exist. I'm not interested in any philosophy that requires me to die to determine its validity.
Matt Slicks proof for the christian viewpoint is the bible. When asked for proof that the bible is true, he says because god revealed himself in the bible. Circular reasoning. When you point out it is circular, he says that the bible is needed to account for the logical absolutes and you need to account for the logical absolutes, so the bible is true because it accounts for the absolutes. Again circular. And the reason why he says it isn't circular, is because without the bible, he can't prove the bible. He admits this. But does not aknowledge that it is a fallacy. Even though he admits it's circular, at the same time he claims it's not circular, but necessary.
A conversation with Slick is useless for Slick. It is useful for people who believe Matt's argument or are on the fence, or are interested in his stance: it exposes him for using fallacies.
I just watched the debate video...I'm not sure if Slick is just dishonest or if he's just a bit thick. He didn't even come ready to discuss the topic, he just insisted on pushing the "your brain made you say that" nonsense. Yes, our brians make us say everything, can we discuss the topic at hand now please?
Matt Slick is slightly less annoying to Sye. The arrogance inherent in presuppositionalism is mind numbing.
Yes! I've been waiting to see a debate with Frank Turek. I'm fans of both and hope it will be a great conversation.
The dilahunty dodge, rejecting a false dichotomy
Did you ever make a video debate review of your David Robertson debate?
I can't find one that you made and that debate definitely needed reviewing, he put his review on a blog.
Interesting detailed review.
My two penneth re the proposed debate topics is, Matt Slick wanted to keep the subject within the realm of logic so he could do what he did on the night. I think he thinks his logic arguments are the best way to win and I suspect no matter what the subject, he would have gone down much the same route.
Check out Alex Malpass on his own channel. He talked twice with Matt Slick and both times it was bad for Slick.
TownDrunk Yeah, you want to see someone exhibit "God-like" patience with an impetuous little baby, watch Alex spend hours putting up with Matt Slick
Jim J And then talking with that actual child Jason Peterson. Painful in so many ways.
Glad I checked that out. Very entertaining. Alex is a cool guy.
ah, i see you opened with the Schostakovic gambit. well played.
inb4 Slick whines about this in his channel and tries to make Matt look bad for reviewing stuff.
Matt good video series, and love that chess set!!!
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
A little unusual?Understatement of the year.
love the chess set !
This particular debate was truly painful. The topics Slick submitted make it clear that he had no actual intention of having a discussion and once that attitude did not change during the debate proper. It's as if he crammed for the topic he'd like to debate and forced that unto the topic at hand.
Seems weird that Matt says Matt Slick likes logic and rationality and talks of others saying that too, yet Slick can't form a logical question on the topic he's supposedly got a deep knowledge of;
"Is it logical to believe God did exist or didn't exist?". I mean, a 15 year old could form a more coherent question on the issue than that.
I noticed during the debate that you and Slick discussed logic and logical absolutes and just like in this video, you effectively said that logic doesn't fit entirely within the category of being a concept, can you explain why you think that?
I only ask since it seems to me that logic is our tool for describing how things in the universe operate and prescribing how they will continue to operate, the same mathematics does, so it's a useful concept, indeed a necessary one for almost any being with the slightest cognitive ability, but a mere concept nonetheless.
The debate was exactly about whose strategy is better. "Is Secular Humanism Superior to Christianity?" By default of the question, he has to explain why his worldview is superior.
I got the impression that Slick didn't understand the difference between humanism, atheism and philosophical naturalism, so he was using them interchangeably.
It was a typical Matt Slick debate... he has nothing and he knows it and so he argues against issues that were not made, changes topic and miss quotes like a slick of crude oil as he thinks no one notices
Stephen Catton Just like all the other religious apologists then. When they never win any arguments you'd have thought they'd start to see sense but they just keep burying their heads deeper.
Well, that's because it's not necessarily about winning for them. It's about putting on a good enough show for the people in their congregations that they'll be selling DVDs to afterward.
What point are you making about your assertions? Do you hold yourself to the same standard?
Just watch him debating....it is obvious
that's a mighty beautiful chess set
I'm actually surprised what a mess those proposed topics were.
People like Matt Slick exist to do nothing more than monopolize debate time, this is their real strategy... ``prevent the other side from talking``.
The worst part of the slick debate was Q&A when a woman tried to ask slick why isn't your thoughts just brain fizz and slick pretended to not understand the question several times
That's a badass chess board sir!
If you are a new person to these debates...its good to have a dictionary on hand because these guys like to use alot of big/sophisticated words. I had to look up the correct definition of alot of these words...even easy words like "secular". I just had to make sure I had the correct meaning of the word in the way these debates use them.
The Dump I took is superior to Christianity
I think that your expression of methodological naturalism, as you call it, is not inconsistent at all with philosophical naturalism. When taking the position of philosophical naturalism, the burden of justification has already been met. It is premised on the lack of demonstration of the possibility or discovery of the supernatural. The same rings true of your position regarding your own atheism. I look forward to seeing your video on the subject.
Respectfully, I don't think that you're characterizing Slick's argument about "fizz" quite right. To me he was saying something like: (steelmanning a bit, I think) "Secular Humanism asserts that the brain operates using the laws of physics. A "'device' (the brain in this case) that operates strictly using only the laws of physics (without supernatural intervention) cannot be expected to produce correct logical inferences. I.E. it cannot think logically. Therefore, based on Secular Humanism we cannot expect humans to be able to think logically. Secular Humanism promotes using logic to make decisions about human flourishing, therefore Secular Humanism is contradictory and should not be considered a valid system." I would have pointed out that computers operate purely using the laws of physics. No one asserts that computers operate with supernatural intervention. And yet computers, by their very nature, can and do use correct logical operations (Z = X AND Y;) and so this refutes his claim. Now, he would then say (as he did) "but computers are designed by thinking creatures" to which I would say "so what?" or "humans were 'designed' by evolution."
This is a perfect analogy...
I could listen to you talk for hours, but I think it would be more interesting if you did "director commentary" over the actual debate.
I'd love to see Mr. Slick write out the structure of what he calls the "Dillahunty Dodge" and indicate the nonfunctional operation that makes the argument invalid. False dichotomies abuse "or," for example.
Whaaaaaat?! that's crazy talk! Who doesn't like their pigeon pooping over the chess set?! 😮😮😮😂😂😂. You are awesome matt... Very interesting listening to your strategies.
This mans brain is remarkable... over the years of watching the atheist experience and watching him in debates (i was so stoked when he started doing debates) i have watched him get better and better at clearly and articulately explaining logical and rational arguments and positions, and explaining the reasons why other positions are not logical and rational. So many debaters you watch will go on these long spiels and at the end of it you're kind of confused as to what exactly they said. But not with matt. I always understand exactly what he's saying and it always just makes complete sense.
Of all the atheist debaters i have ever watched, and i've watched many, it is matt dillahunty that i believe is the best at articulating arguments and pointing out the flaws in others arguments. He is straight to the point, quickly and effectively points out problems in others' arguments, and just explains himself so well. This is what sets him apart, and it's always amazed me at how good he is at this, and how much better he has gotten over time.
As humanity evolved, through centuries and centuries, the number of gods diminished. These days there are roughly two camps, one claiming the number is one, the other claiming that the number is zero. Reality has it that because it it is a complex topic, the answer has to be a complex number! With that in mind, we can safely conclude that all the non-zero answers fall on the imaginary axis.
Viewers should also check out the channel named Alex Malpass. He's a PhD philosopher giving Matt Slick Logic 101 lessons in one of his videos. Let's just say Slick fails to understand some simple concepts and Alex is giving extremely precise explanations that anyone should be able to understand easily. If you dislike Slick at all, you'll probably love it.
FYI, Sean Carroll holds to Philosophical Naturalism. I'd love to hear you two have a discussion.
that is an awesome chess set.
Thanks Matt
Matt, you're the greatest, man.
No matter what topic you picked, Matt Slick was always going to try to steer the discussion towards his one and only angle of attack with "who can account for the laws of logic".
It's funny that Slick has to adopt what he calls "the atheist world view" when he says that your brain is just fizz and can't account for anything. But he doesn't actually believe that. In his world view, your brain works and you can account for logic etc. Why does he care what your world view is when he knows his world view is the correct one? Imagine a monkey who randomly types, "apples are red" on a typewriter. Just because a monkey typing on a keyboard doesn't understand the words they just typed, doesn't mean that those words don't exist and can't be read understood and analyzed by a human. Matt Slick should have still been able to address what you said about Secular Humanism if you have an absurd world view.
Presuppositionalists believe that theism is better because it "explains" logical absolutes, whereas humanism admittedly cannot. The fundamental problem is that if theism does actually explain logical absolutes (hint: it doesn't), it can then explain any world; it fails to explain why our world has any characteristic it has, because it would equally explain any world that has an opposite characteristic. To use the word "explain" in the manner the presuppsitionalists do is to strip it of all meaning. That's the goal, ultimately, since presuppositionalism isn't so much a philosophical position as it is a debate parlor trick.
That is a SWEET chess board.
That's a beautiful chess set where did you get it Matt
So slick wanted to have a debate where Matt had to defend a position then when the debate finally started slick didn't defend his position but shat on the chess board and said your brain farted therefore I win
As I understand it, Matt Slick never realized TAG was fallacious, he just thought it was initially unclear to Alex Malpass and wanted him to help clarify to others.
Malpass's blog UseOfReason makes the problems with TAG very clear; I wonder if Slick has ever read it.
StygianEmperor I very much doubt it. In the second conversation between Slick and Alex Malpass, Alex asked him to look at the written form of the refutation at his blog because it might be easier to digest than hearing someone talk. Slick said he wouldn't with the excuse, it's more fun talking.
Matt do you actually play chess to a reapsnable degree of depth? Because your analogy is well thought out and accurate to the game as is analysed at the grandmaster level
omg. . . (irony) i am so looking forward to this.
"You know your argument is bullshit". I hate using that argument. It's not even an argument. But it's difficult not to arrive at that conclusion regarding Matt slick. He appears very immature as well.
It seems like Matt Slick formed an argument he wanted to use in a debate then desperately searched for a topic he where he could shoehorn it in. When Dillahunty wouldn't play along Slick just used his pre written script anyway even though it didn't address the topic.
So, what is the meaning of "superior" in the topic?
I think its absolutely hilarious that Slick managed to somehow make the debate about his precious little baby, TAG.