The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Yes, Matt Dillahunty wipes his feet on Matt Slick.
Slick is not so slick, producing a fallacy a minute in this debate with Dillahunty.
Demonstrating clearly that even the best apologists are nothing but fallacious, moronic nutjobs.
Join Atheist Nexus
Slick was overmatched and embarrassed but probably feels he acquitted himself well. I am not
surprised he heard voices during the debate. And he complained about Dillahuntys' subjectivity which is funny for a guy who has his world view eviscerated without relying on subjectivity. The guy feels the holy spirit.
Essentially, we all ponder our existence, actions and future.
Thus we are all philosophers.
Philosophy is nothing more than subjective ponderings, which may have appeared useful in the ancient Greek era, as it started what we now know of as Scientific Enquiry, from the ponderings of Aristotle and Socrates.
Though a tiny little bit of philosophy drives Theoretical Sciences, such as Theoretical Physics and Theoretical Cosmology, enter Stephen Hawkings and the like.
Yet, for the most part, much of Philosophy is impractical and useless.
Theology on the other hand is Errant Philosophy, based entirely on an Irrational Assertion (god).
Humans should never heed, nor even entertain Errant Philosophy, except for amusement as it is all just Childish Nonsense, but it is all nutjobs like C.S. Lewis valued.
Current practitioners of such errant philosophy like William Lane Craig and Matt Slick even fall short of C.S. Lewis in their writings and arguments.
Evidently modern apologists are becoming increasing less intelligent.
Dog, I was pleased to hear you say "Philosophy is mostly Bullshit, very little of it is really useful." That's been my opinion since reading a little philosophy years ago. That's why I stop listening to debates like this very quickly.
Most of that is because Dillahunty trained for the ministry. He knows what believers are going to say and has studied it all himself. Matt stands up well against an apologist because he has had the same training before he became atheist.
Slick accused Dillahunty of Dodging.
If you call ducking idiotic assertions, dodging, well I think Dillahunty had to dodge stupidity to remain polite.
Slick also after the debate that Dillahunty is only posing to be intellectual.
Not mentioning the fact that Slick is actually Anti-Intellectual.
Slick makes blind assertions and calls foul when he is called to support those assertions, slick continually tries to shift the burden-of-proof onto Dillahunty.
Yet, it is Slick who is making the idiotic assertions for God, which he has no evidence for.
Thus showing that Slick only relies on Faith (belief without evidence) and as Dillahunty pointed out, Slick made Assertions from Ignorance, more than a dozen times in the debate.
Thus, Slick continually committed the following Fallacies.
Arguments from Ignorance: At least a dozen times.
Arguments from False Authority: Several times (asserting the Bible is authority, i.e. the Red Sea nonsense)
Argument from False Dichotomy: Near the beginning, which Matt highlighted.
Shifting Burden Of Proof: Continually.
Argument from Anecdote Fallacy: His so called personal revelation as having some value as truth, which is usually entirely delusional. Having known many with similar revelations, that usually turn out to be hallucinations.
Affirming the Consequence Fallacy: Regarding Slick's take oon miracles.
P1: Assertion: God performs miracles,
P2: Jesus performed miracles,
Conclusion: Jesus is God.
Jesus could have been a good magician or a sorcerer as the Bible mentions witches and magic.
Thus Slick's statements are fallacious.
Argument from personal increduelity: Slick often states, he cannot imagine how Dillahunty's very rational stance can be taken seriously or could be realistic. This is Slick's failing, not Dillahunty's.
God of the Gaps Fallacy, Because we have no evidence for the origin of the Universe, God was the cause, this is also called the Argument from Silence Fallacy (argument from the non-existence of evidence).
There are several other fallacies that Slick continually spouts.
Though I don't have enough time nor energy to list them all.
In the Fallacy summation of that debate: Slick 20+ Fallacies, Dillahunty 0 fallacies.
Philosophy is mostly Bullshit, very little of it is really useful.
Theology is Absolute Bullshit, absolutely none of it is useful, except to give nutjobs like Matt Slick a job, he'd be useless as a philosopher, as he failed logic completely in that debate.
Matt Dillahunty proved himself to be a much better philosopher and a far more rational person than Slick could ever be.
Hope you like them apples, Slicko, if you ever bother to read this.
If you ever do, you really did come across as a totally arrogant, narcissistic, belidgerant, moron in that debate.
Notice that near the end, that dickhead Slick picks on the parting of the Red Sea as proof of a miracle, he doesn't know that the myth of Moses parting the Red Sea was actually borrowed from a pre-existing Persian myth.
It was plagiarized from the myth of a King parting the Red Sea to rescue a ring of one of his servants.
Later, in the 3rd Century BCE it was interpolated into the Old Testament myths.
Matt Slick, proves himself to be a complete Idiot.
The "I don't know!" position is a very rational position, that is something Slick cannot understand.
Because he is infinitely Irrational.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Update Your Membership :
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2018 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.