AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2014, 12:03 PM
AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.




I haven't seen this get posted so I wanted to put it up. Frankly, while I agree waaay more with AronRa, I think he fucked this one up. He came off so arrogantly and presupposed so much of what matt slick didn't even say that I laughed with slick, and I'm an atheist. His arguments might have been sound but this is in no way how you debate and it solidifies that I personally never thought Aron to be the strongest philosophical debater. Take my opinions as you will, but that's that :3 Hopefully you guys can at least see my point there, because when I saw the YT comments saying that AronRa DESTROYED slick I wanted to facepalm because Aron's display wasn't quite laudable, even though I loved his YT videos on creationism falsehoods video.

I didn't want my opinions to be all about hating AronRa, because again I agree with a lot of his points on creationism.





Maybe it's just me, but Scott seriously set the framework for how to talk and debate, because even though he was laden with questions he brought out all of the failures in Matt's argument's much better. I'm not saying that Scott was perfect, far from it. even though he came in with pure philosophy and no argument and still seriously wounded Matt's points on morality, his lack of preparation made him miss several points where Scott could have sealed the deal. While the first half was fun the conversation from an hour into the podcast was masterful in my opinion. Some notes I made during the vid:

"1:25:26 "If you believed everything I believe you wouldn't do it" 
"why?"
"because I believe..don't do it."
Thanks scott. This entire conversation was a BLAST XD 
You answered in ways I just loved to listen to, and hit the huge points here.

I dunno if you say it yet but what the conversation revealed is that it's not the objectivity of a standard that gets people to not do something against that standard, but whether or not that person CARES about that standard. Subjectivity therefore isn't a weakness, though I still don't think we're using subjective and objective correctly to talk about morals.


1:34:48 Bam again, well played scott. It's not right for any reason other than by definition, matt just tried covering the is ought gap by saying that we ought to do right because of definition, which by his definition means "of god's nature" So matt's claiming there's an intrinsic (or arbitrary, I don't really care how you put it) ought in the word "right"? wwwhat? 

1:35:31 And then he breaks down completely. He's claiming the core problem with his worldview. Matt's claiming that just because god created you he gets to say what "ought" be the case. Welp, that's a broad claim, matt. How could you possibly back that one up?

1:36:36 We ought to do that which is right because it glorifies god. Welp. damn scott. I'm glad you actually got him to this point of claiming an ought in the most arbitrary way possible. Clearly, the answer is "IF we CARE about glorifying god, we OUGHT follow god's moral precepts"

But if we care about maximizing health and so on, how the heck are you going to claim that we still ought do that without failing to see that you're trying to fill the is ought gap without using intention/desire? Which is failing terribly, at this point

1:38:46 I REAALLY wish scott realized he had done matt in by pointing out the is ought issue. Just by getting matt to fail to account for it by trying to say we ought do anything by definition was sufficient, and you can deduce his morality down to a point as a result. MATT cares about pleasing god, and as such will do what his god says. While matt does agree that the moral precepts his god gives have something to do with real world issues, if scott doesn't care about pleasing god but instead about maximizing health and so on (DIRECT stuff about real world consequences) instead of pleasing and glorifying a god, then why should he be "moral" as defined by matt? Scott's moral issues can easily be settled by a value assessment and objective actions that would meet his values. What I WISH scott pointed out is that while scott can encourage people to do what he does given it's based on objective outcomes that he desires, matt can't. Matt first would have to get people to WANT to please god, and frankly that depends on the god that's claimed to exist. Matt's failure to close the is ought gap, while I admit he could try to swat away by pointing out he didn't have enough time to say what he "really" wants, is why scotts morals win out. 
"

Sorry for the essay, but if you just listen in on my timestamps you could glean what I was gleaning anyways.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes le_bard's post
25-11-2014, 11:54 PM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
I am pretty much done with it the moment slick tried to argue that science is based on faith.

I don't like this guy.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
I've watched 15 minutes into the first video. It is the exact same as every debate so far. "You have faith that what you know now has always been this way."

I really hate that argument because they assume that if things weren't that way, it means that they're correct. Instead it would open up infinite possibilities, not one. Ridiculous. How much money do these people make? I'm going to switch sides, it's a lot easier. Feed people bullshit, have them give you money and THANK you for it.

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 08:11 AM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 08:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
"What God has *revealed* to us".
LMFAO
Scott's questions at about 18:00-> are really great, (Euthyphro's Dilemma restated).
"Does God have *control* over his nature" ?
If the answer is "no", not only is that god not omnipotent, but is "embedded in Reality".
THAT ain't no *god*.
I haven't watched Scott for a long time. He's definitely improving.
(Slick is just a Presuppositionalist fool). He really NEEDS to learn the word "tautology".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
In the back of my head, I can't help but think "You can't get your daughter to believe your religion, but you expect to convince others?!" When I see Matt Slick. Do you think any of these apologetics actually believe in god? I mean how can you have arguments on semantics when you're talking about your "Omniscient Deity" if you REALLY believe that your story is correct.

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes microterf's post
26-11-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
(26-11-2014 08:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "What God has *revealed* to us".
LMFAO
Scott's questions at about 18:00-> are really great, (Euthyphro's Dilemma restated).
"Does God have *control* over his nature" ?
If the answer is "no", not only is that god not omnipotent, but is "embedded in Reality".
THAT ain't no *god*.
I haven't watched Scott for a long time. He's definitely improving.
(Slick is just a Presuppositionalist fool). He really NEEDS to learn the word "tautology".

Haha yeah, he's gotten better and I feel like his rhetoric and style will get more people to actually debate with him. Though, I'm kinda scratching my head at why Scott wasn't willing to go down the path of having morals be based primarily on values and some intentions. He was certainly setting up for that near the end when he asked Slick about how slick's morals could be used to stop someone who doesn't care about morals (and yet believes in god) and wants to rape a baby. The end point there being that no amount of "you ought to do this" will get someone to listen if they don't have a prior value/concern/interest in the well being of other people psychological or otherwise as well as fairness and consent. Without values in any of these things, you can accept that god's commands or god's nature reveals how to act morally and yet not do any of that because you don't care.

Slick's response was that "If you believed what I believed you wouldn't do that" which is totally insufficient if he really meant merely 'believed' and not also 'cared'. Even demons know that a god exists, as slick should know. Satan knows that a god exists in the christian worldview, and yet he doesn't care either. No matter what slick may claim, it will always come down to what a person cares about no matter what. I'd argue that this is way more important, because there ARE logical implications of how to act based on ones values. IF you want to be healthy, don't smoke 20 packs a day and eat chocolate all the time. The outcomes of such actions go against what you value, and doing so would be irrational. Sure, we cave in moments of desire and eat cake but that's again because we desired cake more than our health, taking in an immediately apparent interest over an interest that's not immediately apparent. (ergo your life span and future quality of living)

If this is the case, then the is ought gap Slick failed so hard at addressing is filled by interests. Again, idk why Scott didn't bring this up since he's done youtube videos about it before. (I think in God, Morals and Rulers or something like that) I'll leave that down to unpreparedness aha. Once the "rational ought" is conceded by slick, he might try and claim that the only way to value human life and consent so much so that one couldn't dare steal is to accept the holy spirit given his beliefs, and while that belief is backed up by his bible it'll blow up pretty quickly.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes le_bard's post
27-10-2016, 02:52 AM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
(25-11-2014 11:54 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I am pretty much done with it the moment slick tried to argue that science is based on faith.

I don't like this guy.

I agree. Slick is obnoxious. He has no idea of what science is.

“The wheel is come full circle: I am here.”
—Edmund in King Lear: William Shakespeare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2016, 03:00 AM
Tongue RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
(25-11-2014 11:54 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I am pretty much done with it the moment slick tried to argue that science is based on faith.

I don't like this guy.

Slick's arguments are so inane he shouldn't even be here.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

“The wheel is come full circle: I am here.”
—Edmund in King Lear: William Shakespeare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
Not the worse necro I've seen.

I found this debate to be hilarious, maybe Aaron Ra didn't make a fine philosophical point in it, but he frustrated the hell out of Slick, it was funny watching his head almost explode.

I forgot the exact comment where Aaron Ra says that Slick is just saying his god is bigger than big, stronger than strong. Slick lost his cookies on that comment. Laugh out load

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: AronRa, Theoretical BS, and Matt Slick debates.
Hi Inquisition.
Yeh, I always love the way Aaron interrupts, it's usually justified, and, as in this case, because the first statement or premise his opponent makes cannot be accepted and has to be challenged as it's made. Slick is such a slimy, repellent person, I like to see him constantly cut off. His arguments never get anywhere, even when they're not interrupted. He makes no sense. Can't stand the man. Undecided

“The wheel is come full circle: I am here.”
—Edmund in King Lear: William Shakespeare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Christophe 007's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: