Debates and honesty
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2017, 08:03 PM
Debates and honesty
So I have recently found a lot of debates where Matt Dilahunty is on one side and some christian on the other side. I find his way of debating very interesting and entertaining.

So I listened to some of his debates and also I have in the back of my mind all the apologists that I have heard for years. And in some cases I can see how the person on the other side might actually and honestly believe the stuff they say. It might all sound logical and feel right in their head. I give it to them. Some sound like they are being honest in their world view. And although many a time I just have to face palm or roll my eyes about some arguments that I have heard a thousand times before, generally I have the feeling that the arguments come from a place where that person actually wants an honest debate.

But now I have been listening to Matt Dilahunty vs Matt Slick on the topic "Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?" (will link below)
In the beginning things were normal but then Matt Slick became so ... prejudiced and disrespectful that I wanted to honestly go there and just punch him in the face for a little while. He was treating Dilahunty like a child. Not letting him finish sentences, misunderstanding things on purpose, insisting on unreasonable things. There was this bit where Dilahunty has made a point about reality and so on. And he said something about biology and chemics and so on. I can't remember the exact words. But the result of him saying that during making a point that for the rest of the debate, whenever Dilahunty was very close to finally getting somewhere, making a point, etc, Matt Slick would simply say "your brain made you say that". That remained the answer for the rest of the debate. There was nothing else possible anymore. He took nothing serious. He has this fucking smirk on his face like he is talking to a toddler. And he was talking in that voice as well. And I get so frustrated and pissed at such people.

I have so much respect for Dilahunty for not simply reaching across and slapping that fucking laptop into that fucking mouth to wipe that fucking smirk out of that fucking face. Such disrespect and inability to talk from adult to adult. And this unwillingness to discuss through a topic but instead trying to invalidate every single thing that the other person says. No open mind to speak. He was not there to actually find an answer to the question "Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?". He was there to win a debate (there was no winning) and he was there to make Dilahunty look like and idiot. (which btw did not work)

Anyway, this had to be vented.
Anybody want to go through that torture, here are almost 3 hours of debate that will make you want to bite into a brick wall



"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Leerob's post
08-04-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: Debates and honesty
(08-04-2017 08:03 PM)Leerob Wrote:  So I have recently found a lot of debates where Matt Dilahunty is on one side and some christian on the other side. I find his way of debating very interesting and entertaining.

So I listened to some of his debates and also I have in the back of my mind all the apologists that I have heard for years. And in some cases I can see how the person on the other side might actually and honestly believe the stuff they say. It might all sound logical and feel right in their head. I give it to them. Some sound like they are being honest in their world view. And although many a time I just have to face palm or roll my eyes about some arguments that I have heard a thousand times before, generally I have the feeling that the arguments come from a place where that person actually wants an honest debate.

But now I have been listening to Matt Dilahunty vs Matt Slick on the topic "Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?" (will link below)
In the beginning things were normal but then Matt Slick became so ... prejudiced and disrespectful that I wanted to honestly go there and just punch him in the face for a little while. He was treating Dilahunty like a child. Not letting him finish sentences, misunderstanding things on purpose, insisting on unreasonable things. There was this bit where Dilahunty has made a point about reality and so on. And he said something about biology and chemics and so on. I can't remember the exact words. But the result of him saying that during making a point that for the rest of the debate, whenever Dilahunty was very close to finally getting somewhere, making a point, etc, Matt Slick would simply say "your brain made you say that". That remained the answer for the rest of the debate. There was nothing else possible anymore. He took nothing serious. He has this fucking smirk on his face like he is talking to a toddler. And he was talking in that voice as well. And I get so frustrated and pissed at such people.

I have so much respect for Dilahunty for not simply reaching across and slapping that fucking laptop into that fucking mouth to wipe that fucking smirk out of that fucking face. Such disrespect and inability to talk from adult to adult. And this unwillingness to discuss through a topic but instead trying to invalidate every single thing that the other person says. No open mind to speak. He was not there to actually find an answer to the question "Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?". He was there to win a debate (there was no winning) and he was there to make Dilahunty look like and idiot. (which btw did not work)

Anyway, this had to be vented.
Anybody want to go through that torture, here are almost 3 hours of debate that will make you want to bite into a brick wall



Matt Slick is one of the worst. Right up there next to Sye Ten Bruggencate. He is so condescending. When he gets into trouble he wants to "move on".

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
08-04-2017, 09:43 PM
RE: Debates and honesty
I also can't stand deliberate dishonesty, and stalling the debate. I don't think I've listened to a lot of Matt Slick, but I've heard a lot about him.

The sad thing about theistic debates is I can often predict exactly what is coming next. It's jumping from one broken position to the next, without ever staying long enough on any of them to properly discuss why they don't work. And when they run out of room, they just sabotage the whole thing.

Of course, not all debates go this way. I have had a few, and listened to a few, where I felt the theist was genuinely trying to be honest.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
09-04-2017, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2017 06:47 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Debates and honesty
(08-04-2017 09:43 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I also can't stand deliberate dishonesty, and stalling the debate. I don't think I've listened to a lot of Matt Slick, but I've heard a lot about him.

The sad thing about theistic debates is I can often predict exactly what is coming next. It's jumping from one broken position to the next, without ever staying long enough on any of them to properly discuss why they don't work. And when they run out of room, they just sabotage the whole thing.

Of course, not all debates go this way. I have had a few, and listened to a few, where I felt the theist was genuinely trying to be honest.

I went at it with a poster that used to post here, he actually went to some diploma- from-a-crackerjack-box university to study systematic lying, which he called hermeneutics. I nailed him to the wall on ice cores disproving Noah's flood, his fallback position was that scientists were using "uniformitarian" assumptions to interpret their data. Everything was an interpretation to post-hoc fit it into a biblical narrative.

There's nothing to do with this level of dishonesty, he couldn't admit that the evidence leads one to make the conclusions that it does with very little wiggle room for interpretation. At that point you set aside your irrational belief and reevaluate, but not this numbnuts, he just moved on to the next thread to bloviate about his bible and his interpretations.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
09-04-2017, 06:37 AM
RE: Debates and honesty
Ugh, sounds painful. I've dealt with people as bad as that, and in fact much worse. With one guy it just became a form of entertainment after a while to see what utter meaningless drivel he would produce next. I even told him point blank what he would say next, and he said it anyway.

At least when discussing on a forum, other readers can benefit from our analysis of bogus claims.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
09-04-2017, 06:43 AM
RE: Debates and honesty
[Image: 082a9a9aee736af4032c794240ad9151.jpg.cf.jpg]

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Loom's post
09-04-2017, 08:24 AM
RE: Debates and honesty
I forgot who it was, but I believe it was Seth Andrews I heard interviewing a guy who was a pastor turned atheist who talked about going for seminary degrees or whatever you call them. He said that during the course of his studies (and I forget where he went but from what I remember it was a pretty prominent college), he came to find that pretty much everyone in the program knew that the bible was bullshit and it wasn't true but continue on anyway because it "had to be done".

While I do believe some if not many apologetics are sincere, I also believe a great deal of them know what they are defending cannot be defended without straight out being dishonest. And I say the same thing for the average Christian around me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
09-04-2017, 08:32 AM
RE: Debates and honesty
I think there's probably a lot of confliction going on in most reasonably savvy theists. I feel part of them knows they're dealing with ideas that have to be protected and hidden from investigation, but part of them "knows" it's true.

At least some of it. I also get the feeling that they are sure about some parts, but feel they have to lump in others because it's part of the package. I find it extremely hard to believe some of the very intelligent people I'm aware of can really believe unfiltered utter garbage.

At the bottom of it, I think they feel it is true, and so it must be defensible somehow. So whatever it takes to defend it must be valid.

I'm just speculating. The nearest I have to the same experience is when my therapist told me something that was true, but that I didn't want to hear. I got quite angry, disagreeing entirely, and was convinced she was an idiot for a few days afterwards. My brain was hastily contructing all kinds of rationalisations, with me hardly realizing, to protect the belief. But it slowly sunk in and I became aware of what I was doing. She was totally right, and I'm glad she told me the truth.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 10:43 AM
RE: Debates and honesty
I watched Dillahunty's (first) part of the debate, but didn't bother with Slick's. I know well in advance what he's gonna say, plus I hate the taste of that bit of sick in the back of my throat.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
09-04-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: Debates and honesty
(08-04-2017 08:20 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Matt Slick is one of the worst. Right up there next to Sye Ten Bruggencate. He is so condescending. When he gets into trouble he wants to "move on".
Yeah we had a Slick disciple back on C-D ... pastor of a small evangelical church in rural Kansas IIRC. Actually for a fundamentalist he was fairly civil, but his go-to guy was Slick and so as a result it was hard to really respect him or his arguments. He seemed to have adopted some of Slick's rhetorical flourishes, such as tossing out "and? your point is?" when he had no real answer to an argument.

Slick home schooled his children. His daughter, who is now in her mid 20s, deconverted soon after she got out into the world and is how an atheist. Her name is Rachel Slick, and she has told the story of what it was like being a trained apologist monkey for her Daddy. Let's see ... here it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: