Debates and honesty
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: Debates and honesty
(09-04-2017 11:28 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(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.
His whole apologetic method is based on stolen concepts and he's had this pointed out to him before and yet he continues to use the same method. Specifically, this notion that one must prove the validity of one's senses. But this would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept because the concept "proof" rests logically on the concept "consciousness". If man's senses are invalid, then so is consciousness since the senses are the consciousness's only means of awareness. Any proof would need to make use of the senses. We'd have to be aware of and able to understand the concepts the proof uses.

If one recognizes the fact that "consciousness" is an axiom, and therefore it's means must logically be valid, his and every other presuppositionalist's whole argument is destroyed and shown to be invalid. Yet when he and other presuppositionalists are confronted with this fact, they ignore it and go on using the same invalid argument over and over, counting on their audience's ignorance of these issues. When you set out to defend a false idea it shouldn't be surprising that one must resort to fallacious reasoning. It's all a sham. Debating these people only gives them credibility that they don't deserve.

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
10-04-2017, 04:20 PM
Debates and honesty
(09-04-2017 06:43 AM)Loom Wrote:  [Image: 082a9a9aee736af4032c794240ad9151.jpg.cf.jpg]


Rationalwiki has an attributed quote about the origin of "pigeon chess."

"Pigeon chess" or "like playing chess with a pigeon" is a figure of speech originating from a comment made in March 2005 on Amazon by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer regarding Eugenie Scott's book Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction:

“”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.

As such "debating techniques" are not limited to creationists, the phrase has entered the general Internet lexicon, together with the source quotation, which is sometimes cited as an anonymous "Internet law". The reference to creationists is usually replaced with whatever group the user is arguing with.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rachel's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: