This debate ( audio | 1h09m55s ) took place, IIRC, in 2006 and it was on IGS. I guess the topic was whether or not atheism is tenable or rational which Matt agreed to right off the bat.
4.25 BEST FUN
A lot of callers call in and beat up on Matt pretty badly. Reggie is also on the offensive in this one, a lot more than with other interviews I have heard him perform.
Furthermore, the beauty of a call-in debate is that callers can come in with only one topic they know a lot about and grill the interviewee on that. One caller calls in getting Matt pretty flustered over defining god, a bunch of callers call in pointing out that the bible does say that god did create evil and then Robert Price, THE BIBLE GEEK, calls in to call out Matt on his poor arguments for why it's okay for god to send people to Hell.
Matt's usually a pretty big bully and frankly it's nice to hear him on the receiving end of this kind of crap where his condescension, hand-waving and yelling don't hold as much force as they usually do. Matt links to the show on his site and talks about how he didn't know they were taking calls and if that were the case then that's a bummer and Matt certainly went with it like a champ.
A solid hour of good internet radio, check it out!
Technical: It's okay AQ.
Showing posts with label Slick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Slick. Show all posts
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Tabash v Slick "Does God Exist?" CHECK
This debate ( audio | video | 1h54m46s ) took place in 2009 between Lawyer Eddie Tabash and Apologist Matt Slick. The debate topic was "Does God Exist?" and this isn't the best debate but it certainly was interesting.
3.5 stars. CHECK
The Godless Skeptic review: Tabash won
First I suggest you all read a better written review of the debate here because my reviews aren't nearly as full of content as the ones that I link to (sans the ones to WK which amaze me that someone could write so much summary about a given debate and not follow the arguments presented by anyone he disagrees with).
Matt Slick has some issues. I think he has potential to be a much more formidable apologist but a) he is just wayyy to condescending b) gets too excited about his pet arguments (which aren't that good to begin with) and c) is too whiny. He just comes off as a total douche and though I won't lie, I think he probably is, he probably could still improve his tact.
But I digress, on to the debate: Slick starts out setting up a lot of qualifications in order to ultimately present just one argument (something that is quite obvious, Eddie points out and Slick doesn't deny). Eddie presents his usual stuff, he does ask a lot of questions and says a lot (hence why he came off better against Craig when they debated) but he does make arguments. He argues against divine command theory, divine hiddeness, the argument from design, the argument from fine-tuning and claims of miracles. He further demonstrates how morality based on the bible is demonstrable and subject to varying interpretations that lead to an incoherent worldview.
In the rebuttal period Slick comes out swinging. He flips out on Eddie for not addressing his one argument*, dismisses Eddie's criticisms for the morality of the Christian faith because atheists are morally bankrupt and that the debate is on whether God exists and complains, complains, complains.
Slick keeps mentioning throughout the debate that he's watched Eddie's previous debates, several times, and that he has counted the questions Eddie has asked and that there were just too many. He further suggested that he could answer them all and here is where it gets good: he doesn't. The entire time, Slick relies on complaining that he has debated this stuff for over 30 years, has debated atheists in formal and informal settings and that he totally could answer these questions. If you're so experienced in these addressing these questions then why did you waste yours, Eddie's, the audience's and my time NOT answering them. I mean, Eddie is a lawyer, a part-time judge plus he's active in the atheist community and debates. This is your livelihood, Matt, you make your money defending these superstitious ideas, and like you repeat over and over and over and over in this debate, you've been doing this for a long time.
I'm serious, Slick's whole second rebuttal is complaining about how Eddie asked too many questions and how great of an apologist he is. He addressed one thing: Eddie can't pass judgement on the bible because the atheistic view is morally bankrupt. But what about Hindus? or Buddhists? or Neo-Pagans? If Slick were debating one of them would he deign himself to consider the fact that the bible is an evil and disgusting book? This is a question that I am thinking of asking more seriously, atheists have plenty of moral frameworks they can rely on to pass ethical judgements, too, but can't we just agree with the myriad of others religious views who agree that the bible blows?
Regardless, Slick doesn't even explain why they are morally bankrupt. I mean, I guess he hints at it and because I know the arguments I can put two and two together but seriously, he totally wastes his first rebuttal.
Eddie doesn't. Eddie devastates Slick's opening argument and because Slick was dumb enough to a) only present one argument and b) waste his rebuttal period away complaining about the questions Eddie asked, Eddie has more than enough time to demonstrate how his questions are relevant and need to be answered and explains that he asks them but further answers them himself.
Technical: Good AQ and VQ.
**Matt is good at saying "I'm not saying that X is a Y, but...X is a Y". Several times he said something like that. He said that he wasn't claiming Eddie was trying to deceive, or dupe, anyone but then continued on as if he were saying that anyways.
3.5 stars. CHECK
The Godless Skeptic review: Tabash won
First I suggest you all read a better written review of the debate here because my reviews aren't nearly as full of content as the ones that I link to (sans the ones to WK which amaze me that someone could write so much summary about a given debate and not follow the arguments presented by anyone he disagrees with).
Matt Slick has some issues. I think he has potential to be a much more formidable apologist but a) he is just wayyy to condescending b) gets too excited about his pet arguments (which aren't that good to begin with) and c) is too whiny. He just comes off as a total douche and though I won't lie, I think he probably is, he probably could still improve his tact.
But I digress, on to the debate: Slick starts out setting up a lot of qualifications in order to ultimately present just one argument (something that is quite obvious, Eddie points out and Slick doesn't deny). Eddie presents his usual stuff, he does ask a lot of questions and says a lot (hence why he came off better against Craig when they debated) but he does make arguments. He argues against divine command theory, divine hiddeness, the argument from design, the argument from fine-tuning and claims of miracles. He further demonstrates how morality based on the bible is demonstrable and subject to varying interpretations that lead to an incoherent worldview.
In the rebuttal period Slick comes out swinging. He flips out on Eddie for not addressing his one argument*, dismisses Eddie's criticisms for the morality of the Christian faith because atheists are morally bankrupt and that the debate is on whether God exists and complains, complains, complains.
Slick keeps mentioning throughout the debate that he's watched Eddie's previous debates, several times, and that he has counted the questions Eddie has asked and that there were just too many. He further suggested that he could answer them all and here is where it gets good: he doesn't. The entire time, Slick relies on complaining that he has debated this stuff for over 30 years, has debated atheists in formal and informal settings and that he totally could answer these questions. If you're so experienced in these addressing these questions then why did you waste yours, Eddie's, the audience's and my time NOT answering them. I mean, Eddie is a lawyer, a part-time judge plus he's active in the atheist community and debates. This is your livelihood, Matt, you make your money defending these superstitious ideas, and like you repeat over and over and over and over in this debate, you've been doing this for a long time.
I'm serious, Slick's whole second rebuttal is complaining about how Eddie asked too many questions and how great of an apologist he is. He addressed one thing: Eddie can't pass judgement on the bible because the atheistic view is morally bankrupt. But what about Hindus? or Buddhists? or Neo-Pagans? If Slick were debating one of them would he deign himself to consider the fact that the bible is an evil and disgusting book? This is a question that I am thinking of asking more seriously, atheists have plenty of moral frameworks they can rely on to pass ethical judgements, too, but can't we just agree with the myriad of others religious views who agree that the bible blows?
Regardless, Slick doesn't even explain why they are morally bankrupt. I mean, I guess he hints at it and because I know the arguments I can put two and two together but seriously, he totally wastes his first rebuttal.
Eddie doesn't. Eddie devastates Slick's opening argument and because Slick was dumb enough to a) only present one argument and b) waste his rebuttal period away complaining about the questions Eddie asked, Eddie has more than enough time to demonstrate how his questions are relevant and need to be answered and explains that he asks them but further answers them himself.
Technical: Good AQ and VQ.
**Matt is good at saying "I'm not saying that X is a Y, but...X is a Y". Several times he said something like that. He said that he wasn't claiming Eddie was trying to deceive, or dupe, anyone but then continued on as if he were saying that anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)