ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Atheist Debates - Dillahunty vs Slick - Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2016
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Dallas, TX, October 2nd, 2016 - Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick debate the question "Is Secular Humanism superior to Christianity?"
Matt Slick said stuff with his brain that made my brain not care about anything he says.
He did not attempt to answer the debate question.
Slick: "Just because people say it, doesnt make it so" (around 1:01:05)
_motions to the bible_
I'm so glad someone else pointed this out.
@@monkchips yeah, PEOPLE.. if the Bible was inspired by God, and God is not a man, well.. that's not really a contradiction sir
@@julianmanjarres1998 I'm of the understanding that the bible is the work of man's ego. Also isn't the bible usually preached? That is a person saying something.
@@julianmanjarres1998 Theres nothing to back up that premise but the bible itself, its circular logic, begging the question etc. etc. Prove the bible is the word of god, or inspired by god, without the bible.
Climbers Of Ice yeah, PEOPLE ... if the bible was INSPIRED by god, and god is not a PERSON? Then the bible was still written by inspired PEOPLE and so that is really a contradiction, sir.
"Your brain made you say that"
The irony in forwarding an argument that defeats your own position seems to be forever lost on these primates.
About the "primates" thing...
I have bad news for you... ;-)
@@theodorgrunter3551
Lmao.
For a creationist it seems ... irony is just how the water sometimes tastes.
@@theodorgrunter3551 I have bad news for you, facts don’t care about bible.
Do better
@@theodorgrunter3551I have worse news for you
not really - then you have already in philosophy the concept that - you only "consist of a brain" and nothing more. What already Matt Slick pointed out that to point to a higher logic it needs to be something beyond you hence a "God", soul, Spirit, so on.....
Hence youre argument is really bad. What a irony. Dont bother responding i dont use YT notifications.
Lovely how Slick's argument about chemical reactions-based brains gets shot down by a question from the audience and he can't figure out what's the issue even when he gets it spoon fed to him by a very patient young lady.
That was the best part of this whole thing. He was like a deer in headlights.
She got him but he pretended to not understand it. He has the same brain a secular humanist has, it just doesn't work as well.
Did you hear his response?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Yes, he pretended not to understand, or didn't understand. He looked like a greasy fool.
Clearly secularism is way better than a religion that allows (not against any of its laws and ITS GOD ORDERS) slavery, genocide, pedofilia, rape, incest, murder, eternal torture!
Someone once told Slick he was smart, and someone else told him he was funny. His belief in that lead us here sadly ...
well put
… And the result is a delusional arrogant prick.
The difference in both Matt’s arguments:
Dillahunty: suggests secular morality is superior and offers several examples using analogies to better illustrate his points.
Slick: suggests Christianity is superior by trying to illustrate why secular morality is subjective.
There is a huge difference in the way they pose their arguments, and one is certainly superior than the other.
What everybody seems to miss is that religious morality is also subjective. Pick your own interpretation of the Bible and there you have, a pretty subjective morality
You missed the part where Slick argued that it’s self refuting
@@thetannernation how is it self-refuting?
@@chrisducharme1729 It's a subjectivity vs objectivity argument. And wether or not you claim to be able to account for the origin of logic vs presupposing that logic is logical. Slick said seccularity is self refutable because the fundation of seccular morality and knowledge is centered around whats going on in our brain, and is therefore subjective and unreliable. Contra the christian world view that takes account for the origin of logic and the source of truth, and appeal to objectivity. He said he got that knowledge from reading the bible and acsepting Jesus into his heart.
@@sondrehimmelrikbarstad3414 That makes zero sense. You presuppose an "origin of logic" and "source of truth". You cannot demonstrate or lead anyone, least yourself, to any evidence or proof thereof. And so these concepts only exist in your brain.
Your claim to objectivity is subjective unto itself; that is what makes you stupid.
But worse of all, nothing of this brings us closer to the existence of ANY god. Let alone a just or righteous one. Or even christian for that matter.
You build your castle on loose sand, and look how proud you are for it.
I've just finished watching the debate, and I'm still waiting for Slick to address to the topic of discussion.
Funny, I feel the same way about Dillawhacky. Slick makes things perfectly simple sounding to me. Overall a good debate. Both men were respectful and know their beliefs. I respect healthy debate.
@@k.l.hollister8128 That's just your brain saying that
Lmao your ass is slow then you might as well give up watching this type of content.
Kathy Gardner Hollister ok then.. sum up Matt slicks argument to the debate topic real quick... since it makes perfect sense to you... I want you to hear yourself say it.... whenever you’re ready...
@@k.l.hollister8128 Simple minds I guess.
Xtian Matt: What do you mean by slavery?
Atheist Matt: Owning people as property.
Xtian Matt: Where is that in the bible?
Atheist Matt: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25.
Xtian Matt: Well just squirting these things out really fast isn't the point.
Hmmmm
Captain Gargoyle I’ve seen people say that slavery in the Bible isn’t the same as we’d imagine it in the 1900s of America. Are you open to an interpretation that slavery as a term isn’t specifically limited to owning people for the entirety of their lives?
I’m not sure who said it but even if it doesn’t change your opinions it may be interesting subject matter.
@@robbofwar57 It can't be interpreted other way cause even in bible it is said that slaves are your property, and can be beaten, passed down to children or bought from others. It seems pretty much as slavery in the 1900s of America
I think you guys mean 1800s, as slavery was abolished in 1865.
@@neilbradley Oh, thank you.
Robert Cunningham people can say that the slavery isn’t the same as slavery in America. And that you can acknowledge that slavery isn’t specifically limited to owning people for the entirety of their lives.
BUT the bible literally says in Leviticus “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance”
Except for the people of Israel who you must let free after 7 years unless you give him a wife, his wife stays a slave and if he doesn’t want to leave his wife. He consents to be a slave for life.
The only Statement of Dillahunty's that Slick refuted was that he is a cut above Sye...
hahaha that's so true
I'm not sure about that.
Your brain just made you say that.
You mean the only one that you were able to comprehend.
Guy Regensburger I had to stop reading after the 5th line because i'm not gonna read something that is build on a fallacious foundation.
You "just presuppose" the laws of logic and that's the end of it? Just skip it and move on? Lol. Are you able to account for them and if so how? And the fact that you don't have the ability to comprehend why logical absolutes require a transcendental mind is irrelevant, so don't even go there, just account for the logical absolutes from your worldview or quit making logical statements.
Slick has learned about 20 words which simply fall out of his mouth in any order. He uses this as answers to questions.
Matt, as a former debate kid, and a former Christian, thank you for working so hard to create these open conversations. It's made a huge difference in my life
I highly doubt that Dillahunty was ever a true born again Christian - a fake Christian maybe, but never a true Christian. He is as it is written, "a dog returning to his vomit" or a "pig returning to his muck"
Ahh…No True Scotsman
Matt Dillahunty working hard in these conversations with theists makes me think of Sisyphus pushing the stone up the hill.
@@richardbutler9692 1. U don't know that. Can't read minds. People change. And even if thats a lie, his arguments still stands on their own.
2. Why do you compare us humanists to muck and vomit? Thats not nice. Jesus told you to love thy neighbor. If something is fake christianity that would be comments like this.
3. Let this woman express that she feel helped and guided without being a douche about it 🙂 relax. Some are believers and some aren't. Let it be man ✌️
@@richardbutler9692 and I suppose that you are a "true" christian, then? how do you account for different denominations? are "true" Christians immune to rationality and logic?
Experienced debater here: In intellectual and academic debate the concept of topicality is extremely important. In fact, in many styles of debate it is considered an automatic loss if your case is found to be non-topical. Why? Because if both parties aren't speaking topically you are left with a poor debate when both parties are really speaking past each other and not addressing the real substance intended by the topic.
Matt Slick took what was intended to be a debate about comparing moral systems and turned it in to a debate about which moral system is true. This is a very important distinction and Slick (intentionally I think) completely missed the mark. We've heard this diatribe from Slick over and over again and I think the point of the debate was to address something a little different.
Alas we're left with an absurd straw man and fallacy of composition. Extremely boring, reductive, and frankly unsportsmanlike. Typical Slick. There's no automatic loss in debates like these, but I would seriously consider not doing debates with Slick in the future. He may be an easy target, but he's SO DAMN BORING.
At one point he even started going into arguments related to Calvinism vs Aminianism. 🤦♂️
"Experienced debater here" - Is not what experienced debaters say, they have much more class :)
@@gavinhurlimann2910 It set the context of his comment, and added, I think relevant info. I didn’t take offence,nor found it unclassy.
Makes sense tho from a logical position there is no basis for anything without truth. The losing side in this debate lost at the 13 min mark. He said he’s there to defend a position he believes in...Then he immediately discredits himself and any position he holds at 13:00 when he literally concedes that he doesn’t believe in absolute certainty by saying “it’s also worth noting that absolute certainty is not relevant to this discussion. I don’t see any path to absolute certainty. I’m not aware of any possible path to absolute certainty. I’m not absolutely certain about that.” If there is no absolute certainty then how can you be certain about any position and have The confidence to defend it? Furthermore how can we the audience be certain that the letters that make up each word he chose to say have an absolute meaning behind them? How can we be certain that this man is real and we’re not hallucinating or dreaming? Why should we care about a word that comes out of his mouth? The house of cards came down immediately. So when he starts from an illogical foundation his concluding arguments will be illogical too. The debate ended right there.
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin In science there are no absolute truths, only what we can tentatively trust as the best we can have given the evidence at hand within the reality we observe. We may be all floating octopuses in a tank who knows
Why is Mr Dillahunty debating a middle aged teenager?
Cuz that's the best he can do?
@Moon Presence Everyday
@Slippery Storm thanks, but couldnt be bothered. And I'm perfectly ok with there being markets for morons and semi-morons
@@WarOnHorror _"And I'm perfectly ok with there being markets for morons and semi-morons"_
We call those "markets", "religions".
@@AsixA6 Of course you would, after I gave you the words to do so. And even then you're wrong. Religion is only one specific instance of a market for semi-morons, not the market itself. People like you are another instance of said market. Cheers.
I absolutely lost it when Slick said "I wouldn't lie intentionally, I may sometimes misrepresent things" and Dillahunty replied with ""....like the debate topic". Pure gold.
I don't mind the debate, but the mocking? I'd prefer to be at church thx, then with that dude.
Alex Crick: Slick says "I wouldn't lie intentionally" how, can you lie unintentionally?
@@crownofglory1264 But I guess Slick's constant face-making and muttering is perfectly fine?
@@crownofglory1264 because lying is fine, as long as it makes you feel good, but mocking, in the vein of making a point, is bad. Right.
I had a similar reaction. I guess Matt believes he is so manipulative that no one would recognize his disingenuousness Anna dishonesty.
Matt Slick is such a great dude. Constantly clearing his throat and being as obnoxious as possible while Dillahunty is speaking. Once Dillahunty is done speaking that throat problem is suddenly completely gone. What a childish playground clown.
This guy gets it. Such a clown.
Not even addressing the intelligent arguments, just talked about how one debater clears his throat… okay
@dukezilla3471 I guess we didn't hear any intelligent arguments. And the rudeness and passive-aggressive nature of his arguments are what stood out.
He wouldn't shut up fr
@@dwijon not sure what debate you were watching then, him addressing the fundamental problems of atheism was rather reasonable.
"Well, you're a cut above Sye Ten Bruggencate."
As measured by the smallest of cuts.
Someone should tell Matt Slick that glib responses to serious questions and making faces behind his opponent's back doesn't help him win debates - it just makes him look like a douche. Of course, if he was even interested in having a debate he would have actually addressed the question rather than playing his childish "your world view is self defeating so I win by default" game.
Matt Slick is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
He can make his bullshit seem correct to people of his own intelligence class, but cannot stand when those smarter than him point out where he is wrong. In every instance I have watched of him where his position is challenged to the point of his own knowledge, he asserts that "they just dont understand it well enough".(projection much matt)
It is sad really, but I think he is just an over inflated egotist that really thinks he has the right answer. Still slightly better than those that deceitfully make millions pretending to have "faith" and "morals".
Your brain made you say that
Yes, it did. And it's just one more example of chemical reactions reaching an accurate conclusion. :D
John Smith I was actually taken aback by how rude Slick was. It was like one serious debater and one school child intent on playing to his side of the audience with snide remarks.
His entire argument centred on ignoring the debate topic and attempting to play a boring word game about how Secular Humanism can't exist. It was infuriating. Matt D did a great job of keeping his cool as usual.
If nothing else, at least we learned that secular humanism is superior to Christianity in terms of comporting oneself in a debate.
*here is a little LOVE straight from the BIBLE!* ^^
*Enjoy* :*
*Slavery:*
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) ''However, *you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this,* but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way''
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) ''*If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.* Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterwards, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. *But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.* ''
*Sex Slavery:*
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) '' *When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.* If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. *If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.* If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.''
*beating slaves:*
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) ''When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.''
*slaves obbediance*
(Ephesians 6:5 NLT) '' *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* ''
(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) '' *Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.''
*Rape:*
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB) '' *If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her,* and he will never be allowed to divorce her.''
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) ''“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, *if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.* However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
*Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests:*
(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) ''Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God *must be put to death.* Such evil must be purged from Israel.''
*Kill Homosexuals:*
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB) ''If a man lies with a male as with a women, *both of them shall be put to death* for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.''
*Kill Fortunetellers:*
(Leviticus 20:27 NAB) ''A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller *shall be put to death by stoning* ; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.''
*Death for hitting parents:*
(Exodus 21:15 NAB) ''Whoever strikes his father or mother *shall be put to death.* ''
*Death for cursing parents:*
(Leviticus 20:9 NLT) ''All who curse their father or mother *must be put to death.* They are guilty of a capital offense.''
*Death for Adultery:*
(Leviticus 20:10 NLT) ''If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, *both the man and the woman must be put to death.* ''
*Death for Fornication:*
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB) ''A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, *shall be burned to death.* ''
*Kill Nonbelievers:*
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) ''They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, *was to be put to death* , whether small or great, whether man or woman''
*Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God:*
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) ''Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, *you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.* Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. *Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.* That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.”
*Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night:*
(Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB) ''But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there *her townsman shall stone her to death* , because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.''
*Kill Followers of Other Religions:*
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) ''If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: *do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.* Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. *You shall stone him to death* , because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.''
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) ''Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, *then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.* ''
*Kill People for Working on the Sabbath:*
(Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) ''The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. *Anyone who desecrates it must die* ; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, *anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.*
*Now go on Christian believer and LIE about what your Bible says* ^^
*otherwise your Priests might get a little mad.* :(
Alessandro Meggiolaro haha reminds me of "Quiz Show ( Bible contradictions )" by NonStampCollector, and basically all his videos. The Bible is terrible, contradictory, and all the punishments for anything are DEATH.
Thanks for giving us that collection of nonsense from the "good book"!
who started slavery? God? man? slavery was always a worldwide trade by world cultures
Not one reply from a Slick supporter. Confront them with "the word" from their own book of enlightenment, and they have nothing to say. Pathetic, and imo an admission that they have nothing...nowhere to run...nothing can refute their own vile primitive rulebook for life better than the book itself. Nice work
Dusty They have there own video where they try to make it look like Dillahunty lost.
Slick claims that Dillahunty dodge the questions while dodging the whole topic of the debate lol
I love how many times he says "but this is a topic for another debate" and then continues talking about it non-stop.
You must be new to Mat Slick.
No intelligence of the Bible cannot be written by a human brain.
@@jrcruz7828 All the more reason why if there was a deity, that knows a, it would know this and show the most unmistakable, plain as day presence of itself.
@@thegrayone5666
He will very soon looks like.
Matt Dillahunty really is playing chess with a pigeon.
I think its the converse.
Whatever, you're brain just made you say that... xD
@@VylePhinder Matt Ds brain?
@@susanthroop7041 It's just a joke. That response was silly to me.
@@VylePhinder A joke on Matt D?
Take an acid test. Dip the piece of paper in the suspect fluid. One response indicates acid; the other indicates something else. That's an example of how chemical reactions produce states in response to reality.
your brain made you say that
@@tod3608 Satan made you say that.
@@amandapugtato8085 No, he could say that thanks to the revelation of the pink invisible unicorn.
Fucking sweet thread!!
One hour in and I remember why I don't like Matt Slick. He's incredibly, unabashedly dishonest.
+tctheunbeliever haha but you just ignore dillahunty rudely interrupting the host introductions.
THE LAWS OF LOGIC BEING TRANSCENDENTAL PROVES YOU WRONG.
your ad hom means nothing, you child. try again. you seem desperate just to make him look bad. maybe even know how correct he is
*****
I'm not making an ad hom argument, just a devastatingly accurate insult. I'll try to tone down my frantic desperation.
I hope English is not your first language.
tctheunbeliever he is a tower of babbel
"You can't possibly come up with a good strategy for chess because you can't explain why the rules are the way they are!" - Matt Slick, probably
And you'd notice that the rules of chess are different in different places to different people, and the basic structure of them EVOLVED OVER TIME. It's not like chess just popped into existence and all its rules with it.
No but do you know what did just pop into existence for no apparent reason, the universe. Lucky us eh?
The word 'apparently' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Not currently knowing the reason says nothing about whether there is one or not
Not currently knowing? Is this to suggest that one day we will know. The science community are peddling the idea that origin of life is all but figured out without a single shrek of evidence to back up such a claim. We would all have a better shot at winning the euro millions or whatever the US equivalent is over and over and over again simultaneously. The arrogance of such talk would be offensive if it wasn't so amusing
Lmao don’t say anything slick we’ve heard the illogical fallacies and excuses y’all use to defend your ignorance. Nah we don’t need to talk about it after . Enjoy your silence
Simply put, Matt is interested in appealing and talking to those who do not agree with him, and Slick is interested in scoring points with those that ALREADY agree with him. One is interested in objective truth, one is a politician
I met Slick on Paltalk years ago and I was a "believer" and couldnt stand his ego and his Calvinism.He rubs most people the wrong way no wonder his daughter is an atheist.Even then he only addressed what he wanted to and very tunneled visioned and give Matt props to be able to keep his cool with the Slickster.
Precisely and the size of Slick's ego becomes apparent during the Q&A section where you can see him smugly smirking with his arms folded, while Dillahunty is answering the question put to him by one of the audience members in regard to Secular Humanism. And when the best he can do when a young guy from the audience says he is confused about the conflict he personally has with Slick's claims of self-refuting claims in regard to logic, morality, and naturalism is that you need Jesus. That perfectly demonstrates how obtuse and narrow-minded he is in his thinking process which Dillahunty brilliantly points to time and time again, and which he casually brushes off due to his immense arrogance.
I didn't get that impression. Slick seemed like he cares about truth.
Wrong punk.
Simply put Matt can't know anything because he is but a bit of protoplasm relying on chemicals acting apon chemicals inside the matter of his brain and suggesting this will produce proper logical inference and some truth without one single shrek of evidence that such a "miracle" is possible never mind likely! His thoughts result from the same chemical reactions inside matter which in turn do what they do under those circumstances and at those temperatures! Truth? Matt is simply incapable of any such endeavour given his position period! Two obvious reasons for this, 1 chemicals acting apon chemicals inside matter don't produce anything true and there is nothing to suggest otherwise! 2 Within the system of atheism there is no such thing as truth, just the competing brain barf jibberish nonsenses of one piece of protoplasm pitted against the brain barf jibberish nonsenses of another piece of protoplasm. Truth? Give me a break!
When Slick sinks to extreme sophistry and bad rhetoric you know he knows he has lost.
So, when he opens his mouth and sounds come out?
Funny that the atheists completely overlook dillahunty rudely interrupting the host introductions. I was shocked but not surprised the syncophants atheists fail to call him out. Imagine if slick did that.
So you avoid the actual argument, and focus on an interrupting of the host? Nice.
+Steve McRae but you give Kris a pass. OK. After Dillahunty' s opening statement I had not clue what he stood for. It was so not committal and reminded me of a bill clinton congressional deposition. He was throughly handled by Slick.
I don't agree with Matt on a few things, but he always does better in these types of debates than his opponents.
You ever want to come on my channel to explain your position?
(We are live now even if you like)
Thanks to people like Mr. Slick and Sye. Is the whole reason I'm not a Christian anymore. Their arguments of cognitive dissidents, circular reasoning, backpedaling, and Dishonesty with his apologetics. Eventually in time you can realize how much Christianity and Islam is one of the biggest con artist scams on this earth. And Slick, proved it in this debate once again.
I would counter that with this statement: Thanks to individuals like Mr. Dillahunty, and others, I am not an atheist. The more I listen to atheism, the more bankrupt it reveals itself to be as an ideology/world-view.
Atheism is an ideology or worldview to you?
Atheism is an ideology to the same extent as not playing football is sport.
People are so accustomed to the fact that words like christian or muslim describes their whole worldview they can't accept that the same rule simply doesn;t apply to others.
If someone says he or she is atheist it only means he doesn;t beleive in god. You can't tell anything more about such person. That's of course not the case when somebody says he or she is christian or muslim, etc.
Piterixos That is a gross oversimplification and I reject the validity of those assertions.
I hear the argument you're attempting to make frequently and it simply isn't realistic or true.
It's your second comment, yet you didn;t provide any argument to support your claim.
I'll spare your time. There ain't any. Athesim tells you nothing about how to interact with other people, what to think about different things (except for god). Nothing. It' may be classified as part of worldview or part of an ideology, but to say that atheism itself may is such doesn't make sense.
And again, that usually shocks people who are used to think that since their belief in god describes their whole worldview or ideology (or at least should if they really believe what they claim to believe) then not believing in god has the same property. Surprise! That's not how things work.
***** I don't do well with non sequitur statements.
What is amazing that matt managed to keep his cool debating Slick when he is being cocky everytime like he would be asking of turning this debate into a brawl.
I am in awe of Matt D’s patience.
Yea I would have broken slicks jaw and God wouldn't have stopped me
A patience born of impotence? I must say, I'm astounded at the power of self delusion that seems to be available to atheists.
@@dieselheart1 😂 sounds like projection mate.
@@dieselheart1 there is alot of self delusion with atheists, they are dying for God not to exist
@@dieselheart1 Really? Athiests aren't the ones that believe a magic sky fairy exsists and created everything. Seriously, I am trying not to laugh.
"Your brain made you say that."
How far Slick has fallen - utter childishness. I'm sure Jeebubs is very proud of him for so expertly defending his faith.
You can't fall if you never rose.
@@Apanblod Slick used to use what I would call reasonable arguments - you know, the ones that actually refer to the world around us? Now... this.
Your brain also made you say this comment
@@Apanblod
If there is a hole to fall into, sure.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Try attacking the argument, not the person.
According to your worldview, it IS true the chemical reactions in your brain made you say that.
So you cannot trust those chemical reactions lead to coherent logic / reasoning.
"Your brain made you said that", "Chemical reactions can't reach reasonable conclusions"?!
He is arguing against thinking. Wow.
Cristian Garcia he’s technically refuting his own argument. If his brain is just chemical reactions (which he seems to assert is the case), then how can he trust his thinking is correct? It’s self-refuting, which by his own logic, means his argument for god is incorrect.
@@chrisducharme1729 exactly!
Even if his god is real, everything he can possibly know about that god is nothing but chemical reactions in his brain.
@@chrisducharme1729 no he actually isn't. Cuz he's assuming different world views for each thing. Like basically he said either you believe it's all chemical reactions and you can't get logic from that OR it's God and logic comes from God...
Im atheist but I understand where he's coming from for that.
@@chairwood Yes, I understand what he's saying. You'll notice I said 'he is technically refuting his own argument' and not accusing him of contradicting himself. The problem I have with his argument is that he's saying "it's either brain fizz or it's God" and every time Matt D. brings something up, Matt S. says "that's just brain fizz" or "your brain made you say that". But he operates as if there is a God and God is the reason logic exists. By his own understanding, Matt D. is using logic that God endowed onto him. By saying "it's just brain fizz", he is accepting that God is not a product in the logic process. He is simultaneously addressing two world views as if they're correct, despite them being in opposition to one another. That's why one of the questions to him was how is it he's addressing questions under two different world views (I don't remember exactly how the question was worded).
If this was a debate about whether Xbox or Playstation is superior Dillahunty would be comparing hardware specs, game library, company ethos while Slick would take 30 minutes trying to convince you that Playstation isn't actually a games console.
We know because bill gates said so. He revealed it to us directly in the windows operating system. Which is universal and the prerequisite foundation of all computer science. The west was built upon Windows, you know in your heart that bill gates is the way the truth and the light.
Slick looks like he arrived late for a bbq, and wasn’t even invited
Wow...what an intellectual unbiased comment...lol
Jesus Journal Jesus Christ Karen it’s just a joke
@@mr.joesterr5359 You'r muted because of your cursing.
Lol...his ego is so massive that he equates such an event as this on the same level. If he wasn’t so desperate to feed his need for attention he never would have showed.
I try very hard not to have personal issues with people I disagree with. Especially when I know every time I see them they are going to be saying something that drives me nuts, but that isn’t who they are on a personal level, it’s not what defines them. But guys like Sye Ten and Slick are just so massively arrogant...openly. Makes it real hard to look past their “persona”, since arrogance is part of that persona. Seeing this guy waft on stage looking like he just mowed the lawn makes my skin crawl.
@@outtodoubt And you think Matt Dillahunty doesn't have a big ego???....lol He often tells God how He should have done things rather than the was He did.
matt won. matt always wins these.
Volound nah man matt wiped the floor with matt
Who is Matt?
***** hes the one that destroyed matt in the debate.
Matt is the camera man of Pewdiepie
Matt lives at my front door step. Oh wait. That's Mat.
Is there any point at which Slick actually addresses the debate topic? If there is, I completely missed it...
no he just makes nonsense assertions about his sky daddy
Nope. Literally just "your brain made you say that, your brain made you say that, your brain made you say that"
It is not and never has been Slick’s intent to honestly engage in a forthright debate. He seems to feel that his god has called upon him to debunk atheism, by intentionally and completely misrepresenting facts.
I’d say it was a job well done.
@Oskar Wolkerstorfer ϟϟ What Mike described in his previous comment is indeed a form of atheism (agnostic atheism, soft atheism, or negative atheism are a few names by which it is known). Soft atheism is to not believe in a theistic or deistic claim until such time that appropriate, testable evidence is provided for the claim. On the other hand, there is the hard version of atheism in which one makes the claim that a god doesn't exist at all. The key difference between hard atheism and soft atheism is that soft atheism only disbelieves a claim, while hard atheism disbelieves a claim and makes a claim of its own.
I agree, he acts like a teenager pulling faces and basically saying I’m not listening
“clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… “clears throat”… Says TWO words… “Clears throat”.. “Clears throat”… “Clears throat”… Fantastic debate, love listening with headphones…
Slick wouldn't let the guy finish his question regarding neural networks because he knew it would demonstrate that a system where one state leads to another state can produce sound logical inferences. Also notice the "I'm not a computer science major but let me tell you how neural networks work."
This whole time I've been thinking with my baking soda. No wonder my life is a mess.
Cripes, we call it bicarbonate of soda here in the UK. No wonder I couldn't follow that Slick 'reasoning'. Shite!
Slick clears his throat every 5 seconds for 2 hours. It's almost as irritating as hearing him talk.
This is a great example of why Mark Twain said “Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
Who gave this example, Dillahunty?
@@dukezilla3471Dillahunty was the guy who effortlessly not only won the debate but hilariously mocked his opponent while it when straight over said opponent’s head. Pay attention next time. 🤭
Matt smoking a pipe and wearing a tweed blazer. He is badass philosophy man.
My favorite argument! You can't trust your brain, so therefore we can only explain it. Umm if you admit your brain can be faulty, didn't you use that faulty brain to determine that Christianity is true? Talk about self refuting...
He believes he isn't limited to a chemical based brain. He thinks he's being boosted by a metaphysical component to his nature.
Phesheya Bhembe Yes, and he used his faulty brain to come to that very conclusion. Lol his argument kind of ruins the idea that ANYONE can be certain about anything. Which I actually think is true btw. Even if he could advance his argument it only gets to a god, not his specific God.
Well, if there's anything we've learned, it's fuck tag.
Exactly!!
@@KingOpenReview Either if we are limited by brain, he is wrong because he uses that faulty brain to determine it. While also if we are not limited by that brain(for example if there is a soul) that also means that he is wrong, cause Matt would use that thinking not based only on brain to determine his point. So either way Slick is wrong
"by grace ALONE, faith ALONE and Christ ALONE." Tells me all I need to know about matt slicks intellect.
You didn’t challenge that stance or provide any counter argument you just asserted that it’s ridiculous.Matt Dillahunty said that his worldview can’t count the laws of logic, that tells me everything I need to know about his intelligence.
Yeah, he has none.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It dosen't need to be countered. Its pure pablum and can be dismissed. Slick cant demonstrate that grace exists, that faith is anything more than garbage, and that christ has done anything since being nailed up.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Whatever "accounting for" even means in this case. Also, saying "God did it" is not "accounting" for anything.
Anyway, the point of the OP is that if you say that something does something "alone", then there can't be three things doing that same thing. They're not doing it alone then.
It's a semantic and logical thing.
@@pleaseenteraname1103it needs no explanation. Saying “alone” after three different things negates itself.
All I need to drive are an engine alone, four tires alone, and a driveshaft alone.
A big misunderstanding slick has is that he doesn't seem to see that complex systems can come from simple building blocks. I.E. the brain is chemical reactions, but the structure / complexity of those chemical reactions give us the ability to reason and have a sense of the world and ourselves
Slick: "Brain goes FIZZ therefore bible iz moar right!!"
How do you know that you know and how do you know reality is real. Doesn't even address the question.
@@TheNanoNinja how do you know that I know that you know that I don't know that you don't know if reality is real?
Are you really that ignorant and brainless. If that's all you got then you were either not listening or you have a very limited understanding on pretty much everything.
Brain goes fizz therefore nothing is beautiful.
@@forkfo90102 What is the difference between Dillahunty`s brain going fizz, and Slicks brain going fizz?
I think Slick's chemical reactions were slightly worse than Dillahunty's.
Jk, they were a lot worse.
That's why dilahunty couldn't refute him right?
So you’re admitting that your worldview consist of brains with just chemical reactions...
yOuR bRaIn MaDe YoU sAy It!
@@Robeebert
If that was not sarcasm, can you provide a coherent basis in your worldview for how "your brain made you say it" is not a valid claim and critique of the naturalistic material worldview.
In other words if you hold to naturalism, there would be no actual reason to hold to your naturalism.
Let me know if this is not your worldview.
@@gavin_hill
Methodological naturalism does not claim to be fully reliable to determine the truth, yet it is still as far as we can get to determine the truth. It simply acknowledges how our reasoning as human beings can be flawed and then determining what is reasonable to believe. Faith in God is not based on proof, it is no better way to determine truth.
I love Matt Slick, his dishonesty, ignorance, arrogance and childish behaviour in defending Christianity does more for Atheism than any atheist could ever hope to accomplish.
Keep up the good work, Slick, together we can rid the world of your asinine and unsubstantiated worldview!
Ad hominems
Atheists can only offer death. Jesus Christ offers life. Eternal life (to know God). Jesus Christ is man's only hope because he is the only one with the authority to give/offer life. So glad to know him. Matt D could never make an offer like that, he can only offer death because he is finite (limited). God/Jesus Christ/the Holy Spirit is infinite.
No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing. 100% Supernatural - Jesus Christ - No additives.
@@paulgemme6056 Source?
@@bredincaptivity4692 Divine revelation. When one is born of the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) they share the same Spirit of Christ Jesus, and they are set free from the deception of the enemies (Satan - the devil) the world system and our self (the flesh). The flesh wars against the spirit until the believer is taken home (absent from the body, present with the Lord). The truth sets people free. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
@@paulgemme6056 See, you say all that but I have exactly no way to confirm that any of it is true. It's rather difficult for you to share your divine revelation with me, and seeing that I don't seem to get them myself I'm kind of stuck at the "cool story bro" phase of this. What would make it real easy to believe would be if Jesus gave a divine revelation to everyone. Or, you know, just showed up in person to prove that he's real. None of that has happened though, so I remain unconvinced.
Matt Slick did not engage in an honest way. He was simply smug and sounded over his head. Matt D is clear and on topic. Matt skick seemed nervous and clearing his throat constantly. If you look at the non biased i see no way to say Slick won.
Ohh...Matt D. can't answer the question of Matt S. Hahaha
@@teniedojedfloydg.6760 No one can. Matt is honest. Matt S makes stuff up with no evidence. Magic did it is not an answer.
Matt “I flail my arms and holler like a teenager on the schoolyard” Slick. I haven’t even watched this whole video and I know it’s gonna be so cringeworthy on Shits... I mean Slicks side.
Kudos to you Matt, there's no way I could stand that much smugness and derision from Matt Slick to not just walk off the stage. Well done.
Thanks for admitting you're incapable of considering arguments conflicting with your pre-existing beliefs.
Dogmatism: The fallacy of constructing an argument within a UniverseOfDiscourse that excludes all evidence/arguments against it
@@lightbeforethetunnelhe didn't mean it literally, but good job making a fool of yourself 😂
@@kylebooth4948 There's no sign of that whatsoever in the OP.
@kylebooth4948 And it's not like it's even remotely uncommon for atheists to be excessively dogmatic like that, so I see absolutely no reason to think he didn't mean it literally. I have been debating atheists for years and they generally approach such debates with a completely closed mindset exactly like I said in my response. It's the rule, not the exception. So it would actually be extremely rare and unusual if he didn't mean it literally. I'd say you've got less than a 5% chance of being correct.
Especially when he's within arms reach. I would have snatched that smug bastard up within five minutes. Nothing slick about him.
How can Matt Slick enjoy science if the chemicals in his brain are telling him he enjoys science. Isn't that by his own definition self refuting. How can chemical reactions cause enjoyment?
Brian coming out with the real questions
Spheroid Earth Society How do you know I'm asking real questions. How can you trust the chemicals in your brain that lead you to believe you're reading something and that something your reading is a question from me?
Please answer, if you can't answer, your argument is self refuting and I win.
See you've got a point, it's kind of funny to me, because Slick disproves his own assertion in the same sentence he's proposed his assertion. His belief is simply chemical reaction, therefore it's self-refuting. It's honestly hilarious.
Spheroid Earth Society Hahaha! Now that is good....... how can he trust the chemical reactions leading him to not trust the chemical reactions!
Oh.... I love taking apart Slick arguments.
Brian Stevens Circular Reasoning at it's pinnacle here
Aptly named Slick lets logical arguments and coherency slide right off of him.
Slick: "How can you trust your brain?"
YES. EXACTLY. That's why we study logical fallacies.
DUH
S: "I will not lie to you."
Seconds later:
D: "Does Christianity condemn slavery?"
S: "Yes."
I'm still laughing while typing this...
Jesus Defender if you speak of matt slick you are very incorrect. Jesus himself sanctions slavery.
Jesus Defender Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart,just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5. You are really gonna try and justify slavery with that response? It doesnt matter how long you are a slave. Fact is someone owned another person and jesus sanctions that.
Jesus Defender, what the fuck kind of Jesus sanctioned contract involving fearing your master and obeying them like you obey Christ are you ok with then? Seriously. I want to know what the hell else you think this could be. There are passages about when it is appropriate to beat these people.
Jesus Defender so are you ever going to make a point or just keep telling people that they need to read a different version of a stupid book? Don’t you think it’s sad that your gods words have to be ignored and altered throughout time? What kind of universe creating “creature” can’t get his message across correctly to the people he created? Why does your god have so many limitations? Tbh if back when the book was written and they had been inspired by god...after the Tower of Babel... wouldn’t he have them written in the different languages as well? But he didn’t because he can’t because he’s not real🤔 and this is the unchanging word of god? That’s been changed how many times? And stop comparing biblical slavery to a working contract. You don’t get to beat your employees in most countries anyway but maybe your holy book belongs out in the Middle East where it can be followed by primitive creatures that read an old book and think it’s inspired by something that can’t exist as it does in that book.
Jesus Defender, I have no idea where you are going with this “things are bad/don’t exist” bit. Slavery is wrong. The Bible very clearly condones, if not promotes, it. I ask again. What is this alternate interpretation that you are seemingly ok with that specifically includes one party beating the other, and the other having a religious-like devotion to the first? How is that, whatever you think it is, any better than slavery? The fiction you choose to follow promotes slavery. Everyone knows this.
Why can't Slick just answer a question?
I got a real "Who's on first. What's on second" vibe while watching this.
2:24:05 thank you for this lady, I was shouting that an hour and a half ago at my tv screen, how do you know its not just your fizzy fizz telling you theres a magical man in the sky slipping the answers to you under the desk? You don't know theres a magical sky man Slick, your brain just told you to say that. This is what irritates me the most with apologists, like a snake oil seller, they propose a problem (don't show it actually is a problem), skip that step, and tell you they have the solution to the problem.. turns out, not only do they not convince you its a problem, but their proposed solution doesn't solve anything.
Slick is not made of atoms, he is made out of appeals to consequences.
Slick argues that a purely physical system cannot produce proper logical inference. Okay guys, throw out your calculators, they can't be trusted.
He seems to think that just because something is purely naturalistic, that it must be as simple as vinegar and baking soda. He is saying that because he doesn't understand how a brain relying solely on naturalistic properties could function, that it is not possible.
It really seems like all these debates end up at this point. Slick is really saying that in a purely naturalistic world, we can't have absolute knowledge about anything external to ourselves. Dillahunty agrees. But what slick is really implying is that he CAN have absolute knowledge, while simultaneously refusing to demonstrate how such a thing is possible.
Your brain made you say that.
Hahaha thanks for the chuckle. 10/10
Saying your brain is just a more complex version of baking soda and vinegar because they both involve chemical reactions is like saying a computer is just a more complex light bulb because they both use electricity.
His argument are also self refuting. If our brains are only chemical reactions and we cannot trust anything to be true then his belief in god is just a chemical reaction and he cannot be trusted.
I have no idea how Matt (Dillahunty) didnt point that out.
With that example it Shows instantly that his position is just nonsense. Just because they are chemical reactions, that doesnt mean, that they cant produce logical output. I dont get how he is coming to this conclusion. It is absurd....
if you're ''given morality'' by your god , why do you need to teach your children ABOUT morality ?
shouldn't they KNOW not to punch their brother in the face from the time they CAN punch their brother in the face ?
it's all so confusing
I'm a German and a fan of Matt Dillahunty since 3 years now. He, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris helped me to get out of my former belief system (raised Catholic). Since my deconversion I looked for German atheists as well and I found a philosopher called Michael Schmidt-Salomon who is IMO on one level with the Four Horsemen and Matt. Sadly not all of his books are available in English but one very important is: The Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism. It fits perfectly to this debate and to the question of secular morality in general. Please, if somebody of you read it, let me know what you think :) Cheers
If you really belive in atheism you belive in materialism, if you belive in that - then you belive according to logic that you have no free will, and no responsability, and also no "own self" - because in reality you are just atoms in a brain, that is natures brain, not youre brain - [because you are not it -- Because I doesnt exist] because you dont exist and you change constatly, hence - You never existed as a "own self". SO hence can you even care in self and self value, if you dont have a own "soul". You are just a random process of atoms that comes from nature and this "you" - can't even be definied". But also to talk about objective logic,, is impossible - youre brain just made you think that from evolution random processes.
]]
Also to talk about morals, omfg. Rofl. Dont bother responding i dont use YT notifications.
@@el29even with a theistic faith depending on if it’s the Abrahamic religions then you also have no free will.
🎉😮
😢😮
As always, presuppositionalists are doing everything in their power to NOT have a debate.
But he studies DNA, quantum physics, biochemistry, and stuff.
azrnzala If it's Slick you're talking about, then it sounds to me more like he studied car salesmanship and stuff, whenever he speaks.
I know how actual scientists speak.
I can assure you that Matt Slick is not one.
Eitan Blumin But, he says he studied all this stuff! And that he likes science and stuff! (hint: I was being sarcastic).
He loves science; he wanted to be a marine biologist!!
Ben Carson AND HE IS STUDYING QUANTUM.FUCKING.MECHANICS RIGHT NOW!!!! Like shit, that dude must be so smart, and so boss, and stuff, to be like, reading about stuff.
_"No matter what you say, I can respond with 'your brain made you say that'."_
Yeah, and he could respond to whatever you say with "you're sitting down". But he doesn't because it's not _relevant_, you sophist.
Why is it not relevant?
Nahum Menahem
Are you serious? Because that specific response is a dodge at best it doesn’t address the point that was stated.
Jesus Christ on a stick dude
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and biblical marriage is really the way to go, except that we're no longer allowing multiple wives and concubines and all that sort of stuff"
Made my day
Does slick realize Matt d was a devout fundamentalist christian for over 20 years studying to be a minister?
The way slick was talking to him did not demonstrate he knew this?
I lasted 1:21:00
And I couldn't bear anymore Slick's childish, overconfident, scornful, patronizing elusions. Unbearable.
I couldn't stand the throat clearing
@@southkeep3695 Then you really couldn't watch Kent Hovind for long.
He's the throat clearing master (...and, a consummate bullshit artist I might add)
I'm at 52:20 and I don't know if I want to go on.
I'm at debating matt slick, that's enough already
Good for you, he just kept repeating "you have one chemical reaction..."
I want to know why Slick can't just argue the actual debate. Going off on this entire side tangent just made it clear he wasn't interested in debating the actual topic. It's so frustrating, because I would have loved to see an actual debate on whether secular humanism is superior to christianity, but instead we got this.
Thanks Matt for at least trying to engage in the actual topic, even though the arguments from Slick were't even close to on target.
+Mr.Teacher.McC, _"I want to know why Slick can't just argue the actual debate."_
Because he knows he would lose, and lose big.
Because guys like Slick are a one-trick pony.
The only thing Slick can debate is his version of TAG, which is why if you've watched on Slick debate, you've watched them all. It doesn't matter to him what the topic of the debate is. He'll agree to whatever topic the other person suggests and then just bring out his TAG script and stick to it.
@@thefaithslayer2553
It seems to work though. Dillahunty was at a loss for words.
@@janepatton8100 “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Oh my gosh, you can’t look at this honestly and tell me that Matt slick did not engage in the actual debate and Dillahunty did, Dillahunty never addresses the actual issue he dodges in these other areas constantly, and he didn’t understand what Matt Slick was saying most of the time, Matt slick was saying how does your worldview account for the laws of logic not doing auntie couldn’t answer the question, he kept saying my worldview accounts for the laws of logic by using the laws of logic, and then he finally admitted that he couldn’t account for the laws of logic.
Matt never actually justifies the assertion that “brain fizz” can’t reason properly. He just claims it.
Yes, and it was stupidly annoying
It’s even worse than that, because we know that natural phenomena can reason properly, there are those things called « logic gate » that you can create using just electricity and conductive materials.
Pile enough of them and you get a computer.
Would Slick really argue that a computer can’t reason properly ?
@@nathanjora7627
It's worse than that...Slick claims that when a mind puts together a computer, it grants MAGICAL PROPERTIES such that the computer can break physics.
@@nathanjora7627 Is performing predetermined mathematical calculations in sequence equivalent to “rational thought”? Genuine question
@@theroguejester6412 It’s the other way around, rational thought is making a series of (if done correctly) pre determined computations (ie : the result of a deduction or induction is set before it is done, hence why a rational thought will never lead to different answers given the same data), therefore rational thought is inscribed within the larger framework of mathematical computations (that’s why logic is a branch of mathematics).
If your question is « can we call "rational thought" what’s occurring in a computer when it computes the logical validity of a proposition », that question is debatable, but the important point that the computer will reach rational conclusions due to deterministic mechanisms, remains.
Is that clear ?
Maybe a simpler way to put it would be this :
Wether we can call it rational thought or not, we know that rational conclusions can be reached through purely mechanical means, therefore there is no reason to pre suppose our brain to be incapable of reaching rational conclusions through mechanical means.
Slick’s “fizzy brain” position is ridiculous. “Fizzy brains” wrote his holy book, “fizzy brains” translated it and “fizzy brains” interpret it in way in which no two readers can agree on what it says. Yet we cannot trust our “fizzy brains” to know what logic is?
"it's just chemical reactions" yeah just like the rest of all the matter in the universe, Slick...
Matt Slick's throat clearing sound is....wow. You can set your watch by the regularity.
Right!? I was so confused why that was happening!? Like is he okay?
It's so crazy to see that Slick actually thinks he has something of substance. Insanity.
Damn, I just got to the Audience Q&A and holy shit. Slick is so condescending and shows so little patience it's astounding. I think he thinks he's so vastly superior to everyone in the room that he's wasting his time even engaging with them.
39:47 "The proper answer is 'well,' not 'good.' It's a grammar thing. My wife and me did that with the kids, so I've learned it."
*My wife and I
It's not a big deal. I just thought it's funny that he messes up his own grammar while fixing someone else's. :)
Yes, it's rather an impolite opening gambit, really. His children's life must be one long carnival of joy...
the Christian guy is not making any sense he's doing a whole lot of double-talk
As I Christian, all I wanted to do was bang my head against the wall during this debate. Slick's rhetorical style and presentation was extremely unpleasant. I think the audience was laughing not because their moments were genuinely funny, but because it was so awkward and painful, that laughter was the only meaningful response.
I appreciate your honesty even though I'm on the other side of the argument. The general consensus even among Christians is that Matt slick is garbage and Dillahunty mopped the floor with him. I only saw one or two people that tried to support slick in the comment section. I understand that most Christians will tend to side with the person who is on there side in the debate, but if people watch this and support Matt slick then they are either dishonest or they are delusional because he got his ass handed to him and he is a complete scumbag
for some reason I dont think youre really a Christian
@@ceceroxy2227 if someone says they are, just believe them, it's easier and a show of good faith. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that someone would be embarrassed by someone on 'their side' being an asshat, as Slick was in this debate.
@@ceceroxy2227 why?
You can believe certain things and still disagree or feel embarrassed by others who share those same beliefs.
It's like Slick wasn't even taking the debate seriously. He acted like a dad at a potluck, not a debater.
Apologists like Matt Slick and Sye 10 are so slimy it is just too hard to watch.
It's physically painful. Especially Sye. 😕
At least Sye, though, is openly like a sour-faced, hateful, angry little troll. Matt Slick is even more obnoxious to me because he's SUCH an incredibly intellectually dishonest scumbag but affects this chatty, glad-handing smarmy facade.
"A position cannot be superior if it's self-refuting" Aaaaand that was the point I stopped listening. I can only imagine Matt's reaction was the same.
You didn't miss much.
yes, Dillahunty basically shut down not long into the sit down round table because there was no way to talk about the actual point of the debate
Yup. Matt D presented an argument as to why he thought Secular Humanism was superior. Matt S basically made the argument Sye Ten made in his debate, except Slick's argument was that Matt D's Worldview couldn't account for Logic/Reason, so he had no basis to make such a judgment, because reasons.Slick agreed that Matt D could Reason and Logic, but because Slick felt like Matt D couldn't account for Logic/Reason, there was no point to give any rebuttal to the Subject matter....just a lame way to sidetrack a discussion he simply could not argue against.
sandor szabados The issue here is, Slick did it in his opening argument. The question was: which is superior, christianity or secular humanism? Superior meant "better at achieving one's goal". So what Slick was supposed to do was simply tell what christianity is, what it's goals are and how it achieves them as Matt did with secular humanism. Slick wasn't even supposed to waste time on logic.
And then he goes into this bizarre argument about self-refuting position. Thing is, whether secular humanism is logical or not, whether it has a formal foundation of reason or not, is *irrelevant* here. Secular humanism has a goal and accomplishes that goal in ways of x. Whether it's logical or not does not matter.
In other words, Slick attempted to use a hammer in order to clean a room, it was the wrong tool for the wrong job.
It's as if he was trying to argue that christinaity is the only possible position to even take, which is demonstrably false. Even if the existence of christian god is an absolute given it's quite clear that as a system of social cohesion, christianity is merely a one system of many.
I stopped listening at that point because if he's going to waste his and my time on trying to weaken his opponent's position *before* he can even define his, then he's got nothing of value to present me with. Secular humanism could advocate eating babies for all I care, the thing I wanted to know and he was supposed to explain was: what does christinaity stand for and what methods does it use to accomplish that goal. That was his ONE JOB and he can't even attempt it.
Arrakiz666
Yup, exactly.
I like how religious speakers are actually the best to listen to when you want to dump religion. Smug, condescending and pathetically llogical. Aren't there any capable (if that's possible) religious speakers who can actually debate on the point? Dodging not just his debater but also the audience.:) Sad.
" The Christian philosophical world view resides outside of the Christian brain?" :)
Try William lain Craig
There are some. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Which amounts to zero presuppositionalists ;)
@@lj4969 WLC talks like a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.
The father of patronization and smugness? Lol
@@lj4969 Craig is not it tho. He hides bad arguments in good vocabulary. And constantly appeals to other people's work
Debates are fascinating! Thank you for posting! ❤
Slick didn't even address the debate question.
Frustrating man to listen to.
Yes he did. He undercut Dill’s position by showing it’s flaws. Just because his approach wasn’t direct, doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. There’s direct and indirect.
The Conservative Christian What flaws did he expose that he didn’t correct with more flaws?
@@michaelr5606 his lack of an answer was as honest as he could be lol
@@theconservativechristian7308 like Matt said he argued a straw man they both presupposed logic is reasonable before the debate because otherwise the topic is pointless because otherwise you’re holding to a red herring that we cant know anything.
@@michaelr5606 That kn atheism you are using tour brain to prove your brain especially while telling Christians they can’t use the Bible to prove God. Atheism, as I’ve seen it, is an intellectual catastrophe and presupposes more and has more blind faith than theism. I’m not even saying this as a zinger or a one liner. I actually believe that.
"I'm going to tell you what you think." Matt Slick was annoying af in this.
During the opening I really liked Slick, he seemed like he really has a rationality behind his ideas and would engage constructivly in the discussion section. When he got there tho, he was more obstructing than most people ive seen in debates. The constant throat clearing, the sarcastic simplicity, cracking jokes all the time and just coming off arrogant and when he started with the "brain fizz" counter it really was over. The high was when he said in the QA that debates are bad for getting into details when he was the one who gave his best to lock the debate in childish simplicity. Matt Dillahunties patience was the only thing which defied his logic.
"Secular humanism can't account for the laws of logic, and god can." First of all, gods were invented by humans specifically to have something that can account for, and explain everything. Secondly, secular humanism doesn't try to, or have to, account for anything. Secular humanism is just trying to do what's best for all of us.
Even if secular humanism was broken that does nothing to demonstrate Christianity isn't also broken. Just because my tv doesn't work isn't evidence that your stove is fine. Slick is weak.
Around the 1:25 minute mark, Dillahunty agrees with Slick that, "the laws of logic are not dependent upon physical brains." But this disregards two things: 1) There is not just one method of "logic" agreed upon by all humans. For example, Intuitionistic Logic, to name one non-classical form of logic, rejects the law of excluded middle, which both Dillahunty and Slick have agreed upon in the past. 2) Human understanding of logic evolved as a model _within_ our brains that comports with the natural world. In other words, logic is a language, an interpretation and extrapolation of reality, which people use to describe the observed consistencies in nature, including our own thoughts. From Wikipedia: "There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic." This being the case, how therefore can anyone assert with confidence that "the laws of logic are not dependent upon physical brains?" Logic then becomes an agreed upon set of concepts or rules within which two or more people choose to express ideas - but clearly, this is not "transcendent" in any way.
As for our brains just being chemical processes, Slick is right. Where Slick fails is not recognizing the complexity of emergent systems and the nature of, for example, computers that operate consistently and logically based upon physical processes alone. (See IBM's Watson computer profiled recently on 60 minutes for a prime example.)
Is a “complex emergent system” outside universal causation..? A complex robot is still a robot. Right..? Or do you propose that the robot can become a causal agent..? In other words: I don't see how complexity/emergence would be able to explain or produce rationality on naturalism ...
Laws of logic =/= logic
Logic is universal among humans. But tue reason why we all come to different conclusion is because we value reason, facts that we use for logic differently.
At least that is how I understand it.
That was painful. I'm sorry you have to go through these debates in order to reach out to people contaminated with faith. Having said that, I don't know if I should like or dislike the video. Sye, I mean, Slick ruined the debate.
Oh, yes! And about the logic from brains thing, here is something you can use: a computer can perform mathematical calculations, even though it is just an electric fizz.
It just got uploaded, how do you know?
The debate was live streamed a few days ago and it's still available to watch.
Matt posts on Facebook that he has uploaded for patreons, so...
Henrique Sousa computer is more powerful than the brain
Matt Slick vaguely addresses computers in the Q & A section of the video, stating that computers aren't a valid comparison because they are designed by intelligent beings and operate differently from our brains. But I think your analogy is wholly apropos given that if we mere humans can design logic based computers using only "electric fizz" then certainly an all powerful god could do the same with his creation, _without_ reliance on a supernatural mind driving our brains... unless Slick is willing to admit that humans can do something his god is incapable of.
"How does the physical brain, where one chemical state relates to another chemical state, or changes to one. How does it produce logical inference?"
Simple answer, that's not how the brain works. But let's assume the statement about how the brain is actually correct, then what?
It does not produce logical inference, initially. That is why children train their brains to make logical inferences. Item looks hard and shiny, item also feels hard; item is likely metal. Yup it is metal because when I stuck it in my mouth it also tasted like metal. We then train our brains to make more logical inferences based upon more and complex information.
In essence the question is designed to stop someone dead in their tracks after the initial answer and prevent them from ever explaining the rest
So you basically said that we train chemical states to go into other chemical states to “train” our brains? What are you on?
@@avi1639 try reading my post again and try reading it comprehensively this time. Because I never made that statement in my post.
What I did was quote one person and then _assumed_ his statement to be true, after stating it was not.
Only to then proceed to outline we only get logical inference from training our young brain
@@wolfetone2012 I was responding to your quote from that guys assumption. Fact of the matter is, if you don’t want to believe in a God there is no point my arguing. Because believing in God isn’t about winning a argument, so anyways goodbye.
@@avi1639 so now you're making it even more ambiguous. Either you believe what's said in the quote, but deny children teach themselves how to make logical inferences.
Or you disagree with the quote but felt a need to ask me what I'm on.
Here's what makes even less sense though. None of what I have stated showes how nor what my believes are. Yet here you are making an assumption based upon me disagreeing with the ignorant ramblings of someone with specific believes. If everyone followed your lead, most of the world would be declared non-believers/infidels. And no matter what you assure about winning, we all know what happens when religious zealots disagree.
But more to the point. If you didn't want to argue, perhaps you should not have responded like a petulant little child
6:11 Debate Starts
2:21:30 Slick "If you can't account for the origins of logic, then you can't know your conclusions are valid."
So how then *does anyone COME TO THE CONCLUSION that a god exists?*
We're not born with knowledge. So each of us is born not knowing whether a god exists. At some point *we have to use reason to conclude that god exists. And on what basis (using Slick's reasoning) can the believer say that his conclusion of god existing is valid???*
Slick dug a hole for himself. His argument is circular. (And was not valid IMO to begin with, we can use things without accounting for their origins).
this is why religions target the most vulnerable...our children. Get them before they know anything and it sinks deep where it may never get dislodged
With ever repetition of "I love science", Slick sounded more and more like those people who say "I have many gay friends".
Also, Mr. Dillahunty, I take off my hat to you for not throttling this man around 1:10.
The losing side in this debate lost at the 13 min mark. He said he’s there to defend a position he believes in...Then he immediately discredits himself and any position he holds at 13:00 when he literally concedes that he doesn’t believe in absolute certainty by saying “it’s also worth noting that absolute certainty is not relevant to this discussion. I don’t see any path to absolute certainty. I’m not aware of any possible path to absolute certainty. I’m not absolutely certain about that.” If there is no absolute certainty then how can you be certain about any position and have The confidence to defend it? Furthermore how can we the audience be certain that the letters that make up each word he chose to say have an absolute meaning behind them? How can we be certain that this man is real and we’re not hallucinating or dreaming? Why should we care about a word that comes out of his mouth? The house of cards came down immediately. So when he starts from an illogical foundation his concluding arguments will be illogical too. The debate ended right there.
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin humans do not operate based on absolute certainty. None of us do. You may claim to be absolutely certain about x but all your really describing is your confidence in your belief about x. Thats it. Absolute certainty does not exist.
@@thenightlifenj1 are you absolutely certain that the words you chose when combined in the order you chose conveyed a message you chose that can only be interpreted to mean exactly what you meant it to mean?
@@RationalGaze.BingChillin words have usages. Based on the usages the sentence I constructed has a meaning.
Your playing a semantic game that doesn't address the argument. Demonstrate that absolute certainty exists.
@@thenightlifenj1 I’m trying to make a point and you’re deflecting. It was a yes or no question. My point is simple..if we can’t be absolutely certain about the language we use and the intended meaning given proper context then I could literally interpret what you typed to mean anything I want it to mean. In fact. You said you would send me $1000, when can I expect the money? See what I mean? You see the chaos that comes if we hold to this assertion consistently. There’s no lasting basis for confidence without absolute certainty.
The number of people that conflated atheism and secular humanism in the Q&A was astounding considering Matt Dillahunty specifically pointed out that they are not the same thing.
Someone needs to make a compilation of all of the mouth and throat noises Matt Slick made during this discussion. For educational purposes...
Dubstep producers would love it!!
this _was_ the compilation!
Matt, you are amazing. I don't know how you kept your cool while Matt S. Was being so incredibly rude, smug and condescending to even the audience, not to mention you.
Watching him was like watching a kid in the back seat of a car that is pointing their finger at their sibling while saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
Hand down, Matt Slick's demeanor in the debate was the most childish I have ever witnessed from someone purporting himself as a professional.
No he was imitating atheists
@@g--br1el985is this some kind of poorly veiled insult? Just making sure before I reply in kind.
@@101Osprey101 I mean, you don't want to admit that? So no atheist has ever been so SO rude
@@g--br1el985, is my take on Matt Slick really your biggest concern?
@@101Osprey101 no how so? I just said it to you
Are a stereotypically 100% accurate atheist
Like a bigot, some hate against Christians?
The target of apologetics is rarely to convert the nonbeliever; it's almost always to reassure the believer.
That's because they have a built in confirmatory bias. I have never known anyone, or known anyone who knew anyone who became convinced by an apologetic. Without fail, they believe first, and then form an argument to confirm their predetermined conclusion.
And your evidence for that claim?
@@theconservativechristian7308 Maybe instead of "target" the proper term should be "effect." Christians construct apologetics based on what sounds convincing to them, but apologetics only sound convincing because they already believe. I have never heard of anyone who became a christian because of an opologetic that convinced them.
@@strategic1710
Your OP would also mean that you have a confirmation bias, and by virtue extends that you were not convinced by an apologetic (reasoned defence) of atheism. So in your own words, and by necessary extension, about *atheists* "without fail, they believe first and then form an argument to confirm their predetermined conclusion"
But to deal with your issue, you are implying that it is reasonable to assume truth based on collective experience. On what basis are you assuming that collective experience is truth?
The issue is not one of evidence, it is an issue of your nature, you are by nature in rebellion against the God that you know exists. What evidence would convince you of the God that says you already have enough evidence?
Would you reject the only Son of God?
@@gavin_hill there are so many things wrong with that comment I don't even know where to begin.
I’m 69 years old and I’ve not heard anything quite so ridiculous in my life. I watched the whole debate and admittedly I did struggle with some of the dialogue (However On a positive note, I did learn rather a lot). For a supposedly rational human being to actually believe that secular humanists cannot think logically because their thoughts are merely chemical reactions is ludicrous. But what is even more ludicrous is the belief that Christians’ logic comes from God sticking his fingers in their brain and manipulating the thought process. I mean, the man is totally ga-ga. Kudos to you Matt for your brilliant presentation and for not literally drowning that arrogant t**t in his own spit and vinegar.
I know and it's ironic that in this very debate it's logic and reasoning albeit a flawed one that he applies to attempt to argue his position. If what he was saying was true then the debate they were having wouldn't even be happening. How can he argue such fallacious nonsense!
Slick didn't say secular humanists can't be logical. He said the opposite.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 Obviously because he correctly believes atheists are created in the image of God, just like all other humans. That's the whole point. The debate can take place because God exists. If God does not exist debating is useless, because the whole show is just chemicals fizzing, producing secular humanist vs theist thoughts. Not truth.
@@wspek Just because none of us can explain how chemicals in the brain can't lead to logical reasoning, doesn't mean Science won't eventually be able to. Saying, oh well it must be Good is lazy, specious reasoning. If mankind used your reasoning we'd still be living in caves.
@@wspek Btw For your assertion to begin to work, you have to prove that God exists in the first place. Can you do that?
God of the gaps coated in word games. Pretty cheap. "You can't trust your presupposition, that logic is true, because it's only based on a natural world of physics and chemistry, while those can't demonstrably produce logic by themselves" vs "I trust my presupposition that logic is true, because God is the basis for logic and I trust in God." How is his justification not a begging the question fallacy?
I think Dillahunty is missing a critical part here in regards to Slick's argument. Slick is trying to argue that a brain functioning on basic "chemical" reactions is unable to account for proper logical inference. What Matt should point out is that the BASIS behind brain function is not the PRODUCT of reasoning itself, just as the mechanical functioning of a car doesn't account for how the car interacts with its environment. The logical absolutes are "objects" or by-products of phenomena. Just as a car may hit a curb and be forced to react a certain way by the laws of physics (i.e. logical absolutes). So then, a brain that may be "forced" to react to laws of logic, and that synthesis produces proper logical inference.
I don't see why chemical reactions can't represent logic. A computer can. Logic is basically a simple set of tautologies, or equivalences that transform axioms and statements into new statements, not unlike chemical reactions actually.
@@landsgevaer and that's exactly the point. computers were designed and just cannot come out from nowhere.
@@MrSiloterio The fact that a designed system (computers) can implement logic does not show that a non-designed system (molecules) cannot. In fact, would you argue that the existence of molecules requires design? I certainly don't, they assemble quite spontaneously.
That is affirming the consequent, a fallacy.
@@landsgevaer spontaneous they may be, it doesn't mean they are arbitrary. Molecules are still exhibiting formation patterns that suggest they follow certain rules in order for a determinable effect to be realized. The next question would then be, if they aren't designed, why are they not completely arbitrary in nature?
@@MrSiloterio They follow the basic laws of nature, electromagnetism and QM in particular, which are simple and rigid and require no design and nevertheless lead to organization at larger scales.
OMG Matt... I admire your patience... Slick wasn't even listing to you, he was typing don't now what, he just kept repeating the same brain+chemical sentence and insulted when he could... no wonder why you wanted to and that conversation
Matt lighting up that pipe like he was over this sums it up perfectly.
There are also a lot of composition fallacies here by Slick.
He says that if a brain is just physics and chemistry, how can it be significant. If a Bible is just paper products and ink, how can it be significant? Two can play at that game.
@Brian_Johnson That is a false equivocation and a straw man. Nice try though.
Gavin Hill What you should ask yourself is how was my analogy flawed? I didn’t present them as equivalent but analogous. If you cannot explain a relevant flaw in my analogy, then calling my analogy a straw man is conceding that Matt Slick was introducing a straw-man interpretation of the brain to try to make his point.
What my analogy was meant to reveal is that Matt Slick didn’t seem to understand or acknowledge the composition fallacy
Gavin Hill Ok, I think it might be fair to substitute “significant” with “reliable” to better represent Slick’s position.
But I think my analogy is still fine if we’re talking about reliability as opposed to significance. The Bible and the brain are supposed to be reliable. But they’re composed of stuff that doesn’t seem reliable.
I think it’s telling that you didn’t seem to address the fallacy of composition. And that was the purpose of me making that comment. I was trying to illustrate the the issue of trying to argue as Slick was arguing by showing what one could argue if one ignores that fallacy as a means of trying to get to an intended conclusion.
@@firefalcoln "A brain is just *insert 2 of the most significant concepts that apply to everything in the universe*, how are they significant?"
Matt Slick is basically the opposite of slick.
@@JackOfHarts96 Matt Sluggish