Sansone-Slick "debate"
Francois Tremblay Permalink
5 comments
You can listen to it on the archive page. We're going to try to have Sansone on the live show Sunday to talk about the "debate".
Until then, here are my conclusions about it :
1. Matt Slick is a manipulative little runt. I will never talk to him or have him on the show again. He devotes all his energy to take control of situations.
2. Matt Slick believes he has transformative experiences of God. He's a raving lunatic. I'm not even going to comment on the story about his dead son.
3. Derek and Matt should get a room.
4. Matt Slick's entire reasoning is one big circularity. He's like a merry-go round. Behold :
He said the validity of the Bible is "spiritual" in nature. Where do these "spiritual" evidences come from ? From the Bible ?
... no wait ! They come from his personal experiences. His whole worldview is based on a GUESS that he is experiencing God (and not, say, Satan, Vishnu, or his own mind), which we know is informed by his Western indoctrination. So he believes it's God that is proven because he believes God exists ?
... no wait ! He knows it's God because his life changed ! And he knows it's God because the changes in his life are positive. And he knows the changes in his life are positive because... he read about them in THE BIBLE ! Go back to the first argument again and keep going... it's enough to make one dizzy !
Post a Comment
5 Comments:
Franc, I just listened to the exchange between Derek and Slick. For the most part, it was a lot more civilized than I expected it would be. I think it was because Derek tends not to be quite so confrontational. It was also refreshing to hear Matt admit that his beliefs ultimately have a subjective basis. That's what it sounded like he was admitting.
Derek asked a very good question, namely: How did Matt identify what he personally experience with the Christian god? He doesn't indicate any rigorous means of testing or validation by which he could draw the conclusion that it was the Christian god as opposed to something else (e.g., a daydream, hallucination, wish-fantasy, Bert, etc.). Rather, he points to outcomes: so-called "positive life changes" which have "turned his life around." Such measures could be used to validate Islam, Buddhism and other mental opiates.
Ha ha!
Yea, what Matt Slick lacks in reasoning and sound arguments, he makes up for in presence and command-control discussion tactics. He reminds me of a shitty-yet-loud preacher.
Downloading the show now. Thank you by the way. I really like the phrase "command-control discussion tactics"; quite descriptive. I encountered this speaking style on each of the brief encounters I had with priests growing up. I hear it more and more these days as every Billy Graham wanna-be struggles to amass a Following. They seem totally oblivious to the fact that this is the language (stylistically) of a con. They also seem oblivious to how much they are getting off on imposing their belief system on others. They are addicted to the rush of having their words lapped up by desperate, lonely, and insecure people. One more proof for the theory that religious fervor and/or religious ecstasy is a sublimation of the sex drive. Perverts!
Hey does anyone know where I can find a copy of the debate between Sansone and Matt Slick. Ive been surfing the net trying to find it but nothing turns up. Can Someone please point me in the right direction.
can anybody point me in the direction of the debate between derek sansone and matt slick??? Ive been looking for this debate forever and its nowhere to be found on the net. Franc, was this debate recorded, if so where can I get a copy.
<< Home