Rachel Slick, the daughter of Matt Slick, a (semi-)famous apologist and founder of CARM.org, recently posted a guest blog entry on Hemant Mehta's blog:

Rachel Slick wrote:I still remember sitting there in my dorm room bunk bed, staring at the cheap plywood desk, and feeling something horrible shift inside me, a vast chasm opening up beneath my identity, and I could only sit there and watch it fall away into darkness. The Bible is not infallible, logic whispered from the depths, and I had no defense against it. If it’s not infallible, you’ve been basing your life’s beliefs on the oral traditions of a Middle Eastern tribe. The Bible lied to you.


Everything I was, everything I knew, the structure of my reality, my society, and my sense of self suddenly crumbled away, and I was left naked.



I was no longer a Christian. That thought was a punch to the gut, a wave of nausea and terror. Who was I, now, when all this had gone away? What did I know? What did I have to cling to? Where was my comfort? 

I didn’t know it, but I was free.

Read more..

Matt Slick thinks he invented the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and he thinks it is compelling.

This bit was sad:

I don’t know how my dad reacted to my deconversion; I haven’t spoken to him since I left home.

This is a sad story of blatant child abuse. Slick is more of a disgusting asshat than I already thought.

I wonder what she ran away from.

I hope she does well.

scott1328 wrote:Rachel Slick, the daughter of Matt Slick, a (semi-)famous apologist and founder of CARM.org, recently posted a guest blog entry on Hemant Mehta's blog:

Rachel Slick wrote:I still remember sitting there in my dorm room bunk bed, staring at the cheap plywood desk, and feeling something horrible shift inside me, a vast chasm opening up beneath my identity, and I could only sit there and watch it fall away into darkness. The Bible is not infallible, logic whispered from the depths, and I had no defense against it. If it’s not infallible, you’ve been basing your life’s beliefs on the oral traditions of a Middle Eastern tribe. The Bible lied to you.


Everything I was, everything I knew, the structure of my reality, my society, and my sense of self suddenly crumbled away, and I was left naked.



I was no longer a Christian. That thought was a punch to the gut, a wave of nausea and terror. Who was I, now, when all this had gone away? What did I know? What did I have to cling to? Where was my comfort? 

I didn’t know it, but I was free.

Read more..

Matt Slick thinks he invented the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and he thinks it is compelling.

Shit man.

Considering just how arrogant Matt Slick is and how he's so utterly convinced by his own argument (and that, according to him, atheists who don't accept it must be sick/crazy/delusional/too stupid to understand it), one can only imagine how it must hurt him when his shit doesn't even work on his own daughter.

That is the shittest argument for God ever. It sounds like the ramblings of someone trying to convince themselves of something they believe to be true. Your arguments shouldn't be that obvious.

Animavore wrote::lmao: That is the shittest argument for God ever. It sounds like the ramblings of someone trying to convince themselves of something they believe to be true. Your arguments shouldn't be that obvious.

To Matt Slick, you saying that means you're either insane or too stupid to understand the argument.

I'm sure everyone here remembers the Matt Dillahunty vs Matt Slick "debate"?

As usual, Scott Clifton nailed it:

Rumraket wrote:To Matt Slick, you saying that means you're either insane

Possibly.

Rumraket wrote: or too stupid to understand the argument.

Or he's too stupid to understand why his argument is stupid

Animavore wrote:

Rumraket wrote:To Matt Slick, you saying that means you're either insane

Possibly.

Rumraket wrote: or too stupid to understand the argument.

Or he's too stupid to understand why his argument is stupid

What, you mean you aren't compelled to believe in invisible magic men by the "you're too stupid to get it"-argument?

"Why didn’t I feel His presence when I prayed?"

Ah, I think there's a Calvinist answer to that, and Matt Slick is a Calvinist. It's because you were destined to hell before you were even born. Tough shit.

VazScep wrote:"Why didn’t I feel His presence when I prayed?"

Ah, I think there's a Calvinist answer to that, and Matt Slick is a Calvinist. It's because you were destined to hell before you were even born. Tough shit.

I never seem to meet a Calvinist that believed they were going to Hell, just everyone else.

One thing I've never understand is why the penny doesn't drop for for other Christians like it did for her? I am constantly bemused by peoples religious beliefs.

I find the actual existence of apologetics to be its own refutation. There was a time when the existence of the supernatural was obvious to everyone. The validity of scripture was assumed. Theology was authoritative. The intervention of angels, possession by demons, exorcism, all stood the test of scrutiny--when that test was viewed through the lens of primitive ignorance.

Those aging warriors have waned in strength to the point where they no longer bother to raise the sword.

Do we ever receive the requested documentation to establish the casting out of demons or bodily healing without medical aid strictly by the power of faith in Jesus? Are there positive examples of evidence for spiritual things, or are there only assertions to the effect that concepts are immaterial, therefore mind-dependent, therefore angels and demons wage a pitched battle atop pepsi cans without our notice? It appears that the latter is all that is left to the apologist of today.

Can people like Bill Craig, Matt Slick and Jay Richards be called the Apologetics Vanguard when their only plan of attack is a lengthy and ignominious retreat?

As a thinking person, I find Matt Slick's word games to be offensive; as a former Christian and father of two girls myself, I sympathize with him. I understand the feelings of rejection, the constant questioning of oneself, and the fear that one's own child will be cast into the Lake of Fire. I agree that Slick's parenting was by definition abusive, but Slick only thought of it as necessary in order to save her soul.

Munchies wrote:One thing I've never understand is why the penny doesn't drop for for other Christians like it did for her? I am constantly bemused by peoples religious beliefs.

Being an ex-muslim (Not exactly the same as ex-christian), I have often found that focus on reason, evidence and intellectual honestly is one part of recipe. The other part that I have noticed among my friends and family is that most that do deconvert are serious about their beliefs to the point where they put everything on the line. I remember telling myself that I had to investigate and search for the truth, even if the conclusion was painful one and against my religion. At some level I didn't think it would ever lead to atheism but I think in the end, my own honesty in the investigation wouldn't let me lie to myself. I could fake it in front of others, even argue with atheist but I couldn't tell myself it was true when I had doubts.

Rumraket wrote:As usual, Scott Clifton nailed it:

I'd like to ask what you think he nailed? I watched the first vid and about half of its sequel and found almost no points made at all, let alone a compelling point.

Thommo wrote:I'd like to ask what you think he nailed? I watched the first vid and about half of its sequel and found almost no points made at all, let alone a compelling point.

Well, you've at least got to admit he's a bit dashing.

VazScep wrote:

Thommo wrote:I'd like to ask what you think he nailed? I watched the first vid and about half of its sequel and found almost no points made at all, let alone a compelling point.

Well, you've at least got to admit he's a bit dashing.

That's true, if I was gay, he'd be top of my list.

I listened to half the first one and I didn't notice him say anything in particular at all. Yeah, cute, but is that it?

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:As usual, Scott Clifton nailed it:

I'd like to ask what you think he nailed? I watched the first vid and about half of its sequel and found almost no points made at all, let alone a compelling point.

The first video is only an introduction, watch the rest.

Onyx8 wrote:I listened to half the first one and I didn't notice him say anything in particular at all. Yeah, cute, but is that it?

How the fuck is it possible to listen to an introduction, called an introduction and think it constitutes the main point?

Go back and watch the rest. There are several videos. Or if you can't focus, just listen.