Required Questionnaire Answered

Matt, everyone knows the reason for these questionnaires. You can deny it, but that proves you are a liar. You ONLY require these questionnaires in the hopes of finding persons you feel you can debate and win. However, it has utterly failed you. Go back and look at your debates.

The only debates you can say you MAY have won is because you chose a person as knowledgeable about science as you are, meaning virtually nothing. Why have you ALWAYS been so damned afraid of debating an actual scientist? Because you know you would be completely skunked into utter obscurity.

by Matt Slick | Apr 26, 2021 | Atheism, Secular Issues (this page now deleted)

If you answer the questions, please send them with a statement declaring that I may or may not reproduce your answers and publish them on CARM. Thank you.

Official Legal Statement: I do not give a damn what you do with my answers. Do whatsoever thou wisheth. However, since I have a copy… Addenda: With this statement, Matt Slick very first thing used three of my ideas, perverted and twisted them into his beLIEfs monsters. Typical Religitard. Melkor.

Thanks, Matt Slick

No. Thank thee for such ridiculously easy questions. The answers are obvious if thou would just open thine eyes. Step out from behind the curtains of religion.

ATHEISM

How do you define your atheism?
- My Atheism:
  
  Ultimate Definition
  
  Until I am given OHEFE to test in a huge battery of laboratories with a billion and one experiments proving that God-thing DOES exist, I shall always take my stance with the logical deduction from the lack of and current known contradictory evidence, that your God-thing does not exist. I side with the Default Axiom. ALWAYS False, until proven true. However, I do not KNOW for FACT, that no deity exists. I am open to any OHEFE any Religitard is willing to submit for experimentation. Otherwise, the default axiom there is no God-thing.
Do you affirm or deny strong atheism?
1. A strong atheist believes there is no God-thing in existence.
  - Remember. I am evidence driven. NO Evidence = never existed. Yet I am still wide-open to any OHEFE.
Do you affirm or deny agnosticism regarding God-thing’s existence?
1. By agnosticism is meant that you do not know whether or not God-thing/ a god exists?
  - Read above. I am always open for the presentation of any OHEFE. However, if it ain’t OHEFE, do not bother trying to say it is.
Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
- There is absolutely NO Evidence of ANY deity existing. There is absolutely NO Evidence of ANY Thing supernatural. At least none that I have found in all my experiments, hypotheses, and theories. Since there is absolutely no evidence of ANY gods, my atheism is completely justified and substantiated. Your position has no justification, nor any substantiation. Again, making atheism the preferable position.
Do you have proof of the non-existence of the Christian Trinitarian God-thing?
- Yes. I do have proof. The proof of “No OHEFE”.
If you have proof of the non-existence of [the] Christian Trinitarian God-thing, can you please explain it?
- Just did above. No OHEFE.
If it could be shown that your atheism refutes itself, would you abandon it?
- No one has ever shown that atheism is self-refuting. Least of all you, Matt. In fact I challenge you to make the attempt at showing atheism is self-refuting.

MORALITY

Is the following statement true or false? It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for one’s own personal pleasure.
- Neither. If that is your first question about morality, then you need psychiatric help. My preferred False Dilemma Fallacy is this. You have one person, alone. You have a group of 1000 persons. You have no other choices: 1. To save the 1000, you MUST kill the one.; 2. Else, all 1001 die. My choice is: Save the 1000. I shall still be haunted by the need to kill the one. 7734, my ship in the USN sank a Soviet spy ship that fired upon us first. The Captian did not know the ship was weak in the aft end. The deep detonation still had enough force to break the aft end of the ship. In less than two minutes, it was gone. We left. Our mission had the No Quarters order. We had to leave to get away from the spying, letting its escorts clean up. I am now forever haunted by all those families we made fatherless. Our governments were in disagreement. Not my love for Humanity.
Is the preceding statement neither true nor false?
- Neither.
Do you affirm or deny that evil exists?
1. By evil is meant the interaction between people where they murder, rape, lie, steal, etc.
  - Yes, evil does exist and is known as “religion”.
Are morals the construction of individual decisions?
- Yes. All morals are completely, absolutely, entirely SUBJECTIVE and RELATIVE to each individual person. I already eplained this.
Are morals the construction of societal norms?
- Yes AND No. Or, both. When many agree...
On what basis do you ground your morality?
1. By “basis” is meant society, your upbringing, personal opinions, etc.
  - My ability to think critically, rationally, logically, reasoningly, and with intelligence and knowledge and learning. All morality is subjective to each individual person. I am mine own Final Ultimate Authority of what mores I have and follow and hold true to Me, Myself, and I. The Three of Me. Every person has a Three of Me.
Do you affirm or deny that there are absolute morals?
1. By “absolute morals” is meant moral truths that are always true, such as, “It is always wrong to murder.”
  - There is no absolute anything, excepting one: Religitards Complete Lack of Knowledge. Call it stupid, if you wish.
Do you affirm or deny that good and evil exist?
- Cannot have good without also having evil. Cannot have love without also having hate. No light without darkness. Etc., etc., etc. It is called the Dichotomy of Existence. Cannot have something without also !having. Mind boggling ain’t it?
Do you affirm or deny that good and evil are abstractions that require personhood as their foundation?
- WTFH?? What personhood? Abstract concepts do not have a personhood. They cannot have a personhood. I also do not know what the hell you mean by “personhood”. You sure this ain’t some stupid logic game you play with yourself? Quit playing with yourself, you’ll go blind. Why can no Religitard define their terms?
Do you affirm or deny that ethical values are hierarchical?
1. An example of hierarchical values would be the affirmation that stealing a paperclip from work is not as bad as murdering people.
  - Only humans make them hierarchical. Ethical values are just that, an individual’s ethical values. To me, even accidentally “stealing” a paper clip or pen from work is enough to rile my guilt until I actually and literally return them. Usually the next day. I have even had a boss who knew of this aversion of mine and when he handed me a report folder of papers with paper clips, he would say, “Keep the folder and paper clips.” True story whether you believe it or not. You know, the Ripley thing.
Do you affirm or deny that there can only be one ultimate moral authority?
- Yes. And it is different for every individual person. For each individual person is their own ultimate moral authority. I am mine own Final Ultimate Authority when it comes to ANYTHING. I do not need some hoodoo voodoo religious woo woo superstitions to teach me how to be moral. I can figure that out on mine own. No diety, no religion needed.
Do you affirm or deny that reducing harm is the ultimate moral authority?
- Yes. Reducing harm can be advantageous. Reducing your harm upon others is always a good thing. Providing you define good as “helping to increase others personal health and longevity and happiness”.
If you deny that reducing harm is the ultimate moral authority, then what is your ultimate moral authority?
- Me, Myself, and, I. I call it the Three of Me. For WE are the Final Ultimate Authority there is for MY morality. Everyone has their own Three of Me. When thinking, you are actually holding a debate with yourself. Everyone talks to themselves; thus, the question is how do you answer yourself. The Three of Me:
  1. “I” is the intelligent and intellectual one.
  2. “Myself” is a complete arsehole.
  3. “Me” just mediates between the two.
  And always remember this, there is no such thing as absolute Anything. Absolution (the act of absolving or remitting) comes from within. Not without.
Do you affirm or deny that there [are] such things as morals that all people are obligated to observe?
- Only those they define for themselves. You are NOT obligated to follow MY Moral Code. No one is. As Galileo Galilei once said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God-thing who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.”. – Emphases mine.

NATURE

What is your philosophical worldview?
1. By philosophical worldview is meant are you an empiricist, a rationalist, evidentialist, etc.
  - None of the above. Yet. All of the above. And, then soo… much, much, ...much more. You Religitards do know the FACT there is no such thing as “worldview”? Worldview is a made up word to use in place of the True “point of view”. Worldview implies it is a forced group thing, like in a cult. A Point-Of-View is subjective and relative to each individual person. When many agree, it can be called a worldlyview. But NOT worldview. My Point-Of-View is to seek what I know to be True Truth. And to 7734 with any of my beLIEfs. True Truth is that which can be proven to be true through OHEFE. Since ALL religion has no OHEFE, by default, ALL religion is false. LIES. To be True, IT must be proven True, else False. That is the True Principles of Logic. And yes, I do use some beguiling semantics me self. However, mine ain’t LIES. Just a rather colorful method of pondering something.
Do you affirm or deny physicalism, the physical world and its properties is all there is?
- Are you not sure you meant Naturalism and the Natural Reality is all there is? In that wording, my answer is, Yes. There has not been 1 shred of evidence in ALL the evidence I have collected and analyzed that even suggests the supernatural exists. Thus, it does not exist. Logic has no grey areas.
Do you affirm or deny naturalism, that the physical world is all there is, and it is governed only by natural laws?
- I just answered this question. See above for your answer. Define “physicalism” from above.

SCIENCE

Do you affirm or deny that the scientific method basically consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation to validate or invalidate the hypothesis, adjustment of hypothesis, adjustment of experimentation, theory?
- ONLY partially correct. And the scientific method is so much, much, …much more.
If you deny the previous question, can you please define the scientific method?
- It would take another book to truly define the Scientific Method. I can give examples. See this example (new tab), for instance.
Do you affirm or deny that science is the best way to obtain knowledge about the physical world?
- Yes.
Do you affirm or deny that science is the best way to obtain knowledge about love, mercy, kindness, etc.
- No. But neuro-science is working on it.
Must God-thing be provable using the scientific method?
- Why not? If you ain’t got OHEFE, you are lying.
Do you affirm or deny that science can falsify God-thing’s existence?
- Already has, starting about 15 centuries ago.
Do you affirm or deny that God-thing is a possible explanation of phenomena?
- Just because YOU cannot understand a phenomenon, NEVER automatically means you get to play your My-God-Thing-Did-It card as if it were a spade. Or some other superstitious nonsense. All it means is YOU do not understand because of a lack of knowledge. IgNURance. AND IgNORance.
If you deny that God-thing is a possible explanation of phenomena, on what basis do you deny Him?
- Deny Him who? Remember, that God-thing you worship is an IT. It is a Thing. A MONSTER. The bible even says that God-thing is a monster. Science and the Scientific Method ARE the best tools we have for discovering ANY True Knowledge.

LOGIC

Do you affirm or deny that the Laws Principles of Logic are the basis of rational thought?
- Remember: They are NOT laws. They are Principles. And, No. I may think similarly with logical deduction, though. As me dad once told me, “Your mind is like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute.” I was also taught that inference and induction only leads to lies and misinterpretations. O! How true.
Do you affirm or deny that the Laws Principles of Logic are abstractions?
- Neither. Both. Any. None.
Do you affirm or deny that the Laws Principles of Logic are properties of the physical universe?
- No.
Do you affirm or deny that the Laws Principles of Logic are descriptions of physical phenomena?
- No. Except for the exist or !exist logic.
Do you affirm or deny that the Laws Principles of Logic are inventions of people?
- They were discovered, like facts and evidence.
Do you affirm or deny that the Laws Principles of Logic were discovered?
- Like evidence and facts, of which religion has none.
Do you affirm or deny that “Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusion; otherwise, it is simply inconsistent.” — John Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief, p. 11.
- Neither. John Frame simply spewed a huge pile of brain diarrhea.

HUMANITY

Do you affirm or deny that the human mind is a product of the physical brain?
- You think your mind comes from heart? Or, stomach? Or, your genetalia?
Do you affirm or deny that upon physical death, a person ceases to exist?
- Depends on how you define “person”. Your natural/physical body shall exist forever. It will simply get transformed into something else. Your mind, well… not so much. It just ceases. Gone. POOF!
Do you affirm or deny that human free will choice exists?
- Every creature upon Earth, not just humans, has the will to freely choose for themselves.
Do you affirm or deny that all human choices are determined by physical necessity?
- Most are. Some ain’t.
If you affirm human free will choice, please define it.
- The freedom of choosing for one’s self; rather than, a Pure Evil Religitard telling me what I must choose, what I must beLIEve.
Do you affirm or deny that the human person (society as a whole) is the standard of truth, rationality, and morality?
- Humans shall always do good and bad. No matter what beLIEfs, or lack thereof, they may beLIEve. Even if we were to achieve Star Trek or Star Wars, there’d still be good and bad. You cannot have one without the other. That is the Dichotomy of Existence. Cannot have without also !have.

EVOLUTION

Do you affirm or deny that life began solely because of the natural processes of the physical realm?
- Yes. And also see this (new tab).
Do you affirm or deny that the present state of physical human existence is due to evolution?
- Yes.

CHRISTIANITY

What is your reason for rejecting Christianity?
- It all sounds like hoodoo voodoo and woo-woo superstitions written for a Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Furthermore, absolutely no OHEFE. It is all make-beLIEve.
If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God-thing, what caused you to deny his existence?
- Never was a beLIEver. Never have beLIEved in anything I could not prove true. Furthermore, I have no beLIEfs. I have knowledge; thus, I KNOW or I !KNOW.
Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
- Humanity would be better off with NO religion at all.
Is the behavior of the God-thing of the Old Testament morally wrong?
- Yes.
What would be sufficient evidence for you to believe in God-thing’s existence?
- How come your God-thing does not know? Is IT not omniscient? If so, then IT would know what it would take to convince me. Yet, IT is so powerless that IT cannot convince me. However, one good proof would be for a group of you Religitards to pray for an amputee’s limbs to be regrown. Let me also attend with vidcams, and other equipment so it ain’t a typical Religitard prevarication where you say it happened and you saw it happen, but have no evidence it did happen. There was a “Fake-News” story exactly like this. A church claims to have prayed for a member’s lost toes to be regrown. Every one there verifies it. Every one there “saw” it. However, “eyewitness testimony” is the WORST possible form of evidence. The Absolute WORSTEST. There goes another absolute: What is the one thing no Religitard is capable of doing? Offer OHEFE. Only LIES.
Regarding possible debates with Matt Slick. Do you acknowledge that you have read the following definition of the Christian God-thing, which Matt Slick affirms?
- I read it. Then sent it to dev/null. Pile of word salad, beguiling semantics, horse hoowhee, prestidigitative dialect, bullshit, and Brain Diarrhea. Too bad there ain’t a Pepto Bismal for the brain... ;-)
Regarding possible debates with Matt Slick. Do you acknowledge that you have read the following statement, “Whatever positive quality God-thing possesses, it is automatically a negation of the contrary”?
- I read it. Then sent it to dev/null. Otherwise, more Brain Diarrhea.
Regarding the immediately previous about the positive quality of God-thing, do you affirm or deny the truth of the statement?
- I read it. Then sent it to dev/null. As for truth, it is religious; thus, automatically a lie.
Can you disprove the Christian God-thing’s existence?
- Science already has. Long time ago.
If you can disprove the Christian God-thing’s existence, can you provide that proof here and now?
- Yes. I could have provided it at any time for the last some 25,000+ days. However, you still possess JUST enough intelligence to know that I would wipe the floor with your Brain Diarrhea. Why else refuse a debate with me for the last 20 years?
Is reason sufficient to examine the truth claims of Christinsanity?
- There are none. Christinsanity has no truths. Only LIES.
By “ultimate authority” is meant the thing of which no great thing exists (being ultimate) and from which you provide the pre-conditions for truth. If[Is?] reason sufficient to examine the truth claims of Christianity, then is reason your ultimate authority?
- ???????? You lost me. Need more input. Rephrase interrogative.

PHILOSOPHY

Do you affirm or deny the existence of abstract objects?
- There are no abstract objects except that which artists create. And, it is not an abstract object, it is an abstract construct of an abstract idea. It is called imagination. Religitards have none.
Do you affirm that all effects are due to prior effects?
- Not always. We see effects with no cause now days.
Do you affirm that all effects are ultimately due to a single prior cause?
- Never.
What is your ultimate source of all things?
1. By “ultimate source,” is meant the thing that began all other things.
  - ???????? Again, you lost me. I !understand what the 7734 you are trying to ask. Rephrase interrogative.
What is truth?
- Anything that can be backed by OHEFE. Otherwise, it is a lie.
Do you affirm or deny that there are absolute truths?
- There are no absolute Anything, except Religitard stupidity. Then there are others.
Do you affirm or deny the following? “Knowledge is justified true belief (sometimes called tripartite analysis, or JTB), which suggests that there are three criteria which must be met in every case of knowledge and that every time these three criteria are met, one has a genuine case of knowledge.”
- Utterly Wrong! Completely incorrect methodology. Should be FACTS-Evidence-Justification. BeLIEved-Truth and BeLIEfs have nothing to do with True Truth.
Do you have an ultimate authority of truth?
- The Three of Me.
1. By “ultimate authority” is meant the thing of which no great thing exists (being ultimate) and from which you provide the pre-conditions for truth.
  - The Three of Me.
2. By “pre-conditions for truth” is meant that thing or things that must exist for truth to exist.
  - The Three of Me.

There you go Matt Slick. Your decision is you shall never accept a challenge for debate by me. I put down $100. Anyone else? Hey! Who took the betting pool sheet?…

And guess what? Since I wrote answers to your questions, your questions now become my Copyright material. Did not know that did you? >:-P

— The Unknown Atheist

Top of page

P.S.—This represents the copy I would send in challenge. Have never heard back. In fact, Matt Slick has the IT people block me MAC address when I do send it. Thus, I either have to buy a new computer, or a new modem/router. Fucking Coward...