This blog has really taken on a life of its own, and while I haven't done any counting, I think it might be safe to say that we're getting more posts than the blog that "inspired" us to make this one.
One thing that has really gone over the top is the intrusion that Sye has made. While I think that most of us would welcome a good debate, it's really just become a gigantic mess (from what I see). Now, before I go on, let me emphasize the fact that I am just as guilty of "feeing the troll" as anybody. I've said more than once that I was done with him, only to post again.
I've said before that I think that there is a certain cleverness about him. There's something about the arguments that he makes where it seems like you could get him to see the light if he would just see the light about a particular point. Of course, he doesn't, so we get frustrated, and then we start calling him names. (Again, I am guilty of this.)
While I was made one of the administrators of this blog, I don't see it as any more "mine" than anybody else's. This is more of a message board run by a group. Perhaps we need to set up a clear set of rules if things get really crazy, but for the most part, this all seems to be working out pretty well for the most part.
One thing that I really don't want to see is people being banned. Let people make crazy claims and post twisted logic if they want - their own words will show them for the fools that they are. I also don't want to see people's posts being deleted without extreme provacation. (Like spam, death threats, etc.)
That's just how I feel though. Anyway, back to my point about Sye, I checked out the few threads that were either devoted to him or hijacked by him. They both have 200+ postings. I think as of this point, we're not going to get anywhere with him. The proof is there for everybody to see. Maragon asked him a number of questions that she spelled out quite clearly, and he completely skipped them. Instead, he just keeps going back to square one.
I don't want to be eating my words (again) regarding him, but I'm not going to respond to him any more. I don't have the right to tell any of you to do the same, but consider it a friendly suggestion. It's tempting to respond to him; I know. Let's try not to. Unless, of course, he comes up with something original to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
While it can be fun to read Sye's crap, and read someone tear it down, I've unsubscribed from those two posts. It was getting old, especially the tough guy shit. I figure my six year old little nephew could stomp mud holes in Sye's and Gazoo's asses, and walk them dry.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this Lance.
ReplyDeleteI believe I'll take your suggestion and simply ignore him until he shows back up with answers to my questions or something new to say.
As I mentioned earlier, I'll be less active for a few weeks due to company from across the country. SO that'll keep me from playing with the troll.
Sorry for filling up like 2 threads with spam from Sye and myself - but I just hate to see a guy like that win because the atheist got so fed up with his idiocy that they walked away.
Thanks for that Lance. If we just ignore a troll, he wont win because no one argued with him in the first place.
ReplyDeleteRufus, your display picture made me lol.
Rufus,
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to your hair? Looks like you just read a new post by Ray!
Buckwheat makes more sense than Ray does. And I'm sure he's a better singer.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with a Xtian coming over here to post their comments. I don't care if they're argumentative or not. I don't care if they're stupid or not.
ReplyDeleteBut when they start to mess with peoples' heads in a malicious manner, that's when they cross the line, and that's what Sye did.
You guys better not make me an administrator. I'll nuke his ass right now.
I rather agree that banning him would not serve a useful purpose, yet.
ReplyDeleteIf he jumps into thread here or there we can live with that, but if it goes beyond our threshhold for abuse, I think we will know it.
Also remember, Presupposositionalism was consciously designed to be a circular argument that can't be "won." Although is is absurd, it always leaves the proponent in a position to claim he "wins."
No matter what though, the original premise of the argument is a presupposition that the bible is the inerrent word of god. He cannot escape that.
The assumption that there has to be a god to validate out evolved state of logic and reasoning is totally bogus. But I digress.
He'll probably fade away and then we can be happy that we did not censor him.
As freethingkers, I think the very last move should be censorship, except for the things Lance mentioned. Just my opinion.
Sorry for filling up like 2 threads with spam from Sye and myself - but I just hate to see a guy like that win because the atheist got so fed up with his idiocy that they walked away.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that's what he counts on. Spew enough bullshit, then claim victory when the other person says "Enough of your bullshit, I'm done with this."
I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents about Sye. A couple of months ago I saw him for the first time over at Ray's. His arguments didn't seem to make any logical sense to me and he was blabbering on about his website so I took a look.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you've ever seen it, you'll know what I mean when I say that false dichotomy is not a logical argument and that's where he started in his little 'logic' test, so I just immediately left and never addressed him at Ray's.
In my eyes, if you start out with stupid, you can only produce more stupid, so I was never inclined to engage him.
I think I'm more in favour of ignoring him rather than banning him. He seemed to take a certain amount of glee in being banned from various 'free-thinkers' forums on the net and I don't think we want to do anything to feed that already enlarged ego of his.
ReplyDeletePeople like him feed off the annoyance of others and, as dale has said, his presuppositionalism can only lead to an endlessly circular argument that doesn't do anything but clog up threads (of course I still enjoyed watching Maragon electronically bitch-slapping the prick up and down the blog).
If he has something new or interesting to contribute then fair enough, but the second he starts with his absolute bullshit, I say we close the window and keep the draft from getting in.
@flinging dust--
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes, if you start out with stupid, you can only produce more stupid, so I was never inclined to engage him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's what I should have done, too. Even I fed the troll a little while.
His approach has an interesting veneer but on closer examination you realize it's just a rhetorical device he's trying to entangle you with. This suspicion is confirmed when you turn the "argument" around and use it against him, and he replies with the claim that God revealed the truth to him so he's exempt. That's the same thing as saying the theist is right by definition. And that's the same thing as saying the question was never really an honest, side-by-side comparison of the 2 competing positions at all, it was just presented that way.
And once I realized that good old Sye was scamming me, he went from serious commenter to troll pretty much in a microsecond.
Didn't ya, cupcake?
Sorry to butt in but I feel the need to say something to you RS. I think it's fantastic you have this group that you trust enough to open up to. As an outsider I'm even a little jealous.
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't already, I hope you would consider seeing a professional. I, like others here, have had to deal with depression. There's a lot of help out there and I sincerely hope you avail yourself. It's nothing to screw around with.
Good luck, Your friend on Paxil, Craig
ps. Please don't think I'm suggesting psychotropics, just a little play on the friend in jesus thing.
pss. Had to stop myself from capitalizing son o' god.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteI've gained a new respect for you,through our conversations in my comments, even through we differ completely in our beliefs.
I just wanted to let you know that.
Oops, I posted in the wrong thread:
ReplyDeleteI'm not generally one to call attention to myself, but was this completely missed?
(FROM MYSELF)
"CHECK - and - MATE
Well Sye,
I guess that means you have nothing left to say, you have no proof. You've finishined by not giving your proof, but rather calling my system ludicrous and arbitrary (and not even saying why). And your system, as we now know, has no proof that it's a proposition, and no example of something that's absolute after that proof has been given.
And to top it off you said this:
"that may be true for you, but it's not true for me."
Alas, Sye has just stated that truth is relative afterall.
I think we all done here folks."
The problem is you guys, (and I'm trying to be the bad guy here or acting like I know something so don't take this the wrong way), but your arguing about false conclusions with Sye rather then getting back to his original proposition. Which is what I did and he could not account for it. He basically bowed out to me at that point.
Any time Sye says something like, "you need certainty to have knowledge", he's stating that as a conclusion with an unproven premise. If he asks something like, "State something you are uncertain of", he's doing so again from his unproven premise and wants to trap you.
BUT YOU HAVE TO NOT answer the question, and rather get back to his premise. Which is that absolute truth exists. He was unable to prove that to be a valid proposition, and he was unable to give an example of an absolute and state why it is not systemic. That's it, DONE.
Eveyhing else he says is just smoke in the wind you guys. If you're going to debate with him, then that's the source of the debate.
Again, for for sounding like I know something.
Hey Brainiacs! :-)
ReplyDeleteYou people do not like debating with me, because I ask you to account for what YOU believe.
Debate presupposes logic. You may not like how I account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to my worldview, but all I ask is that you account for them according to yours. When you realize that you cannot, the debate ends, and the name-calling begins.
Now, I know that this post will be met with the same scorn, but I also know that none of you will answer as to how you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
I think they're ignoring you Sye.
ReplyDeleteHere, I'll help you out since they ignor me too.
Meagan said:
There is evidence for the existence of gravity. I can show evidence that will help to prove the existence of gravity. Because of this evidence, I will make an evidence-based prediction that gravity will continue to exist.
How do you account for the evidence and logic you will use to account for the existance of gravity? You will merely be making a proposition about the propositions that already exist for defining gravity. But again how do you account for those propositions?
Guys,
ReplyDeleteSye did not hijack the blog. We did it for him. So, I would be against blocking the guy. I insist he is not worth discussing logic with, he has none (he, funny that now he said that a debate presupposes logic, but he lacks it).
He is an excellent troll, and for that he deserves the right to post here. He might not like being called a troll. I do not know. But he did the troll job all to well.
So guys, go back, read his stuff, learn, see how he changes your meaning, how he conveniently forgets the context so he can mock you on something that would be a shoot in his own foot (except because he forgot the context), and so on. I would invite us to study his shit, and I am serious, your responses to him, and see what his recipe for trollerism is.
Other than that, I prefer not to talk to someone who either does not understand logic, or ignores the rules to his favor. His only mission is to use whatever necessary to have the feeling that he won. Not to truly win.
G.E.
Sye,
ReplyDelete(Here I go again falling for it)
Why don't you tell me again how you account for logic. I do not see any need to "account" for it. So, second question: Why should I do so?
G.E.
Oh Sye,
ReplyDeleteYou people do not like debating with me, because I ask you to account for what YOU believe.
Nope, you don't ask us to account for what we believe. You think you know, and will not accept any other explanation.
You also know very well, that once you start changing meanings you do that just to frustrate people. A debate presupposes logic, as you said. But it also presupposes that both sides will be listening. You forget any of these two things at your convenience.
G.E.
GE said: "Why don't you tell me again how you account for logic."
ReplyDeleteThe laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are found in the nature of God as He has revealed to us in nature, and in His Word. These characteristics, then, at least make sense in the Christian wordlview (whether you agree with it or not).
"I do not see any need to "account" for it. So, second question: Why should I do so?"
Well, you, and others,accuse me of 'not understanding,' or even violating the laws of logic, so I simply want to know how universal, abstract, invariant entities make sense in your worldview, if you wish to use them against my argument.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
ReplyDeleteWell, I think we are starting the wrong way. Maybe if you told me what you mean by "account," because what you wrote does not sound like "a way to account for logic." It sounds ... let me see:
The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are found in the nature of God as He has revealed to us in nature, and in His Word. These characteristics, then, at least make sense in the Christian wordlview (whether you agree with it or not).
This sounds like a description of logic, coupled to a description of what you think your imaginary friend is (you beg the question that there is a god), coupled to a revelation thingie (without the god there is no such thing), then you say that this only makes sense in the christian worldview (like no other religions would have a god), then whether I agree or not. None of these statements is justified. care to try again, in a way that makes sense?
Logic is not an entity Sye, it is an abstraction of reasoning. Care to explain to me again why should I "account for logic," even after you do not follow suit?
Maybe we should start at some other point?
I am truly listening.
G.E.
GE said: ” Maybe we should start at some other point?
ReplyDelete”Logic is not an entity Sye, it is an abstraction of reasoning.”
Alright, let’s start at the very beginning then. Do you believe that logic is universal, abstract (from your above statement it looks like we have agreement there, and invariant?
Cheers,
Sye
Hi Sye,
ReplyDeleteSorry i did not see your post before.
Also, I have to apologize, I said that you said that these things only make sense in a christian worldview, but you said "at least," meaning that you accept that these things also make sense in other worldviews. So, sorry about that confusion. I had not noticed that you changed that bit (you used to say ONLY before).
Hum, what about this, what about we first agree about where to start:
You made a very important point:
a debate presupposes logic
I completely agree with this. So, why can't we just presuppose logic instead of going through that crappy "accounting" thing?
You see? You seem to contradict your own statement. Also, you said that we accuse you of 'not understanding,' or even violating the laws of logic. This is true, we do that. But why do you need to know how logic makes sense in our worldview? What you would need to know is which parts of logic you do not understand or violate, right? That unless logic does not make sense in your worldview.
G.E.
GE said: ”Hi Sye,
ReplyDeleteSorry i did not see your post before.”
Alright, who are you, and what have you done with GE? :-)
”Also, I have to apologize, I said that you said that these things only make sense in a christian worldview, but you said "at least," meaning that you accept that these things also make sense in other worldviews. So, sorry about that confusion. I had not noticed that you changed that bit (you used to say ONLY before).”
Nope, was just looking for the concession from you that they at least make sense in the Christian worldview, it is still my position that they cannot be made sense of in any other worldview.
”I completely agree with this. So, why can't we just presuppose logic instead of going through that crappy "accounting" thing?”
That would be like racing our cars for the pink slips, and my asking you to account for your ownership of the car before the race starts. “Let’s just race,” wouldn’t cut it for me.
”Also, you said that we accuse you of 'not understanding,' or even violating the laws of logic. This is true, we do that. But why do you need to know how logic makes sense in our worldview?”
Cause you want to race for pink slips in a stolen car :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
ReplyDeleteNope, was just looking for the concession from you that they at least make sense in the Christian worldview, it is still my position that they cannot be made sense of in any other worldview.
Why?
Oh, the stolen car, nice! I did not know the greeks had filled a patent. Do we have to ask them for permission? Any fees? Do you know how much? (but let us concentrate on the why above, please, we can worry about the greeks later).
G.E.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, you did not need any concession that logic makes sense in a christian worldview.
Also, the Why above is just about this part:
it is still my position that they cannot be made sense of in any other worldview
G.E.
GE said: "Why?"
ReplyDeleteWhy is it my position that universal, abstract, invariants cannot be made sense of in any other worldview? Because I am a Christian. Of course it helps that no other worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariants.
Cheers,
Sye
TMM said: "I don't know it. I have a reasonable expectation that it will, based on the fact that it has, as far as we can tell, since the beginning of the universe."
ReplyDeleteUm, It probably will, because it has, is begging the question. How do you know that the future will even probably be like the past?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
ReplyDeleteWhy is it my position that universal, abstract, invariants cannot be made sense of in any other worldview?
Not exactly my question, yet, well, let us go ahead.
Because I am a Christian.
I do not see how this answer makes any sense, care to explain a little bit. Not too lengthy please.
Of course it helps that no other worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariants.
Still just because you say so. Same as above, just said in a slightly different way. Again, care to explain how it makes sense only to christians, but not in any other worldview?
Anyway Sye, I do not know if I can keep playing. Will try, but cannot promise. I am mostly trying to understand you. Not playing you, nor trying to ridicule you, nothing of that, we are past that stage. I know I will not convince you, so, this is mostly a conversation. Maybe this is why you asked what did I do to GE. After all I insulted you "generously." But please focus on the question above.
G.E.
GE said: I do not see how this answer makes any sense, care to explain a little bit. Not too lengthy please.
ReplyDeleteIt is the contention of the Christian worldview that God is the source of logic, and that therefore no other worldview can account for logic apart from Him. I am a Christian, therefore I hold that view.
”Again, care to explain how it makes sense only to christians, but not in any other worldview?”
No other worldview can account for, or make sense of, universal, absract, invariant entities, such as the laws of logic.
”Not playing you, nor trying to ridicule you, nothing of that, we are past that stage. I know I will not convince you, so, this is mostly a conversation.”
Apology accepted :-)
Cheers,
Sye
Hi Sye,
ReplyDeleteNo other worldview can account for, or make sense of, universal, absract, invariant entities, such as the laws of logic.
But why Sye, even if I were convinced that you need a god to have logic (I will never be), do you think other worldviews have no gods whatsoever, that no other worldviews can conclude that their god is the source of logic?
G.E.
GE said: ”But why Sye, even if I were convinced that you need a god to have logic (I will never be),”
ReplyDeleteAnd you people wonder why we call yours a religious commitment.
”do you think other worldviews have no gods whatsoever,”
Yes. There is only one God, other worldviews have idols.
”that no other worldviews can conclude that their god is the source of logic?”
Sure, they can conclude it, but they cannot justify that conclusion.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
ReplyDeleteAnd you people wonder why we call yours a religious commitment.
Sye, let us not start that way. This is not a religious commitment. I do not see any reason to be convinced. No matter how logical it looks to you it does not look that way to me.
Continuing with the other thing.
Sure, they can conclude it, but they cannot justify that conclusion.
But why not? It would e the exact same conclusion, with the exact same justification. Just not called christian. How would someone who does not buy into any religion, let us say the person gets convinced that only with a god there can be logic, then how would someone decide which ones are idols, which one is the true one. I see no excape from this one. Do you? If so, how would it be reasonable rather than YOUR heart belief? (Or any christians heart belief).
G.E.
GE said: ”Sye, let us not start that way. This is not a religious commitment. I do not see any reason to be convinced. No matter how logical it looks to you it does not look that way to me.”
ReplyDeleteBut you said that you will “never be convinced,” THAT my friend, is a religious commitment.
”But why not? It would e the exact same conclusion, with the exact same justification. Just not called christian.”
Look, GE, I really don’t think that you want to argue the simillarities, and differences in world religions with me, but suffice it to say, if you think that the justification would be the ‘exact same,’ then, respectfully, you don’t know a lot about world religions.
As I have stated many times though, I am not interested in debating worldviews that neither of us hold. Please tell me how YOU account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK Sye, but if I did give you any justification of logic in "my worldview" then we end up at the same point as in the other posts (something hunt). Since you cannot justify logic as exclusive to your worldview (see all the posts above since we started this thread), I think this is over.
ReplyDeleteI was really trying to understand. Enjoy the rest of your weekend,
G.E.
GE said: "OK Sye, but if I did give you any justification of logic in "my worldview" then we end up at the same point as in the other posts"
ReplyDeleteLooks like we'll never know.
"Since you cannot justify logic as exclusive to your worldview"
By what standard of logic do you claim that I have not justified logic as exclusive to my worldview, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me?
I was really trying to get you to answer. You enjoy the rest of your weekend too.
Cheers,
Sye
Simple Sye sez:
ReplyDeleteUm, It probably will, because it has, is begging the question.
Oh look. Simple Sye doesn't know what "begging the question" means.
Anyone surprised?
@ Tripmaster Monkey,
ReplyDeleteI said: “Um, It probably will, because it has, is begging the question.”
You said: ”Oh look. Simple Sye doesn't know what "begging the question" means.”
Alright, from THAT link:
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
When one says, “The future will probably be like the past, because the future has been like the past in the past, one assumes that past events have a bearing on future events BUT THAT IS THE VERY THING YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE AND THEREFORE BEGS THE QUESTION.
Anyone surprised?”
I sure ain’t.
Cheers,
Sye
Simple Sye fails yet again. It would be sad to watch if it weren't so entertaining.
ReplyDeleteSye, here's where you fail (emphasis mine):
When one says, “The future will probably be like the past, because the future has been like the past in the past, one assumes that past events have a bearing on future events BUT THAT IS THE VERY THING YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE AND THEREFORE BEGS THE QUESTION.
First of all, my assertion said nothing about past events "having a bearing" on future events. That's entirely your own invention. Don't try to put words in my mouth...you're not very good at it.
Second, where exactly did I claim that I was "proving" that future events will be like past events? All I said was that I have a "reasonable expectation" that that will be the case. In fact, when asked by you how I know future events will be like past events, I flatly responded that I don't know that, which should have made it obvious that I wasn't attempting a proof along those lines.
Two Straw Men in one post. For any other troll, that would be admirable, but for you, it's simply par for the course.
Ew Boy.
ReplyDelete@ Tripmaster monkey
I asked: “How do you know that 2 + 2 will = 4 tomorrow, since you have not observed tomorrow?”
You answered: "I don't know it. I have a reasonable expectation that it will, based on the fact that it has, as far as we can tell, since the beginning of the universe."
So, if as you say: ”my assertion said nothing about past events "having a bearing" on future events.” then why do you bring up past events in your argument? If past events have no bearing on future events, then why bring them up? On what do you base your reasonable expectation that something will happen because it has happened??? If you base this on the fact that things happen the same way they have happened, then you are, as I said, BEGGING THE QUESTION.
No doubt, you cannot see the circularity in your argument, but I trust that others who read this will, even if they deny it, and hurl insults at me, as people here are prone to do.
Cheers,
Sye
Sweet Zombie Jesus. Please tell me you're not actually this stupid.
ReplyDeletewhy do you bring up past events in your argument? If past events have no bearing on future events, then why bring them up?
There's a big difference between the simple expectation that future events will resemble past events, and asserting that past events have bearing on future events. If you're actually bright enough to comprehend the difference, again, please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. If not, there's really nothing I can do to help you at this point.
If you base this on the fact that things happen the same way they have happened, then you are, as I said, BEGGING THE QUESTION.
Thanks again for demonstrating that you have no clue what "begging the question" means.
It's interesting that you have completely failed to address my rather minor point that I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. No doubt, that sort of thing isn't in your obviously limited script.
Tripmaster Monkey said:
ReplyDelete”There's a big difference between the simple expectation that future events will resemble past events, and asserting that past events have bearing on future events.”
On what do you base your reasonable expecatation that future events will resemble past events?
”Thanks again for demonstrating that you have no clue what "begging the question" means.”
I guess we can determine that, if you ever get around to answering my question.
Cheers,
Sye