Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Sye "the tool" TenB

The ranting student said: "What of all those in history who never heard the gospel? And died? They did not know. And yet they go to Hell."

No one goes to Hell for not hearing the gospel, people go to Hell because of their sin.


First of all, Fuck Sye. He is an asshole, all of us have established this, and if he comes here and wishes to challenge me, then I will show that he is in fact a "whole ass". With that said, Sye, how could people go to hell "because of their sin" if they didn't know what "sin" was, since they never learned about Jesus? The concept of "sin" and eternal life/torture by your "loving god" only means something with reference to the gospel. If Jesus is "just" then he could simply appear to those who didn't "get the memo" and fill them in with all the "detes" at some point. Alas, he doesn't. So either he doesn't give a shit, is unjust, or isn't real...or simply can't because he lacks the ability. Which do you think? Oh yeah, did I mention, Fuck you, Sye?


  1. Sye is somewhat clever, in his own bizarre little way. His questions are so insane, so totally circular, that it's hard to come up with an argument to refute it. He has the be-all, end-all response to everything - "But how do you know?" No amount of logic will shake him from that.

  2. No Lance,
    he is not clever. Read the second page of the Einsteinian Evolution post, I think I've completely dismantled him

    If you havn't noticed he hasn't been posting much. He's been trying to dig himself out of a deep hole.

    Here is what I've posed that he will answer, becasue he cannot.

    Sye states that “ABSOLUTE” = NOT RELATIVE.
    This essentially means that when applied to truth, that such a truth is not relative to or contingent upon human existence and/or experience. As a result of this one must then prove that a given absolute truth exists apart from his own existence. However one can not formulate such an argument unless of course one is conscious, so therefore the truth must be relative to human experience and/or you must reside to faith.

    All this being the case, Sye’s so called world view is not based in logic (as he would have you believe) but in faith.

    And the argument goes from there.

  3. One more thing.

    One of the problems is that Sye's tactic is not to actually assert anything per se'. If you ask him a question, he turns around and asks another question of you. This a bit akin to what Plato does in his diologes - however in this case Plato doesn't claim to know anything, he simply goes to people who think they do and asks them questions until you come to the conclusion that they don't know either.

    Ultimately what this does is undermines your (the atheist) standpoint, all the while he never had to prove a thing. The key is, every time he posts you need to ask him: "Sye, prove that absolute (not relative) exists void of human existance." and say nothing else.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Well, by "clever" I didn't mean it in the sense that he's actually a smart, informed person. It's just clever in the sense that he's found an argument that's so obtuse that a lot of atheists (myself included) won't even bother with him anymore, and then he gets to declare victory because we "can't answer his questions."

  6. Here's how I understand the viewpoint:

    God instills in every human a basic sense of right and wrong, henceforth known as the conscience.
    (one of the reasons we know god exists!)

    You know right and wrong in your heart.

    You choose to go against your conscience and do wrong.

    That makes you a sinner.

    All sinners go to hell.

    People like Sye don't feel bad about sinners in hell. There are no innocents by his way of thinking.

    Hell is the default position. All people DESERVE hell, even those who have never heard of god. Jesus is the only way out and too bad if you've never heard of him.
    God saves whom he will.

    Have a blessed day!

  7. But lance,
    you're assuming that "do you believe in absolute truth" is a valid question. it's not, it applies only to logic and is a natural negation. Not to mention the fact that it's based on an undefined premise.

    All he's counting on is proving you wrong (as you said) so it's asumed he's right. But that does nothing but reveal an inability to answer and understand something, it doesn't give him license to say he's right about anything.

    You just need to keep asking him that same question over and over and over, EVERYONE.

  8. I had a long go-around with Sye a few months ago. The opening shots were pretty much all as described here. Here's how it went on after that.

    SYE: "How do you know?"

    ME: "Information from the senses that is consistant and conforms largely with the experience of others."

    SYE: "How do you know it's reliable?"

    ME: "Because it works. Beyond that, no, absolutely certain knowledge is not available."

    SYE: "Yes it is. God reveals it."

    ME: "No it's not. Your knowledge of God or the Bible or anything else depends on your senses just as much as anyone else's knowledge of the world. In fact, how do you know that God isn't evil and giving you false information? Isn't it even more likely from your point of view that our senses and thoughts are unreliable, since an all-powerful God can change reality at any moment?"

    SYE: "God cannot be evil. Therefore I know that the truth that is revealed to me is true truth."

    ME: "Yeah? How do you know?"

    SYE (now finally backed into a corner): "Because it has been revealed to me in a way that is certain."

    So that's pretty much where you end up if you keep after him long enough. He has certainty because God has told him so in a way that Sye knows to be certain.

    It was kind of fun to kick him around for a while. But not worth doing a second time.

  9. But lance,
    you're assuming that "do you believe in absolute truth" is a valid question.

    No, I'm not. I guess I'm just not explaining myself very well.

    Of course, that's not a valid question, but it sounds like one. In other words, Sye asks questions that sound good to people who are uninformed and illogical - and there are many of them.

    Like I said, his arguments are so absurd that I can't even deal with him - and he claims that as a victory.

    Don't get me wrong - he's an idiot. He just knows how to use words to make him sound clever.

  10. ...And the way he ends all posts with..


    Sye :-)


  11. Charles,

    First, It is always good to see you are alive and kicking!

    As per Sye you said,
    "It was kind of fun to kick him around for a while. But not worth doing a second time."

    I agree, but the interchange was rather interesing at a couple points and I was glad to witness that ass kicking. Educatonal to me.

  12. I see,

    The big problem is that most people will be so puzzled by the twisted logic, that they will not know how to answer this guy. I also was playing him the first time I saw him. At first I thought he might be a clever guy. Now I see that he only has that piece of shit. Anyway, good work guys, I did not see the ass kicking by Charles, but sounds like the best so far. Andrew, do not take me wrong, yours is good, but requires too much intelligence from the audience to understand that Sye is actually in trouble.

    I think Sye just gives it a rest, and starts all over thinking everybody has forgotten by the next time he posts anything again, and if you remind him that he lost that one he just says, fortunately the "kicking" is there for everyone to see. Implying that he actually won that one. Just a twister asshole.

    The point when I actually noticed how much more of an asshole he is, was when he "revealed" that he thinks our "worldview" does not justify anything, because "we think" everything is just random (like in anything can happen with no rules whatsoever). He takes this from his futile understanding of evolution (extended to an explanation of the universe, as most christians seem to do). In the end, he is just way too dumb to even understand what our worldview is.

    What he actually wants to get to, is the "comparison" of "worldviews," and claim that his makes sense. I bet that he will say that we loose because our universe "is random," and his is constant because of god. And no amount of reasoning will take him away from that position, and the christians will think it is great, because they also think our universe is random.

    Bottom-line, we have to stop arguing with such an asshole, but if we do, we have to use patently clear-cut arguments. Not long ones, just clear-cut, so he cannot use any excuse, dismiss, and cling to the piece he finds of his liking to re-state his shit.


  13. The Web page that Sye's profile links to will drive you batshit insane in the way that it funnels the dialogue (Yes, it's interactive!) into his very narrow way of thinking:


    The trick exploits the word "absolute" and its different shades of meaning to try to prove that God must exist.

    As you click through the site's interactive "quiz," you'll find that it doesn't let you respond with nuance or in any way that steps outside the presuppositions of the questions. Maddening.

  14. geoff,

    I have been through Sye's happy fun house myself. Unless you have learned what Carl Sagan deamed "the baloney detection kit", it is difficult to see the fallacies. We need more critical thinkers, and we need to roast Ray in a book by our group.


    You guys made my day :-)




    P.S. Methinks thou dost protest too much :-D


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.