Our New Home

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

The Forum

Monday, July 28, 2008

Sye Vs. Stephen Law.

Sye is up to his old tricks over on Stephen Law's blog. Law is a smart guy and proffessional philosopher, he is patient too. How long before he loses it with Sye? Place your bets....


  1. *sigh*
    ...ha ha ha.

    We'll just have to see.

  2. Oh, I read about 1/4 of it and I feel like I've lobotomized.

  3. "Kyle said: "I had a long response typed out, then I read Stephen's response and decided to hold off a bit."

    I appreciate that since my time is limited, and I won't be able to engage everyone here.



    WTF? He took all of us on with simple repetition, meanwhile can't do the same for Kyle?

    Well done, Sye... well done.

  4. I'm sorry, but I tied to read through some of the comments and I swear to jebus on a stick if I see the words 'Cheers, Sye' written one more freaking time I am going to claw my own damn eyes out and eat 'em for lunch.

    Cue Sye to say 'And by your worldview how do you know you have eyes to claw out? And how can you KNOW you'll have them for lunch?'

  5. And how can you be certain that they are being cooked for lunch instead of, say, a mid-afternoon snack? By what chronological standard do you apply to account for your basis of understandin of the times one eats meals?

  6. Without God in the picture, how do you even account to the logic that you can eat your eyeballs after you gouge them out? To what standard of logic and time zones without divine revelation do you depend on? Nice dodge by the way.



  7. ::::throws some unholy water on Shaggy and RS to exorcise the Sye demon:::

  8. Celtic Chimp,

    I hope to read some of Stephen Law's stuff but in the meantime I would rather let Terry Burton poke me in the eye with a stick than deal with Sye!

    Good link though and thanks.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. ...I'll stick to my Terry Burton impersonation...

    Repent! Rufus Communus, your own conscience is the reason you couldn't get thru the logic of God! Attention Soldier! About face, and turn away from sin! Present Arms to God!

    to theShaggy
    you will give an account for all you've done on judgement day!God will take away the shagginess and reveal the light, but it will be too late!lol
    Repent while you still have time! And stop being naughty.

    Flinging Dust,

    You've flung dust in the face of God before! How about you swear to Jesus Christ on the Cross to save you! You wont be flinging dust where you're headed! lol
    Repent from sin and dust, and turn to holiness and light! Before it's too late! Wanting to gouge out your eyes is a serious mental condition!! And exorcising is for the workers of the Lord! You have your own master!

    Don't be fooled! Repent! I wont poke you in the eye, but I wont say the same about you! An eye for an eye is probably the only bible commandment you follow, and that was abolished by Jesus!lol
    Turn from sin!
    PSALM 14:1
    Don't be a fool!!!lol

    Turn from sin before it's too late!Watch Hells best Kept secret on my blogs and websites! Before it's too late! Stephen Law better turn to the LAW of God!lol Repent, before it's too late! You're all on a one way trip to Hell!!

    I was on a trip via sea on a giant ship called the S.S. Saved! I was handing out million dollar tracts and going thru the law of God, everybody loved me!The captain of the ship invited me to co-steer! While we were sailing over the ocean, I said,"wont it be great when we get permission from God to steer a ship in the lake of fire, to show the non believers what they're missing?" He agreed.

    Ciao! ;)

    Praying for ya'!


    -In His Love, Ranting

  11. To The Ghost of Terry as being channeled through RS,

    I'd like to fling some damn lithium down your throat you mentally whacked out jebus freak !!!

    Whew, I feel better. Thanks for letting be get that out.

  12. I don't know. sometimes I feel the urge of being Terry.

  13. Gaaaah...

    That Terry impression was uncanny, Ranting. I just threw up in my mouth a little.

  14. I posted over there, describing what Sye's like, and I gave links to other places where he posted and how others have responded to him so the people at Stephen Law's blog can see what Sye's like.

    I pointed out that they should read the threads in the links to notice that Sye will ask the same question over and over again.

  15. You know, I've looked at Terry Burton's photo at his website, and I've almost felt bad about the scorn and ridicule I've heaped upon him. He looks like a nice friendly guy. I think, who knows how lonely he is, how messed up psychologically he is, what he's been through, what his childhood was like? Then I'll read one of his posts over at Ray's, like his most recent on the Flew thread, and I'll think, fuck him. I think I have a lot of empathy and sympathy for my fellow human beings, but someone like Terry Burton can kill that empathy and sympathy dead.

  16. Here's a nice sip of water:

    Austin 3:16 - "I just kicked your ass."

  17. What is really realy realy hard to believe is that Sye ACTUALLY thinks he has won all of the arguments, all of them. His delusion is way too strong. I showed him how treacherous his methods are, and then asked, since we see him as either dishonest or dim, then what was his accomplishments? His answer: he has proven us wrong. You see? He still thinks he has proven us wrong! He does not see that he has proven nothing.

    I find his delusion and trickery interesting. I am pretty sure he would make a fantastic case for a psychoanalytical thesis. That if he is sincere about what he believes (though he changes it a bit according to what he gets at different times, meaning that who knows what goes on in this guy's mind). Still quite crappy.


  18. I'll be honest with you, this linked thread is fascinating. All the people arguing with Sye (and I'm looking at you, Andrew) are freaking phenomenal.

    The only problem is that Sye refuses to budge from hi single solitary position. I wonder if he even has backup arguments to further the debate. The only time he will move anything forward is when someone says "Yes, you are right, there is a God and he is necessary for absolue truth." Beyond that, he will just deny everything. He just perches on a stool that says "I'm right, so there" and pouts.

  19. Rufus, I used to think the same thing about Terry. I thought 'Awww, there's this poor guy and he sounds like he just has all these mental issues and people are just picking on him.'

    Then I actually started to read some of the things he typed and I thought 'Fuck that guy.'

    I haven't changed my opinion.

  20. Seriously, this is so enlightening:

    "I have never said that everything is absolute. It is my claim, that something cannot both be true and not be true at the same time and in the same way. If it is true that you are a male, then it cannot also be true that you are not a male at the same time and in the same way. If it is true that the world population is 6.7 billion, then it cannot also be true that the world population is not 6.7 billion at the same time and in the same way. If it is true that you find crickets delicious, then it cannot also be true that you do not find crickets to be delicious at the same time and in the same way. If those things are true, then they are absolutely true. If you care to demonstrate how they can be both true, and not true, at the same time and in the same way, the floor is yours."

    What's ridiculous about Sye's argument is that in this case he's insisting that something is absolute if it is true at that moment. But the instant someone makes a similar claim, he'll say "But will it be true tomorrow?"

    That is exactly the point they are making. They are not absolutely true, but they are not arbitrary. Sye just flips his argument around out of defiance.

    God, he's such a buttmunch.

  21. Sye's whole thing is just idiotic and unanswerable at the same time. His argument now seems to be "you cannot use logic against my argument unless you can account for it in your worldview." But if you show him that he has not accounted for logic then he just says that you cannot use logic against his argument unless you can account for it. Then, if you actually "account for it", meaning, for instance, you explain him how logic was brought about by abstracting it from observation and experience and refinement, and so, he just changes your meaning so that he can still say that you cannot account for logic in your worldview. Since he will only accept an account with the christian god in it, then there is no argument, no matter how idiotic his argument is, it is just designed to go around in circles and circles and circles until you feel insulted by his trickery and send him to hell, at which point he claims victory. Every time he deviates from his circle, he gets in trouble, but once he notes that he is in trouble, he retorts to the "by which standard of logic ... your worldview" shit. Starting his stupidity circle again.

    I wonder if he knows that it is stupid but impossible at the same time or he just pretends that it makes sense for the fun of it. Can anybody truly believe such idiocy despite he himself changes definitions once something fails to him? I have no idea of psychology, so, any of you guys? Would this be some kind of schizophrenia?


  22. Embarrassing admission time: I don't know what Sye's handle refers to.

    Could someone enlighten me, please?

  23. Wee,

    If you tell me according to your worldview, what a handle is. :-) (seriously I do not know what a handle is!)

    Observing the arguing there, I have been tempted more than once to warn these guys about Sye, but then I thought, let it be, maybe we can learn something else behind Sye's strategy, which conveniently mutates when he feels it would suit his malevolent purposes.

    So, now I have another key, this ... guy ... thinks that logic is his god's crap because logic is not material, because logic is "abstract"!

    Shit! Is this guy something!

    Let us keep observing, but quiet.


  24. In some book by Arthur Koestler he said that Kepler offered co-authorship of the principia (or whatever) to the inheritors of Tyco Brahe. But whomever inheritor this was (I read it way too long ago, so my apologies for the lack of precision), he preferred to write the introduction (or the preface, who cares), Koestler proceeds to say, that this immortalized this donkey's braying. Or something to the effect. That is the image I get when I see Sye's arguments: the braying of a donkey echoing through cyberspace for all to hear.


  25. Oh, no offense meant to the donkeys.

  26. Hum, Andrew Louis keeps the discussion going on. Andrew you should be in the new definition of patience of the wikipedia.

    Andrew, I think your argument is too advanced for this guy. Well, anything is, so go ahead. I did not say anything. :-)


  27. I don't know what "Sye Ten B" means. And I've been afraid to ask him.

  28. Oh, so that's a handle! (Remember guys, patience with me, I am still new to blogging.)

    I would not ask him about it. He would probably asks us by which standard of curiosity we make this question, if that standard is absolute, and how does that standard allow us to make such a question to him.


  29. You guys familiar with Benny Hill?

    This is what a debate with Sye is like:


  30. Hey Andrew,

    How do you account for your infinite source of patience, is that source absolute, and if so how were you able to apply such patience to arguing with Sye? (If what Sye does can qualify as such.)

    I played the spectator there. Learned a few more things about Sye's crap in the process. His questions are much more loaded than I thought before.


  31. Rufus, Sye TenB is actually his name, or so he says:


    "Is your post name a take for "Hello" in Chinese?"

    Nope, that's my real name. 'Sye' is actully Dutch, spelled 'Sije' there, but with a 'y' with 2 dots on it, instead of the 'ij.' TenB, is just short for my last name 'Ten Bruggencate'
    (I know, a mouth-full :-)


    March 1, 2008 11:24 AM

  32. I think the real truth (I thought about it earlier but didn't express it properly) of Sye's argument is that he is convinced that only he is right, that only he has the true answer of God's existence as revealed to him.

    If you notice, he refutes everyone - Christian, atheist, Hindu, whatever, by claiming that they don't know the truth as he knows the truth. Any attempt to understand his truth (any rational person willing to debate would at least present his own view in terms to help the others understand) is met with defensiveness and evasion and "Don't be inconsistent with what I know you to believe."

    It's like he doesn't want you to even consider his position or side with him, he'd rather make you feel like shit because of it. No amount of arguing will get anywhere because he is wholly convinced that nobody but he can understand anything.

    It's pretty horrendous if you think about it. His whole purpose is to tell everyone else that they are wrong and leave it at that. How that is Christian, I don't know?

  33. Well, now it looks like he got pretty upset because Andy and others started using his own tactics against him. We will see, I bet he comes back with the same shit. No way to stop him. He might get upset for a little while, but regroups and insists on the same failed shit.

    You are right Shaggy. He does not even want you to give him a position that is not consistent with the one he believes you to have. Don't you dare!

    Shit, it is actually horrendous as you said. So many aspects make me feel he is very sick, and that there is no escape.

    I wonder if a psychiatrists, a very good and intelligent one, would conclude that Sye needs treatment. I suspect he does. And I am not kidding, really. I do think he can be very dangerous, if not now, with time.


  34. On patience.
    I don't want to change Sye's mind by any means, I just want to do to him what he does to everyone else. The fact remains that he cannot answer the questions I ask without borrowing from my world view, and this is why he doesn't answer. I'm not sure if he actually knows this, or if it's that he genuinely can't answer my questions.

    At any rate, as it stands he can't account for his world view with respect to Systemic Truth, so his world view is bunk.

  35. Hey Andy,

    I still doubt this will stop him. I just warned the guys over at Stephen Law's blog. Sye is either truly sick, or he is a "troll for Jesus."

    Somebody once showed a biblical passage that actually stated that it is fine to lie if you want to promote god crap. So, maybe this is the key. I doubt it though. I think he just likes the feeling that somebody got tired before he did.


  36. Sye the Fundamentalist Guy (Sye! Sye! Sye! Sye!)

    ...it went something like this:


    Sye: {Claims that all truths are absolute}

    Andrew: {places arguments for Systemic Truth, and why Absolute truth cannot exist}

    Sye: "Is that absolutely true?"

    Andrew: {Answers that it's systemically true. Explains AGAIN that there are no absolute truths, just systemic, and just becuase something isn't absolute, doesn't mean it's wrong}

    Sye: "Is that absolutely true?"

    Andrew: {Demands that Sye produce an absolute truth and prove why it is NOT systemic}

    Sye: {Ignores}

    Sye: {Continues to claim that all truths are absolute}

    Sye: {Continues to claim that the Christian God is the only thing that can account for logic}


    Sye: {Claims the Christian God is the only thing that can account for logic}

    Nutcasenightmare: {lists the 330,000 alternatives of Hinduism, the umpteen alternatives of ancient gods, Allah, the Great Cosmic Wombat, etc.}

    Sye: {Dismisses a debate about them because they're things neither party believe in}

    Nutcasenightmare: {Moves on, then addresses arguments against the Xian God}

    Sye: {Dismisses a debate on the Xian God because I don't believe in the Xian God}

    Nutcasenightmare: {Proposes that abstract, universal laws don't need God because:
    -Chess rules are abstract and universal, (to chess) but don't need a Chess God.
    -Laws of logic can be created through axioms, as long as the axioms don't end up making useless predictions.
    -Universal laws of science exist because the universe is an experiment of its own laws, contingent to itself.
    -Or that logic just doesn't need a creator, like somehow Sye's God doesn't need a creator.}

    Sye: {Completely misinteprets the chess proposition, sets up a strawman, insults me, and ignores all the other arguments}

    Sye: {Continues to claim that the Christian God is the only thing that can account for logic}


    Sye: {Transcendental argument for the existence of God}

    Anonymous: {Transcendental Argument for the NONexistence of God}

    Sye: {Ignores}

    Sye: {Continues to claim that the Christian God is the only thing that can account for logic}


    Stephen: {Asks Sye for proof}

    Sye: {Tells Stephen that he's not entitled to it}

    Stephen: {Tells Sye that doesn't matter}

    Sye: {Compares logic to racing cars}

    Stephen: {Shows why that analogy fails}

    Sye: {Completely confuses the difference between proof and premises}

    Stephen: {Points out his mistake}

    Sye: {Ignores}

    Sye: {Continues to claim that the Christian God is the only thing that can account for logic}


    Sye: {accuses every other poster that they are drinking alcohol or otherwise using mind-altering drugs}

    Stephen: {acts polite}

    Sye: {praises Stephen for being polite, then claiming that everyone else was being rude to him... then ignores Stephen's main points}

    SOONER OR LATER... Stephen: {gets frustrated that Sye ignores or sets up strawmen of all his arguments. Acts rude.}

    SOONER OR LATER... Sye: {claims victory. Then acts as the oppressed minority, and places all our rude comments on his web page to give the false impression that all atheists are angry.}



    So, uncanny or what?!

    (P.S: Oh my Superfluous Occam's Razor GAWD, Andrew! Why did you invite him over to Stephen's? WHY?! *sobs* All that bandwidth is going to waste...)

  37. Nutcase,

    Well done! That was brilliant.

    I'd be interested in seeing that passage. Do you know it.

  38. I was not the one to post that passage. I might work on looking for it later on. It was probably something on Peter (I do not even know how many "peters" are there in the bible).


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.