Our New Home

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

The Forum

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Sye gets into debate on radio show!!


Our very own Sye in a public debate!!!!
(Blog post of the radio show host here)
Listen to Sye here.
Who do you think won?.
post in comments below

39 comments:

  1. Yeah, Sye sounds just as creepy as I always imagined.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Frog didn't like the debate?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was listening to this debate earlier today.

    Fortunately, I was rescued by someone who used a masonry drill to bore into my skull.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Epistemic certainty.
    K, I'm done listening.

    Claiming to be absolutely certain about something that is;
    A) So constant that you may as well claim certainty - ie gravity
    B)Impossible to prove - ie the existence of a deity

    adds no new information to a discussion and certainly no basis on which to challenge or substantiate any claims.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aww Maragon, its gets really meaty later on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok, I got about 22 minutes into it and I can't listen anymore because I have things I have to do.

    Based on what I heard I call Josh as the winner, especially after I just heard Sye say things like 'The Bible says we are made in God's image' and not present one shred of proof that the Bible is true.

    Josh was ok, he might have been a bit unprepared maybe, or maybe he was just nervous.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would have brought up mathematics when they were talking about logic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ob,

    I am sure that you do cannot be aware of my history with Sye, but let me say it like this:
    I would rather have a root canal WHILE listening to polka music than hear or read one other wor from that ignorant bastard.

    He has nothing to say. He is not a Christian. He is a sociopath that has only one motive and that is to think that he has won an argument.

    So, kiss my ass.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kaitlyn,

    You can't know how many times I get into a discussion and wish you were there to draw on your knowledge.

    You have fed me a lot of really cool concepts to ruminat upon! Don't quit!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah!

    And if you do, you will turn into a prince!

    ReplyDelete
  11. NM,

    Your history with Sye is similar to my own, and I know what you mean. He has locked into a formula which enables him to think he wins every argument.

    That in itself is the epitomy of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think the Christians won, mostly because they controlled the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The atheist was constantly on the defensive. The Christians grilled him. He should have gone on the offensive and demanded support for their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Katilyn

    I agree. The kid was nervous, and I don't think he ever really got off of the defensive position.

    But it might have been a different story if he had just been debating Sye mano a mano, tete a tete, balls to the wall, or tit for tat, or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh my god... This atheist is so dumb. He was making the argument that retarded people are animals but non-retarded people aren't.

    What the hell!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I can't listen any more. The atheist is arguing in favor of killing retarded people.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do not know and will not know who won. Why? Because I could not bear to listen this crap. It was way too slow, Josh was not prepared for it (way too nervous), and I lost patience quite quickly.

    But I truly do not care who won. Sye is still an asshole, and his arguments, and presupping, are all fallacies no matter what.

    I know because of the impossibility of the contrary.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's amazing what these guy could get Josh to say when they control the argument.I mean offing retarded people??? Nothing objectively wrong with murdering people???
    There was one funny part where he said all knowledge came from his senses and one person asked him which sense he used so he could know that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is it wrong that I want to force feed sye some acid?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mudskipper,

    No acid. Just revel and delight in the fact that Sye will probably never, ever, be invited to a party by the same host a second time.

    Evangelicals don't know how to have a good time because they think enjoyment is a sin.


    Oh well, more for me.

    Ah likes mah beers cold an mah women hot!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good ol' Dan Marvin apparently knows this Josh kid, and posted about this very interview on his blog, where, would you guess, both Sye and Gene -- the latter being the radio talkshow host -- showed up to troll.

    You'd never guess what Sye has said...

    (Have you guessed yet? Good.)

    By what absolute moral standard can you say that guessing is acceptable? How can you account for the logic you used to make it? Using what absolute standard of reasoning have you determined your guess was correct?

    Blah, blah, blah.

    If you go to Dan's blog, you'll see that they're now attempting to bait me into going on the radio program, using elementary playground tactics, no less, by speculating about the size and composition of my testicles, my gender (despite the reference to my testicles), my strength, and my endurance.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  22. Incidentally, was I the only one who noticed that at the very beginning of this thing the Christian hosts were soliciting pictures from single women, in a lewd display of obvious lechery?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stan,

    The playground tactics is a good part of their treachery. They use that kind of stuff to get people to debate, and to get people angry at them. Their dishonesty is so damn obvious that I am surprised that other christians do not notice (except one who said that scmike --another presupp-- wanted people to run in circles to keep them away from god, that he should find jesus and stop his nonsense).

    Anyway, when he said "I am fallible" the proper answer was:

    Then you have nothing to offer, thanks anyway.

    This is what he does. When you do on them what they do onto you, they get very angry indeed. Especially if you never lose your cool. I know this is falling into their low level, but what the heck, it gets fun. This is the most we can do with them. There is no arguing. They will retort to "of course I disagree, but by which standard ..." whenever they do not have an answer. It is all about dishonest tactics.

    You did a superb work. I do not see the need for getting into their show either.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Haven't had time to listen, but everything I've heard indicates poor Josh got beaten into the ground due to being completely unprepared.

    At the very least, you need to know the definitions of "objective", "subjective" and a bunch of other words presupps use to make themselves look smrt. Or have access to a dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  25. God actually has spoken to me (through my intuition and ability to reason), and said in no uncertain terms that Sye is a tosser.

    Yeah, The Big Guy used the word "tosser"; who knew he was British...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yeah, The Big Guy used the word "tosser"; who knew he was British...

    Hey now, if you're gonna be like that, I'm going to have to insist that you call me "guv'ner".

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yep, Kaitlyn, that guy was dumb or tricked, or crazy to say that. And as one can guess, the xian took full advantage of that:

    Gene Cook, Jr. said...

    SNIP ---

    I sat back with my hand folded behind my head listening to the folly of atheism. (ie a cow is more valuable than a 5 year old retarded boy)

    Just let me know when you are ready my friend.

    Gene
    "the full-truth teller"

    Yep, the old "broad brush" routine.

    I argued against that but so far it hasn't been acknowledged.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gnashing of teeth! lol!

    Sye's got an unbeatable argument and it busts your chops!

    If you use logic, you're cornered by that same logic.
    If you use morals, you're cornered by those same morals.
    Brilliant.

    He's got all of you beat and all that's left for you are ad homs, as is evident.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yeah, Dan, here's how unbeatable Sye's argument is: An Islam could use it against you and your faith and you'd be equally "stumped".

    The reason that Sye's logic is "unbeatable" (not true if you go to Stephen Law's website and look around) and just bother to look is that he just out of hand rejects any explanation that does not include god, while refusing or unable to justify that his own reasoning is itself valid.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/12/battle-of-wits.html?showComment=1228465380000#c7630174101769956877

    Reynold, the second half of your post here (with all the links to S.Law) is the most complete debunking of Sye/Canuckfish I've ever seen. As Dan might say "Debunked. Slam Debunked."

    I am now your anonymous fan,
    Signed - Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Their dishonesty is so damn obvious that I am surprised that other christians do not notice

    For the most part, Christians put their wagons in a circle when the perceived antagonist is a non-Christian. He could say or do anything to you; the other Christians would defend him. If he shot you, they'd say it was your fault for standing in front of the gun.

    All fundamentalists behave this way. There's a brouhaha going on in Israel right now - a young ultra-Orthodox man killed his infant son by shaking him and throwing him against the wall. He was just sentenced to six years. The judge showed leniency because he's young and grew up in what is basically a cult, and was unprepared for marriage and parenthood (these things are all arranged at a young age in that world). However, his community is absolutely up in arms; they're crying antisemitism and threatening to riot unless he's released.

    It's always the same with these personalities.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dani'El,

    Well, you might think Sye's shit is brilliant, but that is because you cannot see the dishonesty behind the whole thing. He gives an answer that does not work, and he just claims that he gave an answer and we just do not like it. We give an answer, and then he does not like it, and uses a deviation tactic to "debunk it."

    For a "classic" example:

    Opponent claims:
    --The rules of logic are human abstractions about what makes a good argument.

    His answer would be:
    --Riiiiiiiiiiight. So could the sun be the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans invented logic? ;)

    So, he does not like it, but he was answered. We do not like it, we have to accept his answer ... hum cheesy? (And he rejects by using a trick rather than addressing the point properly.)

    Now, take a closer look: he is exchanging an abstraction about proper arguments, changes it into some reality that the abstractions may or may not be trying to DESCRIBE, and supposes that abstractions govern the physical world and not vice versa. Is he doing this out of ignorance or stupidity? Hell no, he does this because he is dishonest. He just pretends not to understand so that the opponent looks bad (because most people will not have the intuition to see through this trick and distinctions), and so that the opponent will get angry when noticing the trick (or call him stupid, since it does look stupid, but it is just a trick).

    This is a classic, but presupp discourse is all about tricks. Changing meaning in the middle of the conversation (semantics tricks, mostly creating instant strawmen), misrepresenting people's positions, polarizing answers (no, logioc is not absolute, then your arguments are moot), but if they say: I am fallible, and you answer: then your arguments are moot, they accuse you of polarizing.

    Also, his first question is a loaded/charged question. A fallacy to begin with. And his "justification" is just as "problematic" as everybody else's. But he just claims it and expects to have special treatment. That is a fallacy called "special pleading."

    I could go on, but all I want to say is that trickery that looks like "logic" is still dishonest, and still trickery, and that, if that is the way Christianity should be defended, then I surely do not want to become a christian.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  33. He,

    I left a comment at Dan's. If Dan does not delete it, my bet is that Sye's answer (if he answers) will be:

    Of course I disagree, however, by what absolute standard of logic (or moral standard) do you call my debate strategy ...

    G.E.

    Here my comment (on something he said to Reynold):

    ---
    Sye,

    Then perhaps you would like to stop hiding behind your anonymity and debate this on Gene's show?

    You know quite well that oral "debates," like those in TV or radio shows, are won by rhetoric rather than by truth. You are a bag full of well-prepared purposely-dishonest rhetoric. Thus, it does not make sense to debate you. It does not make sense in writing, let alone in a radio show.

    You are the guy of "thank you for smocking" just justifying your imaginary friend (your god) rather than tobacco.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  34. OH, he was actually asking Rae Comfort. But he's been also trying to get others into that radio show ...

    ReplyDelete
  35. get_education said...

    "supposes that abstractions govern the physical world and not vice versa"
    But the problem is that if the abstractions don't govern reality , then someone can come up with a new set of abstractions and they would be equally valid

    (Of course this doesn't mean God is the ONLY source of logic ... or that Sye is right.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hum,

    Dan's blog does not let me post anymore. Maybe rebuked.

    This is what I wanted to answer to Dani'El:

    Dani'El,

    You may disagree with the argument but to say Sye is dishonest because you disagree is silly.

    You may agree with his dishonest arguments, but to say that he is honest because you agree is silly.

    Yep, I said it, silly.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Obsidian,

    But the problem is that if the abstractions don't govern reality , then someone can come up with a new set of abstractions and they would be equally valid

    No Obsidian. You are exemplifying what I said. It seems hard for most people to properly grasp the problem.

    If someone comes with new abstractions, they will be valid only as much as they comport with what such abstractions are trying to describe.

    So, the rules of logic have actually evolved (so much for unchanging). Philosophers proposed the sets, and then had to deal with those who purposely twist arguments (sophists, such as Sye), or tested the rules and found problems (more often as paradoxes), and thus had to correct and perfect the rules. There are paradoxes even today, and philosophers propose that paradoxes (such as the one Sye claims to have solved) might be unavoidable.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What a shit debate. Fuck Sye and everyone that looks like the goofy bastard. I, and many others spent weeks going around in circles with that goofball, each time destroying his ridiculous non sequiturs. Twit.

    ReplyDelete

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.