Sye is either truly sick, or he is a "troll for Jesus."-(get_education)
Recently I posted a link to a debate with Sye. After all the 'emotional' comments I got, I decided to search though past posts on the Raytractors blog of all the debates with Sye.I decided to collect a few choice quotes
Some like him-
"I should say, Sye, that I think you are a bright, and nice, bloke - and obviously concerned for our well-being too, which is why you are pursuing this - but are using your intelligence to create a sort of intellectual black hole from which you cannot now escape.
In this case, you seem to have constructed a kind of script...... Cults are fond of these scripts too... They have little to do with logic, and much to do with - marketing.
I guess you, Sye, think I am simply under the influence of Satan..."
-Stephen Law
"presup-pwnage"
-MrFreeThinker
"Debating, or arguing philosophy and philosophical viewpoints with......syetenb is mental masturbation."
-Benjamin Franklin(the raytractor)
"Sye's got an unbeatable argument ........He's got all of you beat and all that's left for you are ad homs..."
-Dani'El
captain howdy:How many people on this blog think that scmike is just sye tenb with a different screen name?""
Scmike:You do me too much honor. Thanks for the compliment. God Bless ;)
Some dislike him-
"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."
-Froggie
"God actually has spoken to me....., and said in no uncertain terms that Sye is a tosser."
-Whateverman
'I'm 90% sure that SCMike is a Sye sockpuppet.'
-Maragon (notice she is not completely certain):-)
'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 find his delusion and trickery interesting. I am pretty sure he would make a fantastic case for a psychoanalytical thesis.'
-Get_education
"That is the image I get when I see Sye's arguments: the braying of a donkey echoing through cyberspace for all to hear......................Oh, no offense meant to the donkeys."Get_education
"I keep hoping he'll present someone with a paper titled "How I confused a bunch of philosophers by being an arrogant pressuppositionalist dickwad," and reveals his name to be Poe.Then, at least, the world will make some sense."
-Theshaggy
"Sye reminds me of the kid who comes to a park with a soccer ball and says lets play. Then when he starts loosing he takes the ball and says, “ this is my ball, you guys can’t play with it anymore”, and before he leaves the field he kicks a couple goals with everyone standing dumb founded and proclaims he’s the winner. Of course everyone knows he lost, but in his mind he’s the victor.................
Sye, along with Ray, are insecure Christians. You’ll never win with them, they are the toughest, they have the most money, and they’re penises are bigger then ours. Of course they’ll never prove this, but just you trust they’re word."
-Andrew Louis
"My favourite thing about the Sye debates was when he realized I wasn't swallowing his bullshit and that a 23 year old girl was making his look foolish. He then changed his tactic to calling me ugly and disappeared shortly after from our blog."
-Maragon
"Maragon, I think you're much cuter, and orders of magnitude smarter than Sys.
This from a broad who's had a thing for bald guys since I was about half your age."
-Weemaryanne
What do you think of Sye?
Cheers :-)
Obsidian
Posts
Thanks, Weemaryanne.
ReplyDeleteThose are pretty funny!
Mrs Froggie's cousin is a minister and I see him at least once a year at her (I have some good stories about some of our conversations) family reunion. This year a bunch of us were taking turns hitting some golf balls across the lake and the evening before I had watching Sye go through his gyrations and kinda had it on my mind.
So, I nonchalantly asked Mark if he preached that "Presuppositionalist stuff" in his church.
The look on his face resembled that of a constipated weener dog until it changed to that of great amusement. He told me, if I were to start preaching that "crap" they would throw me out through the stained glass windows."
He ended up knowing less about the subject than I did but he said that all he had ever learned about it was that it was a "gimmick" and not considered sound theology.
LOL Froggie!
ReplyDeleteSye is an attention whoring egomaniac.
I should get presup-pwnage (TM) patented
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure how you took my statement to infer that I like sye.
ReplyDeleteI don't know him well enough to either like him, or dislike him.
I do, however think that the presuppositionalist argument is nonsense, and turns to mush when it is inferred that the creator is nexxicarily the Christian god of the bible.
He does seem to me to be quite an arrogant blowhard, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go ice fishin with him, eh?
I can't recall who did the photo shop, but I think this picture of Sye says it all. All hail the Great Gazoo.
ReplyDeleteMFT,
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, you should get right on that.
I've just been reading another presup thread.
ReplyDeleteThe thread is one big loop:
-Presup makes a claim and a challenge.
-If you answer the challenge and defeat the claim, Presup ignores this.
-Then Presup make same claim and same challenge.
-Repeat until someone gives up and stops writing.
I've noticed that the Presup will try as long as they can not to make a claim. They'll just challenge sentence by sentence.
Now if you look at what Sye does it usually structured like this:
Challenge, challenge, challenge.
Rarely will he make a claim.
He never makes a formal argument. I've seen him string together claims in an attempt to make something looking like a formal argument but the premises don't hold. Like the saying says "...it does not follow".
Anyway, it's difficult to argue against something that is devoid of content.
I should also mention I've only been interested in learning about religion for less than a week and I started reading presup stuff a few days ago.
ReplyDeleteSye's posts are often mind numbingly inane. The kind of inane that makes me wonder if he actually reads what he types. I have a suspicion that he cuts and pastes certain phrases.
@Emily
ReplyDeleteDo you now much about philosophy?
They're probaly inane because you don't understand some of the concepts behind it. It will probaly make more sense if you read on theory of knowlege and how beliefs are justified and systematic vs. absolute truths and you'll probaly get what he's saying.
Nicely done, Wee! That must have taken a lot of work...
ReplyDeleteRae/Emily wrote Challenge, challenge, challenge.
Rarely will he make a claim.
Yup, that's our SyeTenB.
This morning, it occurred to me that he probably learned to debate while in kindergarten. All of us can relate to meeting a child who asks "Why?" to every answer he gets.
Sye has no points to make. But even so, I will concede that it's an excellently crafted argument, in terms of debate strategy...
"@Emily
ReplyDeleteDo you now much about philosophy?
They're probaly (sic) inane because you don't understand some of the concepts behind it. It will probaly (sic) make more sense if you read on theory of knowlege (sic) and how beliefs are justified and systematic vs. absolute truths and you'll probaly (sic) get what he's saying."
Sye hasn't brought up absolute/systematic with me but he has asked why the definition of a word defines that word. I don't need to know who Van Tillian is to know that's inane.
~Em
"I will concede that it's an excellently crafted argument, in terms of debate strategy..."
ReplyDeleteBut not if you want to convince anyone... :-)
Offtopic, I have to say that religion and presupp got old fast. Short of brainwashing or a blow to the head, I can not understand how anyone can fall for these two concepts.
Rae Confort wrote But not if you want to convince anyone... :-)
ReplyDeleteOfftopic, I have to say that religion and presupp got old fast. Short of brainwashing or a blow to the head, I can not understand how anyone can fall for these two concepts.
People are often "convinced" by argumentative points that they're unable to refute.
Although it's a stretch, consider that making a point that can't be shown to be false can often have a critical impact in legal cases. Trying to understand science, the layperson listens to or reads something which seems to make sense, primarily because they don't know enough about the subject to be able to detect truth from falsehood.
IOW, we encounter things we can't explain. And if we're thinking (and possibly ignorant) people, it *does* have a tendency to make us stop and give that unexplainable thing some weight.
--
Of course, while presenting apparently unexplainable notions, presupp ALSO keeps you on the defensive and running in cicles. Arguments like that should be treated with extreme skepticism; nothing that can be labelled as containing "truth" has any business treating the listener as an enemy.
---
This was difficult to write/express. I hope it made sense ...
[I don't need to know who Van Tillian is to know that's inane.]
ReplyDeleteJust think about it:-)
I guess presups put atheists on the defensive and they don't like it. Usually atheists try to put the theists on the defensive in debate. Sye only has to present his view (which is unassailable) and then attack yours. It's always easier to sit back and snipe and attack someone.
ReplyDeleteMFT wrote I guess presups put atheists on the defensive Not just atheists, but non-Christians too. Heck, it would even work on Christians who don't buy into the specific kind of God Presupp assumes.
ReplyDeleteMFT also wrote and they don't like it. Usually atheists try to put the theists on the defensive in debate.
I would LOVE it if someone put me on the defensive, and did so because they were making points. Absolutely LOVE IT. I want to learn, to understand things I previously didn't understand.
Presupp teaches nothing, and so its method of keeping the debater on the defensive is its only shtick.
And to be clear, only those theists with worldviews that already contain issues find themselves on the defensive. Don't believe me? I can defend a Christianity in such a way that keeps me logical, in search of answers, and able to converse constructively with atheists.
Ready?
I think the God of the Bible exists. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that this place was designed by someone/something intelligent, and right now, the Bible may help me to better understand what that God wants. I don't necessarily think that book is a literal description of what happened - but I think it contains some wisdom worth spending my time on.
---
Put me on the defensive, MFT. I triple-dog dare ya...
Whateverman,
ReplyDeleteEven if a thing or concept was not explained yet, I don't see the leap to assuming God.
But the thing is Sye has had all his claims and challenges defeated and answered by Stephen Law.
Obsidian wrote Even if a thing or concept was not explained yet, I don't see the leap to assuming God.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, neither do I. But some people see the presence of the unexplainable as Significant (note the capital S).
Skepticism and critical thinking can teach us to avoid that trap, of course...
MrFreeThinker said...
ReplyDelete"I guess presups put atheists on the defensive and they don't like it. Usually atheists try to put the theists on the defensive in debate. Sye only has to present his view (which is unassailable) and then attack yours. It's always easier to sit back and snipe and attack someone."
Just asking "Why" to every statement is a little kid's way of putting people on the defensive.
He has asked me why definitions define.
If he can't accept that definitions define then he's not even speaking my language.
And his view is not unassailable. He have to assume his god exists first.
I never even heard of atheists until recently; but if religions are going to make claims, shouldn't they be questioned?
I'm going to give up on this religion stuff after this weekend. Are there any religious people who aren't crazy?
ReplyDeleteThis Sye guy is a sleazy looking old man. If he asks for my phone number I'll call the police.
I don't mind debating him on radio but my mum or dad must be listening.
Sorry if I sound exasperated,
~Em
Rae/Emily wrote I'm going to give up on this religion stuff after this weekend. Are there any religious people who aren't crazy?
ReplyDeleteI'm not an atheist, but I'm not religious either. I think the answer is "yes" - but this group is very diverse. I'm sure you'll find people who'll disagree with me :)
The whole reason I even looked at religion was because my dad mails me random paper from my home country. Old catalogs, scrap paper, That kind of thing. I got a Ray Comfort flyer. I thought it was the stupidest thing I'd ever read so I went to the internet to mock him for LULZ.
ReplyDeleteSye drags me into a thread by being childish.
Honestly, when Sye posts "Why, Why, Why?" now I hear "Wah Wah Wah!" like a baby crying.
Even his picture looks like a fat oily baby.
I only started posting for LULZ, if it's not fun why do it?
I only started posting seriously because he seemed so mixed up.
Invisible Fathers that are their own sons, ghosts, monsters, zombies? How can anyone believe such nonsense?
And don't call me Emily, call me "Em".
You got it, Em.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right: if you don't enjoy it, don't do it.
Emily says....
ReplyDelete"He has asked me why definitions define.
If he can't accept that definitions define then he's not even speaking my language."
Sye accepts that definitions define things. Sye is ASKING YOU why they do.
If you are going to present Steve Law's argument you should know the ins-and-outs of it.
"I never even heard of atheists until recently; but if religions are going to make claims, shouldn't they be questioned?"
I guess I agree. But let me ask you.
If atheists make claims about logic, certainty, truth and morality , shouldn't these claims be questioned too? Isn't that what Sye is doing?
"Are there any religious people who aren't crazy?"
I would say yes. Sye Van Tillian approach isn't the only approach to philosophy of religion. If you want something with a more classical approach I would recommend William Lane Craig's Lectures.
MFT wrote If atheists make claims about logic, certainty, truth and morality , shouldn't these claims be questioned too? Isn't that what Sye is doing?
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not - he's dismissing logic, certainty, truth and morality when it doesn't stem from his worldview.
That's mental masturbation
Em
ReplyDelete[Invisible Fathers that are their own sons, ghosts, monsters, zombies? How can anyone believe such nonsense?
And don't call me Emily, call me .]
Well I'm a Christian and don't believe in any of those things (let's leave the straw men for another day).
But out of curiosity, why do you think believe in Christianity?
" Em
ReplyDelete[Invisible Fathers that are their own sons, ghosts, monsters, zombies? How can anyone believe such nonsense?
And don't call me Emily, call me .]
Well I'm a Christian and don't believe in any of those things (let's leave the straw men for another day).
But out of curiosity, why do you think believe in Christianity? "
I don't think it's a strawman, really, unless there's a bit in the Bible that says "Hey, don't take this stuff literally!"
I've read the Gospels, a bit of the start and a bit of the end of the Bile.
Ray said to read the Gospels. I did. There are zombies and ghosts in them.
"But out of curiosity, why do you think believe in Christianity? "
Did you mean, why do other people believe? Because I have no idea, it all seems so incredibly stupid. I'd say fear of the unknown or growing up in a religious culture.
Whateverman:
ReplyDelete"No, it's not - he's (Sye) dismissing logic, certainty, truth and morality when it doesn't stem from his worldview."
Exactly.
"...start and a bit of the end of the Bile."
ReplyDeleteThat should read "Bible" not "Bile"
Em, I think MFT was asking why you think HE believes in Christianity.
ReplyDeleteMFT, none of the things listed were straw men. If the Bible is taken as literally true (which a subset of Christians certainly do),
* God is an invisible father that is his own son
* Jesus was a zombie (though perhaps one with more refined tastes; I don't remember scripture that quotes him as craving braaainsss)
* Ghosts and monsters - well, I'm not up on my scripture, but this seems plausible from the understanding I do have
The characterizations may well have been slightly disrespectful, but that's it.
Jesus's dad has a ghost that he seems to control. Someone talked to another ghost.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't thinking Jesus was a zombie, I was thinking of the zombies that wandered around in the story after Jesus was killed.
The end section of the Bible is where all the monsters are. They have some sort of space-battle. (That has metaphor written all over it)
Ray's flyer seems to think if I read this stuff, I'll be magically convinced. Well I wasn't.
And why do I think Mrfreethinker is a Christian? I guessing culture. He could be an American, I don't mean to be racist, but on TV Americans seem to love religion.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteSo the fact that Law proved that Sye's argument is stupidity itself doesn't phase you in the slightest?
How do you actually answer Law by the way?
Here it is again in case you've forgotten.
I argue that Free has a head injury & cannot think logically.
Prove that you can think logically Free.
Now you may respond by presenting me with a logical argument but I respond "you are begging the question. You are assuming that you don't have a head injury & therefore your logic is valid."
Now this line of argument is Bullshit. But that is exactly Sye's argument. Therefore Sye's argument is Bullshit!
I lost all respect for Sye when he declared that unless someone was a christian he didn't have to respond logically to them at all.
In other words he could lie 7 cal it truth. And you respect this guy Free?
Hi Em! I'm Jill, I lurk around these blogs.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your posts with Sye on Dan's blog.
You're obviously clever. But don't make the mistake of thinking these people actually listen to what people say to them.
I love your conditions for debating Sye. A monetary donation to a "Skeptic or atheist foundation"! Classic!
But seriously don't do it. They are using you. Three men debating one 14 year girl on a radio show they control? It's seriously tilted unfairly. They will dismiss you and your ideas before you even open your mouth.
I'm going to give you some advice. For the sake of your sanity. For the sake of your own brain. Shut the web-browser. Turn off the computer and go and live in the real world.
Have fun in Japan, it's a place many people would love to visit!
Offtopic, I have to say that religion and presupp got old fast. Short of brainwashing or a blow to the head, I can not understand how anyone can fall for these two concepts.
ReplyDelete1. Indoctrination from childhood
2. IQ below 110 (or worse)
3. Fear of the unknown
4. Fear of death
5. Indoctrination at an impressionable age (such as a teen looking for meaning).
6. Lack of training in proper thinking
7. You name it.
[I don't think it's a strawman, really, unless there's a bit in the Bible that says "Hey, don't take this stuff literally!" ]
ReplyDeleteDepends which part. Books like the Psalms are more poetic and less literal. Revelation is visions and isn't literal. Most stuff is though.
[I've read the Gospels, a bit of the start and a bit of the end of the Bible.
Ray said to read the Gospels. I did. There are zombies and ghosts in them.]
They are people who were physically raised from the dead ,not zombies(zombies are from vodoo). And i don't know about ghosts.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteI hope you finally read what I tell you.
Presuppositionalism is all fallacies, dishonest rhetoric, pure bullshit.
Look at the posts by Andrew Louis at "debunkingatheist." This one for instance.
So, Sye can make circles just because he wants to, yet he rejects anything else because it is circular? This is the very definition of the fallacy of special pleading.
Systems lead to paradoxes when dealing with themselves. And that is unavoidable. Thus, using logic to describe logic is valid because it is inescapable.
And logic IS a human construct.
Now tell me that then the sun could be the sun and not the sun before humans invented logic and I will be happy to insult you for insulting your own intelligence.
Em,
Thanks for showing up. You are the prime example that a person who has never heard of religion easily sees the problems with lots of non-sequiturs and such shit that people growing up with a concept of god in mind cannot note.
G.E.
By "Systems" I meant informal logic, mathematical, you know ... abstract thingies that help us make sense of the world.
ReplyDeleteEm,
ReplyDeleteOf course Sye does not make sense. MFT thought you were saying you do not understand, when it is clear you do understand. But you have to also know that the purpose of Sye is just to get you to try and explain the most elementary things. These things are hard to explain because we are not used to do that, and it is easy to get in trouble when trying to explain them. He wants that! Then, whenever you want to make your explanation better or clearer he will claim that you contrdict yourself, or he will use any part of what you say, change the semantics, and attach you with an instant strawman. The whole point is to make you talk, irritate you, and when you leave, claim victory.
There is no point in talking to the guy. Do not waste too much time. If you answer to him be very strategic. he is not asking any innocent questions. All are loaded (yep another fallacy). (I think all are the same.)
G.E.
[Jesus's dad has a ghost that he seems to control. Someone talked to another ghost.]
ReplyDeleteOh the holy spiit... My bad.
[I wasn't thinking Jesus was a zombie, I was thinking of the zombies that wandered around in the story after Jesus was killed.]
They were physically raised. Zombies come from voodoo
[The end section of the Bible is where all the monsters are. They have some sort of space-battle. (That has metaphor written all over it)]
That would be Revelation. It's a metaphor.
[Ray's flyer seems to think if I read this stuff, I'll be magically convinced. Well I wasn't.]
Why do you disbelieve Ray's claims?
And the trinity says that God is 3 in personhood but 1 in essence.Nobody is "his own son".Each of the 3 persons are different.
So Em , why don't you believe the gospel? Is it just your culture:-)
[Thus, using logic to describe logic is valid because it is inescapable.]
ReplyDeleteBut Sye says he can escape it because God revealed logic to him so he could be certain.
[Systems lead to paradoxes when dealing with themselves.]
ReplyDeleteBut the big problem I ave with systematic truth is that it only holds true for that system alone.
Anyone could posit another system saying their argument is necessarily true and it would be just as valid as the other system.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteBut Sye says he can escape it because God revealed logic to him so he could be certain.
I understand what Sye claims. But he can escape nothing. Look closely and he is using circular logic. Yet Sye claims that coming to the ultimate authority there has to be a necessary circularity (special pleading--another fallacy). Well, the ultimate authority within logic is logic itself. As with any sets of abstractions, paradoxes occur, and we knew that already, and we knew that it is a necessary exception, as it is with most if not all abstraction systems.
But the big problem I ave with systematic truth is that it only holds true for that system alone.
Well, exactly, the systems are supposed to help you find truth for whatever they (the systems--abstractions) were put together for. Logic (informal logic) is supposed to help you build proper arguments for well formed thoughts and develop properly formed conclusions, or to find the problems in your ideas where you might not see them at first glance. If you try them on something they are not for, they will not work. If they do not work within the problems they were supposed to, then you revise the system and perfect the rule, or add a rule about exceptions (preferably describing the kinds of problems where the system failed), or Et cetera.
Anyone could posit another system saying their argument is necessarily true and it would be just as valid as the other system.
Not really. Anyone can posit another system with its particular rules and try and make it self consistent, and things within the system could get to be valid, but then the system is useful only within itself. It would be "valid" but useless other than to test our ability for abstractions.
Thanks for listening this time MFT.
G.E.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "But Sye says he can escape it because God revealed logic to him so he could be certain."
Three questions arise from this.
1) Prove that God revealed anything to Sye.
2) Since God is revealing things to sye personally and he passes it on to the rest of us does that mean that to disagree with him is to disagree with God?
If that is the case doesn't that indicate an attribute more in keeping with megalomania? If it doesn't then how can you explain this logically?
3) Peter Sutcliff [who killed several women] also claimed to have personal revelations from God. What makes sye's revelations any different existentially to those of Sutcliff?
@Em
ReplyDeleteWhat belief system/worldview do you hold to?
Do you believe in objective moral truths?
By objective I mean independent of whatever the individual or society thinks may be right or wrong.
For example I would say "molesting little children for fun is wrong" is an objective truth regardless of whether the molester thinks it is right or how many people support it.
[1) Prove that God revealed anything to Sye.]
ReplyDeleteI don't want to defend Sye to much but Sye says its because of the impossibility of the contrary
[2) Since God is revealing things to sye personally and he passes it on to the rest of us does that mean that to disagree with him is to disagree with God?]
I guess. If you disagree with logic you disagree with God
[3) Peter Sutcliff [who killed several women] also claimed to have personal revelations from God. What makes sye's revelations any different existentially to those of Sutcliff?]
Well Syes are proven because of the impossibility of the contrary.
[Not really. Anyone can posit another system with its particular rules and try and make it self consistent, and things within the system could get to be valid, but then the system is useful only within itself.]
ReplyDeleteBut If you say logic is arbitrary system then logical truth would only hold within that system. Sye could easily posit nother system with one of the axioms being "everything G_E says is wrong" and automaically win the debate.
I don't like systematic truth.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteNOTE: I am engaging with you because I perceive you to be trying to be honest and open. Not to convince you that there is no god, but sure to show you, to try and evidence to you that presupp is rhetoric (hopefuly this is possible). You start a rant of shit it is ended. Deal?
But If you say logic is arbitrary system then logical truth would only hold within that system.
Nope, I did not say logic is an arbitrary system. I said that you can create arbitrary logics, but that does not mean that they are useful for anything practical other than prove our capacity for abstraction. "Logic" as we are using it here, is not arbitrary, it is an attempt at making proper thinking accessible and learnable. As such, it is contingent on how useful it is for its intended purpose.
Sye could easily posit nother system with one of the axioms being "everything G_E says is wrong" and automaically win the debate.
This is exactly what Sye is doing. Just disguised inside several layers of rhetoric.
I don't like systematic truth.
I understand. It would be easier than us being responsible of our own actions, our future and our rules (I am not saying this is your motivation).
You said to someone else:
Well Syes are proven because of the impossibility of the contrary.
For this to be true, Sye would have to dismantle each and every other possibility. Since his knowledge is as limited by experience as everybody's it is impossible for him to show so. He would have to have the complete knowledge of the universe, which he claims to have, but truly that is bullshit, and you know it. It is rhetoric MFT. Dishonest rhetoric.
Would you read a few examples if I give them to you and examine them with a critical honest mind? Just remember this is presupp we are talking about, not the existence of your god.
G.E.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteLet's examine each of those shall we?
My question: "Prove that God revealed anything to Sye."
Your answer: I don't want to defend Sye to much but Sye says its because of the impossibility of the contrary."
My response: So it's impossible for God to do anything EXCEPT reveal things to sye? So Sye can make demands on God now? Do you not see how outrageous that statement is?
My next question: "Since God is revealing things to sye personally and he passes it on to the rest of us does that mean that to disagree with him is to disagree with God?"
Your answer: I guess. If you disagree with logic you disagree with God."
My response: I didn't say disagree with logic I asked about disagreeing with sye. Sye does not use logic. He admited this when he debated Law. So what are we left with? Simply this...to disagree with Sye is to disagree with God. Beginning to see a pattern here Free?
My next question: "Peter Sutcliff [who killed several women] also claimed to have personal revelations from God. What makes sye's revelations any different existentially to those of Sutcliff?"
Your answer: Well Syes are proven because of the impossibility of the contrary."
My response: So your basically saying Sye can't get it wrong? So Sye's infallible now? If he isn't then the contrary is possible and his claims [and that's all they are] remain unproven.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou also wrote "For example I would say "molesting little children for fun is wrong" is an objective truth regardless of whether the molester thinks it is right or how many people support it."
Please provide your rational argument to support such a contention.
Do NOT use an interpretation of the bible or some authority figure declaring such an action is wrong.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I think I did not answer this correctly:
But Sye says he can escape it because God revealed logic to him so he could be certain.
I know what Sye said. And what he said is that god reveals logic to us in a way that we can be certain.
The funny and contradictory thing about it is that then everybody should have the same conclusions, all christians at the very least should be doing fine in logic. Yet, they don't. If they do not, then there is no such thing as logic by revelation. Look what he said here:
Still though,people are not converted in a vacuum. Conversion does not make bad arguments good, it opens the eyes to good arguments. Too many Christians give bad arguments, and new Christians adopt them.
So, Christians do make bad arguments despite revelation? But god reveals things to us in a way that we can be certain? Could then Sye be making bad arguments and not know? If not, what makes him different to other Christians who continue to make bad arguments? How does HE know he is not making such bad arguments?
Now also note that Sye would call moot our arguments if we declare the slightest problem (the polarization that he loves to do onto atheists). Would you then agree that, since Christians can make bad arguments Sye's arguments amount to moot?
Well, I am certain that Sye's stuff is bullshit. Does it mean that god gave me such certainty? What for if it is against Sye's bag of crap?
Then go no further. If we do find a problem with the Bible his answer is:
I do not take my exegesis from those who deny the Bible's authority.
So, logic comes from God, but you shall not judge the Bible with logic, but rather with excuses (called exegesis)? Riiiiiight!!
Now, if his revelation is not magical (which would be more consistent with Christians being able to make bad arguments), then it is something else. He claims it is the Bible, right? OK, then, examining the Bible we find problems here, there, and everywhere (again he would counter with the "not take my exegesis from" blurb). But if this is the revelation, then why do we need to lie to ourselves in order to find such inerrant word of god even inerrant? If it is the inerrant word of god should it not be self evident in its perfection and in how it leads to clear-cut logic and such?
So, as you can see MFT, bullshit.
G.E.
Em,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is one of intelligence, of the capacity to see the trickery. Most people have an intelligence below the minimum necessary to note the tricks. Sye's rhetoric is so well constructed and convoluted that trying just to disentangle the web gets into a titanic task. You would not have the time in a live show. They will take any little mistake you make to mock you and put you into the defensive (since it will be your first time trying to explain such basic things and distinctions that you can easily see, yet most people do not see at all).
That's all there is to it. Sye knows that. He counts on that. He also counts on the tendency of debating atheists to be honest. Since he does not have that problem (honesty), he can claim and do whatever he pleases, and you will just be there wondering what on Earth is happening. Presupp techniques are there just to confuse, irritate, and make you look bad by appealing to emotions or to polarized misunderstandings (like using examples of atrocities to ask about moral absolutes, and get you to say something that people will hate rather than reason).
Just look at how these guys will misrepresent what I am telling you here.
No point Em. And nothing happens if you walk away and say no now. There is no honor in going to a "debate" that will not be a debate, but a shower in dishonest, but very well-prepared, rhetoric.
Only an atheists that can be as dishonest and cynical as Sye would be fit for such kind of a "debate."
G.E.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteThere may be one way to tackle Sye in a debate.
I would suggest handling him the way Michael Shermer did the creationists he's debated.
1) Learn the tricks. With Sye this won't be hard since his responses seem to be fairly predictable.
2) Don't debate with him. Rather address the people, predict what Sye is going to do & explain why he's going to do it.
3) Give some illustrations from his responses on the net. For example when Sye told Law that he [sye] was not bound by the rules of logic when debating atheists. Or when he's claimed to have a direct revelation from God tell him that he [sye] is right.
Shermer calls it a metadebate tactic.
"If it is the inerrant word of god should it not be self evident "
ReplyDeleteTruth isn't always self-evident.
You should know (Don't you teach science?)
Anyway G_E I don't think Sye is dishonest or seeks to win anyone on rhetoric.(the fact that he often exchanges private e-mails with atheists who see his site shows this.) He also does it a lot at other blogs.I think he genuinely must be concerned.
But don't you think Sye's points about absolutes is valid?
Sorry that last post should have been directed to G.E
ReplyDelete[red faced embaressment]
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Truth isn't always self-evident."
Quite true. But remember the bible is supposed to be a revelation from God. Not only should it be inerrent but it should be self-evidently so, so that we fallible human beings can see at a glance that this is the case and follow it.
But wait. There is something inherently illogical about inerrency. Humans are fallible by their very natures. That being so for them to produce something that was inerrent means that God overrode their free will.
But God's respect for our free will is supposed to be the reason that God refrains from stopping evil. i.e. that God respects our free will too much to impose His own and make us robots.
So God could impose His own will in the case of the bible's writting but not to prevent evil.
That is an example of special pleading Free as I'm sure you'll agree.
Conclusion: An inerrent bible is illogical. Sorry.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou also wrote "Anyway G_E I don't think Sye is dishonest or seeks to win anyone on rhetoric."
two points.
1) presupp is ALL rhetoric.
2) I have shown that Sye believes he can command God, is infallible, and that to disagree with him is the same thing as disagreeing with God.
Does this soundlike megalomania to you? 'Cause it sure does to me.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteAnyway G_E I don't think Sye is dishonest or seeks to win anyone on rhetoric.
Then why does he insist on going live in a format that can only be "won" by rhetoric? Why are all of is questions rhetorical?
(the fact that he often exchanges private e-mails with atheists who see his site shows this.)
Not really. Maybe he then enjoys the sense of accomplishment that comes from his bag of tricks?
He also does it a lot at other blogs.I think he genuinely must be concerned.
Not possible. It is too obviously dishonest not to be on purpose.
But don't you think Sye's points about absolutes is valid?
Nope.
G.E.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteTruth isn't always self-evident.
You should know (Don't you teach science?)
Do you see what you are doing? I do and teach science. But what can be vulgar science compared to the inerrant word of God? Do you really not see the problem? Do you really think that the inerrant word of God would have to be interpreted for you by fallible humans rather than be self-evident? Is the God you imagine such a small thing that you need all such trickery (called exegesis) to understand his word?
G.E.
Chis,
ReplyDeleteShermer calls it a metadebate tactic.
Interesting. So there might be a way other than being as cynical and dishonest as Sye.
G.E.
MFT wrote "Well Syes are proven because of the impossibility of the contrary."
ReplyDeleteGe answered For this to be true, Sye would have to dismantle each and every other possibility. Since his knowledge is as limited by experience as everybody's it is impossible for him to show so.
Sye has already demonstrated the limits of his knowledge by ignoring that quantum mechanics disproves the "absoluteness" of the impossibility of the contradictory.
The old cathode ray tube television sets were actually based on the idea that the particles (photons in this case) could not be located by classical physics. The Feynman gedanken experiment (electron fired at two lits) has actually been verified; the electron both goes through the slit and does not go though that slit.
Sye's not interested in truth, in any way. His presupposition is that his worldview is superior to all others, and is above questioning.
Of course, as has been pointed out here several times, he can not account for the absolutes that he claims to have knowledge of.
MFT wrote and quoted "If it is the inerrant word of god should it not be self evident "
ReplyDeleteTruth isn't always self-evident.
This contradicts Sye's claims that an omnipotent being could communicate things to us in a way that we can absolutely be certain of their truth.
Hey Whateverman!
ReplyDeleteYep, but did you see his answer to the particle being both through and not through? You actually devastated his absolute "law" of logic, but his answer was that then you your logic amounts to moot (or something to the effect). In other words, you show him that god has been lying to him about this "law," and he takes that as a defeat of YOUR position. The rhetoric and dishonesty are beyond belief!
Do you really not see this MFT?
G.E.
The rhetoric and dishonesty are beyond belief
ReplyDeleteAt first I was going to reply (cynically) that it's quite believable. But the more I think about this, the more I'm amazed that he still tries to maintain his position.
In effect, Sye's worldview has nothing to do with God or Christianity or the Bible or the truth. It is, in a nutshell:
"You are wrong and you have no power to show otherwise"
He's living breathing proof that people will spout the worst kind of nonsense in God's name. Conscientious Christians who are watching this thread should take note, and distance themselves from it.
Well, actually Gorth Satana was trying to show by demonstration that the trick is dishonest and that you can use that kind of rhetoric to defend any position, even that he is God himself. I wanted to play, but when one of you started, he did not "get it" that here there was his chance. Showing that you can hold anything by this rhetoric might help the Christians see that it is just a trick!
ReplyDeleteG.E.
For instance, he could easily say that the earth if a flat disc and nobody would be able to deny it because it is written in the bible, and to deny it wold necessarily "presuppose" (according to his twisted rhetoric) that the Bible is not the word of God. Try this MFT! (The only reason he does not do this is because he knows most Christians have accepted that the Earth is a sphere, and then his trick would be obvious).
ReplyDeleteG.E.
Sye has pushed me over the edge today. He and Obsidian were talking to Rae/Emily, a 14 year old girl who became uncomfortable when they asked her to imagine being molested. She said she was uncomfortable and wasn't going to reply to them. Then Sye called her evasive and added a smiley emoticon.
ReplyDeleteThis behavior disgusts me. And I want everyone to know it, so I'm posting this everywhere.
Here's part of the conversation:
Obsidian said: "...if there was this old creepy guy who tried to molest you...
molesting children for fun..
If the child molester from...
make child molesting for fun..." etc..
Rae Comfont said: "Obsidian, your obsession with child molesting as an example makes me uncomfortable and I'm no longer going to reply."
Sye said: "Oh, that's a new twist to the evasion. Josh would be proud! :-) "
Well, this molesting children is an obvious attempt at discrediting the person rather than proving anything But here y answer:
ReplyDeleteLet us rather use a slightly different example: Killing Children for fun is absolutely morally wrong?(changed the molesting to killing, otherwise we cannot make a good example without feeling uncomfortable).
Killing Children for fun is morally and ethically wrong, even human-sanity wrong. It is contingent on morals, ethics, or human-sanity. Thus, it is not absolute. If an insane person or a bear is killing Children for fun it is morally and ethically neutral. You would remove an insane individual who kills children for fun from society. But his/her actions are morally/ethically neutral. There goes your absolute. (Perhaps Andrew Louis would say that this is systemically wrong. But leaving it without explanation does not help fence sitters.)
Also, trying to justify their absolutes as coming from God is self-refuting. If it depends on God, then it is not absolute. Things would be wrong only if God says so. So, if we were as dishonest as them, we could just say: So, in other words you would not be able to determine if killing Children for fun is wrong unless you consulted God.
G.E.
PS Our for a week at least, have a marvelous time guys!
Obsidian. Yep, you pushed it over the edge.
ReplyDeleteG.E.
In case you guys missed it, "absolutely morally wrong" is an oxymoron. When you say "morally" you are immediately saying that it is dependent on morals, thus contradicting your first adverb (absolutely)
ReplyDeleteNow I am out.
[Well, this molesting children is an obvious attempt at discrediting the person rather than proving anything ]
ReplyDeleteIt's just to illustrate how people are unwilling to admit what their moral beliefs lead to.
[if an insane person or a bear is killing Children for fun it is morally and ethically neutral.]
Why? You don't give any justification.
[You would remove an insane individual who kills children for fun from society.]
Why? You said he wasn't doing anything wrong. why punish him?
(Now of course I believe that when a person kills someone for "fun" it is absolutely wrong
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Free
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised at you. The answers to your questions are obvious.
Obsidian wrote "if an insane person or a bear is killing Children for fun it is morally and ethically neutral."
And you replied "Why? You don't give any justification."
My response "An act need not be either good or evil, it is the intent behind it that brings it into the moral realm. Neither a bear nor a madman has the capacity to form intent. Since neither can form intent and since intent is the only moral dimension to an act it follows that in neither case is the killing immoral. Obsidian is correct."
Obsidian next wrote "You would remove an insane individual who kills children for fun from society."
And you responded "Why? You said he wasn't doing anything wrong.
why punish him?"
My response: Incorrect again Free. If someone has an infectious deadly disease you do not allow him/her to roam the streets infecting everyone, you quarantine the infectious person.
Now this is NOT punishment! How could it be? They have done nothing wrong. But they are a danger to society & therefore steps must be regretfully taken to protect society.
The same is true of a rabid bear or an insane human. They are not responsible for the destruction they cause but society must be protected - in the bear's case by [hopefully] humane destruction, in the human's case by incarceration in a mental asylum. Neither reaction is a punishment since neither being was performing an evil act.
@Chris
ReplyDeleteI assumed the intent was the "for fun" part.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteIncorrect! It would merely be the insanity playing itself out. Someone who is murderously isane has no choice in what they do. They MUST do as their insanity dictates.
This being so it follows that a merderously insane person cannot form intent. Why? Because they cannot choose otherwise. It is their insanity that makes the choices.
Here is an illustration. During the second world war there werte several US army personal stationed in Australia. One of them became a serial killer.
ReplyDeleteThe man was caught and,asked why he had killed all these women. His response? He answered "I liked their voices. They had such pretty voices & I decided to take them [the voices]."
Can this honestly be said to be intent? No! It was just insanity, nothing more.
Gorth Satana wore This behavior disgusts me. And I want everyone to know it, so I'm posting this everywhere.
ReplyDeleteSye believes lying for God is consistent with his worldview. That's what really makes his behavior repugnant
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete