Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Atheist Debates - Debate review: Sye Ten Bruggencate, Part 4, Final thoughts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2014
- In May of 2014, I debated Sye Ten Bruggencate on the topic: "Is it reasonable to believe that a god exists?"
The entire debate can be viewed here: • The Refining Reason De...
This video is part of a series that provides additional commentary, corrections and clarifications of the topic discussed. Over the course of this series, we'll look at mistakes that were made by all parties in the hope that others can avoid those mistakes.
The review will cover the actual arguments, debate tactics and more.
If you enjoy this series, which will continue to be released freely to the public, you can become a sponsoring patron by visiting patreon.com/AtheistDebates.
This is Part 4 which concludes the cross-examination...and is the final video in this debate series.
Matt, you have my utmost respect for remaining mature in the face of overwhelming frustration. How you refrained from slapping him with a laptop, I'll never know.
I find that debating in front of a crowd is actually the least frustrating when comes to ignorant people. As you can point out the ignorance and intern they look ridiculous for humiliating themselves.
In one on one situations however ignorance is just unbearable.
Dylan Ost it's always the same to me. but at least when there's people watching you can hope against hope that at least one dogmatist will reconsider his beliefs
DarwinThug Sorry but I don't understand
crowd or no crowd, it's just as disappointing to see religious dogmatists deflect, avoid, and repeat mindlessly.
I would have paid real money to see Matt just pick up that laptop and whack Sye across the head.
Yes, I know that wouldn't be productive but that guy so deserves it.
Matt's dissection of this debate was more interesting and informative than the debate itself.
that's why he makes these videos. It's impossible to address everything in the debate at the time.
Arguing with Sye, especially when they are talking about "Special pleading", is exactly like arguing with a 4 year old. Good on you Matt for keeping so calm.
I truly believe a 4 year old is light years ahead of sye
I have a totally separate question. I’m all for not misgendering, but why would you say “they are” when you’re talking about Sye? That’s just incorrect English.
@@Mmmmilo It's not. Plus trying to make sense of the dumpster fire that english is seems a fools errand anyway
The "debate" was difficult to watch because of Sye's obvious tactic... this follow-up series made it more paletable to relive it. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this together.
I love that you indirectly called Sye stupid at the end. All of us thought it.
You debating Sye and then taking the time and I guess tremendous willpower to analyze the debate and publish this for free here on youtube is a great service to humanity and want to honestly thank you for all your effort.
R'amen to that!
My favorite part about this debate is how Sye has basically been embarrassed into ignored irrelevance ever since.
I wonder if Sye is responsible for more deconversions than Matt Dillahunty.
Doubt that. Sye's arguments aren't used in the mainstream at all.
ShouVertica
I'm sure that is the case. I'm sort of being sarcastic because Sye's reasoning is so poor that it may be more successful as a sort of deconversion tool since holding Sye's position is so untenable and I mean really, really, really untenable.
I am sure that there must be people who are on the fence who haven't thought much about the topic and are 50/50 on if there is a God are helped towards accepting themselves as atheists by the stuff that Sye says as much as what Matt says.
you would hope so, but sadly I doubt it.
Yep after this debate my cousin announced that after watching Sye, Ray Comfort and Matt Slick that he is now an atheist
I use to be a devout catholic but after hearing bruggencate, I am now a Devout Atheist and Happy that he helped me see the light.
Sye's position can be summarised as follows:
1: I presuppose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
2: The FSM gives me absolute certainty on a variety of topics.
3: I will not explain the mechanism of transmission of knowledge.
4: You all know that the FSM exists.
Watertight case...
+John Newman (Lazerfish) Sye's idiotic line of reason could be used to "prove" Leprechauns, Unicorns, Big Foot, Harry Potter, etc...
That point was actually made by a guy in a q&a portion of the after debate. Sye and Eric Hovind were on stage, and a guy professed this statement to them. Difference is, he didn't give any label to "god", he simply said "unseen force." The funny thing is, either the point went over Sye and EH's heads or they are willfully ignorant of its use by the guy. The not funny thing is, the emcee (David) pointed out "Oh I see what you did there!"
All hail FSM.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
I so desperately wish a Pastafarian could get a debate with Matt Slick or Sye or Mr Batman or one of the "great" presuppers, and I mean really go in on it, come in with a pasta strainer on your head, quote from chapter and verse from The Loose Canon, fully commit to it, you could tie them in a not.
"Is that true or do you just believe that?"
This is a failure on Sye's part to understand...anything.
Also, Sye getting irate at having his own tactic used against him was pure gold.
I have listened to this debate & your review in my car over & over.
There were so many small details I missed the first time.
I 'believe' you did a great job Matt, bravo - a happy patron :)
It's ironic how Sye Ten thinks he's not a brain in a vat. We are all brains in skull shaped vats.
Kris Hermstad I would even go as far to say that it's never real. It's just most of the time corresponding with reality. And to be fair, if you think about it: the world we think to be real is "just" a creation of our mind. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that we would find or even without finding it, "know" somehow about or experience the existence of an omnipotent being that created this world: our own mind.
What, Qualia doesn't equal the numinal world? Anyway, I'm sure given this argument, a believer would probably advance the soul hypothesis.
Gábor Koszper Someone who gets it! =)
your comment at 20:00 that is why you are one of my favorite debaters, you honestly accept when you make a mistake and that makes you great credibility, great Dillahunty
Thankyou for your time and effort on this Matt, none of us need to debate presupps and you have shown why.
Thanks for doing these videos, Matt. Very useful, and I'm glad I watched them all.
Also, thanks for putting yourself through what was evidently a fairly frustrating debate.
That ending statement -mic- pen drop, though.
Hahahahaha. Special pleading. Is god a case of special pleading? No, because special pleading applies everywhere but here! lmao.
Meta-special-pleading.
daddy Hahaha.
Vincent Oostelbos Hahaha X2.
i can only imagine how fuming with anger sye must be
not only did he get a total beatdown during the debate, but also he provided you with so much great material to review
sye " their are no such thing as atheists"...sye "I dont debate the bible with atheists"
deeeeerp
I think he's gone on to elaborate that he "doesn't debate with *professed* atheists." Which still doesn't make any sense, but at least it is internally consistent.
whats the difference?lol
Well because he doesn't believe that atheists exist, but he still believes that people can *deny* god's existence. Like they know he is there, but they want to sin or something.
So he won't discuss scripture with someone who denies the "clearly obvious truth of god that we all know."
ya i know thats what he says i dont see the difference.denying god existence but still believing in god makes you not an atheist.i dont know what is would make you.. i know your not defending his point i just thought it was funny.
Yeah, I just mean on this point he doesn't seem to be completely insane. Which is . . . a nice change of pace?
I watched the debate last year. I really enjoyed this analysis. You are good at taking these weighty subjects and presenting them clear and concise.
@ 15:28 "What's wrong with special pleading in your world view?"
What about *YOUR* world view, Sye? Can't you debate honestly? If both of you agree that special pleading is a logical fallacy, can't you go from there?
It's like Sye is a stubborn little child. He won't engage with you until you recognize his god as the foundation for making such statements. For Sye, you have to first concede to his argument before any argument about god's existence can be made, but then arguing about god's existence would be pointless after already conceding that his god exists.
It's such circular and childish nonsense!
"Can't you debate honestly?" - Clearly his answer this this question, as he's demonstrated in this debate, is No.
Erik Forbes How do you know?
=P
MikeTall88 Divine revelation, of course. The same way we all know that Sye is a dishonest asshat.
Hey Matt, really appreciate your efforts in sharing these videos. the point by point analysis was quite interesting and informative. I hope you consider doing more debates in the future, take care
Sye's position is like that of a LEGO factory worker telling a child that because they don't know how LEGO bricks are made, they are not allowed to build things with them. Matt doesn't NEED to account for the logical axioms; he just USES them.
Also, Sye's response when asked to account for his god will be similar: "I don't NEED to." So we're left with each of them having a thing they don't need to account for, but Sye's position contains the extra thing: his god. Occam's Razor favours Matt's.
Presups don't debate - to debate is to try to convince the audience to agree with you; presups TELL the audience that they ALREADY agree with them.
(His last-gasp preaching was fantastic, by the way - utter, flailing desperation.)
"Matt doesn't NEED to account for the logical axioms; he just USES them."
Agreed.
Yeah. Sye should go ask a mathematician about axioms, he needs an education. Axioms need to be assumed in oder to progress, that's all they are. Nobody cares if you can account for them or not (meaning prove them), that's why they're axioms and not theorems.
Matt, I'm in Austin from time to time. If ever the fates allow, I'd love to shake your hand. For real. You're my hero. Well done sir.
Fuck. I hoped to never have to listen to this turd in a tie speak ever again, but I couldn’t past up Matt’s beautiful deconstruction of his bullshit. Listening to that debate all the way through was one of the harder things I’ve done, and I was a Marine. Mr. Dillahunty, you must have the patience of an Atheist saint to have sat across from him and remain as calm as you did. I can’t possibly imagine something worse than having to not only experience it first hand, but then go back and rewatch it over and over. You are a true inspiration sir and you have my utmost respect and admiration. Keep up the good fight.
Everyone knows Zeus is the true god, but you suppress it.
No, it's Odin, and his son Thor!
Shelley Roberts
Zeus has the occasional cup of ambrosia tea with Odin and Thor, they are good friends.
May Poseidon bless you with his watery goodness and sweet seaweed.
Im more of a Jupiter kind of guy.
Wrong. I have it on good authority that it is Harry Potter. Us Potterists actually have SEVEN holy books to live by! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
CarefulAtheist
If I had a pipe, I would. May Poseidon bless your watery thoughts.
Great dissection of a very frustrating debate that was highlighted with one of the best closing statements I’ve heard showing the utter frustration with an opponent who’s only argument infantile assertion and no defence of their position
16:51 - "look, Lis' - you can see the exact moment his heart rips in half!"
Pfff.. I wonder how a debate between a muslim and Sye would go when both use the same standpoint, just with a different religion. That would truly be the most boring and repetitive debate ever.
'I'm the only one who can be right', 'no, I'm the only one that can be right' -- ad infinitum
The Muslim would start yelling almost immediately and Sye would stomp off.
Robert Miller LOL nailed it
I had emailed the show recently (Atheist Experience) but never received a reply. Then I finally ran across the show that you explained that no one typically responds to those type of emails. I have been searching over the past month for a "(insert whatever) or absurdity" type debates and finally ran across a show that mentioned Sye Ten Bruggencate. After a quick search, I found your debate with him. What is really great and that you made these follow up videos that you take the time to explain each point. Thank you Matt. I hope to one day get down to Austin, TX. to see a live broadcast and join everyone for dinner afterwards.
i have been waiting for this video for a while now.. thank you..
I'll never know how you managed to stay that calm. Although that pen toss at the very end of the video hinted at your state of mind.
While I don't engage in formal debates I quite often have lengthy discussions on this and related subjects. I'm also a teacher and being able to explain something so it can be understood by those who have little to no prior knowledge of the subject can be challenging. So while these tactics can be, by their nature, combative and that isn't necessarily an approach taken by teachers, being able to respond to difficult questions from people who, while not necessarily arguing the opposite point of view from what the teacher is presenting, are genuinely interested in understanding the subject is a vital skill. There is much to be learned from this even if one isn't debating. Many discussions, even friendly ones about mundane topics where both sides are trying to figure something out, can benefit from the techniques used in debates so that those involved can better understand what's being discussed. I really enjoyed this and I never thought to study this sort of thing. I imagine there are thousands of videos available.
"I cannot account for logical absolutes." -Matt
I don't think you should have to admit that. In order to account for anything, what you are doing is demonstrating the particular features of the accounted subject came to be. If there are no variables or means for it to be different then there is no need to account. It is what it is. They would have to demonstrate that it is possible for logic not to be or be different before they can ask for an accounting of it. To even make that argument that have to assume logic in the first place.
Thanks Matt for these videos.
as atheists, how can we know Sye is likely wrong about most of whats hes saying ?
because he asserts with certainty "everyone is certain god exists" that pretty much ends the debate for me, knowing that i dont believe in god renders ALL of Syes assertions automatically into question and makes me believe they are no more than wishful thinking on his behalf and without him being able to show good evidence for them, then there is no point listening to him any longer.
Great summary and review, Matt. I wonder what would happen if Matt Slick and Sye had a conversation? Has that ever happened?
At least three times to my knowledge. Once on the Atheist Experience, once as a formal debate, and a third time on the Bible Thumping Wingnut podcast
Here’s what I admire about Matt. Even in the face of complete stupidity. Even in the face of arguments that make no sense, Matt kept composure like few people could.
Not only that, he’s addressing Sye’s points VERY maturely. I just watched Stefan Molyneux address Rationality Rules’ video on him and he was SO condescending, SO cocky and SO convinced of his own arguments that he just came off as disingenuous. If he could have given a rebuttal much like Matt just did, he’d much more stock with me and others.
Lotta respect for you, Matt.
Sye is playing chess. He moves a rook diagonally.
"That's an illegal move."
"I can account for the rules of chess; you can't."
"... put the fucking rook back, dickhead."
Excellent job, Matt
You have some balls matt, it is painfull to watch this guy speak, i can't imagine how it was to debate him.
Fucking outstanding closing, Matt! We need more like you!
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” Bertrand Russell
I'd say you handled that debate very well. Presuppositionalism seems to me to be particularly batshit crazy. Well done for even keeping your cool.
Funnily enough Sye disproves his own god to anyone who does not believe.
If Sye's god exists as defined, my knowledge of my own lack of belief turns Sye's assertion that everyone has absolute knowledge of god into a disproof of god's existence.
I find this highly amusing
It's also kind of sad. Sye spends his life going around yapping at atheists thinking that he is bringing people to the faith while all he is actually doing is disproving his own god and being extraordinarily frustrating while doing so.
Matt Dillahunty excellent breakdown. I really enjoyed your commentary on this event.
Who could listen to this Sye and think that he makes sense? That he s made a good argument
When conversation ascends to this meta level of epistemology, it becomes really hard for me to keep up.
I want to commend you, Matt, on analogies you've made that really helped to see your points during the debate.
But at the same time, I had to pause and really think "does this analogy hold?", before accepting each.
In any case, this debate, and especially your reviews of it, are the greatest source of arguing against presuppositionalism that I've seen.
So thank you so much for doing these reviews!
we are not the judge. we are the jury and as of yet we haven't come to a conclusion of whether god exists or he does not.
It seems to me that Sye's argument is 'I'm right because God is magic'.
I'd like to see Matt debate WLC in a debate format like this, out of WLC's comfort zone. Matt would give him hell, even though a debate like this will never happen, sadly.
Matt, as of May 31, 2018, some channel called AnswerAnyone has put up a "documentary" of this debate you did. You might well have seen it, and I feel they're rather late to the party, but hey... it's out there.
Its chopped and edited to try and make Sye look better.
In his closing, Matt pretty much summed up my opinions perfectly.
"Virtuously circular" - this statement has been bugging me for a while now when used to justify the presupp argument. I could be wrong but my understanding is the term is normally only used in the context of formal logic where certain deductive constructs such as parts of a complex math equations are logically sound but still circular. It's somehow managed to find its way into the conflating vocabulary of the presuppers...
Hi Matt, great job and commentary. How annoyed do you get by Sye? To me he is such a narcissist.
Your closing statement is pure bliss!
I deny Sye exists. Dang, didn't work.
Sye: "It's not special pleading, because it's about god."
That's like saying "It's not a circular argument, because it's not a circular argument."
You can't make this shit up!
:)
"Unrighteousness", "condemnation". These are the key concepts that define *why* Sye believes what he does. It seems to me he truly believes these things, barring that he's a brilliant live improv actor. This tells me that people who think like him are seriously pitiful sods with emotional damages that they're trying to repress, rationalize and even utilize in degrading others to feel more "in company" with an entire humankind damned and hopeless and deserving of suffering as they are. They're channeling their own inferiority complex into a delusion of superiority (excuse the armchair psychology if you will).
Great Vid - Dillahunty takes one last look at his infamous debate with presupposition trollagetic SyeTen Bruggencate.
I was 6 years of age. Had a fight with my older brother and told him God would punish him (deeply Catholic grandparents).
He asked me how I knew God existed...And I realised like I was smacked in the face that I had no way of knowing. No suppression in unrighteousness, no wanting to enjoy sin (I was 6 FFS).
Just a realisation that I believed something with zero evidence.
Bruggencate did not come to debate. He came to preach.
"The greasy pony tail guys just give me the finger" 😆 🤣 😂
Matt, you are a highly intelligent and reasonable individual, why do your waste your time with these idiots. I hope you at least got some money out of it for all your patience!!
Great analysis. I just have one question about this series (from a foreign/layman point of view): Why so much attention for this particular apologetic? His techniques (and arguments) are basically the same as all others' I've seen (Matt Slick, Hovind, etc.)... is this debate just a good global showcase for all of them?
Side note: I found that 'shark's fin Christian fish' symbol on the apologist's computer quite annoying - intellectually dishonest and passive-aggressive all at once - but I suppose that's why it was there, just to piss people off. Anything for the 'emotional win'.
I havent seen the other debates you mention, however by no means do I think this will be the final debate with a pre-sup to ever happen and post on youtube ! If youre asking why Matt has decided to put more focus on this debate by breaking it down - its probably because its the most freshest in his mind and therefore hes decided to use it for his new patreon channel.
I dont really understand the shark fin christian fish relevance (of course I know of the original christian fish symbol), can you explain why thats a thing ?!
youweechube
The Christian fish symbol is supposed to signify peace (and a safe haven, in earliest times, but it's become a 'christianity catch-all' symbol since), and a shark is a carnivore predator, a killing machine, a feared animal. I guess Sye wanted to send an "A Christian who kicks ass" message - but it's a pretty passive-aggressive way of going about it, even though it was placed to be prominent (to the camera) throughout the debate. It's just annoying, a debate is a place for discussion, and visual non-verbal props there are in bad taste. Perhaps it's just a pet peeve.
oh ok, thanks for clarifying, I guess for the people such as myself who didnt "get" the point he was trying to make made it ineffectual.
I dont really have a problem with him doing that, he himself could probably argue the same about Matts "A" badge.
Hehe - it's also that logos/trademarks are my trade, so I tend to notice a bit more perhaps. Symbols -do- send messages, even if you think you don't notice them. But, hm, right you are about Matt also wearing a symbol, but I don't think it sends the same 'aggressive' message. And the intent (choosing the symbol) wasn't at all there, either. It probably wasn't put there for the debate, anyway... yeah, semantics.
Evidence presupposes truth, truth presupposes the laws of logic.
Hey Sye, God told me to collect $1000 from you and He says that you know about it. Cough it up buddy. Or are you "suppressing" the *certain* knowledge that God wants you to give me the money?
Sounds legit to me.
Matt mentioned that babies don't have a theory of mind. Does Sye? He insists he knows what those babies and the Piraha know that god exists and he also professes to know how Matt's wife would react to an insult.
I think Sye Ten lies when he says he presupposes the existence of God. Why else would he present arguments for the existence of God?
According to his unbelievably retarded definition of "blasphemy", he is sinning every time he presents an argument in favor of his beliefs.
DonMezzo How do you know that, though.
He doesn’t. He just asserts it.
16:51 - "look, Lisa - you can see the exact moment his heart rips in half..."
D:
JMUDoc yes yes yes
Your Powers of Observation are strong indeed Jedi
„It’s not special pleading, because it’s special pleading”
Is really the same as
„It’s not a fallacy, because it’s a fallacy”
With, well, must be the Greatest Fallacy Of Them All!
I say we take Sye as the prophet of the new world.
Jeez, can you imagine how cheated you'd feel if you'd bought a ticket to attend this "debate" and then had to sit through this ?
Wouldnt the argument that Sye could substitute ANYTHING (Pegasus, Bertrand Russel's teapot or, as I said, absolutely anything) for "god" and not change his arguments in ANY way, be an immediate and total refutation of his position?
Or, if my response was that my presupposed God told me he was wrong, using his exact arguments, ALSO show Sye's position to be vacuous?
Jeeze, that devolved horribly. HORRIBLY. Sye pissed away the entire "debate" getting caught up with nonsense ball-of-christmas-lights wordplay that takes a ridiculously long time to untangle. Nothing got done. He did it for absolutely no reason. He proved nothing. He disproved nothing. He just went deadweight and ran the timer.
Keep him out of future debate halls. He basically filibustered the entire discussion.
Sye really likes to weave a web, but you unraveled it. Well done.
Greasy ponytail? This guy is really good at debating.
I took it as some "greasy ponytail" guy handed sye his ass.
Not only is Sye a terrible thinker, he is also kinda slimy in his smug confidence and dishonesty. He is one of those all-too-common "I can lie because my intentions are pure" Christians (like Comfort) that really cause harm to Christians by teaching them that actual truth is of less value (or no value) when compared to "revealed truth".
Anyway, great job, Matt, and I'll see you soon in Memphis :)
wouldnt a good argument in this case be to point the contradiction and disagreements between christians that claim this direct knowledge of god between denominations or even within the same one? and asking who has the truthy truth among them and how would they know?
daolchang I spoke too soon...kick his ass Matt!, holy shit the presupositionalist line of argument gets so annoying, evidentialists start to seem more fun comparatively
I don't think anyone has ever lost a debate like sye has lost a debate. His failure is simply off the scale.
antiHUMANDesigns in all fairness, this depends how you define "lost".
From this debate, Sye gained national fame and was invited to become speakers in more creation conferences.
Sye also got at least 200+ more twitter followers due to this event.
Matt's fame helped Sye became more famous, so in that regard, you can say Sye "won" (much like how Ken Ham got what he wanted out of debating with Bill Nye).
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure those who agree with Sye would continue to agree with Sye, and those who don't agree with Sye would still laugh at his stupidity. And those agnostics on the fence probably never like Sye to begin with anyway, so it's not like Sye lost any of his followers from this debate.
So overall...i would argue Sye "won" in terms of fame within his creationist community.
Sean Armstrong The *debate* was a loss. As for the effects it has outside of that, that's a different question, but you're right about that.
After this debate, presuppers basically went back under the rock that they came for for years, but they are just now slowly coming back out and putting up the same, really terrible arguments.
Love that closing statement.
I wonder what Sye would say about the people who are Christians today but would admit that at one point in their lives, they were not aware of god existing. Would he say that those Christians were lying about their past?
If he says they were simply "supressing the truth" in the past, then we get back to the question of isn't supressing the truth the same as not being aware of that belief? And doesn't not being aware of a belief essentially equate to not believing it?
He'd have to say they are, at best, back sliding Christians; more likely not Christians at all, because "they are calling God a liar."
Does anyone know if Sye has seen these reviews or if he's responded to them?
I'll state categorically that he HAS.
Because he won't be able to stop himself from saying "How do you know?"
How do you know that ?
He tried to use special pleading to argue against that he was using special pleading
Why do the logical absolutes have to be accounted for in the first place? Logic seems to be contingent on the physical world -- when an idea is logical, that means it behaves in a way that makes sense according to our observations of the real world. To say that logical absolutes can only exist if they come from some higher dimension of truth isn't so different from claiming that the physical world had to be created because everything needs a cause.
When Sye asked Matt whether he's saying God couldn't make someone know he exists Matt could have asked whether God could make someone certain of something that isn't true while simultaneously making them convinced that he wouldn't do so . If the answer is yes Sye would have to explain how he knows that this isn't the explanation for his certainty. If the answer is no he is admitting that God can't do everything
The only redeeming quality about Sye is that he might not understand how fallacious his arguments are, because he continuously demonstrates he doesn't comprehend the definition of even one logical fallacy. 🙄
Matt....I really didn't like looking at your face during your final statement!
I wanted to look at his
An argument from authority isn't necessarily fallacious. A doctor can diagnose you from just hearing about your symtoms. His diagnosis might be untrue, but not a logically fallacious one formally or informally. The fallacy here would be when person A, who is not a doctor, told you that you are diabetic because doctor b has written a book whe symptoms are listed and person A claims you have the disease because he read that list which was written by that doctor.
On thing I think you should have added with this debate is "fallibility". You pretty much mopped the floor with Sye, but I think that would have been a 110%.
Supernatural shit is so hard to argue for, that people like Sye must convince everyone that reality is not real, in just reeks of indignant desperation, which is also the title of the forthcoming Sye biography
Sye can account for logic, he just can't use it.
The guilt trip towards the end is exactly what they feed to children. It's beyond disgusting. Jesus suffered on the cross. So did thousands of others because it was a popular means of execution. Hell, there are people suffering right now from a chronic disease, who have suffered longer and more intensely than Jesus had to. And did I have a say in the matter, whether I supported his decision to die for me? Supposing it were true, with all of the BS that it's brought, I'd opt out of the deal. Instead, were born with an obligation to be thankful 24/7.
I think the more appalling message is that it's okay to do bad things as long as you have someone else who's willing to suffer the consequences on your behalf.
Erik Forbes How true.
As Matt has pointed out in his show, God didn't even sacrifice anything. Wouldn't the real sacrifice be Jesus dying and then spending eternity in hell? Living 35 years on Earth then getting tortured for 3 days then going up to heaven for eternity isn't much of a sacrifice. People have literally killed off their children in order to save the lives of their other children. We have actual proof of people suffering far worse than Jesus was said to have. People suffering more both physically and mentally. Jesus knew he was getting eternity as a reward because God literally told him. Where is the sacrifice and why are Christians using that as a go to talking point? I don't get it...
my favorite part of this whole debate is when sye fell apart over special pleading.
"Justified" special pleading - lol - I've heard other apologists write about this concept - it seems they created it out of thin air - suggesting that "well, in every other case - special pleading WOULD be a fallacy...but in our case / this case ...it's okay because God IS Special / Unique" ! - or some such phrasing
Gotta love that pen drop at the end.
I read a couple comments that mentioned a pen drop and I hadn't gotten to that part yet and had no idea what everyone was talking about but that closing statement was money
Excellent synopses of the debate and (further) illumination of the ultimate stupidity that is presuppositional religious belief.
@ 7:19 It's annoying that Sye doesn't answer questions, but instead directs all aspects of the conversation back to "you can't know anything unless you presuppose god exists." He ignores all counter evidence until you first admit that his god exists to establish that we can "know" anything.
Why is there so many religions better followed by honest people in a world where God is supposed that is supposed Give us information to know about him?
Sye won't do bible study with an atheist because he is afraid we may know more about his own book.
I wonder if this is viable.
Since Sye presupposes that we all know there is a God and since his arguments are all "correct since he knows God"
Doesn't that make Matts arguments correct as well. Even even suppressed, a truth is a truth.
SngJason FUCK. Lol.