an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

And We’re Back

I have no idea WHAT happened there! For some reason Google suspended my account (email, blogs, G+, Picasa, the lot) – only just got it back under my control.

But have a look at this –

– some very ‘Christian’ crowing from Sye Ten Bruggencate. I’m sure Jesus would be proud of his nasty bitterness.

Single Post Navigation

94 thoughts on “And We’re Back

  1. Projecting again there Alex? I was only slightly amused. If you want to see "nasty bitterness" just read your comments to just about every Christian you have engaged.Ciao!

  2. Sye, you were the one crowing at the potential misfortune of another. Take a good look at yourself, you're a rotten Christian.

  3. Nah, I was a realist and suspected that it was a glitch from the beginning (see image). Just amusing to see people get so bent out of shape for such minor things. Guess that's what happens when this is all you have.

  4. Oh, and just so you know, there is plenty of Biblical support for righteous mockery of certain unbelievers (of which you exceedingly qualify 🙂

  5. Sye TenB said… "Nah, I was a realist"First time for everything!

  6. "First time for everything!"At least you agree! 😀

  7. "Nah, I was a realist"Wow, I've never seen anyone spell 'snidely gloating dickshit' with only seven letters before.

  8. Sye TenB,May I suggest that if the Bible teaches you to mock "certain unbelievers" then that's a pretty good reason not to follow the Bible.Also, if you ever change your mind about having Skype debates, my offer still stands. In my last two debates I had a scripted opening statement. This time I'd like to try note cards or something, so I don't sound so… stilted. I'm anxious to see how that works out, but I need a debate partner first !–Ben

  9. "then that's a pretty good reason not to follow the Bible."And what, have you as an ultimate moral authority? Um, no 🙂"Also, if you ever change your mind about having Skype debates"Haven't a clue what you are talking about. "my offer still stands"What offer?E-mail me. I'd rather not send any more traffic here. contact@proofthatgodexists.org

  10. Nevermind, I found your old e-mail Ben. I'll talk it over with Dustin and see if he is interested.Cheers.

  11. "I'd rather not send any more traffic here."I bet you wouldn't, what with it containing numerous examples of your wretched failures! Everyone who has ever done your argument real damage is linked to from here, whether it's Paul B, Dawson, Rhiggs, Reynold…. and combined with your own comments (comments which paint a rather ugly picture of you) we have a site that I'm sure you don't want people stumbling across!Shame that both this blog and Jim's come up on the first page of a google search for you! Can't look good having pages which debunk you appearing in the first search!

  12. "Shame that both this blog and Jim's come up on the first page of a google search for you!"You are joking right? I am very pleased that people are directed to my interactions with the lot of you on a google search. The more people that listen to those podcasts the better! I just listened to the first one we did with Eric again. Wow, what a train wreck for you guys! That you are blinded to how poorly you did and feel the need to crow about our exchanges, is an enormous blessing that I did not expect.PLEASE mention, and post links to our exchanges as often as you can! I know that sounds like reverse psychology, but you have commented on how much I have promoted the exchanges, so that argument wouldn't wash.

  13. Sye, you're a graphic, living example of the Dunning Kruger.

  14. "Sye, you're a graphic, living example of the Dunning Kruger."I'll let our exchanges speak for themselves:Round 1Round 2Round 3.

  15. Apparently DAN over on Debunking Atheists is now censoring my comments. I submitted the following earlier today, and it has not been posted:I wrote: “I have no idea what you’re talking about here, Sye. What assertions of mine am I supposed to defend in some debate?"Sye responded: “Erm we could start with your assertion that God is ‘imaginary’." I’ve defended this on my blog. You are free to familiarize yourself with it, respond to it, ridicule it, ignore it, whatever it is you want to do. I’ve met my burden on this. So far I’ve not seen any Christian successfully interact with my position. Sye: “Look Dawson, I have no interest in your ‘argumentum ad verbosium’." Then why is a verbal exchange with me so important to you? Good grief, man, you insist that we have some kind of verbal “debate,” but then you basically say you’re not interested in what I have to say. I think you need to figure out exactly what it is you want before you start typing away here, Sye.Sye: “If you want your questions answered, then let's talk about it over Skype on Thursday.”You apparently haven’t been reading. I already stated that I’m satisfied with how the situation stands. You’ve not answered my questions. After much pressing you finally gave a miserably weak response to one of my questions, which only confirmed my suspicions about your worldview in the first place. So I’m happy. If you want to answer my questions, it’s up to you whether you do so or not. There’s nothing more I need to do. I don’t see why I would need to do anything more for you to answer my questions. You already know what my questions are. Sye: “Seriously, what are you afraid of?”Complex question, Sye. You see, Sye, unlike you, my approach to this is about the *ideas* at issue, not the *personalities* involved. You want to make this a personal thing, but that’s because your position can’t handle ideas in the first place. You have no account for concepts, which means: You have no account for ideas. By contrast, I’m interested in the ideas, and ideas are what I explore. Until you get this, you’ll continue running around in your own fruitless circles. We could start calling you Fruit Loop if you like. Fruit Loop wrote: “You seem like a pretty smart guy, surely you could hold your own in a debate?”I think that if you had answers to my questions, FL, you wouldn’t have any problem presenting them right here in these comments. Obviously you’re willing to sign into your Google account and post your comments. So you’re already here. But where’s your account? Nowhere to be seen. Hey, that’s fine with me. If you want to change that, you know what to do. I suspect that you simply don’t want anything you might present as an “account” to be examined and critiqued. So you hide it behind all these absurd conditions.FL wrote: “I have offered to answer all of your questions IF you appear live on Skype to ask them. How foolsih would it look if I backed down after such a bold offer? How foolish would it look if I did not answer your questions then?”You style yourself an apologist for the Christian faith. When asked a few direct questions, you carry on as though you have answers, but make actions on my part a condition to producing them. So for reasons you don’t explain, you put the decision whether you answer my questions or not in my hands. Fine. Don’t answer them I says. I really don’t think you have any answers to my questions, just as your reluctant attempt to address my question about whether or not Christianity accounts for concepts demonstrates. So if you ask me, you already look foolish. Very foolish indeed. Why should I do anything to change this? Regards,Dawson

  16. Shortly after I submitted my comment (and it didn't appear in the comments), Slippery Sye responded to one line from it. He wrote:[Me]"Then why is a verbal exchange with me so important to you?"[Sye] "It's not. It would just be far easier to expose the absurdity of your view in a verbal exchange then have it buried under a mountain of nonsense in your written meanderings. "From the deafening silence in response to my request for recordings, no one has heard you speak or debate anywhere online, so obviously I was referring to your writings as being the "argumentum ad verbosium." I highly doubt that anyone could drone on the way your writing does, and with a verbal exchange we could get right to the heart of the issue. Sadly, we all know of the two of us, who is really interested in that."Note, Alex, how Sye is confirming precisely what you said Sye would do when you wrote:"Sye, I've debated you three times, you have absolutely nothing to offer one to one, and I can't imagine any discussion with Dawson would get past you saying 'I'll be happy to answer those questions but first I want you to explain to me how you can know anything for sure with your worldview', and when Dawson gives ANY answer you'll merely insist (as you always do) that he didn't answer at all, and will go back to asking how he can know anything at all without first proclaiming your imaginary god as his saviour!"Sye makes it clear that he has no intention of addressing my questions. He just wants to "expose the absurdity" he imagines in my worldview, and the only way he can do this is by relying on his verbal parlor gimmicks that he uses in every production he's participated in to date. So I'm happy with where things stand. Sye has no account for reason, logic, knowledge, science and morality, since he has no account for concepts. Fine with me.Regards,Dawson

  17. Sye makes it clear that he has no intention of addressing my questions. He just wants to "expose the absurdity" he imagines in my worldview"Nope, I'm willing to do both 😀 Surely if I reneged on my offer to answer your questions you could exploit that? Quit dodging man. I trust that even your peers are secretly uncomfortable with the pale hue of your liver.

  18. Sye:YOu already have reneged on your offer to answer the questions by (wait for it) not answering the questions.

  19. Sye: "Nope, I'm willing to do both 😀 Surely if I reneged on my offer to answer your questions you could exploit that?"Again, Sye, if you had legitimate answers to my questions, you'd be more than happy to provide them right here and now. All this nonsense about some kind of verbal debate is merely a smokescreen intended to make an opportunity to perpetuate further smokescreens. So, to recap:1) You cannot explain why there's such a fundamental conflict between Chris Bolt and Dustin Segers on the primacy of existence; you also fail to make your own position on the primacy of existence known.2) You fail to say whether or not on your worldview evil is ever morally justifiable.3) Your worldview has no account for the conceptual level of cognition.4) You fail to address my questions on the uniformity of nature.Hey, if you're happy with this situation, then carry on as you have. I've accomplished what I set out to accomplish. In fact, you made it quite easy. Regards,Dawson

  20. 'Again, Sye, if you had legitimate answers to my questions, you'd be more than happy to provide them right here and now."Actually no. I'd rather discuss them live than be buried by a mountain of your words here or on your blog. Tell you what. Link me to where you have engaged ANYONE live on audio or video and I will answer your questions here. What could be more fair? If you have something against debating me live, tell me who would meet your criteria and I'll try to set it up. Surely there is someone out there who you would be willing to debate since you won't debate me? Enough people have engaged you in written form (I just heard about you being thrashed on Triablogue a few years back), so try something mew Dawson!

  21. "YOu already have reneged on your offer to answer the questions by (wait for it) not answering the questions."Erm, I never offered to answer them here, but I have REPEATEDLY offered to answer them if Dawson engages me on Skype. He has declined.Cheers

  22. Sye:     I am familiar with your tricks. Your next step, once he is on live, is to feign ignorance of this whole conversation and say you'll be "happy to answer if he first explains how he can know anyting." If you won't answer here, you won't answer there.

  23. Sye wrote: “I trust that even your peers are secretly uncomfortable with the pale hue of your liver.”Not from what I’ve gathered. In fact, quite the opposite. For instance, one of my readers wrote me just this morning. He wrote:“I know I keep repeating myself with regard to this, but notice the terms Sye uses to describe you: ‘mountain of nonsense’ ‘written meanderings’ ‘deafening silence’, ‘no one has heard you speak’, ‘…ad verbosium’, ‘drone on’ — and all the other similar terms he's used lately. It really does sound like he's describing the bible and the god he believes in. As you said about Nide, what kind of disconnect must exist in his mind not to notice this? Yet it hasn't dawned on him! And Sye's insistence that you have a verbal exchange with him is an indication to me that not only are your ideas a powerful weapon against theism (and all irrationality for that matter), but so is your method of delivering these ideas.” Not quite the impression you’ve been imagining. In fact, I think my reader makes a very astute point. Compare what you’re railing against to the Christian bible. Talk about “mountain of nonsense,” “written meanderings,” and “droning on.” As for “deafening silence,” that’s what you’ve offered in response to a few questions I’ve posed to you. You have no answers to my questions, and that’s clear to see. If you want to offer answers to my questions, no one is holding you back, except yourself. You simply don’t want anything you offer in response to my questions to be examined and scrutinized, for you know already know it’s a bunch of hogwash. Sye: “Tell you what. Link me to where you have engaged ANYONE live on audio or video and I will answer your questions here.”If you have answers to my questions that you want to share, you are free to do it in any form you want. Let me know when you’ve answered them. I’ll be happy to examine them.Sye: “If you have something against debating me live, tell me who would meet your criteria and I'll try to set it up. Surely there is someone out there who you would be willing to debate since you won't debate me?”So far, Sye, it looks like you have no content to debate in the first place. If you can’t even answer a few simple questions about your worldview, then what else is there to discuss? Sye: “Enough people have engaged you in written form (I just heard about you being thrashed on Triablogue a few years back),” Yes, I have my responses to the folks at Triablogue over on my blog. You’ll see they no longer try to interact with my writings. Sye: “so try something mew Dawson!”Something mew? Like fried cat? Sorry, I doubt that would suit my palate.Regards,Dawson

  24. "Your next step, once he is on live, is to feign ignorance of this whole conversation and say you'll be "happy to answer if he first explains how he can know anyting."Familiar with my tricks eh? Alright, since you are familiar with them, you should be able to point out in which exchange I have done this. Please show me where I have specifically agreed to answer specific questions (as I have with Dawson) and then refused to answer those same question live. Won't be holdin' me breath though 🙂

  25. "Not from what I’ve gathered. In fact, quite the opposite. For instance, one of my readers wrote me just this morning."Allow me to help with your comprehension of what I actually wrote 😀

  26. Oh, looks like Alex is blocking your posts too. I think you owe Dan an apology. (I know, not very likely 🙂

  27. "Something mew? Like fried cat? Sorry, I doubt that would suit my palate."I was wondering what "Bethrick" actually meant 😀

  28. Sye wrote: “Erm, I never offered to answer them here, but I have REPEATEDLY offered to answer them if Dawson engages me on Skype. He has declined.”Sye, if you know that I’ve already declined your insistent cries to have me join you in some verbal food fight, why do you continue to insist on it? It’s not going to happen. I have no intention to bicker with you verbally. Not now. Not ever. You don’t have to like that, but that’s the way it is. You can whine, you can taunt, you can try to use this situation any way you want to intimidate and pressure me. It won’t work. You’re just spinning your wheels fruitlessly, and as your own bible puts it, we know you by your fruits. You are like a barren fig tree, offering nothing of value, a shriveled eye sore that has rotted down to its roots. You have no account. Period. I wrote: "Not from what I’ve gathered. In fact, quite the opposite. For instance, one of my readers wrote me just this morning."Sye: “Allow me to help with your comprehension of what I actually wrote :-D”I understood what you actually wrote. And I stated that *from what I have gathered*, quite the opposite is the case. I provided evidence for supposing that you’re mistaken here. What evidence do you have to support the impression you’ve imagined? You’ve provided none that I have seen. Sye: “Oh, looks like Alex is blocking your posts too.”What makes you think this?Sye: “I think you owe Dan an apology. (I know, not very likely :-)”Apology for what specifically? Again, I’m happy to let the situation remain as it currently stands: Sye has no account for concepts, so he has no account for knowledge. Sye is unwilling to face questions about evil and the uniformity of nature. Also, he’s unwilling to explain the profound and fundamental discrepancy between two of his fellow apologists on the primacy of existence. These are some really major problems, but I’m not surprised to see Sye trying to avoid the matter. Regards,Dawson

  29. "why do you continue to insist on it?"Cause you might grow some before the deadline."It’s not going to happen."I figured as much."Again, I’m happy to let the situation remain as it currently stands"Me too: I am willing to answer ALL of your questions live on Skype this Thursday between 9AM EST and 11PM EST. You have "declined," to put it as graciously as I know how.Cheers.

  30. I asked: "why do you continue to insist on it?"Sye: “Cause you might grow some before the deadline.”Sye, in your verbal discussions that I’ve listened to, you behave like a child, and demonstrate that you’re either unwilling or unable to address the issues that come up in an intelligent, respectful and adult manner. I would have to lower myself many steps of maturity to agree to indulge you in such a spectacle. At any rate, I’ve made my position clear to you. You have nothing to gain by continuing as you have been.I wrote: "It’s not going to happen."Sye responded: “I figured as much.”Then again I must ask: if you’ve “figured as much,” why have you continued to insist on it? It’s such strange behavior, and only shows how unwilling you are to dialogue with me in an adult and respectful manner. So you aren’t giving me any positive reasons for supposing it would be a good idea to join you in some self-indulgent hecklefest of yours. We all know it’s just part of your gimmickry.I wrote: "Again, I’m happy to let the situation remain as it currently stands"Sye: “Me too: I am willing to answer ALL of your questions live on Skype this Thursday between 9AM EST and 11PM EST. You have ‘declined’, to put it as graciously as I know how.”If you ever answer my questions, in whatever form you choose to deliver them, please let me know, I’d be very much interested in examining them. Until then, you leave yourself without an account. It’s your choice.Regards,Dawson

  31. "Then again I must ask: if you’ve “figured as much,” why have you continued to insist on it?"To give you EVERY opportunity to demonstrate that you are more than a 'man' hiding behind his keyboard."It’s such strange behavior, and only shows how unwilling you are to dialogue with me in an adult and respectful manner."I have absolutely no problem with people comparing our respective behaviours from the outset. "So you aren’t giving me any positive reasons for supposing it would be a good idea to join you in some self-indulgent hecklefest of yours."There are no positive reasons. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Look, I realize why you are actually ducking this; when I answer your questions, and you will be unable to answer mine, you will be exposed for what you are.Cheers.

  32. " when I answer your questions, and you will be unable to answer mine, you will be exposed for what you are."Sye, if you have the answers then why not answer? It looks like you want to pull some sleazy trick if you will only answer questions "live" because it looks like you deliberately want to deny people time to think about their answers.

  33. "Quit dodging man. I trust that even your peers are secretly uncomfortable with the pale hue of your liver."Sye, it's YOUR liver that's become completely see through,

  34. …and 'Dawson's peers' see a man who is being infinitely patient with your childishness and stupidity.Sye, I've said it before (many times now), you're a horrible advert for your faith, and a very poor defender of the TAG.

  35. "I have absolutely no problem with people comparing our respective behaviours from the outset."Then why don't you answer Dawson's questions? Because we can all see that you've behaved like a coward who's been trying to dodge since day one.

  36. 1 Peter 3:15, Sye, I guess you ignore it?

  37. I asked: "Then again I must ask: if you’ve ‘figured as much’, why have you continued to insist on it?"Sye responded: “To give you EVERY opportunity to demonstrate that you are more than a 'man' hiding behind his keyboard.”This is as clear an admission as anyone could possibly give that Sye’s trying to make this into a *personal* matter. He’s not interested in a civil exchange of ideas, in examining the philosophical issues that come up in discussion, in exploring issues that are currently beyond his understanding. On the contrary, his intention is expressly geared towards directing focus away from intellectual matters and training it on me personally. This is Sye’s character on display for all to see. Here he has an opportunity to address questions on behalf of his own worldview, to educate and inform, to spread wisdom that he says only his worldview provides. And what does he do with it? He squanders it like a freshman sailor on his first shore leave in a foreign port. Each comment Sye makes and fails to offer answers to my questions represents a failure on the part of his worldview. There’s no other way to read any of this.I wrote: "It’s such strange behavior, and only shows how unwilling you are to dialogue with me in an adult and respectful manner."Sye: “I have absolutely no problem with people comparing our respective behaviours from the outset.”That’s a big part of your problem, Sye. You’re shameless in your dishonesty, evasions and reliance on pure gimmickry. You’ve allowed yourself to become blind to your own indiscretions. This is in addition to your failure to address questions about your worldview.I wrote: "So you aren’t giving me any positive reasons for supposing it would be a good idea to join you in some self-indulgent hecklefest of yours."Sye: “Look, I realize why you are actually ducking this; when I answer your questions, and you will be unable to answer mine, you will be exposed for what you are.”Sye, I’m happy to examine any question you have for me. Feel free to post your questions. I promise I’ll look at them.By the way, you still haven’t explained why you would say that I owe DAN an apology. Why are you always failing to provide answers? This is a bad habit of yours that you might want to correct.Regards,Dawson

  38. Sye:     Judging from your frustration, Dawson must be engaging you in the right way. After all, that's the reasoning you used about why you consider Presuppositional Baloney to be the correct way to argue.     You have been busy trying to impose conditions on everybody else while not accepting any yourself. You act like a two-year-old. I'm surprized even Dan is impressed. You will not get what you want here. You will have to start meeting conditions instead of merely imposing them.

  39. If anyone reading wants a proper chuckle, Sye is currently trying to back out of a debate challenge he instigated over at Debunking Atheists, click here to see Mr Ten Bruggencate tying himself up in knots.

  40. "If anyone reading wants a proper chuckle, Sye is currently trying to back out of a debate challenge he instigated over at Debunking Atheists"Are you sure that you do not do illegal drugs Alex? I have issued an open challenge to debate Dawson, and BoB, live on Skype this Thursday. So far Dawson has declined. Still waiting for BoB to see if he will accept. How that can be seen as "backing out of a debate challenge," can only be understood from a drug induced haze I imagine.

  41. Sye, you're clearly insane, as your take is very much NOT what's happened!1. Dawson asked YOU some questions here, and latterly over on Dan's site, which you've refused to answer unless Dawson speaks to you on Skype. Dawson has, quite reasonably, said that he doesn't think you need to speak to him to answer the questions asked. You failure to answer speaks volumes.2. You challenged BoB to a debate over at Dan's site – he agreed immediately, stating that he wouldn't be available until December. You then threw up objection after objection, and have now moved the date forward to Thursday without agreement from BoB that he'd be available. You did this, IMO, in reaction to the potential embarrassment of BoB and I (at the suggestion of Pvblivs) pulling a William Lane Craig on you, and hosting a 'debate' knowing full well you wouldn't attend. All this can be easily seen by anyone who wants to trace back through my 'Why I'll Not Be Bothering With Bahnsen' and 'I've Heard Some Bullshit…' threads here, and the 'Fundamentally Flawed Indeed' thread over at debunkingatheists.blogspot.com. Trying to present a version of events that doesn't match readily checked reality makes you appear lunatic, Sye.3. Again with the 'Alex takes illegal drugs' libel! Sye, present proof of this baseless assertion, or apologise.

  42. "Again with the 'Alex takes illegal drugs' libel! Sye, present proof of this baseless assertion, or apologise."Is was merely a question (not an 'assertion') based on your statements and your behaviour. Your bizarre accusation of "libel" only serves to further confirm my suspicion.

  43. If it were said (as on the podcast) it would be slander, as it's written, it's libelous – I'd have thought even a nutter like yourself would have known the difference.So, where is that apology for inferring, baselessly, that I use illegal drugs?

  44. "If it were said (as on the podcast) it would be slander, as it's written, it's libelous"Duh. I know the difference between slander and libel dude, and the question I posed is neither. Seriously, I can't say that I hope it's drugs, but in some small way I do. You can quit drugs, but you can't quit stupid.

  45. Sye, Sye, Sye, let's not forget that out of the two of us, YOU'RE the one who thinks that the Earth was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, and that a cloned rib woman was tempted to eat a magic fruit by a walking, talking, snake.Luckily for you you CAN quit Christianity, even you. Go on Sye, embrace rationalism! Turn your back on demonstrable nonsense!

  46. I’m still wondering why Sye says I should apologize to DAN over at Debunking Atheists. I’ve asked him this twice now, but he still does not answer. Doesn’t this guy ever answer for himself? He continually insists that we answer for ourselves, and in the format of *his* choosing (if we’ve already answered for ourselves elsewhere, he will simply dismiss it out of hand), but at the same time he ignores direct questions posed to him. I see no indication whatsoever that Sye would actually address my questions were I to fall for his ploys and join him in some Skype gagglefest. He simply has no credibility here whatsoever. Meanwhile, Sye baldly libels Alex, and for no good reason whatsoever, and resists the idea that he should apologize. Sye’s only interest in any of these exchanges – be it in blog comments, or on Skype, in his YouTube appearances, or open-air preaching – is to discredit his challengers *personally*. He can’t refute his challengers’ positions, and he cannot defend his own position. So in desperation he reaches for the last resort: make them look bad, regardless of how secure their philosophical position may be. He’s a walking ad hominem device.This is what Sye is all about. Anyone agreeing to have a verbal discussion with him should understand this before making such an agreement. I already knew this, so I will have no part of such a spectacle. Regards,Dawson

  47. Sye:     It is possible to phrase an assertion as a question while leaving it quite clear that you are making an accusation. You cannot hide behind "it was just a question."     It's a shame you can't quit stupid. You really need to.

  48. ”I’m still wondering why Sye says I should apologize to DAN over at Debunking Atheists.”Wow man, you are thick. Read the comment: ”Oh, looks like Alex is blocking your posts too. I think you owe Dan an apology.”Obviously the apology you would owe Dan would be if the same reason that you were unable to post HERE is the reason that you were unable to post at DAN’S blog. IF that were the case, then you would owe DAN an apology for insinuating that he was blocking your posts, as you said here: ”Apparently DAN over on Debunking Atheists is now censoring my comments” I said that I THINK you owe DAN apology, not that you SHOULD, as I do not know for certain that this is the case.Capiche?I’m pleased that you never took me up on the offer to debate, cause if you could not understand this, it would be very difficult to get you to understand ANYTHING.Ciao!

  49. Sye, I'm glad you've popped by! Are you going to answer all those questions you've dodged now?

  50. Very good, Sye. My plan worked. You've demonstrated that you can in fact provide an answer when sufficiently pressed. So, how about my questions on the uniformity of nature? How do you answer them?Regards,Dawson

  51. "How do you answer them?"Just as easily.

  52. If it's so easy to answer my questions, then what's keeping you from producing your answers? They're easy questions, aren't they? I think they are.What are your answers?Regards,Dawson

  53. "If it's so easy to answer my questions, then what's keeping you from producing your answers?"Your "unwillingness" to come on Skype and ask them.

  54. Have you always been this arbitrary, Sye? Your response above suggests that you think it's easy to answer my questions. But you've refused to answer them. You make some action you want me to perform a condition for you answering them. But I think this is just a smokescreen – in fact, many people do. I think you just don't want to commit yourself to a position that you'll be held to later. I think you're afraid to post answers to my questions because you'll know they'll be eviscerated right before your eyes – and you know this because you know deep down that your worldview is purely subjective in the final analysis, and that it can't hold a candle to my worldview. If you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Show us your answers. Take your own advice: "man up" and "grow some."By the way, has your god joined you in a Skype conversation before? I'm going to lunch. I'll check in when I get back to review your answers.Regards,Dawson

  55. "But you've refused to answer them."Um no. I have REPEATEDLY offered to answer them if you ask them live on Skype. You have declined."But I think this is just a smokescreen – in fact, many people do."This concerns me how?"If you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Show us your answers."Man up and ask them on Skype!

  56. Sye, you need to 'man up' and answer them here.

  57. Sye: “Man up and ask them on Skype!”I’ve already asked my questions. Everyone’s waiting for you to “man up” and answer them.Let me make them really simple for you to understand:1) Why does Chris Bolt (and now Eric Hovind) assume the truth of the primacy of existence when Dustin Segers insists that the primacy of existence is false, self-refuting, question-begging and internally incoherent? 2) According to your worldview, is evil ever morally justifiable?3) How can Christians claim that their worldview alone accounts for knowledge, when their worldview can't account for concepts?4) Do you think nature is truly uniform? If yes, do you think nature's uniformity was caused by some form of conscious activity? If yes, how do you justify this assumption? If no, what's the problem?So, are you going to "man up" and give the readers of this blog your answers? Are you going to "grow some" and boldly stand by your worldview? Or are you going to continue to cower behind your persistent silliness and worn-out excuses?What will it be?Regards,Dawson

  58. Sye:     There is no reason for him to ask them on Skype. If you won't answer him here, you won't answer him there. You'll just add another condition. Furthermore, these are details about your worldview. Since you expect Bob to provide full details of his worldview before you will debate him, you should answer these questions before asking Dawson to debate you on Skype.

  59. Okay, here's the deal; If I answer them here, will you Dawson, agree to a 1 hour Skype debate?

  60. Sye asked: “Okay, here's the deal; If I answer them here, will you Dawson, agree to a 1 hour Skype debate?”Nope. This is your worldview we’re talking about. This is your opportunity, right here, right now, to “grow some,” “man up,” and answer on behalf of your worldview which you’re constantly trumpeting as the “only worldview” which can account for logic, reason, knowledge, science, morality and what have you. The questions which I have posed to you are in direct relation to the presuppositionalist claim to have an “account” for these things. If your worldview truly has an “account” for logic, reason, knowledge, science, morality and the rest, then by all means you should be willing – indeed eager – to address these of all questions at the very least. In fact, such questions are so pertinent to such a claim that presuppositionlalists should have ready and impenetrable answers to my questions. And yet, look at how fundamentally conflicted we find Chris Bolt, Dustin Segers, and you yourself when confronted with the issues that I have raised. It’s a very sad state of affairs for you guys.Chris Bolt completely vacated the scene, and tried his best to clean up after himself –even on his own blog! Luckily Alex kept a record of Bolt’s comments and posted them on his blog after Bolt deleted them. Segers took down his blog, claimed he was going to do further research, said (in a subsequent podcast) that he thanked me (but he never did), and has not posted any more of my comments on his blog, even though he should realize I’m an ideal resource to help him with his “further research” on the primacy of existence. And of course there’s you: you are amply aware of my questions, have continued a dialogue of sorts, but have refused to present any answers here, save for a bewilderingly mediocre attempt to characterize Romans 11:36 as Christianity’s account for concepts when one could learn from this verse ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what a concept is, what kind of nature it has, how it is formed (or even if it’s formed at all), how a concept relates to the things it denotes in the world, how concepts are defined, how they relate to other concepts, etc. And on my other questions, you’ve completely ignored them. You didn’t need me on Skype to point to Romans 11:36 as Christianity’s “account” for concepts, so why now do you need me on Skype to address my other questions? Blank out.No, Sye, I’ve got you guys on the run. There’s no need for me to make concessions or compromise my principles. If you want to answer for your worldview, I’m all eyes. If you don’t, then that in itself will be taken as your answer, that you too are fleeing the scene while desperately trying to save face as you scoot yourself out the door, leaving your worldview without an account, and without an excuse. So it’s up to you. Man up, or wimp out.Regards,Dawson

  61. "No, Sye, I’ve got you guys on the run."So, let's recap: I have offered to answer your questions if you ask them on Skype, now I have even offered to answer your questions here, if you agree to debate me on Skype! Yup, I sure am running there Dawson!

  62. I wrote: "No, Sye, I’ve got you guys on the run."Sye responded: “So, let's recap: I have offered to answer your questions if you ask them on Skype, now I have even offered to answer your questions here, if you agree to debate me on Skype! Yup, I sure am running there Dawson!”Yes, you are, Sye, you are running with your tail between your legs. You’re afraid to put your position down in writing for everyone watching this to see. Look what happened to your website! (How’s your rebuttal coming along?)I wonder how you imagine your god’s reaction to all this. Let’s imagine together, shall we?On that day Sye found himself faced with a difficult dilemma: answer Dawson’s questions and expose his position to scrutiny, or ignore the questions and leave them dangling unanswered. So, after much consternation over the matter, Sye prayed a prayer to his god: “Dear Lord, what sayest thou I should do? Shall I give I answer to Dawson’s questions, or shall I avoid them? Tell me, O Lord, what I shall do. Guide me with thine holy wisdom, and I shall do accordingly.”And the Lord did look down on Sye and spake, saying:“Sye, ye pitiful and most confused servant, whatever thou doest, thou shalt not answer Dawson’s wicked questions. Thou art mine representative, and thou shalt answer only what I deliver to thee. The Lord hath spoken.”So there you have it. Even Sye’s lord and savior doesn’t want Sye to answer these questions. They’re simply too lethal for his worldview, and Sye rightly senses this. That’s why he’s been resisting all along – he knows his worldview is no match for them.Yep, this is running, Sye style. Regards,Dawson

  63. "You’re afraid to put your position down in writing for everyone watching this to see."Hmmm, how do you get that from me offering to answer your questions HERE, IN WRITING if you agree to debate me on Skype? You are grasping at straws man! Keep writing though, it's hiding your lily liverdness REAL well 😀

  64. Answer them here, Sye, if you're so confident that you can."You are grasping at straws man! Keep writing though, it's hiding your lily liverdness REAL well :-D"Sye, that Dunning Kruger must be overwhelming you if you think the person looking like a coward is Dawson! Remember, HE challenged YOU to answer in writing BEFORE you brought up this silly Skype obstruction. YOU are the person running away and trying to avoid answering, and everyone is having a good belly laugh at your expense.

  65. I wrote: “You’re afraid to put your position down in writing for everyone watching this to see."Sye asked: “Hmmm, how do you get that from me offering to answer your questions HERE, IN WRITING if you agree to debate me on Skype?”I get that from the fact that for several days now, you’ve known of both my questions and my turndown of your invite to join you on Skype, AND YOU STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS! That’s how I get that. Hey, it’s your worldview. Answer for it, or don’t. It’s your choice. Your continued participation in the comments dialogue demonstrates that you are certainly willing to post here and that you have the opportunity to present your answers to my questions right now, at any time you choose. You’re the one holding up your own progress here, Sye. I’ve simply posed the questions. You’re the one trying to create all these conditions for answering them. Meanwhile, you remain without an account.Sye: “You are grasping at straws man! Keep writing though, it's hiding your lily liverdness REAL well :-D”I have the upper hand here, Sye, and I know it. It is not I who has been reluctant to answer questions posed to me about my worldview. It is not I who has deleted posts, comments and squelched feedback. It is not I who continues to “promise” to answer questions only if conditions X, Y, Z and who knows what else are met. You’re the one pussyfootin’ here, because you’re the pussy. Flat and simple. You and all your talk of “grow some” and “man up.” I’ve interacted with a lot of self-styled “apologists” for Christianity over the years, but you’re probably the biggest disgrace I’ve come across in a long while. Besides, if you present your answers here, why would there still be any need to do a Skype conversation? After all, you’re the one who said there’s nothing to be gained by doing that. Remember?Now try out your next round of stalling.Regards,Dawson

  66. "YOU are the person running away and trying to avoid answering, and everyone is having a good belly laugh at your expense."Well, I plan on appearing on another atheist podcast soon, and I hope to discuss this very matter. Let's see if all atheists feel as you and Dawson do about this!

  67. "I get that from the fact that for several days now, you’ve known of both my questions and my turndown of your invite to join you on Skype"I just recently sweetened the deal though 😀 "Besides, if you present your answers here, why would there still be any need to do a Skype conversation?"To shut your mouth.

  68. I wrote: "I get that from the fact that for several days now, you’ve known of both my questions and my turndown of your invite to join you on Skype AND YOU STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS! That’s how I get that."In his response, Sye quoted all but what’s in italics here. Even he does not want to face the fact that, to date, he’s not answered pertinent questions directed at his worldview.Sye responded: “I just recently sweetened the deal though :-D”Nothing in anything you’ve stated in your comments to me suggests you’ve sweetened any “deal.” What is it with you and this word “deal” anyway? Either you answer on behalf of your worldview, as an apologist does according to his “calling,” or you don’t. Your choice, Sye. I’ve already made my choices known to you. You will not be able to make me budge from them. I asked: "Besides, if you present your answers here, why would there still be any need to do a Skype conversation?"Sye responded: “To shut your mouth.”Again, you want to make this a *personal* matter, when my questions are about worldview analysis. Simply amazing! You can’t shut my mouth, Sye. In fact, if any mouth-shutting has gone on, I’ve shut your mouth, since you won’t be Skyping with me any time soon, or ever. So your mouth has effectively been shut in that regard. Besides, as you yourself have been at pains to remind everyone, I’m “hiding behind my keyboard,” remember? And you’re not going to have any impact on that. You’re just sore that I’m not giving you an opportunity to “shut my mouth,” while my questions still remain unanswered. You must be really damn frustrated right now. Your buddies have fled the scene, have picked up their own trash, and aren’t poking their heads out of their hiding spots. And you, well, you’ve been a washout all along. Citing Romans 11:36 as your “account” for concepts…. Man! If I joined you on Skype, I really don’t think I’d be able to control my laughter. Far from “shutting my mouth,” I think you would just continue to entertain me there as you have here. But I’m already satisfied with where things stand. Regards,Dawson

  69. Sye, is this a game to you? Because if you really believed what you claim then surely this would be far more important? There should be no space for name calling and childishness when people's eternal souls are involved!If you really believed this stuff you'd be humble and take any abuse, whilst giving answers gladly – instead you act like an internet troll.

  70. ”Again, you want to make this a *personal* matter, when my questions are about worldview analysis. Simply amazing! “That’s because, believe it or not, I care about YOU as a person, the state of your "reasoning," and where you will end up if you do not repent.”You can’t shut my mouth, Sye. In fact, if any mouth-shutting has gone on, I’ve shut your mouth, since you won’t be Skyping with me any time soon, or ever.”Nah, others are willing, and I hope to bring this up 🙂” You’re just sore that I’m not giving you an opportunity to “shut my mouth,” Not in the least. I actually don’t like doing debates, but would do it out of duty.”Man! If I joined you on Skype, I really don’t think I’d be able to control my laughter.“Perhaps it would sound like the screeches of a little girl and that’s why you refuse 🙂”But I’m already satisfied with where things stand.”Moi aussi 🙂

  71. "There should be no space for name calling and childishness when people's eternal souls are involved!"Did you not read my post about "righteous mockery?" 🙂

  72. I wrote: ”Again, you want to make this a *personal* matter, when my questions are about worldview analysis. Simply amazing! “Sye: “That’s because, believe it or not, I care about YOU as a person, the state of your ‘reasoning’, and where you will end up if you do not repent.”No, that’s not why you’re evading my questions, Sye. You’re evading them because: a) you don’t want to commit your position in writing, and b) you’re afraid to have whatever response you give to my questions scrutinized. Your reluctance to answer my questions has nothing to do with any “concern” for my soul’s destiny. After all, isn’t that up to you god in the end anyway? You don’t think there’s anything you can do to alter my soul’s future residence, do you? You aren’t even consistent with your own Calvinistic fatalism. Amazing!!!!!! The shrill of your evasions just gets louder and louder.And if you were truly concerned about my soul, and thought your actions had some kind of impact on the situation, then all the more you should be trying to help me understand. And that would involve answering my questions. But you don't have answers for them. Even after all the back and forth. You're hosed here. Selah.I wrote: ”You can’t shut my mouth, Sye. In fact, if any mouth-shutting has gone on, I’ve shut your mouth, since you won’t be Skyping with me any time soon, or ever.”Sye responded: “Nah, others are willing, and I hope to bring this up :-)”I’m betting that others will probably be bringing it up before you breathe the words “Hi, my name’s Sye Ten Bruggencate. You can find my website at….” This is simply too fucking ripe!I wrote: ”You’re just sore that I’m not giving you an opportunity to ‘shut my mouth’,” Sye: “Not in the least.”Yes “in the least.” You just got finished saying that this is why you thought it was important for me to come onto Skype with you AFTER you answered my questions in writing here. You continue to strike me as someone who’s completely out of touch with what he’s stated a few moments earlier. This is yet another symptom of the double-mindedness of your worldview. It blinds you to your own indiscretions, as I pointed out earlier.Sye wrote: “I actually don’t like doing debates, but would do it out of duty.”But you avoid direct questions about your worldview. Whether on Skype or in blog comments. This is plain for all to see. It’s been documented time and time again.I wrote: ”Man! If I joined you on Skype, I really don’t think I’d be able to control my laughter.“Sye responded: “Perhaps it would sound like the screeches of a little girl and that’s why you refuse :-)”My laughter might sound like anything – since the cause of it is nearly unprecedented. But I don’t “refuse” my laughter. Never. I love laughing. It’s fun! Just like watching your Titanic sink in the chill waters of intellectual resignation.I wrote: ”But I’m already satisfied with where things stand.”Sye: “Moi aussi :-)”Then why did you try to “sweeten the deal” by offering to answer my questions here *IF* I agree to Skype with you afterwards?????? Talk about cognitive dissonance. I don’t think I can help you, Sye. You need a really good therapist. And badly!Regards,Dawson

  73. "Then why did you try to “sweeten the deal” by offering to answer my questions here *IF* I agree to Skype with you afterwards??????"Erm, perhaps the same reason you keep prattling on after YOU said that you were satisfied with the way things stand! Wow!

  74. Sye: "Erm, perhaps the same reason you keep prattling on after YOU said that you were satisfied with the way things stand! Wow!"And what reason do you suppose that is, Sye? Since you think it's the same as yours, just tell me your reason, and I'll let you know if you've got it or not.Hint: I don't think they're one and the same. And I'm confident no one else does too.By the way, how are you coming with those answers?Regards,Dawson

  75. "Did you not read my post about "righteous mockery?" :-)"Yes, let's have some verses then.

  76. "That’s because, believe it or not, I care about YOU as a person, the state of your "reasoning," and where you will end up if you do not repent."Bullshit. If you did you'd be happily answering questions right here. You're all about grandstanding, nothing more.

  77. "Perhaps it would sound like the screeches of a little girl and that’s why you refuse :-)"Sye, do you think that all the ad homs are doing your argument any favours?

  78. You see, Sye, we’re waiting for you to give an account for your worldview. Here are my questions again:1) Why does Chris Bolt (and now Eric Hovind) assume the truth of the primacy of existence when Dustin Segers insists that the primacy of existence is false, self-refuting, question-begging and internally incoherent? 2) According to your worldview, is evil ever morally justifiable?3) How can Christians claim that their worldview alone accounts for knowledge, when their worldview can't account for concepts?4) Do you think nature is truly uniform? If yes, do you think nature's uniformity was caused by some form of conscious activity? If yes, how do you justify this assumption? If no, what's the problem?Your answers???????Gonna let these questions dangle unanswered for all eternity, Sye?Regards,Dawson

  79. "I'll let you know if you've got it or not."I'm happy with your admission to "prattling on." :-)Cheers.P.S. You still don't know what the ad hom fallacy is Alex.

  80. Sye wrote: "I'm happy with your admission to 'prattling on.' :-)"Then I guess we won't be hearing from you any more then. You're happy. I'm happy. I've asked my questions. You've not answered them. There it stands.Thank you, Sye. It has been very sweet.Regards,Dawson

  81. "P.S. You still don't know what the ad hom fallacy is Alex."Yeah, that's right Sye, I haven't a fucking clue. Look at how clueless I am! Twat.Let's have those Bible verses that say you can 'righteously mock' others.

  82. "Look at how clueless I am!"It's not like this is news Alex. "Let's have those Bible verses that say you can 'righteously mock' others"My claim is that there is room for righteous mockery in Scripture. If you want an example, read 1 Kings 18. (especially vs. 27 which uses a Hebrew euphemisnm for "on the toilet").

  83. Is that IT? Is that ALL you've got! Wow! Sye, you're really desperate to justify your massive douchebaggery, aren't you?

  84. "Is that IT? Is that ALL you've got!"Nope, but it is sufficient to prove my point, and make you resort to your, non-argumentation, and name-calling once again.

  85. Pathetic.Sye, will you answer the questions Dawson has asked, please.

  86. "Sye, will you answer the questions Dawson has asked, please."Funny how you try to divert when you are refuted.

  87. "Funny how you try to divert when you are refuted."More transference? How unbecoming of you!Sye, I'll be the first person to let you know if you EVER manage to 'refute' me.And really, is it a diversion when I'm asking you to return to the questions at hand? Am *I* diverting when it's YOU who has led us into a diversion?Answer the questions, fraud.

  88. Also, I must add, if you are able to use that verse to justify 'righteous mockery' then you must surely also be able to justify 'righteous genocide', 'righteous rape', and 'righteous infanticide'! It must be hellish existing inside your head, Sye.

  89. I would join in guys but as someone late to the thread I think it's clear that Sye is exhibiting behaviour that is best described as a mania.He has to debate on Skype, or in person. Merely exchanging comments on a thread is akin to a series of robotic movements.It's almost as though the experience is all that sates his desires.I feel some pity for the guy, he needs professional help.

  90. Skype TenB seems to be exhibiting the same debate-control-freakery we've seen from William Lane Craig.

  91. I personally think Circular Sye is having some kind of breakdown.

  92. Goodness me gentlemen ( and it seems like a lot of blokes here) you all need to SWITCH OFF THE COMPUTER and get out in the fresh air, smell the daisies, talk to your children, help old ladies across the road, anything really rather than this unedifying and totally tedious and pointless argument.If there is a God he won't be affected either way and would rather you all got on with feeding the hungry etc: if there isn't you only have a few more years of productive life on this planet and there must be better things to do with it. Please, Alex and all those who waste their lives arguing with him, GET A LIFE!!! (and that includes me too, of course)

  93. hey, anonymous, i have a life, but thanks anyway. Fighting against the idiocy of god-belief is important, as these people will do anything to further their agenda, and in their desire to control others.

  94. "Anonymous", perhaps if you knew what Alex's job was, you'd shut up. For me, I spend at least an hour or so outside every workday as part of my job.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: