He just keeps on giving!
I'm sure glad that you don't mind taking quotes out of context Alex. It will give you no reason to complain when we post a video of your quotes IN context.
Of course, given Christianity's premises, Sye has no way of knowing whether or not he's been deceived by a malevolent spirit. So he cannot say with any reliability whether a quote is being used in context or out of context. Any position he affirms on anything could be under the influence of supernatural deception, and he wouldn't know it (since he'd be deceived). The only remedy for this is to abandon the Christian worldview completely, and adopt a *rational* worldview, which recognizes belief in "the supernatural" as an expression of irrationality.Regards,Dawson
Syecular, I look forward to you posting your videos with everything in context, including previous and following podcasts where the development of my ideas will be clear all to hear!
Dawson, you are absolutely right – Syecular cannot account for ANYTHING given his incoherent 'worldview'.
Alex: "Dawson, you are absolutely right – Syecular cannot account for ANYTHING given his incoherent 'worldview'."Right. But don't forget that this inability is not restricted only to Syecho. It's sympomatic of presuppositionalism in general, because the worldview which presuppositionalism is intended to defend (namely Christianity) is inherently irrational from its very foundations. An irrational worldview has nothing of value to offer on any legitimate philosophical concern, and that is precisely what we've observed on display in Syecho's conversation: when asked, for example, a question like 'How does Christianity account for concepts?' we get a 12-word verse pulled out of the bible pretty much at random which offers NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER on the nature of concepts, how they are formed, how they are defined, how they relate to the things we perceive in the world, how they relate to each other, etc., etc. If Romans 11:36 Christianity's "account for" concepts as Syecho has stated, then I was right from the beginning on this: Christianity has NO ACCOUNT for concepts whatsoever. And given this fact, it follows logically that Christianity therefore cannot account for knowledge, since knowledge is conceptual in nature. I remember when I first picked up Van Til's A Christian Theory of Knowledge, the first thing I started looking for in this book was where Van Til discussed the nature of concepts. I couldn't find any such discussion, when in fact a book with a title suggesting that it was intending to lay out a worldview's "theory of knowledge," I'd expect to see several chapters devoted specifically to the questions I've raised about concepts. But it wasn't to be found in Van Til's book. On the contrary, it was page after page of "the unbeliever can't account for…" as if such blanket denunciations constituted a "theory of knowledge." Really, just f-ing amazing!When I have sufficient time to develop these points, I will post a new entry exploring the problem a little deeper on my blog when I interact with Syecho's "answers" to my questions. But I've already got a lot of information on just this topic on there already. It's the gaping hole in presuppositionalism's doomed Titanic.Regards,Dawson
"Syecular, I look forward to you posting your videos with everything in context, including previous and following podcasts where the development of my ideas will be clear all to hear!"Well, we will certainly give you fairer treatment than you gave Eric 🙂 Or maybe I should wait 2 years for your comments from now to be in context?
Here ya go 🙂
I'm sure that's very special for you, Sye. Though I can't help but notice that you've managed to fit 5 hours of discussion into less than 3 minutes! Incredible, that's some nifty time compression you've done there! Still, I'm sure you've (in keeping with your religion's instructions that you be honest) managed to include everything that happened, right up to the end of the last discussion I had with you!Toodle pip!
Oh, and can you give me the timing from the single piece of audio that you undoubtedly used? Want to make sure you've not edited the fragment you've presented there!
Er, btw, I can't help but notice that the video claims the 'full debate' is 'coming on DVD soon'….you don't have any permission from either myself or Jim to use this for commercial purposes.
Can I have a direct download link for the file please, Syecular?
Never mind! Got it myself! You need to be more careful in future, Sycular! What a spectacular own goal you've scored!'
Bit of a posting frenzy there Alex 😀 Don't like having your foolishness exposed I see. As I said though, I did not make this video, so your frenzy is misdirected.
"Foolishness"? Sye, you're the one who's constantly going around in circles and saying stupid stuff like "you can't ask for evidence for the basis of evidence" (claiming that biblegod is this basis of evidence and then refusing to give any actual evidence that he exists)…
Syecular, you really need to stop with these own goals, you do more harm to yourself than any of us could ever manage.
You may have to explain to him what an "own goal" is. It may be a tad over his head. 😉
Yeah, Syecular does seem to have difficulty with even the simplest of phrases.
Sye: You said you were going to make a viedeo. Then you said "here it is." It certainly sounded like you were saying that was the video you were making. It would seem that Alex's mistake was taking you at your word.
Here it is? Man, my comment is on this same thread, how could you get it wrong?Look, when I make videos I post them on my YouTube channels, and do not deny authorship.Whether or not Alex's assumption was warranted, he has been corrected, but has not fixed his error. This simply serves to further expose his character for what it is.
Sye: This thread, 23 Nov. 18:14 and 23 Nov 20:01. (I will grant that you said "here ya go" instead of "here it is." Now, your original claim may have been in another thread. But you essentially repeated it here.Alex, you might want to do a screen capture, before we see "This post removed by author."
"I will grant that you said "here ya go" instead of "here it is."Erm, that was my point. Why would I take that down?Simple fact is, Alex has been informed of his error, and as yet, has not made the changes. Typical. Expected, but typical.
syecular, i will correct the video attribution the moment you tell me who made it. I've asked you more than once for this information already.
"i will correct the video attribution the moment you tell me who made it."What in any way does that have to do with your error? That's not honesty, that's extortion!
until you tell me who made it I have no good reason to believe it wasn't you!
"until you tell me who made it I have no good reason to believe it wasn't you!"Why would you believe me if I gave another name and not now? Your "reasoning" is atrocious (as usual).I could not care less if you changed it. All this does is expose your duplicity and give me cause for action. THIS is where the term "libel" is properly used.
Sye, you claimed you would make a video, you promised it was in the works for about a week, then you posted a link to a video that contained the exact content you had been promising. At no point in this process did you say you hadn't made it.So, who did? I'm more than happy to correct the attribution once I have a name to attach.
BTW, fancy having a chat with Jim and I via Skype?
Sye: It currently looks like you made the video. You certainly endorse it. Alex reporting something he still believes to be true is not libel. If you were to identify the author, and he says he did it, then Alex would have a reason to believe he was, in fact, in error when he attributed it to you. Right now, it looks like you can't even think of someone else that sounds plausible to have made the video. You just don't like the correct attribution to you.
"Alex reporting something he still believes to be true is not libel."Then why did he change it?Still his description is inaccurate and libelous. He says: "He has been recently threatening to make a video of part of those debates, and today posted a link to that promised video," which is not true. I did not promise a video, and I did not make that video. Yes, I suggested that I would be making a video, but, as I have stated, that video is not it.You are going to have to get even more creative in your writing Alex!
Come on Sye! Going to name who made it? Btw, I've changed the name of the video because I haven't got confirmation that it was, in fact, Eric Hovind who slapped it together. Once I've got that I'll be updating.But really, Syecular, can you blame EVERYONE for thinking YOU made it?
"I did not promise a video…Yes, I suggested that I would be making a video"Brilliant
"can you blame EVERYONE for thinking YOU made it"I don't blame people for believing that I made it, I blame you for claiming that I did even AFTER I told you that I did not."Brilliant"Only a professed atheist would equate a suggestion with a promise.
Well, in 20 minutes you'll be able to put your case, if you don't pussy out.
"Well, in 20 minutes you'll be able to put your case"I've already made my case. Surely you are not suggesting that one needs to go on a podcast to make a case? If so, you might wanna take that up with Mr. Bethrick 😀
Oh dear, neither Eric or yourself turned up! How unfortunate!
Sye wrote: "I've already made my case. Surely you are not suggesting that one needs to go on a podcast to make a case? If so, you might wanna take that up with Mr. Bethrick :-D"Are you now borrowing from me, Sye…. again???? You're the one who's always insisting on going on Skype and doing podcasts so that the world can hear your voice. But now suddenly you don't want to go on Skype. You say you've already made your case. But when I pointed out that I already made my case (many in fact), that wasn't good enough for you. You still wanted to come back at me with playground taunts. (Btw, how well did those work?)I'm curious, though, Sye: if you didn't do the video, who did? Do you not know? Are you lying?Regards,DawsonPS. When are you ever going to offer support for your charge of "blatantly begging the question" that you posted in your drive-by comment over here? Never perhaps?
Oh Sye knows who it was (*cough* Eric Hovind *cough*) but is, for some reason, trying to a) distance himself from it, and b) protect his lying Creationist chum.I think even Sye knows that the way the audio has been edited does nothing whatsoever to support his cause, and just makes Christians in general look dishonest. If he was proud of the work, or in full agreement with the way it was put together I'm sure he'd be shouting out loud that Eric made it, and that he was happy to call him a friend.As it stands, Sye was more than happy to place the original copy of the video on a page on his site, and has only started back peddling furiously since I republished it on Youtube, which was when I believe he realised it made him look bad and started threatening me with legal action for linking his name to the video.
I fully support the content of that video.I believe that the video accurately displays what happened in the debate, and the URL of the entire exchange is provided for anyone too see the full context.
Sye: "I fully support the content of that video."If that's the case, and you know who put the video together, why don't you identify the individual who put it together?I don't have a dog in this race. But I admit that all the controversy has made me quite curious.Regards,Dawson
"I fully support the content of that video."In that case why did you claim that any statement indicating you'd made it was 'libel'? In fact, given that the Bible explicitly states that all believers are 'one in Christ' (Galatians 3:28) I don't see what grounds you have to complain if I say YOU made the video.
in fact, i'm very tempted to change the title back to implicating Sye – after all, he claims to support the video, and his own religion claims all believers are 'one in Christ' so i don't see how he could possibly object….unless he really DOESN'T support the video, and disagrees with the word of his own god!
Dear Sye,Libel law, in case you were unsure, is based upon judgements on a given statement as to whether or not a reasonable person would come to a similar conclusion based upon the available evidence.If an individual states that they are going to create a video on a particular subject using certain media then publishes a video on that subject using that media and does not specifically attribute it to another individual. A reasonable person would conclude that the first individual had made that video.Therefore until you provide evidence or specifically attribute that video to another it is reasonable to assume it was created by you. Therefore, a statement of the point that "Sye Ten Bruggencate created video X" is not libel.Regards.
"Libel law, in case you were unsure, is based upon judgements on a given statement as to whether or not a reasonable person would come to a similar conclusion based upon the available evidence."I did not fault Alex for his initial assessment, but for his persistence that it was me when I provided contrary evidence (i.e. that I do not have a Blip account, and it was OBVIOUSLY filed under another known, Blip account) AND for his misrepresentation of what was actually contained in the video.
Misrepresentation?? I pointed out, correctly, that the video contains audio that has been edited to make the Christians look better and the atheists worse. How is that 'misrepresentation', you witless dick?
1. Not having a particular account type is not enough to suggest to a reasonable person that one did not create the video if one had already stated that they were going to create such a video and if there is no other attribution to said video. If one did have a particular account and it was not posted under that account then that would suggest to a reasonable person that it was not created by the first individual. That being not the case an attribution as the creator of the video would be the only way to clear this up, either by the first individual or by the person that the first individual claims created the video.2. I can't see any misrepresentation.
sye, since when has saying 'it wasn't me' been 'contrary evidence'?
Seems to me, Syecular, that you wouldn't have a case at all if you tried to get my implication of you as the creator of the video held up as a libel. Thing is, despite the video being hosted on Eric Hovind's account, it was YOU who was boasting that you would be making it, and it was YOU who then posted a link to said video, embedded into a page on YOUR website. You started crying about it when I (reasonably) assumed that you were the creator, claiming that I'd libeled you. To date you've not really supplied ANY evidence to contradict the notion that you are (at least partially) responsible for its making, sure it's on Eric's blip.tv account, but that doesn't mean you didn't make it and ask for it to be hosted by Eric. Again, this is not unreasonable to believe, as you are plastered all over various videos hosted on that account, and even appear on the covers of some of Eric's commercial DVDs!As I said before, a claim of 'I didn't do it' INS'T evidence of innocence – seriously, did you think that would float? Try murdering someone and then using that in court as your defense, see how far it gets you!As it stands, my opinion is that Eric Hovind is the guilty party, but that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING you've said when one considers that it was I who traced the Blip.tv account back to him without you pointing it out. Syecho, all you've done is crow about making a video, post a link to a video containing the EXACT content you claimed yours would contain, and then threaten legal action when people believed that the video was your handiwork! Then you backpeddled *again* and started saying that you fully support the video! Jesus man, are you incapable of being consistent or honest? From my perspective it seems to me that you've realised that the video makes you and Eric look REALLY fucking bad, the kind of Christians who'll manipulate and distort the context of a debate to try and make themselves look better – it's destroyed your credibility and any trustworthiness you may previously have had. After all, who is going to want to debate you now if they are aware that their words could be twisted and chopped afterwards by you or Eric Hovind?Hilariously Eric is playing dumb on Twitter, even when sent a link to the video HOSTED ON HIS OWN FUCKING ACCOUNT!! The two of you look like clowns, Syeten, and your handiwork is now being spread all over via that handy youtube page I made for it, and my own blog (which, don't forget, is STILL streaming the video DIRECT from Eric's account!!)I look forward to seeing what your next move is, Syecular, and hope it will be as hilariously inept as your steps so far in this affair.
Of course there is a piece of the puzzle which you, and your 'friend' seem to be too inept to figure out, which I have no intention of doing for you.Interestingly enough in all this, you never specify any misrepresentation, obviously because there is none. Here is your opportunity though Alex, what in the video is a misrepresentation of what you actually said or meant at the time?
And if you are this bent out of shape about this, you had better get some counseling before what's coming 🙂
Had a wonderful Thanksgiving with family and friends this past weekend. Thought I would share what happened from my point of view in case you're interested. On Tuesday November 22 Alex and I were in a Twitter discussion and I told him that I would make a video and post it on Wednesday. erichovind: @theealex for someone who says we cant know anything, you sure act like you know a lot. sounds to me like you believe in God.theealex: @erichovind Eric, I've NOT said 'we can't know anything', YOU kept saying that, not me.erichovind: @theealex I will quote you. "It's possible that we don't know anything."theealex: @erichovind please provide where I said 'we can't know anything' as you claim I diderichovind: @theealex at dinner now, tomorrow I will upload it as a video.On Wednesday Morning I took the first debate between Sye, Alex, Jim and Myself and showed some very obvious contradictions that Alex would not admit too. Once the video was up I went home for my Thanksgiving weekend with family. I sent Sye a message and asked him to put the video where Alex could see it. While enjoying time with my family I noticed that Alex was asking if I made a video and provided a link. I told him that I was not at my computer but when I get home I would check it out. I wanted to make sure it was my video and not another that I was taking credit for. theealex: Eric Hovind is ignoring me when I ask if he made this http://t.co/zRfkX8mG Please RT so he can't avoid it! @erichovinderichovind: @theealex when I get to my computer, I will check the link to see what video you're talking about.When I had the opportunity to review the video link provided the video had been removed by the user. erichovind: @MiloArk @theealex I am home now and can't find that video you were talking about. What happened to it?This morning I got to the office and noticed that the video had been re-uploaded. I watched it and yes, it is the video that I made. It links to the full show, and does not misrepresent what was being communicated in the debate. The video shows that Alex is saying, "I could be wrong about everything" and at the same time claiming that he "knows things". It shows that he uses his senses which he can not prove are valid to assume that his senses are valid. That was the whole point of the discussion. He contradicts himself and then denies doing so. To accurately present what was said and show the logical problems with it is not dishonest. Alex himself even said, "I pointed out, correctly, that the video contains audio that has been edited to make the Christians look better and the atheists worse." Alex, the reason the Christian worldview looks better is because it is! We can account for the reliability of our senses, knowledge, absolutes, act … To deny these things is "foolish"…Eric
Sye, Eric, only pathological liars could think that this video didn't misrepresent the discussion.
"Sye, Eric, only pathological liars could think that this video didn't misrepresent the discussion."The floor is yours Alex, please give specific examples of this alleged misrepresentation.
"And if you are this bent out of shape about this, you had better get some counseling before what's coming :-)"Let me guess – it'll be something involving you and Eric confirming your positions as unrepentant liars for Jesus?
"The video shows that Alex is saying, "I could be wrong about everything" and at the same time claiming that he "knows things". It shows that he uses his senses which he can not prove are valid to assume that his senses are valid. That was the whole point of the discussion. He contradicts himself and then denies doing so. "I fail to see the contradiction here. "I could be wrong about everything" is a simple statement of the possibility that what is believed known may be incorrect.Which in no way contradicts a statement that he can know things.Secondly, having listened to the conversation, stating or implying that he stated: " From a theory of knowledge framework1. I know things2. I could be wrong about everything"is most definitely a misrepresentation. He first responded to a general question as to whether he knows things. Then later responded to the possibility that he may be wrong about things. The first was a general statement not placed in a specific framework as to what exactly constitutes knowledge.The second was the humble admission that everything may not be as it appears.There is one point though were Alex is clearly incorrect. He can most definitely know that he exists, and he could not be possibly be wrong about that. He could possibly be wrong about your existence but not about his own.We can only ever know two things.1. That we as an individual exist2. That we are wrong about something.
"I fail to see the contradiction here."Not surprised.
I'll say it a better way then.There is no contradiction there. It only exists in mind because you have conflated disparate streams of discussion which are not miscible.
"There is no contradiction there."Erm, could you be wrong about that? 🙂
"Erm, could you be wrong about that? :-)"Only as much as I could be wrong that you just asked a question.In other words, for all essential purposes, no.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.