an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Thinking of Debating Sye Ten Bruggencate or Eric Hovind? Don’t!

Are you an atheist who runs a podcast, fancy interviewing or debating Sye Ten Bruggencate and/or Eric Hovind? Think twice before you do! Eric and Sye are two of the most dishonest liars for Jesus out there, and are not beyond chopping up any recording they may have of your debate to make themselves look better – want evidence? Watch this.

Bottom line, you can’t truth either of them not to misrepresent what you say, so I’d advise you to tell them to ‘fuck off’ if either of them comes a-knockin’.

EDIT: Read the comments, they’re comedy GOLD, and further illustrate just how fucking far through the looking glass Sye and Eric really are.

Single Post Navigation

72 thoughts on “Thinking of Debating Sye Ten Bruggencate or Eric Hovind? Don’t!

  1. I would suggest that Alex is warning you to heed his advice so as you are not the next one to have your views exposed as his were: Round 1 Round 2 Round 3Alex keeps alleging misrepresentation, but has yet to provide any specific examples (for obvious reasons).

  2. Sye, I suggest you google 'dunning kruger' as you're a walking talking example of a sufferer.

  3. "Alex keeps alleging misrepresentation, but has yet to provide any specific examples"Sye, if you can't see the misrepresentation of taking a single answer and using it to replace the actual answers given to the question, without pointing out that you've done this to your viewers….well, then you're even more of a lost cause than I thought.You've no idea how poorly this whole thing has reflected on Eric and yourself, have you?

  4. Alex, with all your rambling between the questions, sure some fluff was taken out, but your answers are IN CONTEXT to the questions. If you claim that they are not, please provide specific examples.

  5. Sye, you are insane, and a liar.

  6. Good argument there Alex!

  7. It's not an argument, Sye, merely an observation.

  8. "but your answers are IN CONTEXT to the questions."Ok, here's a straight question. Did I say those exact words in answer to those exact questions?Yes or no?

  9. Duh. Scroll up. There was some fluff and evasion taken out, but the answers are to those questions. Look Alex I realize that you have to try to save face by insinuating that something devious is afoot, but you gave woefully contradictory statements in that exchange, which you cannot cover by alleging misrepresentation (try as you might).

  10. "the answers are to those questions."So I said the EXACT same words, with the EXACT same intonation, and EXACT same interruptions from you guys EACH TIME?Really?Answer the question, are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no.

  11. Your desperation is showing Alex. The questions and answers are in context. If you disagree, please, yawn, provide specific examples.

  12. Sye, it's a simple question, why won't you answer it? Are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no?

  13. Also, if you want to prove how innocent you are, please supply the exact time code for the section you used.

  14. Yes, the words on the video are the exact words you used. Some were repeated for effect (I imagine :-), and some fluff was taken out, but your answers were not spliced mid-sentence to change your meaning and are IN CONTEXT to the questions. Again, if you disagree, please provide specific examples where your answers were taken out of context.(No one should be surprised that he has failed to do so πŸ™‚

  15. "Yes, the words on the video are the exact words you used."That's not what I asked, Sye. Let me ask AGAIN, and take care to read the question properly-Are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no?"Again, if you disagree, please provide specific examples where your answers were taken out of context."Sye, if a single answers was used on that recording to answer a question that I DIDN'T answer with those words, then you are looking at your specific examples.Anyway, let me ask that question for you again, so you can really understand it – Are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no?

  16. Yawn, just watch the video folks, then listen to the entire exchange. Alex is trying to hide is woeful contradictions in semantics to no avail.

  17. Alex, I really do feel sorry for you and all three people that read this blog. You could settle this whole thing by just providing where the phrases were taken out of context. Here are some questions that you can attempt to answer in order to save face. 1. Is it possible that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know? 2. Are there absolute laws of logic? 3. How do we validate our senses?Or you could just admit that your worldview is flawed and can't provide sufficient answers.

  18. BUT I HAVE ANSWERED!!! PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE!!!tee hee

  19. "1. Is it possible that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know?"Yes."2. Are there absolute laws of logic?"No, but it may depend on what you mean by absolute."3. How do we validate our senses?"You mean how do we validate our mind, since "our senses" aren't a single channel, and are in many ways functional extensions of our brain.

  20. Erm, how do you know 2 and 3 given 1?

  21. That question doesn't make any sense.

  22. How do you know THAT or your answers to 2 and 3 given your answer to 1?

  23. Instead of the usual knee-jerk response, why don't you try engaging with the discussion to establish what I actually think? For example, my positions on Bayesian probability, Quantum indeterminacy and Mind/body dualism will affect my actual beliefs on these issues. So again: that question doesn't make any sense.

  24. Sye, I understand why you don't want to answer, and the many many readers of this blog (over 14k hits this month alone) can see clearly why you're dodging, but I'll ask again – Are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no?

  25. "How do you know THAT or your answers to 2 and 3 given your answer to 1?" That right there is why we all think that you are a tool, Sye. You come across as a belligerent, stubborn playground bully who refuses to admit that Santa isn't real and are willing to browbeat anyone who disagrees. Trust me when I say I read all of these exchanges purely for the comedic pleasure you bring to the mix. btw, A "How do you know that?" will not be necessary since it's already presupposed to be coming from you.

  26. "I really do feel sorry for you and all three people that read this blog. You could settle this whole thing by just providing where the phrases were taken out of context."Eric please supply the time codes of the sections you used, that will be evidence enough.

  27. And, to be clear (because I KNOW you'll act like a retard if I don't clarify) I want the time codes from the ORIGINAL discussion, NOT your video.

  28. Sye, BTW, "erm"? Really? That really doesn't put you in a good/better/smarter/whatever you think it's doing, light.

  29. "1. Is it possible that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know?2. Are there absolute laws of logic?3. How do we validate our senses?"Sigh, more stupidity from Hovind Jnr.1. No, because I know I'm thinking, so at least one thing I claim to know is self evidently true.2. No, there are merely descriptions of the Universe around us.3. Our senses give us information about the universe around us, and each give us different information that corroborates the others. If any of our senses DON'T corroborate then we notice pretty quickly, for example people get sea sick because the visual information (that we appear to be stationary) is contradicted by our sense that we're moving, and our brains assume this is happening because we've been poisoned and makes us want to vomit. We validate our senses via the fact that they steer us correctly pretty much all the time. Both you and Syecular have had this explained to you countless times, yet you seem incapable of learning.

  30. Sye, as you seem to have problems with this question, I'll ask again, just to keep it fresh in your mind.Are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no? Eric, how are you coming with those time codes?

  31. Alex believes quite different things to me, yet we are still able to hold an intelligent discussion. The reason for this is that I don't think our disagreement is grounds for me to dismiss his beliefs, but a spur for me to re-examine my own beliefs. Who'da thunk it?

  32. Merkur, careful, Sye and Eric see the ability to change ones mind, to grow as one gains more knowledge, as a weakness. They're all about the 'immovable truth' of Scripture, rather than learning anything.

  33. I know, Alex. I'm not really talking to them: they have no apparent interest in learning and growing. I'm just pointing out the difference for any other theists or atheists who might be interested in joining the debate.

  34. I'm glad to be able to say that most believers and non-believers on here see right through Sye and Eric's bullshit.Talking of Sye and Eric….Sye, are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no? Eric, how are you coming along with those time codes? I want to see a list of them please.

  35. Alex, Did I take any of your answers out of context? As for your answer, "1. No, because I know I'm thinking, so at least one thing I claim to know is self evidently true."How would one verify that they are thinking? Would you use your senses that can not be verified to do that?

  36. "Alex, Did I take any of your answers out of context?"If you used the answer I gave for one question, and pasted it as the 'answer' to another, then you used it out of context. Maybe you can answer the question Sye has run away from – are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no? "How would one verify that they are thinking? Would you use your senses that can not be verified to do that?"Really, if you think this kind of bullshit constitutes a 'good question' then you're a hopelessly lost individual.Got those time codes yet?

  37. "If you used the answer I gave for one question, and pasted it as the 'answer' to another, then you used it out of context."An example as to where you gave an answer to a question out of context would help. Sadly, none is forthcoming."Really, if you think this kind of bullshit constitutes a 'good question' then you're a hopelessly lost individual."Ah, the familiar dodge πŸ™‚ I remember Jim doing the same thing in our exchange, rather than answer he says: "Why do you think that's a good question?" Painfully transparent.

  38. Sye, are the answers given in that video the actual words I used each time? Yes or no?

  39. Yes, they are the actual words you used.

  40. Again, I will ask the question, and you need to read it REALLY carefully (I will also emphasise the important part, as you seem to be having problems) – Sye, are the answers given in that video the actual words I used EACH TIME? Yes or no?

  41. "Painfully transparent."What's "Painfully transparent" is Sye 'my worldview doesn't have a theory of concepts' Ten Bruggencate and his utter failure as a Christian*.*unless you're actually trying to make people think that all Christians are lying, douchebag cunts – are you? Are you trying to make people think that? Cos if you are I take everything back about you being a failure.

  42. Anyway, let's have an answer to that question, Sye – are the answers given in that video the actual words I used EACH TIME? Yes or no?

  43. Why does Sye continue to lie? Isn't that against one of those commandment thingies or make baby Jesus cry or something like that?

  44. Lye Ten Bruggencate (see what I did there?) LOVES telling lies, he's a fucking expert at it.

  45. How would one verify that they are thinking? Would you use your senses that can not be verified to do that?a) The process of thinking is self-verifying: you couldn't have the thought "I wonder if I'm thinking" without thinking in the first place.b) No.

  46. Alex,Regarding Eric's latest question to you, just ask him how he arrived at the concept "thinking." Maybe ask him to take you through the process. It should be interesting. After all, he seems to assume that the both of you have knowledge of what this concept means (otherwise he wouldn't have asked you the question) — the same knowledge that he earlier questioned you on being possibly wrong about. Ydemoc

  47. "How would one verify that they are thinking? Would you use your senses that can not be verified to do that?"Merkur makes an EXCELLENT point – Eric, please tell me which sense YOU would use to verify thinking.

  48. ""Lye" Brilliant!"The best part is I live in a place called Lye.

  49. For AlexPlease, please, please stop engaging Sye, Eric and even Chris.These are people fuelled by a mania. They have the stamina to continue to waste your time and energy which you could be spending on more interesting topics than this already discredited Presuppositional nonsense.Take the time out that you've already promised yourself.

  50. Speaking of his name, I find it to be a very unusual and interesting one. I've always hoped that it's origins would come up. But I doubt that he'd be able to answer it with a simple explanation.

  51. Paul, you're absolutely right, and just as soon as Sye has answered my question, and Eric has told me exactly what sense he would use to verify thought, I'll be kicking them to the kerb.

  52. Sye, before you say a damned thing, that's how they spell curb in the U.K. (Yes, at times I can be omniscient.)

  53. "What's "Painfully transparent" is Sye 'my worldview doesn't have a theory of concepts'"Erm, I answered your regurgitation of Bethrick's question a loooooong time ago. Paul, Alex is suffering from the same problem you are. His view was so thoroughly dismantled that it has become an obsession of his to try to save face. Just look at all his posts since our exchanges and count how many are devoted to me or to presuppositionalism. You see, he, like you, has said that he is done with me, and would no longer acknowledge me, but he like you, can't help but pick at his open sore. You trying to give him advice on ceasing engaging me would be like one crack addict telling another crack addict not to inhale πŸ™‚

  54. Last chance, Sye, are the answers given in that video the actual words I used EACH TIME? Yes or no?

  55. "Erm, I answered your regurgitation of Bethrick's question a loooooong time ago."Given that neither Dawson or Alex appear to have noticed your "answer", you might want to reconsider whether it was actually an answer at all. To be fair, you probably think that you've answered that question, in precisely the same way that you think that you've thoroughly dismantled Alex's view.

  56. Alex wrote: "What's "Painfully transparent" is Sye 'my worldview doesn't have a theory of concepts'"Sye responded: "Erm, I answered your regurgitation of Bethrick's question a loooooong time ago."Then you should have no problem taking us through the process of concept formation with regard to the following: "possible," "knowledge," "validate," "claim," "wrong," and "everything." Please proceed. Ydemoc

  57. Merkur, Syecular posted a Bible verse as an answer, one that said nothing about concepts. He seems to think this is an 'answer'.I take it that Sye has run away again, fine, I'm happy to delete him in future (unless he says something REALLY fucking stupid)

  58. What do you mean by each time? Each time I play the video, you use the same words – yes. Each time I play the video, you give the same answers to the same questions – yes. Each time I play the video you look reeeeeeeally toopid – yes πŸ™‚

  59. Thank you Sye, that's all I need.

  60. My pleasure πŸ™‚

  61. I love how Sye always has to have the last word, no matter how stupid it is.

  62. I just wanted him to prove how relentlessly, insanely, deluded and dishonest he is – as always he delivered far beyond anything I could have hoped for.

  63. and then some. πŸ˜€

  64. Sye:Β Β Β Β Β What he means by "each time" is quite simple. Did he give the same answer (like a broken record) to every question asked like he appears to do in the edited version? (I haven't listened to it. But I can determine from this discussion that that is what the editing portrays.)

  65. eric, got those time codes yet? How about the sense you use to verify thought, how's that coming along?

  66. For Sye, and Eric, and Chris.http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2011/11/we-should-have-national-be-nice-to.htmlSo what you have to say, is actually very interesting.

  67. I've already debated Sye, both on the Goodness Over God podcast and then later on my blog. I thought both went very well. It's not hard to make it clear the Sye employs circular reasoning in his arguments—he says so himself, quite openly! Why on earth (or in heaven) he thinks his circular reasoning is "virtuous" is beyond me.As for the video, Sye claims he is not the one, and I believe him.–Ben

  68. Ben, yeah, we've already prised a confession out of Eric 'liar for Jesus' Hovind.

  69. Sorry Sye, those answers were not given in the context that they are presented in the cut up video.I have re-listened to the podcasts and can most definitely confirm this.Your only excuse for this could be the malleability of memory, you have obviously run this over in your head so many times that it has replaced the memory of appearing on the podcast originally.That or you are wilfully attempting to win points by dishonest practices.

  70. I have a question that never gets anwserd…How does/can anyone/everyone validate a revelation?

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: