an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Guest Post

Dave Young, a fellow non-believer, has kindly transcribed the episode of Fundamentally Flawed that $ye has chopped up –

In the interest of fairness, balance and saving Sye’s immortal soul from the hellfire of eternal damnation for ignoring God’s commandment to not bear false witness – that means lying, Sye – the transcript of the podcast this edited excerpt is taken from is as follows:

00:00 – (Title Music)

00:13 – Jim: Well I just want to make it absolutely clear that the only reason I’ve agreed to do this is because last time we spoke via e-mail you said you would be in touch when you had some objectively valid evidence for the basic existence of Yahweh. So, have you actually got that?

00:28 – Sye: Well the thing is, you understand that…

00:31 – Jim: …its a yes or no question, Sye.

00:33 – Sye: I’ve had it from the beginning.

00:35 – Jim: Ok. Well let me just..I’ve got some things I want to say first otherwise this isn’t going to happen. I do not give my consent for any part of this debate to be used for commercial purposes either by Sye Tenbruggencate, Eric Hovind or any third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever. This includes the use in YouTube videos which may be part of a Google ad sharing revenue scheme. Do you understand what I’ve said so far, yes or no?

01:01 – Sye: I understand what you’ve said.

01:03 – Jim: The second reason I’ve agreed to do this is that when we spoke last time you said that you would be presenting some objectively valid evidence for the basic existence of Yahweh. Do you plan on doing that in this particular conversation?

01:13 – Sye: Well that depends on your view of evidence but sure, I’ll do that according to my worldview. Whether you accept it or not, I mean, that’s what’s going to be up for debate.

01:21 – Alex: Ok. Right, well, I think those two little bits at the beginning actually seem to make quite a good introduction to the podcast altogether anyway, so I’ll introduce everybody, obviously myself here, you’re listening to Fundamentally Flawed, obviously anybody who’s listening knows that because they’ve downloaded it. Slightly redundant intro from me but myself, Alex Botton, Jim is here, hello Jim.

01:44 – Jim: Hi.

01:45 – Alex: Kat is listening in but possibly may jump in, may not. Kat’s my wife, you’ve not met Kat before, Sye. And we’re joined by Sye Tenbruggencate who is….

01:57 – Jim: …on the explicit understanding that if he intends to use the same arguments that he used before this podcast will be over before it’s even begun.

02:03 – Sye: Well then it’s over right now, Jim. It was nice talking to you.

02:05 – Jim: See you later then, Sye. Bye.

02:06 – Sye: See you later, Jim.

02:08 – Jim: And that was another episode of Fundamentally Flawed in the can.

02:11 – Alex: That was a very short one. I was hoping that there’d be a bit more argument there, Sye. He’s gone.

(At this point the conversation continues for another few minutes but as Sye had already hung up and played no further part there is no need to continue the transcript)

Obviously Sye’s 33 second version has been heavily edited before being posted to his YouTube account. Curiously, he has edited out the specific objection to any part of the debate being used for commercial purposes which is interesting because the version he has posted has been,

“used for commercial purposes [either] by Sye Tenbruggencate”

and has also been,

“[used for commercial purposes by a] third party associated with any religious ministry of any kind whatsoever”

Congratulations, Sye, you’ve successfully overturned the DMCA takedown notice. Now if only there was a way to overturn the fact that your a liar and a cheat who’s sole motivation is how much money he can make from the innocent people who haven’t yet worked out how your cheap little scam works.


The full and unedited podcast can be found at: cast-insta-bail-aka-bye-bye-sye/#more-1083

Anyone who is considering purchasing Sye Tenbruggencate’s “merchandise” may want to think about making a donation to UNICEF instead. Given the choice of helping a starving child or sending money to a dishonest, middle aged Canadian I think it’s pretty clear which option Jesus would approve of……

Single Post Navigation

18 thoughts on “Guest Post

  1. Given the choice of helping a starving child or sending money to a dishonest, middle aged Canadian I think it’s pretty clear which option Jesus would approve of……

    I dunno. I’ve heard Jesus gets the occasional midnight craving for poutine…

    • According to the bible, Jesus didn’t always give a damn about the poor:

      Matthew 26:6-13

      The same story is told in some of the other “gospels”.

  2. I would still like Sye to provide his earnings statement for his “business”. It’s of interest to me because he is so guarded about the fact that he makes money from his work, yet at the same time pushes to be able to eek out every little Canadian penny from interacting with him, this was made evident on Twitter this morning with his ploy to get Alex, Jim and a few others to click the link to the re-up of the video in question.

  3. Phlegon on said:

    I think that you should sue Sye. If you do, he has to give you whatever you ask:

    Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

    Of course, if he’s only in to this for the money, then he probably wouldn’t care what the Bible says…

    I would think that would distress his followers though…

  4. Gabriel K. on said:

    Be careful when you deal with someone named “Lucy Ferr”, “Devin”, “D. Monn”, or “Sye Ten” XD

  5. syetenb on said:

    Why did you post an edited transcript? I have 28 seconds of dialogue between you and me PRIOR to what you have posted here.

    • Alex Botten on said:

      $ye, that’s the show, up to a few moments after you left

    • Sye you hypocrite…what are you bitching about? You posted an edited version claiming among other things, if I remember correctly, that you “understood” the terms, not that you “agreed” to them.

      Jim and Alex never said anything of the sort. Even if they were to do something like that, they’ve got a hell of a lot more ethical/legal leeway than you do,

      • Alex Botten on said:

        Reynold, $ye seems to have forgotten that he was appearing as a guest on OUR podcast…

  6. Most amused at the way that you’re trying to spin your posting of a shorter version as some crusade against censorship though! Surely thinking several contradictory thoughts at once must be tiring though, $ye? Surely there’s only so long you can keep on like this before your brain eventually completely breaks?

  7. Gabriel K. on said:

    Satan Bruggencate looks pretty desperate for money.

    • I can’t imagine presenting one utterly flawed argument over and over again is ultimately very profitable. Eric Hovind has gullible Creationists to wring cash out of, and Ray Comfort has found out that taking an anti abortion stance has set the cash registers all a-jingle again, even Dustin Segers has a church to pastor…what has $ye got?

      Literally nothing. No wonder he’s so desperate to make money out of everything he does!

  8. Phlegon on said:

    I noticed that Sye completely ignored the Bible verse I threw out. Instead he decided to focus only on himself…

  9. Hey guys I’ve just had an argument with Dan which proves what I suspected, if any presuppositionalist asks you, “are you certain” the correct response is to ask them what definition of certain they are using. I’ve looked through several dictionaries and even let Dan pick his own definitions, and there isn’t a single definition that makes “are you certain” mean what they want it to me, which can be easily established once they give you the definition.

    Dan is now further butchering the English language, by pretending that when he uses an adjective to describe himself(certain) it is actually describing something else as certain.

  10. Phlegon on said:

    In fairness making up words to support your position is part and parcel with presuppositionalism (“virtuous circularity”)….

    • In fairness making up words to support your position is part and parcel with presuppositionalism

      More generally, it’s standard operating procedure for religious fundamentalism. You will not and can not find a fundamentalist who avoids equivocation.

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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: