Sye VS Matt.

[MonickerPenis]

Discuss.

I personally think that Sye is the best debater representing religion. At least in his introduction.
I think that Matt did just fine, knowing him.

[Mea quidem sententia]

Will you provide a summary for both sides?

[MonickerPenis]

Mea quidem sententia

Will you provide a summary for both sides?

No.

[DarkSohisohi]

What are we discussing?

[Ryo Tarn]

DarkSohisohi

What are we discussing?

We're discussing how videos of other people talking have replaced well thought out arguments. We can now just post a video with no information about it and it is the same as a well written, thoroughly researched paper with quotes and citations.

[DarkSohisohi]

Ryo Tarn

DarkSohisohi

What are we discussing?

We're discussing how videos of other people talking have replaced well thought out arguments. We can now just post a video with no information about it and it is the same as a well written, thoroughly researched paper with quotes and citations.

You know what, ya, if I have to waste 2 hours just to be able to post in a discussion I might not care for then I'm out.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Mea quidem sententia

Will you provide a summary for both sides?

I'm only 24 minutes in, and Sye's only argument so far (by the way, he's been given two opportunities to speak and has implied that this was the only argument he needed) is "well, how can Matt know anything to be true without god"...and then Matt's opening defined what the debate was actually about (whether or not it is rational to believe a god exists), why "but how can you know" is irrelevant and it is a red herring to use the "how do you know" argument, and explained how is not rational to believe something when evidence hasn't been provided for it. Basically, it seems like this is going to be 2 hours of Matt whipping Sye's a** intellectually.

[Mea quidem sententia]

Rumblestiltskin

I'm only 24 minutes in, and Sye's only argument so far (by the way, he's been given two opportunities to speak and has implied that this was the only argument he needed) is "well, how can Matt know anything to be true without god"...and then Matt's opening defined what the debate was actually about (whether or not it is rational to believe a god exists), why "but how can you know" is irrelevant and it is a red herring to use the "how do you know" argument, and explained how is not rational to believe something when evidence hasn't been provided for it. Basically, it seems like this is going to be 2 hours of Matt whipping Sye's a** intellectually.

Thank you and good seeing you again. I would have asked, "Which god?" and when answered, proceed to ask for this god to be defined. No coherent definition leads to meaningless discussion.

[Fermionic]

This was what you could expect from a presuppositionalist preacher.

Very little useful content.

[Sandokiri]

Rumblestiltskin

Mea quidem sententia

Will you provide a summary for both sides?

I'm only 24 minutes in, and Sye's only argument so far (by the way, he's been given two opportunities to speak and has implied that this was the only argument he needed) is "well, how can Matt know anything to be true without god"...and then Matt's opening defined what the debate was actually about (whether or not it is rational to believe a god exists), why "but how can you know" is irrelevant and it is a red herring to use the "how do you know" argument, and explained how is not rational to believe something when evidence hasn't been provided for it. Basically, it seems like this is going to be 2 hours of Matt whipping Sye's a** intellectually.

Basically, yes. Welcome to Sye's mantra. Basically:

-You could be wrong about something you know;
-Therefore you could be wrong about anything you know;
-Therefore you could be wrong about EVERTHING you know;
-Therefore you cannot know anything...
-...unless an omniscient Something is available to reveal things to you.
-Checkmate, you god-suppressing worldview-thief.
-No, checkmate, know-nothing. You have nothing useful to say.

That is presuppositionalism: essentially taking your worldview's central element, and declaring it to be a universally applicable first axiom.

[Mea quidem sententia]

Sandokiri

Basically, yes. Welcome to Sye's mantra. Basically:

-You could be wrong about something you know;
-Therefore you could be wrong about anything you know;
-Therefore you could be wrong about EVERTHING you know;
-Therefore you cannot know anything...
-...unless an omniscient Something is available to reveal things to you.
-Checkmate, you god-suppressing worldview-thief.
-No, checkmate, know-nothing. You have nothing useful to say.

That is presuppositionalism: essentially taking your worldview's central element, and declaring it to be a universally applicable first axiom.

Well, not knowing about one thing doesn't mean one doesn't know about other things. If we cannot know anything unless some omniscient being reveals it to us, then we can't know if this self-proclaimed omniscient being is lying to us. *sye*

[Rumblestiltskin]

Mea quidem sententia

Rumblestiltskin

I'm only 24 minutes in, and Sye's only argument so far (by the way, he's been given two opportunities to speak and has implied that this was the only argument he needed) is "well, how can Matt know anything to be true without god"...and then Matt's opening defined what the debate was actually about (whether or not it is rational to believe a god exists), why "but how can you know" is irrelevant and it is a red herring to use the "how do you know" argument, and explained how is not rational to believe something when evidence hasn't been provided for it. Basically, it seems like this is going to be 2 hours of Matt whipping Sye's a** intellectually.

Thank you and good seeing you again. I would have asked, "Which god?" and when answered, proceed to ask for this god to be defined. No coherent definition leads to meaningless discussion.

Thanks.

But the "which god" question kind of wouldn't matter. It's a general question of if it is rational to believe in any god, and provided that none of them have provided concrete evidence, believing in any of them is irrational. And that's easy to see because people have a different set of standards of evidence for god than they do for any other supernatural claim (usually). But, that debate never got off the ground. Sye asserted that Matt can never know anything without god, Matt's rebuttal was a pre-written explanation that proves that Matt can at least know what Sye was going to assert (which was brilliant), and then it kind of devolved into Sye making more assertions while refusing to answer most questions (from Matt or the audience) and instead choosing to preach...which is the second time Matt's been in a debate with a well known apologist who acted this way (Ray Comfort was the other one.

All in all, if you have the patience to listen to two hours of Sye misconstruing what Matt said in previous clips from the Atheist Experience, and then Matt trying to get Sye to answer any of the questions he had, then it may be worth a listen, if for nothing but the comedy alone. It kind of reminds me of how the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate kind of went (Bill providing evidence while Ken didn't provide anything) but Matt's far more entertaining to listen to in a debate than Bill at times.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Sandokiri

Rumblestiltskin

Mea quidem sententia

Will you provide a summary for both sides?

I'm only 24 minutes in, and Sye's only argument so far (by the way, he's been given two opportunities to speak and has implied that this was the only argument he needed) is "well, how can Matt know anything to be true without god"...and then Matt's opening defined what the debate was actually about (whether or not it is rational to believe a god exists), why "but how can you know" is irrelevant and it is a red herring to use the "how do you know" argument, and explained how is not rational to believe something when evidence hasn't been provided for it. Basically, it seems like this is going to be 2 hours of Matt whipping Sye's a** intellectually.

Basically, yes. Welcome to Sye's mantra. Basically:

-You could be wrong about something you know;
-Therefore you could be wrong about anything you know;
-Therefore you could be wrong about EVERTHING you know;
-Therefore you cannot know anything...
-...unless an omniscient Something is available to reveal things to you.
-Checkmate, you god-suppressing worldview-thief.
-No, checkmate, know-nothing. You have nothing useful to say.

That is presuppositionalism: essentially taking your worldview's central element, and declaring it to be a universally applicable first axiom.

Yeah, I had heard that that's how Sye "debates"...and Matt totally crushed him on that. After Sye's rebuttal to Matt's opening, Matt read a pre-written rebuttal discussing almost all of the points Sye brought up over the course of the conversation so far...which means he at least knew what Sye was going to talk about. It did nothing to keep Sye from using the same argument over and over again, but it was a "gotcha" moment.

But yeah, this wasn't even a debate really. I found it interesting, but if anyone's looking for a good debate on this topic, this isn't it.

[Sandokiri]

Mea quidem sententia

Well, not knowing about one thing doesn't mean one doesn't know about other things. If we cannot know anything unless some omniscient being reveals it to us, then we can't know if this self-proclaimed omniscient being is lying to us. *sye*

In Sye's mind, it does. Or, more specifically, not being certain in your knowledge about one thing means that you cannot know anything. That's the real trick: he equates knowledge with certainty, and then gets you to admit uncertainty, thus (in his mind) forcing you to admit that your knowledge is not justified and therefore isn't knowledge.

After that, he brings in his own stripped-down version of TAG, while troll-blocking everything you say with "how do you know" and "you could be wrong."

In short, he's a troll who doubles down on the troll-argument that is TAG. 3nodding