Atheist Debates - Debate review: Sye Ten Bruggencate, Part 4, Final thoughts 

that's why he makes these videos. It's impossible to address everything in the debate at the time.

+John Newman (Lazerfish) Sye's idiotic line of reason could be used to "prove" Leprechauns, Unicorns, Big Foot, Harry Potter, etc...

That point was actually made by a guy in a q&a portion of the after debate. Sye and Eric Hovind were on stage, and a guy professed this statement to them. Difference is, he didn't give any label to "god", he simply said "unseen force." The funny thing is, either the point went over Sye and EH's heads or they are willfully ignorant of its use by the guy. The not funny thing is, the emcee (David) pointed out "Oh I see what you did there!"

All hail FSM.

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

I so desperately wish a Pastafarian could get a debate with Matt Slick or Sye or Mr Batman or one of the "great" presuppers, and I mean really go in on it, come in with a pasta strainer on your head, quote from chapter and verse from The Loose Canon, fully commit to it, you could tie them in a not.

I find that debating in front of a crowd is actually the least frustrating when comes to ignorant people. As you can point out the ignorance and intern they look ridiculous for humiliating themselves. In one on one situations however ignorance is just unbearable.

Dylan Ost it's always the same to me. but at least when there's people watching you can hope against hope that at least one dogmatist will reconsider his beliefs

DarwinThug Sorry but I don't understand

crowd or no crowd, it's just as disappointing to see religious dogmatists deflect, avoid, and repeat mindlessly.

I would have paid real money to see Matt just pick up that laptop and whack Sye across the head. Yes, I know that wouldn't be productive but that guy so deserves it.

I truly believe a 4 year old is light years ahead of sye

I have a totally separate question. I’m all for not misgendering, but why would you say “they are” when you’re talking about Sye? That’s just incorrect English.

@@Mmmmilo It's not. Plus trying to make sense of the dumpster fire that english is seems a fools errand anyway

Sounds legit to me.

Doubt that. Sye's arguments aren't used in the mainstream at all.

ShouVertica I'm sure that is the case. I'm sort of being sarcastic because Sye's reasoning is so poor that it may be more successful as a sort of deconversion tool since holding Sye's position is so untenable and I mean really, really, really untenable.

I am sure that there must be people who are on the fence who haven't thought much about the topic and are 50/50 on if there is a God are helped towards accepting themselves as atheists by the stuff that Sye says as much as what Matt says.

you would hope so, but sadly I doubt it.

Yep after this debate my cousin announced that after watching Sye, Ray Comfort and Matt Slick that he is now an atheist

Meta-special-pleading.

daddy Hahaha.

Vincent Oostelbos Hahaha X2.

"Can't you debate honestly?" - Clearly his answer this this question, as he's demonstrated in this debate, is No.

Erik Forbes How do you know? =P

MikeTall88 Divine revelation, of course. The same way we all know that Sye is a dishonest asshat.

Kris Hermstad I would even go as far to say that it's never real. It's just most of the time corresponding with reality. And to be fair, if you think about it: the world we think to be real is "just" a creation of our mind. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that we would find or even without finding it, "know" somehow about or experience the existence of an omnipotent being that created this world: our own mind.

What, Qualia doesn't equal the numinal world? Anyway, I'm sure given this argument, a believer would probably advance the soul hypothesis.

Gábor Koszper Someone who gets it! =)

R'amen to that!

The Muslim would start yelling almost immediately and Sye would stomp off.

Robert Miller LOL nailed it

I think he's gone on to elaborate that he "doesn't debate with *professed* atheists." Which still doesn't make any sense, but at least it is internally consistent.

whats the difference?lol

Well because he doesn't believe that atheists exist, but he still believes that people can *deny* god's existence. Like they know he is there, but they want to sin or something. So he won't discuss scripture with someone who denies the "clearly obvious truth of god that we all know."

ya i know thats what he says i dont see the difference.denying god existence but still believing in god makes you not an atheist.i dont know what is would make you.. i know your not defending his point i just thought it was funny.

Yeah, I just mean on this point he doesn't seem to be completely insane. Which is . . . a nice change of pace?

No, it's Odin, and his son Thor!

Shelley Roberts Zeus has the occasional cup of ambrosia tea with Odin and Thor, they are good friends. May Poseidon bless you with his watery goodness and sweet seaweed.

Im more of a Jupiter kind of guy.

Wrong. I have it on good authority that it is Harry Potter. Us Potterists actually have SEVEN holy books to live by! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

CarefulAtheist If I had a pipe, I would. May Poseidon bless your watery thoughts.

I think the more appalling message is that it's okay to do bad things as long as you have someone else who's willing to suffer the consequences on your behalf.

Erik Forbes How true.

As Matt has pointed out in his show, God didn't even sacrifice anything. Wouldn't the real sacrifice be Jesus dying and then spending eternity in hell? Living 35 years on Earth then getting tortured for 3 days then going up to heaven for eternity isn't much of a sacrifice. People have literally killed off their children in order to save the lives of their other children. We have actual proof of people suffering far worse than Jesus was said to have. People suffering more both physically and mentally. Jesus knew he was getting eternity as a reward because God literally told him. Where is the sacrifice and why are Christians using that as a go to talking point? I don't get it...

"Matt doesn't NEED to account for the logical axioms; he just USES them." Agreed.

Yeah. Sye should go ask a mathematician about axioms, he needs an education. Axioms need to be assumed in oder to progress, that's all they are. Nobody cares if you can account for them or not (meaning prove them), that's why they're axioms and not theorems.

Well Said !

Its chopped and edited to try and make Sye look better.

According to his unbelievably retarded definition of "blasphemy", he is sinning every time he presents an argument in favor of his beliefs.

DonMezzo How do you know that, though.

He doesn’t. He just asserts it.

JMUDoc yes yes yes

Your Powers of Observation are strong indeed Jedi

I took it as some "greasy ponytail" guy handed sye his ass.

antiHUMANDesigns in all fairness, this depends how you define "lost". From this debate, Sye gained national fame and was invited to become speakers in more creation conferences. Sye also got at least 200+ more twitter followers due to this event. Matt's fame helped Sye became more famous, so in that regard, you can say Sye "won" (much like how Ken Ham got what he wanted out of debating with Bill Nye). Furthermore, I'm pretty sure those who agree with Sye would continue to agree with Sye, and those who don't agree with Sye would still laugh at his stupidity. And those agnostics on the fence probably never like Sye to begin with anyway, so it's not like Sye lost any of his followers from this debate. So overall...i would argue Sye "won" in terms of fame within his creationist community.

Sean Armstrong The *debate* was a loss. As for the effects it has outside of that, that's a different question, but you're right about that.

I havent seen the other debates you mention, however by no means do I think this will be the final debate with a pre-sup to ever happen and post on youtube ! If youre asking why Matt has decided to put more focus on this debate by breaking it down - its probably because its the most freshest in his mind and therefore hes decided to use it for his new patreon channel. I dont really understand the shark fin christian fish relevance (of course I know of the original christian fish symbol), can you explain why thats a thing ?!

youweechube The Christian fish symbol is supposed to signify peace (and a safe haven, in earliest times, but it's become a 'christianity catch-all' symbol since), and a shark is a carnivore predator, a killing machine, a feared animal. I guess Sye wanted to send an "A Christian who kicks ass" message - but it's a pretty passive-aggressive way of going about it, even though it was placed to be prominent (to the camera) throughout the debate. It's just annoying, a debate is a place for discussion, and visual non-verbal props there are in bad taste. Perhaps it's just a pet peeve.

oh ok, thanks for clarifying, I guess for the people such as myself who didnt "get" the point he was trying to make made it ineffectual. I dont really have a problem with him doing that, he himself could probably argue the same about Matts "A" badge.

Hehe - it's also that logos/trademarks are my trade, so I tend to notice a bit more perhaps. Symbols -do- send messages, even if you think you don't notice them. But, hm, right you are about Matt also wearing a symbol, but I don't think it sends the same 'aggressive' message. And the intent (choosing the symbol) wasn't at all there, either. It probably wasn't put there for the debate, anyway... yeah, semantics.