Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2014, 04:49 AM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(06-06-2014 04:37 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 04:21 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Seth has heard your prayer...

From 1:21:00

Kind of uncomfortable to watch such stupidity, but also very funny.

I think the Murikans refer to it as a SMACKDOWN!

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
06-06-2014, 09:15 AM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
What's interesting to me, between both the debate and post debate interview, is this is what religious argument for their view is reduced to when they actually take it seriously enough to attempt to thoughtfully, and earnestly take on all realistic oppositions to their religious belief. Borrowing from Sye, their "reason" for belief gets reduced to absurdity.

I say "thoughtfully, and earnestly" take on oppositions to their belief, which from these two pieces it would be easy to say Sye obviously is not doing so, as he pretty much flat out says he will not debate the issue of religion with atheist, other than to tell atheist they are wrong.

That doesn't seem very thoughtful, but when you get this deep into deeply looking at the issues involved with belief in your religion you are really left with two choices, abandon it for the absurdity it is, or make the choice to ignore the absurdity and plow on knowing that you can never directly address the real issues of your belief, such as refusing to allow a debate to actually get to the topic of religion (even when that's the topic of the debate), make the absurd claim that everyone believes in "God" already so that you don't have to argue belief in religion, and when hitting a logical wall just claim there is no contradiction there...just claim it despite the fact there is, such as "God" predestining your free will choices.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
06-06-2014, 09:47 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 11:05 AM by Can_of_Beans.)
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(06-06-2014 09:15 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  What's interesting to me, between both the debate and post debate interview, is this is what religious argument for their view is reduced to when they actually take it seriously enough to attempt to thoughtfully, and earnestly take on all realistic oppositions to their religious belief. Borrowing from Sye, their "reason" for belief gets reduced to absurdity.

I say "thoughtfully, and earnestly" take on oppositions to their belief, which from these two pieces it would be easy to say Sye obviously is not doing so, as he pretty much flat out says he will not debate the issue of religion with atheist, other than to tell atheist they are wrong.

That doesn't seem very thoughtful, but when you get this deep into deeply looking at the issues involved with belief in your religion you are really left with two choices, abandon it for the absurdity it is, or make the choice to ignore the absurdity and plow on knowing that you can never directly address the real issues of your belief, such as refusing to allow a debate to actually get to the topic of religion (even when that's the topic of the debate), make the absurd claim that everyone believes in "God" already so that you don't have to argue belief in religion, and when hitting a logical wall just claim there is no contradiction there...just claim it despite the fact there is, such as "God" predestining your free will choices.

I think that is what makes him so frustrating. The Bible and God are off limits, so the only thing left are word games. He wouldn't even admit that claiming God is the foundation of all knowledge without providing evidence is special pleading or that special pleading is even a fallacy. I think the most he was willing to admit is that "it can be..." Frusty

The other thing that makes his argument so weird is that he uses language in ways no one else does. An example from his website:

-Absolute Truth Does Not Exist
.....Absolutely True? or
.....False?

WTF? First, who makes "absolutely true" an option on a true or false test? Second, "false" is not the opposite of "absolutely true;" "Not Absolutely True" is the opposite, and if that was an option his little game to force us to contradict ourselves would fall apart.

As a side note...I wonder if he would discuss Bible Part 1 (aka "The Old Testament") with a Jew... Consider

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
06-06-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(03-06-2014 08:05 AM)DLJ Wrote:  10 mins in and I gotta say that I'm impressed with Sye's preparation and delivery.
Facepalm
Two minutes in and I cannot stand it. Bruggencate has zero grasp of how logic works. With only one life to live I'm not spending two hours watching this. I hope Dillahunty was well paid for his time.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like f stop's post
07-06-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(06-06-2014 09:47 AM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 09:15 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  What's interesting to me, between both the debate and post debate interview, is this is what religious argument for their view is reduced to when they actually take it seriously enough to attempt to thoughtfully, and earnestly take on all realistic oppositions to their religious belief. Borrowing from Sye, their "reason" for belief gets reduced to absurdity.

I say "thoughtfully, and earnestly" take on oppositions to their belief, which from these two pieces it would be easy to say Sye obviously is not doing so, as he pretty much flat out says he will not debate the issue of religion with atheist, other than to tell atheist they are wrong.

That doesn't seem very thoughtful, but when you get this deep into deeply looking at the issues involved with belief in your religion you are really left with two choices, abandon it for the absurdity it is, or make the choice to ignore the absurdity and plow on knowing that you can never directly address the real issues of your belief, such as refusing to allow a debate to actually get to the topic of religion (even when that's the topic of the debate), make the absurd claim that everyone believes in "God" already so that you don't have to argue belief in religion, and when hitting a logical wall just claim there is no contradiction there...just claim it despite the fact there is, such as "God" predestining your free will choices.

I think that is what makes him so frustrating. The Bible and God are off limits, so the only thing left are word games. He wouldn't even admit that claiming God is the foundation of all knowledge without providing evidence is special pleading or that special pleading is even a fallacy. I think the most he was willing to admit is that "it can be..." Frusty

The other thing that makes his argument so weird is that he uses language in ways no one else does. An example from his website:

-Absolute Truth Does Not Exist
.....Absolutely True? or
.....False?

WTF? First, who makes "absolutely true" an option on a true or false test? Second, "false" is not the opposite of "absolutely true;" "Not Absolutely True" is the opposite, and if that was an option his little game to force us to contradict ourselves would fall apart.

As a side note...I wonder if he would discuss Bible Part 1 (aka "The Old Testament") with a Jew... Consider

His argument is almost indistiguishable from pure brainwashing. He relies on not letting you think or ask any questions. Even in this debate, his entire argument was pretty much directed at the audience. He is a complete monster.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like diddo97's post
07-06-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
I think this might just about cover it.





Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
08-06-2014, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2014 01:02 AM by Aseptic Skeptic.)
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(07-06-2014 10:11 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  I think this might just about cover it.

I'm not sure whether that video is more degrading to Sye or to Matt. I suppose that would "just about cover it" if you intensely dislike both guys and wanted to insult them both.

I kinda like Matt and I really don't like Sye (based solely on both of their "styles" of presenting their side in a discussion or debate). I think the actual debate between these guys was fairly sad. Sye didn't present anything but unfounded (or at least demonstrably unverifiable) presuppositions while refusing to engage Matt in any kind of debate at all. Matt was basically castrated by Sye's disingenuous evasion of the debate, so basically all Matt could do was take pot-shots at Sye (which Sye evaded) until the debate broke down at the end into Sye just preaching salvation to the audience.

I don't blame Matt; Sye made it impossible to actually have a debate. I do blame Sye for being an irritating douche bag and wasting everyone's time, but on the other hand, I also don't blame him for wanting to avoid engaging Matt because Sye has nothing but empty presuppositions and Matt would have destroyed him and Sye knew it so avoided it.

Wise move, avoiding it, but douche bag move pretending he wanted to debate and wasting everyone's time.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
08-06-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(07-06-2014 07:05 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  His argument is almost indistiguishable from pure brainwashing. He relies on not letting you think or ask any questions. Even in this debate, his entire argument was pretty much directed at the audience. He is a complete monster.

Have you ever had a thought of your own other than crying about how fucked up your life is, and parroting others views ? Your game is obvious, but you have managed to con some in here..... fuck off you cunt. Drinking Beverage

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
I listened to the post debate interview last night and found it more informative than the debate itself. I subscribed to and listened to another dogma debate episode, which I also found interesting and informative... but with many shows over two hours I can't make the commitment.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Matt Dillahunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
(08-06-2014 01:20 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  I listened to the post debate interview last night and found it more informative than the debate itself. I subscribed to and listened to another dogma debate episode, which I also found interesting and informative... but with many shows over two hours I can't make the commitment.

They are good postcast to listen to. I'd recommend committing.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: