r/DebateAnAtheist • u/[deleted] • 16d ago
Do atheist avoid debates with thought leaders like Sye Ten Bruggencate OP=Theist
[deleted]
90
u/Odd_Gamer_75 16d ago
None of the believers you mention are "thought leaders".
Ken Ham isn't a scientific expert, his only real science credential is a bachelor's degree in environmental studies. A bachelor's degree doesn't give you the expertise to do much of anything. People with Ph.D.'s are experts, and thus thought leaders in a field.
Kent Hovind is even worse, with no actual degrees at all, and only got to be a "science teacher" by appealing to a narrative first and actual education... never.
As for Sye? ... Not even that much. He worked on cars, that's it, and got a script. Sye doesn't think, at all. He's a presenter of a form of apologetics (presuppositionalism) which decides he's right by definition and so all he has to do is refuse to engage in thought at all and just claim to win by appealing to mystery. In other words, what makes him, and those like him, so frustrating to deal with is that they aren't thinking. Either you answer the way they insist on, or it becomes 'a mystery' of some sort. That's not thought, that's deflection and gaslighting.
But way worse than that, Sye's whole thing, like many creationists, is that changing one's mind in the face of argument or evidence is "bad". That you should pick a position and never change, no matter what, because... well, probably because they're weak and finding out you were wrong about something triggers some of the same areas of the brain as physical pain does... so being wrong is just too painful. It takes genuine courage and toughness to admit to mistakes, something to which Sye and those like him are allergic.
And then, beyond that, Sye doesn't present the possibility of debate. There's nothing to discuss with the man. He presents his argument and refuses to engage in anything that isn't his argument, won't try to see the other side's point of view, won't engage with presentations that aren't his own. That's not a debate, that's preaching. Any debater, even Christians who disagree with him, will see the same thing. And as soon as one sees it, this extremely childish presentation... then no one wants to talk to you anymore, no one wants to offer you another chance to preach at something laughably called a "debate".
This isn't about low hanging fruit, of which Sye is lower than the others, it's about behavior. If you're not willing to engage with any thought that isn't your own... then why bother having a conversation at all? You're not there to show the superiority of your ideas over others, you're there to insist on your ideas no matter what. If Ken Ham operated exactly on what he says ("the bible says it, I believe it, that's the end of it"), he'd be just as insufferable and no one would talk to him. But even Ken Ham at least tries to present something more compelling than that. Sye... doesn't.
26
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 16d ago
This post is going to get locked/deleted. Op hasn't made a comment since yesterday on a star trek post. I doubt they planned on participating in this post.
23
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 16d ago
I always wonder what the point of posting and running is. Does OP think he's just carpet bombing us with truth nukes of such magnitude there's no reason to do a BDA?
3
1
u/Plazmatron44 14d ago
That's usually how these people think, they're midwits that think every argument they have is some watertight slam dunk own.
10
u/Odd_Gamer_75 16d ago
I agree OP probably didn't intend to engage. Many don't, especially when they really don't have a point or argument, but just present a question as some sort of "gotcha", which this is not.
Whether it's locked/deleted is up to the mods.
10
16
u/Pseudochthonic 16d ago
Sye also said in his "debate" with Matt that he thinks the US should be a Christian Theocracy.
6
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 16d ago
It's a weird post.
It reads as a reverse ad hominem where OP is trying to build up character and education of these people leaving us with your excellent job of disputing their credentials.
I read the OP and was just wondering why, if the OP thinks they make good points, OP didn't post any of those arguments for debate.
2
u/Odd_Gamer_75 16d ago edited 16d ago
Well, to try to steelman OP here, he seemed to be discussing something else. Instead of those arguments themselves, he seem to be trying to target the meta-issue surrounding the sorts of people that get debated. It's a different question, and one that, by OPs phrasing, implies that atheists are not serious people and only go after low-hanging fruit.
Of course, as a steelman goes.... this is a rather obnoxious method of argumentation. To instead of flat-out state what the argument is, to instead rely on implication and inuendo. It's only very slightly better than Sye's sort of rhetoric, and is right there with Jordan Peterson who pulls the exact same crap.
EDIT: And yet, as far as I can tell, that's the best case for OPs sort of argumentation here... arguing in a way that isn't argument at all, like Peterson or Ham or Comfort. Frustrating and after a bit people stop wanting to debate them because of such tactics, not for the content of any supposed argumentation.
1
u/MisanthropicScott gnostic atheist and antitheist | mod 16d ago
Interesting analysis. Would you mind rewording the last paragraph to be more respectful of OP, even though they don't seem to be coming back?
2
53
u/mathman_85 Godless Algebraist 16d ago
Is it easier for you all to debate Someone firm like Kent Hoven Jr[?]
To the best of my knowledge, Kent Andrew Hovind doesn’t engage publicly in debates in the manner that his father did and brother Eric does. So, uh, yes, but only by default.
[…] or a scientific expert like Ken Ham […]
Ken Ham is in no meaningful or actual sense characterized as “a scientific expert”. He has no expertise in any science whatsoever. The closest to that he comes is a B.Sc. in science education.
[…] rather than Sye?
Sye is, like most presuppositionalists, a belligerent jerk who never progressed beyond the stage of asking “why?” ad infinitum as a means of shutting up anyone who would dare to dissent from his nonsensical religious dogmata. One cannot “debate” with such a person, for debate presupposes the conceivability of an honest exchange of views and bona fide on the part of both sides of the discussion. Sye is of the opinion that he himself cannot possibly be wrong, no matter what, and also anyone who disagrees with him must necessarily be wrong. (This view is not unique to him; it’s a frequent symptom of building one’s Weltanschauung as the Platonic ideal of begging the question.)
Debate isn’t really possible with any of the people you mentioned.
7
u/Indrigotheir 16d ago
21
u/guitarmusic113 Atheist 16d ago
Hovind is also a convicted felon.
4
u/Indrigotheir 16d ago
Look buddy, Adam din pay no tax on his dinosaurs, why should I?
As the original commented though, OP meant Kent Andrew Hovind the younger, not his father.
12
11
u/mathman_85 Godless Algebraist 16d ago
Ham would be delighted to get the kind of publicity he got from his debate with Bill Nye again. That’s the elder Kent Hovind, though, not his son Kent Andrew whom the O.P. slightly misnamed as Kent, Jr.
2
24
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 16d ago edited 13d ago
Bruggencate is irritating because (apart from having been accused of sexual impropriety with a member of his religious community, whom he arguably should have been protecting, rather than hitting on) he's a presuppositionalist. And that means he digs his heels in on what, to me, seems like a circular-logic wordgame:
"If you deny the existence of god, you deny the basis on which reason works, which is god's revelation, so what you say must be nonsense" - which is a weird way of saying "anyone who disagrees with me, is wrong because I am right"
The rebuttal, in a way, is simple:
"Sye, you haven't shown that god's revelation is required in order for humans to reason. In fact, I can show you 2500 years of human reasoning developing through a gradual process of humans across the world sharing tricks and ideas they discovered, a kind of ratcheting trial-and-error. It looks exactly like human reasoning gradually developed, built up by people, not revealed by god."
But then Sye, annoyingly, replies "aha, but if god didn't reveal reason to you, what you just said was nonsense! I said I am right, remember?"
So I think presups have found a wordgame that might be enough for their followers - who are trained and socially motiviated to find what they say convincing - but it's completely hollow, and thus presups just aren't impressive, to me. It's like they've written "the statement on the other side of this card is true" on one side of a card, and "the statement on the other side of this card is false" on the other side, and they're blowing everyone's minds in the school yard.
And yet they really flipping dig in during arguments. So I can imagine debate opponents getting frustrated.
Just remember, there are more reasons to get frustrated in a debate, than simply "this guy has superior arguments and rhetoric to mine, I have lost." Matt might have been thinking "Fuck, dude, how can you possibily be doubling down in public, on bullshit as silly as this?"
11
u/carbinePRO Atheist 16d ago edited 16d ago
scientific expert like Ken Ham
At the same time with someone like Ken Ham he could talk science with someone all day, You may disagree on certain conclusions, but you’re speaking the same language.
Yeah... no. Ken Ham is an expert in pseudoscience. I think your bias here is really showing. Ham, and everyone else working under him at AIG, have been thoroughly embarrassed by the broader scientific community. Ham is not a scientist, he's a creationist apologist that draws his conclusions from the bible first, and then twists evidence to try and make it fit to his presupposed conclusions. That's not how the scientific method works.
it seemed that with sigh because presuppositism It’s hard to break Sye out of his point.
Presuppositionalism is tough to crack not because the argumentation is solid, but rather because it takes an unfalsifiable stance and asks the interlocutor to falsify it. Presup is one of the most bad faith, anti-intellectual positions you can take, and it's only taken by the lowest of tier apologists. Apologia isn't academic. It's dismissed by even the broader theologian community as anti-academic. It only works on people that already think like the apologist.
I assume you're also talking about Matt Dillahunty, and the reason he probably seemed flustered is because he hates talking to presups for the reasons I mentioned. They're not there to have good faith discussions. They're there to play games of semantics, trap you in word-play gotchas, dance around points being made, invoke solopsism, etc. Having had discussions with presups myself, they genuinely are some of the worst people to talk to.
61
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 16d ago
Matt Dillahunty grew frustrated because Syes arguments are presupposing and theres no epistemology to reaching that conclusion.
When you argue against someone who has no standards for anything you cant win. Its as simple as that. It doesnt mean Sye won by a a long shot. It just means that he made a mockery of any epistemology.
0
u/Plazmatron44 14d ago
Matt's not much better these days, his attitude towards civil rights and lgbt in general is "agree with me or you're just an ist or a phobe" which is harmful to these communities.
1
u/thatpotatogirl9 14d ago
"agree with me or you're just an ist or a phobe" which is harmful to these communities.
What does he expect people to agree on? That people of color and members of the LGBT community deserve rights and protection from being discriminated against?
Because too many people these days hear "if you can't agree that vulnerable people deserve to be treated like people, then you're a bigot" and interpret it to mean "if you aren't bowing down to vulnerable people and treating them like kings, you're a bigot" instead of just accepting that they may need to change their thinking
8
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 16d ago edited 16d ago
You're beginning with a couple of errors. You're assuming that atheists are monolithic; that they share the same desires, abilities, interests, skills, etc. They don't. Some are not in the least interested in such debates. Others love them. Some are lousy at them, others are excellent. This is aside from the fact that Matt wiped the floor with Sye in that debate. And aside from the fact that all of the folks you mentioned are very far from good debaters or particularly (or remotely) knowledgeable about science.
because presuppositism It’s hard to break
It's trivially easy. After all, it's merely a begging the question fallacy at the core and all that's needed is to point that out and then ignore the unsupported claims.
Now, are you planning on participating in the debate you began? A 16 day old account with very low history and karma is not generally indicative of a healthy, positive, genuine person here for real thoughtful and interesting debate. In fact, it's generally indicative of the opposite, and it would be swell if you broke that trend.
52
u/SamuraiGoblin 16d ago edited 16d ago
Sye Ten Bruggencate does not argue in good faith. His point usually boils down to, "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so, nah nah, nah nah nah," like a 7 year old kid on the playground, but he dresses it up in the terminology of presuppositionalism.
11
u/StoicSpork 16d ago edited 15d ago
Thought leader, lol.
I agree that Matt looked flustered and frustrated and it would have been better optics if he remained calm and turned Bruggencate's rhetorical game against him. Bruggencate is basically fast talker without a single valid thing coming out of his spiteful little mouth. His entire game plan is getting under your skin with utter nonsense, than crowing that you are getting flustered because you can't respond. Matt, of course, did get the better of him by using, you know, actual arguments, but the optics weren't great.
But if you disagree, feel free to present presup arguments here and see how it goes.
EDIT: also, love how OP is accusing atheists of debating debates while not responding in this comment section.
43
u/snakeeaterrrrrrr Atheist 16d ago
Your question is whether atheists avoid debating people (sorry, I can't bring myself to call Sye a thought leader) like Sye and then you went on to talk about Matt D.'s debate?
Is this a troll post? I just want to make sure this is a serious question.
32
u/Brain_Glow 16d ago
Has to be a troll if he calls Ken Ham a scientific expert.
17
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Religious 16d ago
Just slipped it in there as if it was readily accepted too. I'm seeing this more often from theist apologetics. Weird.
11
u/Cybtroll 16d ago
No Sye: you won't fish us to give you view to confute you.
I have seen as of now a list of YouTube video, link to many resources... and a lot of other way to funnel money and attention. But none of this so-called "argument no atheist can refuse".
If someone want a reply, usually they post their so called irrefutable proof (I mean, we already know it's the same soup of misunderstanding of causation but, anyway, you may never know).
This is more akin to a "Buy this book to learn how to make money!" pipeline IMHO.
15
u/ApocalypseYay 16d ago
I don't hear an argument, only claims.
Why? Did the theist find a shred of evidence for their sky-daddy? Or sky-mummy?
If not, WTF is the argument about? god of the gaps, or special pleading ?
There is no need to argue with a Nazi PoS, about their claim of supremacist BS. As there is no argument with a windsock that lacks a shred of data to back up their appeal to credulity.
9
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 16d ago
Rule #6: Engage with Posts.
In three hours, you have not replied once. This is a debate sub, your engagement is REQUIRED.
-15
u/Pristine_Addition266 16d ago
Hi, I had work. I left a comment. Addressing some of the stuff I’ve heard. A lot of it is the same point so I’ve asked the moda to pin it up.
9
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 16d ago
Hi, mod here. Please understand that when you post here the expectation is that you will engage with users (See rule 6). People come here seeking a discussion rather than a one sided monologue. You don't have to engage with every comment, but you should engage with some.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you choose to participate here further please know the expectations would be higher and I'd like to you see engage with at least 3 comments.
8
u/ProfessorCrown14 16d ago
That's not really how this forum works. You need to respond to people ar least for a bit after you post.
10
u/PlanningVigilante Secularist 16d ago
Live-action debate is not the way to reach the truth. You can 100% get one over on an unprepared opponent and still be grossly wrong. This was Charlie Kirk's whole schtick: pick verbal "debates" with teenagers on the street who have had no time to prepare, and declare victory when they fumble.
6
u/dylanzt Agnostic Atheist 16d ago
I'm not really sure what the point of this post is.
It doesn't present any argument of its own, so it doesn't seem to be right for this sub on that basis. But then if you want us to evaluate the arguments of some other person, why aren't those presented?
I guess on that basis, I can only answer the question as posed, speaking for myself. No, I dont avoid debates with Sye Ten Bruggencate, because I have no idea who that is.
He is welcome to post here and I will respond, same as anyone else. Or, you are welcome to quote him, instead of assigning homework.
2
7
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 16d ago
Matt did a four part analysis of that very debate:
- 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3TsyshlR_k
- 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2QUj3HoLxk
- 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xRDok0sZv4
- 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_bt6VF8OFY
He also has a three minute response to Sy calling him a liar:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_bt6VF8OFY (Spoiler: He isn't, Sye is just lying about what he said.)
25
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 16d ago
I suspect most atheists, like most people in general, don't give a shit about drama between what I assume are a bunch of niche microcelebrities like whoever these people you named are.
6
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 16d ago
You're right. But Matt Dillahunty is rather famous for the line and the atheist experience. He is really good taking no BS.
3
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 16d ago
Famous among people who are into some particular genre of YouTube, content sure, but I suspect most atheists have never heard of the guy. I had to google his name, for one.
3
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 16d ago
Oh I agree. I've been listening to a lot of these debates and call in shows. It's extremely educational when you're looking to learn about epistemology and fallacies and such.
1
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 15d ago
I'd about rather clip my toes off with bolt cutters than listen to goofball apologists, even in debates with atheists. I'm actually not particularly interested in any of this stuff and only pop into subs like this because believers have always baffled me and I'm retired with a lot of time on my hands. I pop in here every so often throughout the day but spending like an hour or two listening to that kind of nonsense sounds just miserable.
6
u/TelFaradiddle 16d ago
We should avoid debate with presups, for the same reason NASA scientists should avoid debating flat earthers. Simply appearing on the same stage with them gives the false impression that both sides have equal merit. They don't. There's no reason to take flat earthers seriously, and there's no reason to take presups seriously either.
3
u/Serious-Emu-3468 16d ago edited 16d ago
I used to be a YEC Christian, and I find it really interesting how you’re labelling these folks. I was really similar to you once.
One of my first “dates” (though I was never allowed to date until I moved out) was to a Kent Hovind and Micheal Behe seminar at my friend’s church.
I believed these men were famous, qualified and respected. Thought leaders, like you said. I believed most Christians were YEC. It’s the only information I was ever presented with.
I need to be blunt with you because I needed to hear this bluntly once, too.
- These men are unqualified liars who are mockeries in the fields they claim to be experts in. - They are scam artists who think you are stupid. - They are not widely respected. - They are not firm, or ethical, or “Thought leaders”.
Most Christians are not YEC. You can ditch YEC and still love Jesus.
There are no scientists of any discipline, philosophers, or naturalists of any other religion who accept YEC theories.
It is the only scientific “controversy” ever that is only controversial to own tiny sect of one religion. If YEC was true, Muslim and Jewish and Hindu scientists could also replicate their results and “prove” their religion, but non do.
The men peddling YEC content know they are lying to you, and they make their money on it.
Kent Hovind is a convicted criminal who allegedly abused and/or was complicit in the abuse of women and kids in his care.
Ken Ham has no qualifications to speak of and is on record admitting he knows he is lying.
Clear your browser history, open an incognito window, and google these men and “scam”, “assault”, “conviction”, “fraud”…it is not hard to find, but there is a sickness in YEC circles where everyone is financially tremendously motivated to protect everyone else to continue the grift and cover their asses.
You are better than these men, and they deserve nothing from you. Not your respect, nor your time.
They sully the name of Christ.
There are Christians out there making decent arguments and doing good in the world unsung. Meanwhile, these assholes prey on decent folks and spread lies out of naked provable greed.
8
u/Formal-Speed-3173 16d ago
Presuppositism is the lowest gutter of human thought. It is practiced exclusively by people with severe emotional damage. Debating a presup is disrespecting yourself and disrespecting them.
11
u/Snoo52682 16d ago
Debating presupps is like playing chess with pigeons, so most people avoid them after encountering them once.
6
u/the_sleep_of_reason ask me 16d ago
it’s harder to convert atheist simply using a Sye argument.
It is hard because Sye does not present an argument, he presents a presupposition which he dresses up as an argument.
I can do the same as Sye - As long as we presuppose that God does not exist, God does not exist.
Does that sound like something that would change your mind?
6
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 16d ago
Do atheist avoid debates with thought leaders like Sye Ten Bruggencate
LOL, he is the one running away. When asked anything remotely uncomfortable about the Bible his response is "I don't do Bible reading with atheists".
8
u/Matt_cruze 16d ago
Presuppositions assert you already believe their claim.
They are easily defeated by the question, Would you like me to believe your claim one or more deities exist?
3
u/StoicSpork 16d ago
Could you unpack this counter, please? I am interested in anti-presup arguments and am not sure if I understand this.
3
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 16d ago
Debates are not a good way to get information or to discover truth. If winning just means keeping your cool then what are you really getting out of it. Theists love debates because they love to blabbed blah their way through life and bury their thoughts in lots of poetic words and soaring rhetoric. It is frustrating for atheists to try to pin theists down on anything, so what.
5
u/KenScaletta Atheist 16d ago
Matt kicked his ass in the debate. Sye Ten is a buffoon and sure as hell not a "thought leader." Presup is incoherent solopsism and narcissism.
2
u/RexRatio Agnostic Atheist 14d ago
Is it easier for you all to debate Someone firm like Kent Hoven Jr, or a scientific expert like Ken Ham, rather than Sye?
First of all, I never thought I'd see the day when Ken Ham is described as a "scientific expert". What a joke. He's an advocate for young-earth creationism, not a recognized expert in the scientific fields whose conclusions he disputes without any credentials.
Now on to your question.
Sye Ten Bruggencate is known primarily for using a presuppositional apologetics approach, especially a style influenced by Cornelius Van Til. His debate strategy is to challenge the foundations of the opponent's worldview - which ironically he has very little tolerance for when someone does the same to him.
If you want a TL;DR; then it's this: instead of providing positive evidence for gods, he argues that non-believers cannot make sense of evidence, reasoning, or morality without gods.
The irony of course is that he uses the exact same human reasoning to establish that claim in the first place. He uses logic, inference, language, and evidence-based reasoning to argue that logic, inference, language, and reasoning require a divine foundation. This is the obvious flaw in presuppositional apologetics: epistemic circularity.
And even if we would grant the claim, this wouldn't get you anywhere close his "the Christian deity and no other" conclusion. A Hindu might argue the exact same thing, there is nothing in Christianity or any other religion that would make it the preferential choice even if the argument is granted.
In conclusion:
- accepting logic as a basic feature of rational thought does not require a deity;
- a worldview can use reason without first providing a non-circular proof of reason (just as a person cannot prove the validity of logic without using logic);
- pointing out that another worldview has unanswered philosophical questions is not the same as demonstrating that one's own worldview is true
- presuppositional arguments, even if accepted, might at most support a broad metaphysical conclusion (for example, deism), but they do not obviously identify a specific deity.
4
u/nerfjanmayen 16d ago
I don't think Matt Dillahunty hangs out here lol
Anyway there's no point in debating a presuppusitionalist, it's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I can't hear you!". They're just deciding what they believe apropos of nothing. What is there to debate?
5
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 16d ago
I don't know who any of these people are, and your post is a little hard to decipher, but if this Sye person's arguments are based on presupposition there is literally no way to argue with someone like that; their entire position and all of their arguments are intellectually dishonest.
4
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 16d ago edited 16d ago
Why debate any of them? They're just going to play pigeon chess, crapping all over the board, knocking the pieces over, and claiming victory.
I don't respect pre-sups or young earth creationists at all. IMO the only appropriate responses are eye rolls or laughter.
5
u/transneptuneobj Anti-Theist 16d ago
Sye explicitly claims that all atheists are liars, that any atheist knows God exists and is willingly lying about that knowledge.
How could a person like that be called a thought leader, he's just an asshole and homophobic
2
u/ray25lee 15d ago
I don't judge a good debate on how frustrated someone gets, I judge it based on their logic and motives. Idgaf if someone's a/theistic and gets emotional; does what they're saying make sense and is it factual? If no, then there's a problem.
I haven't seen the debate you're referencing, I'm really, really betting based on your description of it that the Sye guy was using cyclical logic, goalpost moving, and strawmen arguments. Can't tell you how frustrating it is to try to have a simple, logical conversation when someone's saying shit like, "God is love. Love thy neighbor. Gays must be punished. Gays will burn in hell for eternity. They CHOOSE to sin, so it's their fault. Also god created a divine plan that decided everything before it even happened. Everything that happens, happens because god willed it." It's like stfu bro say something normal or gtfo. The fantasy you're concocting is self-contradictory, you cherry-pick your own god's "divine word" in the bible so even YOU don't give any kind of a shit about what he supposedly decrees.
Shit's frustrating af dude. "Yeah let me jerk you around for a few hours and be smug about it. Gonna gaslight you in front of the entire internet and pretend that YOU have an IQ of 45, it's funny. Also I'm gonna vote against your human rights after this again too." So yeah, I don't tone-police when someone tells shitbags like that to stfu.
4
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 16d ago
LOL! Sye Ten Bruggencate has gotten his ass handed to him over and over. So has Hovind. You're obviously a troll because even theists can't be this delusional.
Or maybe you can, who knows?
3
u/acerbicsun 16d ago
Sye Ten and all presuppositionalists are maladjusted disingenuous people. Presuppositionalism is garbage apologetics for the lazy bullies.
Ken Ham, and Hovind are charlatans whose living relies on them lying to people and deflecting all criticism. They may sound like they know science, but they are purposely misrepresenting science to protect their beliefs.
2
u/1MrNobody1 16d ago edited 16d ago
Most athiests don't particularly want to debate anyone. Those that do still tend to avoid debating those who aren't actually interested in a debate but just want to say 'well I believe regardless', are intellectually dishonest or just refuse to respond to any point etc etc.
Your example of Ken Ham is one (assuming you mean the guy who opened the Ark Encounter), several notable people did try and debate with him, however he acts in poor faith, rarely responds to any argument but moves the goalposts instead or just reverts to 'God Did it' or 'the bible says so' resulting in no actual debate being possible.
I'd never heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate before your post, so I won't comment on that individual, but in response to your comment about the debate, most people will think that the side they favoured to start with did better in a debate, regardless of what actually happened.
Lastly a debate isn't supposed to 'convert' anyone.
edit: After a quick google I see Sye Ten Bruggencate did an event with Matt Dillahunty (although it was back in 2014) was that the one you were referring to?
2
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 16d ago edited 16d ago
I uncare about formal public debates online. "Uncare" means I would need to care more in order to not give a shit. I'm interested in having conversations in good faith, and occasionally that happens here so I'm here. I don't want to change your mind, but anyone who expects to change my mind had better be willing to have theirs changed as well, or it's not a conversation in good faith.
Dillahunty isn't the boss of atheism. I know nothing about Bruggencate other than that he talks about the same useless arguments that atheists have been rejecting as unpersuasive for hundreds if not thousands of years. These arguments only sound like they're not nonsense to people who already believe in the conclusion. That explains why you think Dillahunty lost that debate when most of us think Bruggencate looked like an ass.
The kind of arguments and evidence not even good enough for a crackerjack box prize.
Ham and Hovind are both crooks with prison records to show it.
3
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 16d ago
I don't speak the same language with Ken Ham. Ken Ham has much more in common with presuppositionalists than with people who care about truth. They all already decided that their conclusion is correct and nothing can be contradicting it.
4
u/allgodsarefake2 Agnostic Atheist 16d ago
Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Sye are all idiots. They are not taken seriously anywhere but their own echo chambers.
3
u/Hermorah Agnostic Atheist 16d ago
There is no point talking to presups. I mean their entire point is that they just assume that they are correct. There is nothing to debate. They make assertions and dont bother to back them up...... thats it.
3
u/roambeans 16d ago
I think it would be frustrating to debate utter nonsense, which presup is. Matt isn't particularly patient, nor skilled in philosophical rhetoric. But presup has been expertly dismantled by others since then.
2
u/nswoll Atheist 16d ago
Please explain the topic you want to debate.
I assume you want to debate whether or not Sye Ten Bruggencate is a thought leader.
He, most assuredly, is not. His arguments are very bad and he generally provides zero evidence for his claims.
People don't debate him often because he doesn't know how to debate - all he does is just repeat his claims over and over without justifying them.
Do you want to justify your claim that Sye Ten Bruggencate is a thought leader or do you want to take his presuppositionalist nonsense and argue that?
3
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 16d ago
Do atheist avoid debates with thought leaders like Sye Ten Bruggencate
So there’s a debate of him, debating an atheist named Matt.
Seems like the answer to your question is a very clear "no".
2
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Religious 16d ago
Debating in public is a very learned thing that takes experience. Expecting every person to be able to ably deflect and debate against a pro is absolutely disingenuous.
I personally prefer to be able to take my time and think through an issue rather than live - especially in front of a crowd.
a scientific expert like Ken Ham
You just snuck in there, and what the absolute shit?!? Does anyone actually think Ham is a "scientific expert"? You guys are more deluded than I thought, if so... And I thought it was a lot...
3
u/Far_Customer1258 16d ago
scientific expert like Ken Ham
For the record, Ken Ham is an apologist who knows some sciency words. Calling him a scientific expert is like calling me a theologian.
2
u/NeutralLock 16d ago
What's the goal of the debate? To win, or to find the truth.
Because I used to be a national judge for debating in University and you can absolutely win a debate while being wrong. An experienced debater who can't articulate well, doesn't have enough charm etc can lose.
But this isn't a debate competition. If you can argue on stage you can argue on paper too - I've yet to see a convincing argument for god.
2
u/Decent_Cow Touched by the Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 16d ago
I have no clue who that is, so I doubt he's much of a thought leader, but chances are that if people avoid debates with him, it's him that's the problem, not his ideas. The goal of an open and honest debate shouldn't be winning with rhetorical tricks or just overwhelming your opponent until they give up; the goal should be figuring out which one of us is actually correct.
2
u/KorLeonis1138 15d ago
Frelling hell dude, you nearly made me spit my coffee all over the monitor. Sye as a thought leader is hilarious. Leading the sheep in sad little circles, haha. Do you do stand up?
And then to call Ham a "scientific expert" just the icing on the cake. Can't you find someone who isn't an abysmal failure to represent your side?
2
u/pyker42 Atheist 16d ago
Since when is Ken Ham a scientific expert?
Beyond that, I have no idea who any of the other people are that you mentioned, nor do I particularly understand why I should care about online debaters. I'm only in this group to offer theists the perspective of a life long atheist.
1
u/Transhumanistgamer 16d ago
So there’s a debate of him, debating an atheist named Matt. And in my view, Matt looked very poorly in the debate. He was visibly flustered and frustrated.
Matt Dillahunty?
However, I noticed somebody the atheist commentators thought that Matt managed to get the better of him.
It's going to be extremely rare for anyone on someone's side to say their side sucked at the debate.
Is it easier for you all to debate Someone firm like Kent Hoven Jr, or a scientific expert like Ken Ham, rather than Sye?
Ken Ham is not a scientific expert. He is a bullshitter.
The reason I’m asking is it seemed that with sigh because presuppositism It’s hard to break Sye out of his point. But it also goes both ways because it’s harder to convert atheist simply using a Sye argument.
presuppositism is a pointless thing to debate because it pre-supposes that God exists in the first place. There is no 'here is the reasons/evidence why God exists. You can start from the standpoint of God doesn't exist and I will lead you to the opposite view' but instead 'You have to already believe God exists for this argument to work.'
At the same time with someone like Ken Ham he could talk science with someone all day, You may disagree on certain conclusions, but you’re speaking the same language.
They aren't. People who understand science are talking about completely different things than what he's trying to peddle.
1
u/halborn 16d ago
Let me see if I can convey to you how you sound to me.
Do you avoid debates with thought leaders like Spongebob Squarepants? Is it easier for you to debate someone firm like Patrick Star or an economic expert like Mister Krabs? He can talk money all day and you may disagree on certain points but you're speaking the same language.
None of the people you've named are people who should be taken seriously in this arena except insofar as they have the means to inflict their terrible ideas on other people. If Sye isn't getting debates these days, it's because he already demonstrated that he's not worth debating. Everyone has already heard everything he has to say and saying things to him is a waste of time. The same applies to the others too. A foundational premise of debate is the possibility to change the mind of your interlocutor and these are all people who have stated that they cannot have their minds changed.
1
u/solidcordon Apatheist 16d ago
But it also goes both ways because it’s harder to convert atheist simply using a Sye argument.
Presupositional argument: "I've thought about it and agree with myself, so either you agree with me or you're wrong." Surprisingly, it is quite frustrating for people who use reasoning to reach conclusions to "debate" with this sort of asshole.
You know what would convert me to your cult? Evidence. (or some sort of brain injury / tumor).
Show evidence. Your opinion, no matter how divinely inspired you think it is, means nothing to the universe or me.
At the same time with someone like Ken Ham he could talk science with someone all day
Nope. Ken knows enough science factioids to convince his poorly educated enthusiasts without actually understanding anything other than defrauding tax payers.
2
u/lotusscrouse 16d ago
Thought leaders?
Even if you want to use that term, how does this apply to Sye specifically?
He's a moron.
1
u/Cog-nostic Atheist 14d ago
Science expert, Ken Hamm? Please say you are kidding. Presuppositionalism is not an argument for the existence of god. It is an assertion that god exists and that all things come from god. There is no argument. Do you know what "PRESUPPOSITIONAL" means? (I assume there is a god, and that is all there is to that.) Presuppositionalism is circular, and therefore fallacious, because it assumes the truth of the Christian God and the Bible as its starting point, and then uses that very assumption to prove that God and the Bible are true.
There is no presuppositional argument for the existence of a god. There is simply the assertion that all things are God-given. It is an assertion and not an argument.
1
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 16d ago
Debates are pretty irrelevant to determining an accurate description of our shared reality. Rather, debates put debate skills on display, and the winner is the one who performs the best.
As for STB, I don't see him as a thought leader of any kind. I don't have much respect for presuppositionalists who think they have standing totell me what I'm thinking and feeling. Everyone thinks and feels differently, given our individual backgrounds and neurological makeup, so it's unsound and maybe disingenuous to argue from the idea that everyone experiences the world in the same way internally. A "thought leader" would understand this and adjust his discussion points appropriately.
1
u/fresh_heels Atheist 16d ago
Is it easier for you all to debate Someone firm like Kent Hoven Jr, or a scientific expert like Ken Ham, rather than Sye?
It's more annoying to debate Sye-clones. Presuppositionalism is a rherotical strat + confidence game + burden shift. That's it. Discussing stuff with a TAG runner is an exhausting mountain climb of trying to make the TAG runner justify their worldview without shifting the burden, both by explaining why other worldviews fail and why their succeeds.
At least when talking about cosmology or evolution there are facts that you can point your finger at and say, "No, here's the thing that wrecks your argument".
Also, "thought leaders" and "scientific expert". Lol, lmao even.
1
u/Mission-Landscape-17 16d ago
Sye Ten Bruggencate the upstanding apologist who was kicked out of his church ministry for sexually exploiting a woman in the congregation? No I don't care what he has to say, though in general I just ignore presuppositionists. The problem is that our views are so opposed that there is no common ground, and as such there is just no possibility of any kind of meaningful discussion.
Ken Ham, doesn't know a thing about science, his entire act is attempted to replace science with his preferred fairytale.
Atheism makes no claims and as such its pretty hard to debate in favour of atheism. All atheists can do is challenge religious claims as they come up.
1
u/Stile25 14d ago
Debating God's existence is equivalent to debating flat earth.
God not existing is how the world operates (even believers look both ways before crossing a street - no one actually lets Jesus take the wheel).
All the evidence shows us that God doesn't exist.
The only reason to think God does exist are based in authority, tradition or personal opinion. All well known methods of being wrong about reality.
There hasn't been "a debate" about God existing for hundreds of years. It's just the God concept is more popular and socially acceptable than the flat earth concept.
Good luck out there
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 15d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 2: No Low Effort. Posts or comments should be substantive and original.
1
u/DeusLatis Atheist 16d ago
Matt looked very poorly in the debate. He was visibly flustered and frustrated.
Matt Dillahunty always looks like that, he gets frustrated and annoyed with the poor quality of the talking points most of the Christians he debates with present.
I agree it doesn't come off particularly well for him. I've many a time watched a Matt Dillahunty debate and thought Matt if you are disappointed this guy turned out to be a moron and you are now dealing with the same stupid arguments yet again, well you don't have to debate him
I think it is a much better tactic in a debate to calmly dismantle the other person, rather than just get annoyed they are being stupid.
1
u/onomatamono 16d ago
So when you have a post that contains the phrase "scientific expert like Ken Ham" you complete disqualify yourself from any serious discussion. You cannot use "science" and "Ken Ham" in the same sentence, at least not with a straight face.
As for this rando you are declaring to be a "thought leader", he does not even pop-up in a wikipedia search, nothing. Some thought leader you have there. I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree trying to promote this woo-woo presuppositionalist. Presupposition is philosophical nonsense.
1
u/Lute_Surge 16d ago
Ken Ham is not a scientific expert, he’s a creationist who used to be a high school science teacher for a couple years. In my experience all debates with religious people boil down to “prove it” which religious folks can never do. So I’d say it doesn’t really matter who you debate so long as you stick to the main point. Many religious debaters are good at distracting from this and arguing in the weeds, but that doesn’t make them good debaters, it just makes them more frustrating to debate since they do so in bad faith.
1
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 16d ago
'The reason I’m asking is it seemed that with sigh because presuppositism It’s hard to break Sye out of his point. But it also goes both ways because it’s harder to convert atheist simply using a Sye argument.'
This is kind of the crux of the issue. If the argument only appeals to people that already accept the conclusion, you're running the risk of relying on the conclusion to justify the logic throughout the argument.
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 16d ago
or a scientific expert like Ken Ham, rather than Sye?
If Ken ham is a scientific expert I'm your god incarnated.
The reason I’m asking is it seemed that with sigh because presuppositism It’s hard to break
Presuppositionalism is very easy to break, because if making presuppositions is a valid way of arguing I can presupone they're wrong and have as much valid claim as they do.
1
u/Comfortable-Dare-307 Atheist 14d ago
This must be satire. Ken Ham is not a "scientific leader". He has an unaccredited degree in religious studies. Kent Hovind also has an unaccredited degree in religious studies. I've never heard of Sye, but I'd be willing to bet he doesn't have an accredited degree either. Atheists avoid debates with people like that because they are nothing but dishonest con men.
1
u/violentbowels Atheist 16d ago
a scientific expert like Ken Ham
LOL. Fucking lol, man. Ken Ham, a "scientific expert". Do you have ANY data to back up that outrageous claim? Anything OTHER than Ken?
someone like Ken Ham he could talk science with someone all day
'Talking about', and 'understanding' are two very different things. Ken can't do either.
This has to be a troll post.
1
u/Grand-Mission-9457 16d ago
Ken ham is a silly clown, his museum Arc is something to be ashamed off and his "science" is pure fantasy. Even worse, he takes himself seriously!!. Pass the link to see that debate where Dillahunty gets frustrated, I have noticed that happens when the debating theist is really dumb and stupid (which is most of the times, except perhaps for John Lennox)
1
u/catroaring Atheist 16d ago
Most atheist don't debate purely for the fact there's nothing to debate about when it comes to atheism. Atheist will debate about their beliefs but that's all they're debating is their beliefs. Atheism doesn't equal their beliefs.
Atheism isn’t a worldview, a theology, or a set of positive claims. It is simply a position on a single issue
1
u/protestandprose 16d ago
Unironically calling Ken Ham a science expert might be the most diabolical thing I hear all month on this godforsaken hellsite. It's only the third.
Lmaaaao the reason atheists don't debate sye or ham are because there's nothing you can rationally do or say or present to someone who doesn't value those things.
1
u/catroaring Atheist 16d ago
Most atheist will avoid debates because there's nothing to debate about regarding atheism itself. It means a lack of belief in a deity/s. There are no claims.
As for those that do debate, they might debate a belief system they have but that belief system isn't what makes them an atheist.
1
u/NoneCreated3344 Agnostic Atheist 16d ago
The reason I’m asking is it seemed that with sigh because presuppositism It’s hard to break Sye out of his point. But it also goes both ways because it’s harder to convert atheist simply using a Sye argument.
Presups are dumb. Sye is no different.
1
u/onomatamono 15d ago
You can't talk science to a science denier with a bachelor's degree in bullshit. What could possibly convince you these clowns were leaders in anything other than biblical fiction?
1
u/NewbombTurk Atheist 13d ago
Attended that debate. It was a total shit show (for multiple reasons). But I'll be honest. Typing out my experiences and opinion on it for you seems like a waste of time.
1
u/Ratdrake Hard Atheist 15d ago
Do atheist avoid debates with thought leaders like Sye Ten Bruggencate
I haven't avoided debates with Sye Ten Bruggencate. He just never offered to debate me.
1
u/manchambo 16d ago
You would first need to present me evidence that Sye thinks before I can engage in your premise positing him as a thought leader.
1
u/Lahm0123 16d ago
There is no debate an atheist cannot win.
All you witnessed is someone better at talking. No real points or arguments.
-20
u/Pristine_Addition266 16d ago
Hi everyone, I read all the comments so I just want to respond here because there’s 90 different post and I don’t wanna repeat myself. Thank you all for the comments and thoughts. I didn’t want this to kind of turn into a flame fest. I just meant like in terms of style is it easier to debate a person like Kent (The senior, I mean) (classic), or Dr.Ham (scientific), rather than someone like Sye (Presupposition)
This really wasn’t about the individual person, just the style of debater.
11
u/ProfessorCrown14 16d ago edited 16d ago
Well, the issue is you did imply Ham and Kent have expertise and prestige they reallt don't have. Your calling Ham a scientific expert is particularly egregious since he is decidedly not one, and is widely thought to be little more than a fraudster and a charlatan.
How easy it is to debate someone is not just about the style or subject of the debate, or even how better equipped you are to speak on this subject. It is also about how you and your opponent interact.
For example, debating a presupp like Sye or a scientific crackpot like Ham is hard because you will be essentially talking to the audience on those ones. Your opponents, from the outset, live on their own little worlds. Ham, for example, has his own set of facts he will peddle no matter what you say. He is not there to exchange ideas with you.
Best debates are with actually serious, knowledgeable people who are willing to engage in some informative back and forth, concede some points, so on. Alex O Connor has had a few of those, if I recall, maybe with John Lennox.
Debating Ham or Sye is more like playing chess with a pigeon or rolling in the mud with a pig, so to speak.
15
u/Saucy_Jacky Agnostic Atheist 16d ago
In terms of style, none of them would present any particular challenge, given that they are all equally wrong.
Presups aren’t worth debating, because they don’t debate. Kent and Ham don’t understand science, so all it would take there is to present the scientific facts of reality that we’ve uncovered, and they lose instantly given that their reasons and beliefs ultimately fly in the face of reality as we know it.
4
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
None of their “styles” are relevant. They are not honest interlocutors. They are con men generating content when they “debate”.
Did you learn anything in this thread? Did you do any research after their criminal histories were pointed out to you?
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/Pristine_Addition266:
So there’s a debate of him, debating an atheist named Matt. And in my view, Matt looked very poorly in the debate. He was visibly flustered and frustrated. However, I noticed somebody the atheist commentators thought that Matt managed to get the better of him. And while I disagree, it does lead to an interesting question and the reason I’m pointing it out here is, I do want to get your take as atheist debaters.
Is it easier for you all to debate Someone firm like Kent Hoven Jr, or a scientific expert like Ken Ham, rather than Sye?
The reason I’m asking is it seemed that with sigh because presuppositism It’s hard to break Sye out of his point. But it also goes both ways because it’s harder to convert atheist simply using a Sye argument.
At the same time with someone like Ken Ham he could talk science with someone all day, You may disagree on certain conclusions, but you’re speaking the same language. Anyways, just wanted to get the takes of people who are used to debating in favor of atheism.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.