There is an old saying: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull*&%”. Creationists have realized their evidential arguments have zilch credibility. What they have resorted to is playing dishonest word games to twist a skeptic’s intellectual sincerity in hopes of making them look foolish on camera.
Sye Ten Bruggencate is an advocate of this linguistic dishonesty. He ran into a brick wall trying to debate Matt Dillahunty in the Refining Reason Debate held in Memphis, TN. Dillahunty refused to follow the script Bruggencate wanted Matt to follow for Bruggencate’s word game to work. Bruggencate’s routine script is so predictable Matt had a prewritten rebuttal. It was hilarious how Matt took him down by knowing exactly what to say before the debate even started.
My question to this post is: do you think the presuppositional apologetics debate fad will continue?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Of course it will.
They actually think that they are winning.
Their arguments aren't flawed in their view. They believe that they are superior to everyone else due to divine intervention.
If you have to use"Apologetics" for your argument, and don't see anything wrong in that, I fear that there's no hope for you.
Oh my goodness. I just watched the debate with Sye. It's so painful to see people like him. Not a single point made to support his position, just word games and an obsessiion with the fact that Matt doesn't claim absolute knowledge of something. I wonder if he speaks this way with his doctors.
"Doctor, are you absolutely sure that this insulin will control my diabetes? You admit you don't have absolute knowledge. What basis do you have for telling me this will work."
"Well, Sye, it has been consistantly working for all my patients in the past"
"I can't believe you don't recognize the folly of that logic!!'
If he applied this type of reasoning to any other aspect of life, he would have been killed long ago.
My favorite part was when he said it wasn't special pleading to apply reason to every claim except God's existence. And his reason for saying so was because" that's a different case." As if that isn't the exact definition of special pleading. I just cannot handle the arrogance. I would have been trying too hard to resist the urge to wring his neck to be able to debate with him.
Another good example of this nonsense is the AronRa vs Sye Ten Bruggencate Dogma Debate , July 18, 2013. AronRa does a great job of not allowing Bruggencate to dictate the script.
What they have resorted to is playing dishonest word games to twist a skeptic’s intellectual sincerity in hopes of making them look foolish on camera.
Saw the debate, Sye Ten Bruggencate is just pathetic.
Matt is an experienced debater but i think he lacks something other then preparation which he has.
He needs to get the people more in touch with his message more clearly like Harris does.
Well he was given just 10 minutes to explain a very hard concept here, which he did quite well but I think there is room for improvement.
I doubt that half the audience even understood what he was talking about.
Not everybody is smart enough to process all that logic in that amount of time.
"My question to this post is: do you think the presuppositional apologetics debate fad will continue?"
Yes they will continue until they find something better to do, when they find it they will go back to this when they realize that what they have found is even more stupid.
Here is another example of Presuppositional word games. Eric Hovind ( son of Kent Hovind currently imprisoned for tax evasion) and Phil Mason (also known as Thunder00t on youtube) lock horns in a debate at the 2012 Reason Ralley using the same tactics. Phil does not fall in the linguistc traps Eric sets. Phil manages to keep his cool. One of the objectives of presuppositional word games is for the atheist to lose his temper and the creationist declares victory. I managed to watch the entire thing but it was not easy to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9BfsHsVGNg
ImFree, I think you would enjoy the follow up of Sye Ten Bruggencate after Matt left.
It is 1 hr 30 min long or much bull but the last 20 minutes were well worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcJQX9nm-lw
Thanks for the link Jeff! Loved it! Watching that is essential to watching the main debate. That video helps familiarize viewers of the vile, dishonest and hateful demeanor of Sye Ten Bruggencate and the personable but just as dishonest Eric Hovind. Both rely on the same deceitful presuppositional word games to obscure true factual discussion and promote theatrical gotcha moments to show their brain-dead sheeple. It was great that the host wouldn’t allow them to draw him into their word games.
The true age of the earth plays in my head when I hear people like those two spout religious drivel. The difference between 4.5 billion minus 6, 000 years that can be verified makes me roll my eyes. Plus the fossil record in sedimentary rock formations laid millions of years before there was a brain that could conceive their book of lies. Doesn’t stop the religious from pursuing their profits….whoops…I mean prophets ; )
Saw the part where the guy from the audience copied him exactly and told him that even Sye Ten Bruggencate believed in a got without personality because the guy of the adience said so.
That was hilarious.
The the reply of Sye Ten Bruggencate was,
But you all know that he is lying.
My reply to his reply would be.
Yes we all know he is, just as we all know that you are insane or out right arrogantly stupid.
Presups are the final gasp of this all. All they are left with now is confusing and self-refuting arguments that only work when language is horrendously manipulated. They have nothing else left to them in defense of their faith.
The earth is old.
The earth is not flat.
There was no flood.
The sun, moon, and stars are not lights or windows on the interior of a crystal dome holding back waters above.
There was no exodus.
Jericho didn't fall from people shouting, in fact it wasn't even inhabited at that time.
Nazareth was not populated during the time Jesus was supposed to have been born there.
Their books were not written by who they say they were written by. Nor were they written when people like to imagine them being written.
Disease is not caused by demons.
Killing a bird and shaking it's blood on a building will not cure it of mold.
etc.
etc.
etc.
We know these things because of modern schools of research that utilize the scientific method to ascertain the facts of these things instead of "I believe". All they have though is "I believe".
So, no. Presups are the last bastion of their defense. Don't follow their language and remember that if their assertions are enough backing for their arguments that they 'know' things without any recourse to evidence than our assertions are enough backing that evidence gained from stringent review is sufficient for our purposes to 'know' things as well. Two can play at this game, and we have lots of hard-earned data to back us up.
I like "debating" presuppositional apologists and find the following tactics useful*:-
1) Be a presuppositionalist back to them and show them just how sterile the tactic is. If fallible fundamentalists can use it, then why can't the rest of us? And remind them that Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". So clearly they want me to be a pressupositionalist too. It's just that I expect them to presuppose that I have the truth, not them. That way we can engage in a “I’m right, you are wrong”, “No, you are wrong and I’m right” conversation that goes on and on, page after page. :)
2) When you see them make a mistake, any mistake, point out that they made a mistake, and so, given this, why should one trust any assertion they make as being true, given their demonstrated fallibility.
3) Point out that you are most happy to play by their rules, and thats' why you are behaving as they do, and then point out that you think it would be better if they played by your rules, that is, offer reasoned, logical arguments, with supporting evidence. Remind them though, that while their method is easy, and takes no brains, your method is requires work and effort.
4) Point out that if you were ignorant, stupid or a coward, then presuppositional apologetics would be the tool for you, because one can hide a million sins behind it.
Do these kinds of things for a bit and often the presuppositionalist will go away. If they don't well, let them have the last word, but remember, if saying the above kind of things won't convince them, it might nevertheless make any lurker see how stupid the apologetic is, and think twice about falling into it.
* Most presuppers I find to be arrogant, and thus I use the tactics. I’ve met a few polite ones, and there I am more cautious in how I approach the person.
I found a really good, very thorough refutation of the presuppositional arguments, specifically directed at Sye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcDebJuWcww&list=PL515BB2B62E8AAAE3
Hope this helps some others as much as it helped me. When it comes to arguments like this, atheists are often left baffled by how silly the questions are and wondering how to even begin to explain why there aren't any valid questions even being discussed. This guys breaks it down pretty well.
thanks ex-christian, indeed that video was missed in my research of that type of arguments.
it sums up most of my thoughts about the subject in a nice manner.
Wonder how many americans have realised the supreme court has in a way ruled that both creationism and id are not scientific theories im sure you will be aware of the dover trial 2005 it ruled that creationism cannot be distinguished from id and ruled id is not a scientific theory in a 139 page ruling !!!! Plus the Edwards v Aguillard 1987 creationist trial ruled that creationism was a ploy to further a religion.
Also next time a theist uses a creationist point out pre 1987 there existed a creationist book of pandas and people post 1987 by changing two words repeatedly (points for guessing which two lol) it became an id book they committed fraud to attempt to get their crap into schools.