January 26, 2012

Tommy Rodriguez

Have you all read, and followed, these smart discussions?

I would like to say these are Sye's best work to date, but I am a tad biased to my brother in Christ. You can chime in if you wish about this, but I am hoping for just understanding and clarity, in the silence of the Atheists out there.

It all started here at the scientist Tommy's blog.

Tommy Rodriguez vs Sye TenBruggencate: A ‘Spirited’ Discussion


Then Sye posted.

Dialogue With an Atheist: Racing for Pinks


The Tommy again.

Responses to Sye TenBruggencate


Then Sye again.

Racing for Pinks Part 2


Then Sye finally.

Racing for Pinks 3rd and Final?


Praise God for this work. Also, praise God that Tommy opened the discussion to his circle of Atheist friends that read his blog. A win-win discussion.

Update: It continues with Tommy...

Ride, Ride the ‘Merry-go-Round’ by Tommy Rodriguez 


Then Sye once again.

Racing for Pinks 4: No more Mr. Nice Guy.

28 spleen-ventings:

  1. Utter rubbish - shame Tommy didn't just point out that the car Sye thinks he's driving is imaginary, just like the Christian God.

    Sye has no pink slip, just a tired and worn out script that first borrows from the objectivists worldview in order to deny the objectivists worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sye has no pink slip, just a tired and worn out script that first borrows from the objectivists worldview in order to deny the objectivists worldview.

    Boom. Headshot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I got as far as the "uniformity requires God" statement and had to stop.

    The only way to square Creationism with what we know about the Universe is to assume that God played with the rules in a major way. Add to that a book full of examples of this same God doing more fun tricks with reality. To claim that all this suddenly is the only way that things will continue as they were is, frankly, silly.

    On the other hand, we've been able to observe events going back billions of years, and determine that things back then are pretty close to how things work now. This doesn't prove they will continue, but it provides a reasonable basis to extrapolate into the future unless we see otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Syecular was hopeless (again) in those discussions. The man never learns anything.

    I'm guessing you posted this, Dan, to get some more hits for your (recently) ghost town blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So much for the 'silence of the atheists'.

    Is neither Dan nor Sye (or any or presupper) willing to step forward and defend the position against people who aren't ignorant of the presuppositionalist's dishonesty? Or are they only content to ambush the unwary - only to claim victory when their 'prey' realises they've been duped and rightfully withdraws from the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't follow the talks of Sye. He is completely dishonest. What I take from this post is that Dan openly admits that Jesus is a deceiver.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Is neither Dan nor Sye (or any or presupper) willing to step forward and defend the position against people who aren't ignorant of the presuppositionalist's dishonesty?"

    I suppose you wouldn't include Alex in that challenge eh?

    Round 1
    Round 2
    Round 3.

    How 'bout you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually, with presuppers, all one has to keep in mind is that they:

    Use nothing but circular reasoning while trying to get the non-theist to "justify their reasoning" which has fuck-all to do with the evidence fro the presuppers god, and offering no evidence for the presuppers own beliefs except the cop-out that even the ability to reason is proof of whatever bloody god the presuppers wants to believe in.

    Am I close?

    ReplyDelete
  9.      "Am I close?"

         You're spot on. As I am sure both Dan and Sye will agree with (though not admit to) anyone who uses or endorses Presuppositional Baloney does not believe his god is really there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sye TenB said...

    "Is neither Dan nor Sye (or any or presupper) willing to step forward and defend the position against people who aren't ignorant of the presuppositionalist's dishonesty?"

    I suppose you wouldn't include Alex in that challenge eh?

    Why would I? He's no longer ignorant when it comes to your dishonesty and the dishonesty of all the other presuppers he has had dealings with.

    Round 1
    Round 2
    Round 3.


    I've listened to the exchanges, you come out looking dishonest, was that your intention or merely an unavoidable consequence of holding the presup position?

    How 'bout you?

    How 'bout me what?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Syecular still thinks those encounters make him look good. Great, that means he'll keep pushing his apostles into listening to them, and seeds of doubt will continue to be planted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. wow, this blog really died after Dan took the final step into being a full on bellend!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not really Alex, the conversations are going on elsewhere. Sorry that you weren't invited though. I am sure you, of all people, get that a lot. I will admit that there is a peacefulness, and tranquil calm, by not posting here for a while. Although, if you look at the stats (towards bottom, sidebar) I am still averaging 200+ pages viewed a day even if I am not posting new material. Praise the Lord for that, and I know you will in your own special way.

    Do not worry though, I will be posting something when the Spirit moves me to. Until then enjoy the conversations.

    ReplyDelete
  14.      It would appear that no one who made a regular appearance on this blog was "invited." So the conversations are not "going on elsewhere," though he may have new conversations with an echo chamber.
         I agree with you, Alex, this blog has pretty much died.

    Dan:

         You do realize that most of those views are Alex looking for comedy material, right? But, hey, you seem to be going the way of the KKK. I understand they use secrecy to make sure they won't have to hear any dissent too.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "the conversations are going on elsewhere."

    Sorry, Dan, but whatever discussions you're having in your head don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I am still averaging 200+ pages viewed a day even if I am not posting new material."

    Wow, less than half of what my blog gets...even when I've not posted anything for ages.

    Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK Alex, I was not bragging as I was in merely in awe of having visitors still daily, and I don't wish to start comparing size length now either. :7)

    Also, your comment made me think if one verse.

    "Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it." ~Matthew 7:13

    I am hopeful that God will humble you shortly. After all, knowledge and truth are good things. Knowing you're warring against God is an unhealthy position to stay on. Please repent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you were to give Alex proof instead of empty warnings maybe you'd have better results?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wait...Let's look at your verse, Dan. So does that mean that xian blogs with more readerships then Alex's are false? Is that your reasoning?

    Looks like it.

    ReplyDelete
  20.      Oh, Dan, if you are reading this, I hve revised my assessment of your courage on my blog. The fact that you have switched to hiding your "conversations" from your critics necessitated an adjustment.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pvb, It's not that I am hiding conversations, just that I am having conversations elsewhere. For example, we have been playfully bantering on my facebook group with the same name a great deal, and the group has increased quite a bit with the college kids getting word of it. Its been available on this blog even, or at least I linked to it. I am also discussing things on other blogs, FB groups, youtube, twitter, etc. This is my domain true, but it's not the only place I discuss things.

    The Atheists discuss thing privately at your we are "not so" smart discussion board anyway. I do not see you being consistent and complaining about that place.

    Don't get me wrong though, I am use to your inconsistency.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan:

         As far as I know, the atheists' discussion board is neither closed nor undisclosed to christians. You know where it is. And I am pretty sure you have not had your comments deleted. (Alex can correct me if I am wrong on this point.) We do not know where your conversations are taking place. And, if it is like most christian sites, comments from non-christians are either deleted or blocked outright.
         "Don't get me wrong though, I am use to your inconsistency."
         Well, when you are finished playing in the straw, I'm over here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You're a liar, Dan. You registered at SMRT and have posted there before.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rufus, I am not the one who is making a stink about posting elsewhere, others are. Yes I have commented many times there and elsewhere. So? My claim is that I do. Point being that, just because I am not posting here does not mean I am not posting.

    Remember, I am not complaining here, the people that miss my company are. :7)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care about you posting elsewhere. You make it sound like no one but atheists are welcome at SMRT.

      Delete
  25. Dan:

         No one is raising a stink about posting elsewhere. Does Jesus teach you to lie like that? People are raising a stink about you making sure that no dissenters know where this "elsewhere" is. People are making a stink about the "you're not invited" attitude. This has been made quite clear. Yet you persist in the falsehood that it is "about posting elsewhere."

    ReplyDelete
  26. >>People are raising a stink about you making sure that no dissenters know where this "elsewhere" is.

    You all know where I am. I list them here on the blog. The "you're not invited" was a dig to counter his, that is all. I am still here for you, no worries.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>