When I held Sye's position, which is Calvinism btw, I didn't even know how absurd it really was until investigating it. The same thing is to be said about me and Christianity. I'm an agnostic atheist now.

A perfect example of eating your cake and having, too.

Eric M Is the label “crazy” something you have evidence for, or is it just a subjective claim?

@@twelvedozen5075 It's an adjective, not a label. The response given to the question at 1:21:00 seems like a deviation from basic cognitive skills enough to question his intellectual honesty, so I'd go with "self-deluded liar" or "hypocritical idiot", but "crazy" works, too...

@@timmarrier No, that's false. Sye was actually correct. What Tyler presented was false. The "being" he hypothecated was logically and ontologically insufficient. He presented a "...force out there that is all powerful but not conscious. It validates inductive reasoning; it validates logic; and reveals to us all that God does not exist. Show how that is absurd." Logic and Reason demonstrate that because there is anything, then something necessarily is that is eternal, immutable, and, very importantly, Personal! Without all three of things qualities, there wouldn't/couldn't be anything at all! So his argument fails from the get-go. See: R. C. Sproul: Eternity. Also, R. C. Sproul Proves God Does Not Exist. And R. C. Sproul: Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God. All three are available here on KZfaq.

​@@reallifelegend4781 "Believe it if you can, I can't stop you. Believe it if you like, you're welcome. It's obviously impossible, as I said before, to disprove, and it equally...obviously...helps you to believe it if, as we all often are, in the "happy position" of "knowing the outcome"...in other words, "we are here"...but there's a fallacy lurking in there somewhere too, is there not?" - Christopher Hitchens

@@timmarrier I give you facts, and you respond by giving me senseless drivel about Hitchens' opinion about belief? I pointed you to irrefutable proof of God in the videos I mentioned to you. Instead of dealing with the objective proofs presented, you want to respond with subjective opinion.

And you just summarized why presups make me so angry. His repeated refusal to answer questions was also frustrating and annoying.

Oh please.. The host couldn't answer a single question.. Pure cowardice.

Oh, no doubt. I listen to them both on others pod casts, etc, and at the end they thank the host like he was on their show...lol. It's bizarre. Their pathology is pretty deep and disturbing....but no doubt interesting to us all,as we keep coming back for more????.....

ArcanE LogoS (theGhost) The "host" isn't there to answer their stupid questions that have been answered 1000 times. They're his guests and are there to be interviewed by him...get it?

Couldn't agree more!! It's INFURIATING when a guest continually avoids the question by asking 17 more!!! It just shows how pathetically non existent their entire world view really is.... "You are not entitled to ask me anything about what I assert is undeniably true, so let's fill up the time by ME asking YOU questions that have no answer"!!!! Aaahhhhhhhh!!!!

Where does it say in the Bible that "Your free choices have been pre-determined by God."? Don't you think God's revelation is a better authority than some guy's opinion on that subject? At best Sye is knowingly stating an absurdity to prove you can't refute it with atheist 'logic', at worst he believes in predetermination which is heresy. It wouldn't be his first one, despite agreeing with him on a great deal of things, he is wrong about others.

@@oldscorp "Don't you think God's revelation is a better authority than some guy's opinion on that subject?" One of those things exist, and the other doesn't.

People who hear voices hear different stuff

Brilliant.

7 years later, I know. But for what it's worth, I never once heard Sye and Eric disagree on the path of salvation. I heard them have different perspectives on a couple of different things; but never once heard them disagree on the path of salvation. In fact, if anything, I think I heard them agree about it. Salvation is by grace through faith in God in Christ Jesus.

@@reallifelegend4781 Sure it is tiger, and let me guess you know because its been revealed to you by an invisible magical being you can't demonstrate...got it.

@@myjizzureye Nope, you don't "got it". I know because it's been revealed to all of us by a Spiritual Being that science and Reason demonstrate necessarily MUST be, and without which nothing could/would be! If you need it spelled out for you, you can watch R. C. Sproul: Eternity, available here on KZfaq. Have a good day.

I don't think determinism and free will are incompatible, necessarily. I'm an atheist, so I'm not sure how these guys describe the phenomenon of compatibilism exactly, but I think the answer may lie in the question: what is free will actually meant to be free of?

SailingSeignior And?

@@twelvedozen5075 And he just admitted that his attempt at apologetics is pathetically useless.

@@thoughtfuldevil6069 This would be based on the assumption that Sye is actually trying to convert people using apologetics. I can tell he isn't, because he doesn't believe he can.

@@sotem3608 I wonder why he does debates, if that's the case. What motivation could he have?

​@@thoughtfuldevil6069 Watch some of his videos, he frequently addresses his reasoning. If you truly do wonder you could watch those. One important reason for his debating is because he loves those whom he debates, he loves them enough to bring them the truth. Yet also Sye knows from scripture, that it isn't man who converts, but it is the richness of God's mercy, which is exactly why he can say with 100% certainty that he won't convert anyone.

You had to take God to consider this, then sye wins

I'm absolutely I am not the God that you believe in"

"I'm absolutely certain that i'm NOT omnipotent. Sye and Eric: "You could be wrong " Me: ok, so according to Sye and Eric, i could be omnipotent and therefore : I'm GOD!" That's a bit of a straw man. It is the atheist who is claiming he cannot be certain about anything; not Sye and Eric. Their argument is that there are absolutes. So your example doesn't refute them; it actually proves they are correct. What Sye and Eric are trying to point out is that atheists are not consistent with their own worldview. When pressed to take their suppositions to their logical conclusion, they dodge by crying foul.

(....and, I might add, this is utterly reinforced by Sye and Eric's best possible retort to Tyler's proposition, which is "Well, I wouldn't think that if I were youuuuu.. because you'll go to helllllllllll........ nyaaanyaanyaaaa." AKA childcare.)

_"I know that many skeptics and atheists prefer to avoid the counter of "well I have a revelation too" as a means of illuminating the weakness of presup arguments, since it purportedly shows a need to appeal to external revelation, which sort of justifies the presup position."_ There are two basic modes of philosophical examination of a worldview or substantive position, the *internal critique* and the *external critique*. Presuppositionalism fundamentally asserts that it is immune to _external critique_ because the external worldview lacks justified tools with which to launch an intelligible argument. Strictly speaking, that's actually sound although it's highly unsatisfying and fails a common sense test. What the presupp *can't* legitimately do however is assert invulnerability from _internal critique_ on the basis of "borrowing from my worldview" because that's exactly what an _internal critique_ is -- borrowing all of their worldview for purposes of analysis. On a purely internal basis the presupp argument has more than its share of issues, so there's really no need to go elsewhere. [Issues like the infinite regress problem of divine deception "for purposes that are perfectly sufficient to God" (the presupp needs to be omniscient to know revealed truth with absolute certainty). Or the fact that the presupp makes a logical argument that logic is an objective metaphysically distinct necessary entity, God (or God's nature) has a logically necessary existence, _and_ logic is somehow contingent upon God/God's nature.]

Good points, Jesse. I feel like their defense against external critique is invalid because they haven't demonstrated that the external worldview lacks the tools necessary to argue. I know they think it, and it's kind of the lynchpin of their position. But Tyler's posit here demonstrates the weakness of that position: Presupposin' things just don't make them so, and they acknowledge that damn well when someone else is doing the presupposin'. Moving to internal......I allow, loosely, that they're being logically consistent; after all, if you honestly believe that other worldviews lack the tools necessary to sufficient argue against you, then you can't reasonably accept any external argument. But then they're left with the problems you cited, most damningly the problem of infinite regress of deception and their lack of omniscience. My hugely condensed version of the debate: Presup: I know things with certainty because of the voices in my head. Skeptic: Sorry, I don't make shit up.

Peter Zachos I'm not sure their position is internally consistent because it asserts that logic is both a necessary platonic metaphysical entity and also contingent upon God or God's nature. Here's my syllogism using modal logic to make the problem more obvious (assuming their wv): 1. All things that actually exist do so on the metaphysical precondition of their existence being logically actually possible. 2. All things that necessarily exist do so on the metaphysical precondition of their existence being logically necessarily possible. This isn't to say their *actual* existence is contingent, as lacking this existence would conflict with necessity, but merely that it's an inescapable truth that necessary things are automatically necessarily metaphysically possible. 3. Without logic there could be no logical possibility, thus logic must exist as a background precondition. 4. Necessary possibility likewise requires necessary logic. There can be no possible world where something is logically possible yet logic does not exist. 5. The argument "God is a necessary requirement for the intelligibility of tools of thought such as logic and reasoning" can be restated as "Logic and reasoning are necessarily contingent upon God or God's nature." 6. It is logically impossible for God to be impossible. That is, God is a necessary being in all possible worlds and likewise God's nature is necessary. Because God necessarily exists then, as per #2, it must be true that God is a logically necessary possibility. Conclusion: Positing a logical argument that logic is contingent upon God but also necessary because God is necessarily possible is contradictory because something cannot be both necessary and contingent. Thus, *if this is the truth of logic* then logic itself would be a contradiction -- either logic does not exist or the presupp is using something external to their worldview.

I love how at least 3 times they had the opportunity to drop the discussion, but eventually walk right into the trap Tyler had for them.

I love David's expression when he hears his answer.

Did we miss how many questions David would not answer?

If you really study the problem from induction, you realise that it is just a philosophical concern and not a practical one. It's just not necessary to solve Eric and Sye do not solve any practical issues of knowing or certainty. Induction is usually demonstrated using examples from sampling, asserting that for any given set you sample from (often coloured balls), the first 99 samples do not determine what the 100th will be. Fine, that's a nice philosophical problem and Christianity does not resolve this philosophical dilemma at all. Humans ride in aeroplanes. Every successful flight does not allow one to assume that the next flight taken will also be successful - this is the problem from induction. Belief in either the God of Christianity or Judaism or Islam does not allow a believer to solve this practical problem of induction either. Saying that God has pre-determined which planes will crash, well - that's rather vulgar.

@joe smith I have to correct you. Being open to new evidence is a practical concern involving tangible evidences and does not solve the problem of induction - because that new evidence only becomes part of your history of sampling evidence, it does not resolve the future in absolute certainty. The problem from induction is this - if you sample 99 red balls from a container, can you know that the next red ball will also be red? The answer is "No". But if you sample 99 red balls from a container, can you, based on faith in Jesus and the Bible, know that the next ball is going to be red? The answer is still "No". So faith does not solve induction. Because Science relies on making reliable predictions, science can never completely resolve the dilemma that the next iteration of an experiment, the next weather prediction, the next rocket launch etc. may differ from the last one. But, irrespective of the problem from induction - we have all the functional technology that we have on Earth. So induction is not severe enough a problem that people can't send emails reliably every day of their lives.

It is potentially the case that an omniscient deity who has controlled all future events is able to impart perfect knowledge to imperfect creatures about the 100th ball. BUT. This would be 100% testable, and neither Sye nor Eric is claiming to have received any kind of knowledge like this. All they do is say "God knows, therefore induction is resolved"

7 years later, I know. Still, that's false. He claimed they didn't have the same God. But simply because they believed God operated differently does not mean they believe differently about who God is.

@@reallifelegend4781You’re wrong.

It's known as compatibilism in philosophy. The only Christians who believe and promote that type of freewill are known as Calvinists like Sye Ten Bruggencate. Atheists or Naturalists also believe in that kind of freewill and promote it except they believe that our free choices are pre-destined by nature instead of a god. I agree with you that compatibilism is absurd and illogical but you can't believe in libertarian freewill without believing in an intelligent and trustworthy God. I'm gonna create a response video to this section of the interview and explain more. :)

@@MarkusGhambari I'm an normal, not indoctrinated human aka from birth on an Atheist and I do not and never have believed that events are predetermined by "Nature". I make my fate by choice...

@@Raydensheraj First of all atheism is not neutral. It in fact takes much more "faith" to believe that our existence is pure accident. Secondly, what you purport to believe or even believe to believe has nothing to do with whether your worldview, which is atheism in this case, can actually account for your belief. Atheism cannot account for libertarian freewill. No matter how much you want it to. It just can't. Because there is no such a thing as choice in a world that is nothing but an accident. Free will in that world is nothing but a delusion.

@@MarkusGhambari it's you guys that believe in a man made God and name him. See, I study Astrophysics at IU and it is my life's study. I do believe - which doesn't mean I'm right - that a certain energy state always existed. Energy and matter are obviously more then just connected. Every biological lifeforms needs energy to exist. It's the Religious that state a entity that is metaphysical thus not detectable and detached from space & time created everything out of nothing. Puts first only single cell life on the planet and goes on from that to Dinosaurs to us. He puts Evolution somewhere I there to confuse the hell out of us and constructs one small area , like a fishbowl, we can't leave without taking something with us - we go to deep underground and gravity kills us. Without a spacecraft we won't survive space. One right sized Astroid will end life. The sun expanding will end life. We can destroy his creation with nuclear weapons. No, there is no evidence whatsoever that the man made version of a Christian version humanistic God is the correct answer - you guys are stuck the same way we in Science are. When there is a Creator of the Cosmos and anything in it - it is beyond human understanding. How dare a Human actually stand there proclaiming he has the mental capacity to understand or know what this Creator wants. Creationism is full of incorrect answers, I don't take this minority serious. Science - which is not a believe system - is looking for answers in a way that humans can understand and use for their betterment as a species. Religion is rather a social gathering that has faith in humans... Even Jesus Christ was a human and there is no evidence providing any information that says otherwise. Religious individuals can use a book and illogical arguments all day and they still can only define their God in an way a human would. But in order to create every particle, plasma, the stars, every lifeform etc this entity would have to be something we couldn't explain in words. So no, your preferred version of God does not exist. But a creator or creative force does. I don't think Atheists have a problem with a person believing whatever it's rather that Christian's try to indoctrinate the planet, claim to know an answer to everything but use weak arguments and trust into authority that is flawed as it could be. Eric Hovind is a conman like his father - he knew that vitamin b17 does not heal cancer and has killed individuals - he still went ahead and sold it online. And the other guy is just a arrogant, illogical know it all that looks down on you for not believing him. You can literally see nothing but an radical self absorbed human that thinks he translated the Creator and dismisses anything that leads to different answers. It's also telling that in all my visits to different countries only Americans seem to care for fanatical Religion. It reminds me more and more of Radical Islam which both are becoming more and more similar... A very scary thought when I think my kids would learn in school that the Earth is only 6000 years old and Evolution a demon theory. All atheists are demons. All other religions wrong. The Earth is flat, Jews are the enemy etc I care about the human species and our future. Religion cares about living to die. Atheists just don't believe in any man made Religion - they usually don't assume there isn't a creator just that we have no way to proof it. Religion claims to know all the answers has and is being abused, terrorists and crimes against humans are abundant and no clear definition of a God exists... Because none of us know. We only believe to know. And I rather not believe in something I can't know. I won't force my believes or run from house to house trying to convince you. I won't sue the school system to teach Pseudoscience to your children, I won't tell humans whom and what to love, I won't tell children that they will burn in hell when they commit mistakes, I won't make myself look idiotic by acting like I understand the force that created everything we know by one book that has inconsistencies left and right.

Raydensheraj Don't hurry. Wait another hundred years or so Max and you'll see if my God is man made or not. No rush... As for the rest of the rubbish you wrote, I don't really have time to read and respond. Even if I did I probably wouldn't because rubbish doesn't deserve my time.

I noticed that. Unfortunately there are many theists that do this.

He's just as condescending and arrogant towards other Christians who challenge his approach to apologetics. He's exactly the authoritarian type who would howl for the death penalty for people who leave Christianity if America were the theocracy he wants. He's the Christian version of Daniel Haqiqajou

Resisting temptation? lol

Pretty tough, I grant you....

His "following" is Eric Hovind, and that's it. Well, that and those of us who follow just to laugh.

Pat MaCrotch Okay good. We can ignore him them. I know ignoring some of these people as many suggest is a bad idea, but if he has almost no followers, we do not need to bother with him.

***** Sye looks somewhat mentally ill.

***** You didn't find the shit Sye said hilarious?

***** It's even more pathetic to make the comment you made.

You seem bored.

Sye's response would be: "Yes you do. You're just suppressing it."

***** Oh, he'll say that of course, but he's wrong. The reason Sye is so frustrating to argue with is because he's so totally full of shit, and has been demonstrated as such repeatedly, but he just keeps going on and on and on with silly word games and absurd, unsupported assertions.

You assume that Sye Ten would be honest enough to receive your point.

Sye's position and method is textbook gaslighting. It is a form of psychological abuse where you torture someone by invalidating any claim they have to having a coherent mind. It is cruel and un-Christlike

@@UnionBerlinOnMyMind And so everyone can suppress it. So there's no validity in asserting any god by belief.

It's super fucking annoying an childish at best.

The reason is because Sye and Kent are presuming that their listeners have an emotional attachment to their pride in knowledge. That's why they immediately ask "how do you know?" and other questions; they're asking as a dig against the atheist because the atheist prides knowledge first. A rational thinker should be happy not to know, and even to run from knowing when confronted with unassailable truths; to always doubt and be skeptical. The announcer should proclaim with joy "I can't know anything for certain and that's the glorious part of being an atheist! All my discoveries are my own, and all the knowledge gained a fresh challenge to push my boundaries!"

It's my 1st year calling myself atheist... hopefully I can find ppl like you who's been out of the god game for a while to help ppl like me (baby atheist) in our new journey

Same 😆

It's just a bizarre circle-jerk between them of unsupported assertions and repeating, "Howdoyouknowthat?" Very weird.

Just a pair of grown ups who never got tired of playing word games.

What’s your basis for believing that? Mine is divine revelation 😂

setmedic What kind of evidence for God would be satisfactory for you?

@@twelvedozen5075 I dont know, what you got? Why would God need you or anybody to express his views? Suppose he leaves the world of the supernatural, enters the realm of reality, natural, and straighten us out. He used to do this but lost interest.

Sye is saying that, if a person says that cannot know anything for certain, it is illogical to make knowledge claims. It is like me saying I do not know anything about Poland, but then proceed to tell you all about Poland. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

@@kenshiloh No, it isn't. A better analogy would be me saying I can't be certain about absolutely everything in Poland but there are things I have a good amount of certainty or know about in Poland. Sye's response to that would be since I can't know everything in Poland to a standard of 'absolute truth' I can't know anything about Poland and so I'm supposedly not allowed to talk about it. Furthermore since I can't know I'm not a fig on a tree in a Poland this means that Sye's imaginary country exists and also that its government and laws have jurisdiction over me. Which I know, but I deny because I want to disobey the laws of Sye's imaginary government because of my own ego or some nonsense

@@Ergeniz Hi. So, are you dodging the question: How do you know that you are thinking rationally? For example, I think we could agree that there are some people who think they are rational, but, in reality, they are not. How, then, do you know you are thinking rationally? You make certain knowledge claims, but is it not true that you could be wrong? Have you ever been convinced about something, only to realize that you had played the fool? Yet, I have met Jesus Christ. That might sound strange, but that's what it says in the Bible. God made us for friendship with Him. Because of our wicked hearts, we make lame excuses for not obeying what our conscience tells us is true. May God grant you light. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

* certainty

brilliant! Will use this one +1

I dig it!

Yea makes perfect sense where do you thk Free will comes from?

@@gman4074 There is no free will. There is will, but it's not free. The universe is deterministic, which means there's no free will. Good luck trying to make an argument otherwise.

Delusion* but yes, that sy guy is something else. I just finished watching his "debate" with Matt Dillihunty and it was a fucking train wreck. Not once did he offer anything close to an argument. He just made special pleading for his holy book and "divine" revelation, all the while disparaging Matt and seemingly refused to comprehend anything Matt said. He literally opened the debate with "it is reasonable to believe God is true because, simply put, God is true". That was it. That was his argument 🤣🤦‍♂️

They are both very dishonest

Especially the feminist in pink

This is approximate to the argument I was imagining. So I'm really glad he had the wits to get up there an speak it. All they can do is recoil and mock.

Dammmmmmmmmm he killed both of them wow.

setmedic in all honesty I am starting to believe that he DOES have some type of mental ailment through all of the "debates" I see him in

setmedic I just read parts of the Colorado shooter James Holmes diary before watching this video, and there definitely are some similarities.

+Auiuei He is talking to people with the same disease.

It's really sad because he sincerely believes that God predestined all of his free choices. I've talked with him on Facebook about it and I got blocked for disagreeing with him. The great debater Sye ten blocks people who disagree with him.

Sye tried going face to face with me in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Tempe. He tried using the line that god loves everyone. He then stated that his belief is consistent. I asked him about this debate, and Marcus Pittman had to stop the conversation and separate Sye from Jeff Durbin and myself.

It's flat out laughable when they uses the "uncertainty" question to make the atheist fall into a trap and then goes "aahha got ya..." Atheists can also use this question against their belief and knowledge toward the scripture or this revelation.

louisng114 Yes, they are claiming they have knowledge. The typical atheist has a subjective scientific point of view in which nothing is truly certain.

@@twelvedozen5075 they're full of it. Put both Sye and Eric in different rooms and ask them the same questions and see if you get the same answers. If they're getting "divine" revelation from the same source it should be almost exact. We all know it's a word game. They better hope their God doesn't exist because they're dishonest arrogant assholes who use circular reasoning because they don't know enough about their own bible to debate what's in it. That's why they repeat the "how can you know for certain" line before even getting anywhere. They create atheists by the day.

From there on in, the show is pretty awesome. Just get to sit back and watch as they fall apart.

Everyone around them goes like: lol. And sye and hovind just never seem to realize that what he did was EXACTLY the same thing they do.

agreed, and sye then comes up with "all of you know that he's not speaking the truth" GOLDEN, exactly sye, exactly. reminds me of that atheist experience where one of the hosts asserted that she created the universe (in response to a clown who stated that the christian doctrine is the only one that cannot be wrong or the like), the caller then claimed she does not have the authority to make that claim! beautiful.

Shangori I was surprised too! It seems they were not aware of the irony of it all...as they are so deluded in their own world that they can't seem to fathom their position using a different deity.

matias2309 What's even more funny is that they called Tyler's "force" an absurdity. He said he believed in a force that validates logic and reasoning and it's not conscious and it reveals things to us, and that we all know it and believe in it... and Sye and Eric said that this was an absurdity... they just called their own argument... an absurdity!! It's fucking classic!

Lol... I like your ( ) comment... I 100% agree with you... love that im an atheist

worse than admitting you can’t know anything?

k12rising Your figures are arguable, but that aside, I find it laughable that one of them claims absolute certainty that the god character is telling him full immersion is the proper way to baptize, while the other claims to have absolute certainty that the god character is telling him that dousing is the proper way. No conflict there.

A full blown attack ... with ignorance!

@@Ometecuhtli Ad hominems and hypocrisy at its finest.

You think he did because you don't understand what he said. That's hilarious

nor does denying it. 'sides you cant prove the non existence of anything

I can't find any source that says Sye went to college but Eric Hovind has a college education...well he graduated from a non-accredited bible college. Not sure if that counts. :-) This makes sense as there's a negative correlation between religiousness and IQ/education. They were also handicapped by being born into religious families where their indoctrination took place.

***** Yes. I'm assuming a non-accredited bible college is not a college. It's a bible study group that calls itself a college.

It's not just "no reason to disbelieve." It's that combined with overwhelming sensory impressions giving direct positive reasons.

***** I think that theory only grasped the top of that iceberg... A way too much is still weird about that elegant move with which he has done the unplugging. Maybe.. Just maybe he ....

I know ... it's such an easy response, and yet no one bothers.

Yeah...

Then they answer with that line "Is it possible, if God exists, that He could impart perfect knowledge to imperfect creatures" yet supply not means of differentiating between this perfect/imperfect knowledge

YES! That's the lie presuppers have to cover with their faith, that ultimately "God" is a stand in for "I don't know." The difference between atheists and presuppers is that we revel in not knowing, in questioning what we do know, in breaking away from old doctrines and questioning received wisdom. Every atheist should go up to the presupper preachers and happily proclaim "I have no fucking clue what's real, and that's a good thing! Unlike some gullible saps, I won't be taken in by any old shyster selling me salvation from an old book! Give me evidence that seems incontrovertible, and I'll make it my life's mission to disprove it, and if I fail, at most I'll begrudgingly call it a "scientific theory".

milesbennettdyson Miles may I please ask you a few questions about religion?

I especially like the part where Sye tries to argue that he gets to use special pleading to excuse his special pleading.

DonMezzo Yes, that's what they always do. :) The challenge at 1:21:00 also ends with the same no true Scotsman fallacy. :>

Oh and later on there's predestined free will, and them not believing in the same God. :>

MMDE "predestined free will" - One of the dumbest things I've ever heard. He is a Calvinist, so the real surprise is that I'm just now hearing him say that.

MMDE I love that part. They don't even try to refute it, they just accuse him of lying, then the atheist guy even hit'em with their own "you believe it too".