because lisp does not have any syntax

Of course it does - it has a very simple syntax built around S-expressions and even that is extensible through reader macros.

Why is this downvoted? This is a fair thing to say. Lisp is basically an exposed Abstract Syntax Tree. Most languages get compiled down to something resembling a lisp before machine code. You could fairly refer to this as "syntaxless". It is just expressions in a tree format, not arbitrarily designed syntax for logic that must be stripped of its grammar for the machine to parse.

It's downvoted because it's false.

Try omitting parenthesis around your Lisp expression. Or try forgetting to balance your parenthesis.

Common Lisp has #: and : and :: and ` vs ' and #+ and #. and a whole slew of others.

Yes, obviously. There is no language that does not have a grammar. It's a requirement of all languages.

The point is, lisps have sometimes been referred to as "syntaxless" historically, for the reason that the grammar is that of the AST, not an arbitrarily designed grammar.

Ie. machine's grammar vs language designer's grammar.

You are right in saying it is not entirely correct to refer to them as syntaxless from a purely technical, linguistic point of view. But by throwing out his point as "technically incorrect", you are missing an important point about lisps.

Also, mentioning tokens that are used in Common Lisp doesn't quite compare to the verbose, heavily syntactical grammar of say, C++. Let me know the next time your lisp implementation throws you something called a "syntax error". You can't even get code to compile when you miss a parenthesis, which takes about three seconds to locate, tops.

you can write macros that handle that. in lisp everything can be code (or data). that is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness at the same time.