An Atheist (Fool) Debates Bob: IV (Final Episode)

[fool]

I didn't listen to the first two episodes, but after 3 and 4, I was under the impression that you were confined to the restraints of Bob's presuppositions, which is unfortunate, but unvoidable when dealing with Christians (as all atheists and agnostics at TOL know full well).

Exactly, we were operating within the premise that the God of the Bible exists, without allowing that then we wouldn't be able to discuss if he could be unjust.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Exactly, we were operating within the premise that the God of the Bible exists, without allowing that then we wouldn't be able to discuss if he could be unjust.

And unfortunately, it left Bob holding all the cards. Bob forgot that a definition of a "creator" isn't necessarily the Open Theist Dispensational Hand-cuffed Idiot God, but could be anything. Bob took your admission of the hypothetical as an admission of his theology, which is erroneous, but unavoidable in a presuppositional mindset.

 

[Jefferson]

if i were to call Enyart...

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to muster up the courage to that.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I think fool has trouble wrapping his mind around the idea that dying isn't the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone. To him it is, and that's a big part of what makes him reluctant to agree with Bob on certain points. Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[Granite]

I think fool has trouble wrapping his mind around the idea that dying isn't the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone. To him it is, and that's a big part of what makes him reluctant to agree with Bob on certain points. Then again, I could be wrong.

Remember that for an atheist, agnostic, skeptic, or anyone else who doesn't believe in an afterlife, dying probably is about the worst thing that can happen.

 

[PureX]

if i were to call Enyart, this would be my question:

"Bob, in your debate with fool you stated that your god is wiser than you. if that's the case, why don't you close your mouth and let your god do the talking? he obviously doesn't need your help... what compells you to fight your god's battles for him? and why would your god have to rely on someone as obnoxious as yourself? your self-proclaimed status as a speaker of god's wisdom, your criminal record and obnoxious demeanor don't flatter your god or paint an attractive picture of his apparently glorious nature."

*smile*

Bob Enyart is a paid "attack dog" for people who aren't clever and quick-minded enough to do it themselves. Bob's job is to humiliate the "unbelievers" for the pleasure and ego-gratification of the "believers". Bob isn't "defending God", he's entertaining the Christian Warriors. That's why they're always heckling you to call Bob Enyart's show - they really, REALLY want to listen to Bob humiliate you for them, because they aren't clever enough to do it to you, themselves.

I had a similar question as yours for Bob when he was on a TOL thread a while back, though I posed my question more politely. But of course Bob ignored it, and his followers immediately jumped on me, daring me to call Bob's show with my question so they could witness what they perceived and hoped to be a good "truth smacking". There is something very sick going on in the hearts of these ultra-conservatives, that has spawned a whole industry of political and religious "attack dogs" for them in the media. These are the same people who can't wait for Armageddon to happen so they can sit on their thrones of righteousness and witness the humiliation, torture, and slaughter of all those "unbelievers" who ever scoffed at them and their bizarre religious beliefs.

There's an air of gleeful vengeance and lust for violence in all of this untra-conservative insanity that reminds of the days of the Roman Colosseums. My how the roles have changed! Huh?

 

[Granite]

Living vicariously through a hero is nothing new, of course.

Personally I'd never call Enyart's show, and fool's experience clinches why: he'll ignore you, talk you down, not let you get a word in edgewise, and tell you what you "really" think. If I want some know it all with an ego to tell me what I'm "really" thinking I can go see a shrink.

 

[allsmiles]

*smile*

Bob Enyart is a paid "attack dog" for people who aren't clever and quick-minded enough to do it themselves. Bob's job is to humiliate the "unbelievers" for the pleasure and ego-gratification of the "believers". Bob isn't "defending God", he's entertaining the Christian Warriors. That's why they're always heckling you to call Bob Enyart's show - they really, REALLY want to listen to Bob humiliate you for them, because they aren't clever enough to do it to you, themselves.

I had a similar question as yours for Bob when he was on a TOL thread a while back, though I posed my question more politely. But of course Bob ignored it, and his followers immediately jumped on me, daring me to call Bob's show with my question so they could witness what they perceived and hoped to be a good "truth smacking". There is something very sick going on in the hearts of these ultra-conservatives, that has spawned a whole industry of political and religious "attack dogs" for them in the media. These are the same people who can't wait for Armageddon to happen so they can sit on their thrones of righteousness and witness the humiliation, torture, and slaughter of all those "unbelievers" who ever scoffed at them and their bizarre religious beliefs.

There's an air of gleeful vengeance and lust for violence in all of this untra-conservative insanity that reminds of the days of the Roman Colosseums. My how the roles have changed! Huh?

the roles have changed.

a resident kiss up to BE recently challenged whether or not i had the courage to call and pose my question, but it really has little to do with courage and more to do with not wanting to waste my time. if i want to tell BE to shut up i can do it here, and frankly i'm much better with the written word than i am with the spoken kind. and at least here he won't have the opportunity to speak over me as is his "style" if it can actually be called that.

but i agree, it is a form of entertainment for them.

 

[Lucky]

There goes that "they" and "them" talk. (PureX, allsmiles)

 

[SUTG]

"Bob, in your debate with fool you stated that your god is wiser than you. if that's the case, why don't you close your mouth and let your god do the talking? he obviously doesn't need your help... what compells you to fight your god's battles for him? and why would your god have to rely on someone as obnoxious as yourself? your self-proclaimed status as a speaker of god's wisdom, your criminal record and obnoxious demeanor don't flatter your god or paint an attractive picture of his apparently glorious nature."

That'd be a good one to ask...

I thought the four shows were pretty good - In general I think Bob's show is a good listen, although, obviously, I don't agree with everything he says. :chuckle:

Bob still seems to have left the moral variation of Euthyphro's Dilemma unanswered.He is constantly trying to justify his moral opinions by presenting arguments and scripture. Which is it? How do you decide if an act is moral? Come up with an argument, find it in scripture, or ask God?

 

[Bob Enyart]

SUTG has some splainin' to do!

SUTG has some splainin' to do!

Bob still seems to have left the moral variation of Euthyphro's Dilemma unanswered.

SUTG: I could see how you might disagree with my answer to Euthyphro, but to say I left it unanswered? I invite you to reply to this email with what my answer was. You can write it down from memory, it would only take a couple sentences to describe. (Or you can peak into BR VII, I gave the same answer there, and cut and paste it here.) And then explain how it is that I didn't answer the dilemma.

Thanks, Bob Enyart

 

[allsmiles]

Bob, hi :wave2: there's a thread i'd like you to check out, Step by Step by Step.

thanks!

 

[Bob Enyart]

Is Incest Wrong? Aha! Gotcha!

Is Incest Wrong? Aha! Gotcha!

Regarding Fool's original question on our first program about whether it is always wrong to kill a baby:

Actually what happened is Bob gave up cause I wouldn't grant him another premise. If you listen to the first show Bob's first answer to the question was "Yes It is wrong". Then when I put it in the context of a Yaweh ordered slaughter he spends 2 hours over 4 shows trying to rationalize doing what he at first said was wrong.

I erred in my answer to Fool's first question because I assumed Fool's question was in the context of our lives. The question Fool was actually asking me, I've answered dozens of times previously, directly and without equivocation. I preached a sermon titled, "When God Kills Kids."

If an atheist similarly caught me off guard and asked, is it wrong for a brother to have sexual relations with his sister? I would answer: Yes. Incest is wrong; it leads to death. God condemns incest. Then the atheist replies: Aha! I got you. Because Abraham had relations with his half-sister, and Adam's sons married their sisters with God's approval!

And I would reply: Oh, I thought you meant in the context of our lives today.

So, rather than respond to the climax that ended our debate, various atheists have comforted themselves by claiming that (1) Fool just didn't get enough time on the show to speak (I guess to make whatever crucial point was left unmade); and (2) that Fool's gotcha question, aha, tricked Bob into contradicting himself.

So Fool, et. al, wouldn't it be so much more relevant and worthwhile for you to defend against our final disagreement, which I'll title: Fool's Dilemma. Of course as an atheist, he condemns "the God of the Bible" as unjust for sending the wicked to hell. But, as it turns out, Fool also condemns God as unjust for bringing the righteous to eternal paradise in heaven.

That exposes an intense bias that goes beyond any judgment of justice, and is explained only by intense emotionalism. That is: If there is a God who made man, and one of those men love Him, and that God has the nerve to bring that man to an everlasting paradise, without that man's explicit permission regarding the timing, then I condemn that God as wicked!

This tells us nothing about the principles of justice, and everything about an atheist's emotional anger toward his Creator.

Thanks, -Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

Offer to allsmiles...

Offer to allsmiles...

if i were to call Enyart, this would be my question:

"Bob, in your debate with fool you stated that your god is wiser than you. if that's the case, why don't you close your mouth and let your god do the talking? he obviously doesn't need your help... what compells you to fight your god's battles for him? and why would your god have to rely on someone as obnoxious as yourself? your self-proclaimed status as a speaker of god's wisdom, your criminal record and obnoxious demeanor don't flatter your god or paint an attractive picture of his apparently glorious nature."

allsmiles, that's not a question, that's an opening statement.

If you want to call in, you are welcomed to make your opening statement, and we can proceed from there.

-Bob Enyart

ps. I'd be interested to know which communication Fool thought was obnoxious, my demeanor with him over our two hours, or your "question" to me? -BE

 

[logos_x]

So Fool, et. al, wouldn't it be so much more relevant and worthwhile for you to defend against our final disagreement, which I'll title: Fool's Dilemma. Of course as an atheist, he condemns "the God of the Bible" as unjust for sending the wicked to hell. But, as it turns out, Fool also condemns God as unjust for bringing the righteous to eternal paradise in heaven.

That exposes an intense bias that goes beyond any judgment of justice, and is explained only by intense emotionalism. That is: If there is a God who made man, and one of those men love Him, and that God has the nerve to bring that man to an everlasting paradise, without that man's explicit permission regarding the timing, then I condemn that God as wicked!

This tells us nothing about the principles of justice, and everything about an atheist's emotional anger toward his Creator.

Amen!

It would be interesting to discover just what drives this emotional anger. It appears to be completely irrational. But I think it is seated in some desire for independence from God (or any other person for that matter) controlling what He is Lord over. They loath the whole idea of submission to God...no matter how benificial it would be for them, and for the entire creation.

 

[Granite]

allsmiles, that's not a question, that's an opening statement.

If you want to call in, you are welcomed to make your opening statement, and we can proceed from there.

-Bob Enyart

ps. I'd be interested to know which communication Fool thought was obnoxious, my demeanor with him over our two hours, or your "question" to me? -BE

You were grating throughout, talked him down, patronized him, refused to let him get a word in edgewise, and eventually started into your "You hate God" mantra as though you were droning a chant.

I don't expect you to act like Miss Manners whilst on the air, sir, but I thought the way the last hour in particular was handled was downright appalling and offensive.

 

[allsmiles]

allsmiles, that's not a question, that's an opening statement.

If you want to call in, you are welcomed to make your opening statement, and we can proceed from there.

i thought i had plenty of questions...:think:

Bob, in your debate with fool you stated that your god is wiser than you. if that's the case, why don't you close your mouth and let your god do the talking? he obviously doesn't need your help... what compells you to fight your god's battles for him? and why would your god have to rely on someone as obnoxious as yourself?

leaving out the last sentence, which i admit was unfair of me, there's plenty to chew on.

have you given any thought to answering my step by step by step thread? might be too lengthy an undertaking for you, i understand that you're a busy guy.

 

[fool]

Regarding Fool's original question on our first program about whether it is always wrong to kill a baby:

I erred in my answer to Fool's first question because I assumed Fool's question was in the context of our lives. The question Fool was actually asking me, I've answered dozens of times previously, directly and without equivocation. I preached a sermon titled, "When God Kills Kids."

If an atheist similarly caught me off guard and asked, is it wrong for a brother to have sexual relations with his sister? I would answer: Yes. Incest is wrong; it leads to death. God condemns incest. Then the atheist replies: Aha! I got you. Because Abraham had relations with his half-sister, and Adam's sons married their sisters with God's approval!

And I would reply: Oh, I thought you meant in the context of our lives today.

So you're saying it's not absolutly wrong to butcher an infant or have sex with your sister.
This blows a neat hole in the absolutism you like to espouse. You're unable to condemn an act unless you first know who comanded the act. That's relativism, just admit you're a relativist and I'll let you go.

So, rather than respond to the climax that ended our debate, various atheists have comforted themselves by claiming that (1) Fool just didn't get enough time on the show to speak (I guess to make whatever crucial point was left unmade); and (2) that Fool's gotcha question, aha, tricked Bob into contradicting himself.

The fact that you answered correctly the first time and then backpedeled when it was put into the Joshua context is further illustration of you relativism. You should be able to say "no baby killin" without equivocating.

So Fool, et. al, wouldn't it be so much more relevant and worthwhile for you to defend against our final disagreement, which I'll title: Fool's Dilemma. Of course as an atheist, he condemns "the God of the Bible" as unjust for sending the wicked to hell. But, as it turns out, Fool also condemns God as unjust for bringing the righteous to eternal paradise in heaven.

And this shows us where Bob's heart really is. He values his life so little that he has no problem with it ending prematurely. How can you value someone elses life when you don't value your own? Of course Bob dosen't have a problem with other people being killed, he wants to die himself! That's a death culture Bob, and it's sick.

That exposes an intense bias that goes beyond any judgment of justice, and is explained only by intense emotionalism. That is: If there is a God who made man, and one of those men love Him, and that God has the nerve to bring that man to an everlasting paradise, without that man's explicit permission regarding the timing, then I condemn that God as wicked!

Wicked alright! That Bob prefers death to life and thinks a Creator that made men to live would encourage them to commit suicide so they could hasten their meeting that's wicked!
Kool aid anyone?

This tells us nothing about the principles of justice, and everything about an atheist's emotional anger toward his Creator.

It shows us that when you abandon reason for faith that black can become white and murder can become "sending them home" (if you follow Bob's reasoning)

Thanks, -Bob Enyart

You're welcome, -fool

 

[Jefferson]

Amen!

It would be interesting to discover just what drives this emotional anger. It appears to be completely irrational. But I think it is seated in some desire for independence from God (or any other person for that matter) controlling what He is Lord over. They loath the whole idea of submission to God...no matter how benificial it would be for them, and for the entire creation.

Exactly. So many unbelievers have the emotions of rebellious teenagers who if asked what they would do if they were ordered by their parents how to spend their money reply, "I would rebel even if my parents told me to spend it on something I wanted."

 

[Granite]

Exactly. So many unbelievers have the emotions of rebellious teenagers who if asked what they would do if they were ordered by their parents how to spend their money reply, "I would rebel even if my parents told me to spend it on something I wanted."

That is, simply put, one of the stupidest analogies I've ever heard. :devil: