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

[fool]

Yes.

What did I ask you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What did I ask you?

fool, are you feeling OK?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow... talk about your major league melt-down. :shocked:

 

[fool]

fool, are you feeling OK?

Yes I'm feeling fine.
I'm asking you if you remember the topic of our first conversation.
It's available on MP3 at KGOV.
Maybe you should listen again.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes I'm feeling fine.
I'm asking you if you remember the topic of our first conversation.
It's available on MP3 at KGOV.
Maybe you should listen again.

I am pretty sure it was this same topic (for the most part). Lion straightened you out and you put up little to no defense.

 

[fool]

I am pretty sure it was this same topic (for the most part). Lion straightened you out and you put up little to no defense.

Did you take that to mean I agreed with you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Did you take that to mean I agreed with you?

No, I took it to mean you didn't have a solid argument then just as you don't have one now.

It's all good.

 

[Granite]

Sounds like Knight's suffering from selective amnesia...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sounds like Knight's suffering from selective amnesia...

:dog:

 

[Granite]

:dog:

Or it could be the sauce!:cheers:

 

[Mr. 5020]

Just listened to the show...

From the perspective of somebody that does not like Bob Enyart, fool lost that debate.

I got a good rep from Bob for this post. He put, "Mr. 5020: Thanks (I think)! -Bob"

:chuckle:

 

[Bob Enyart]

How to Refute a Fool's Post in 8 Minutes or Less...

How to Refute a Fool's Post in 8 Minutes or Less...

The clock says that in eight minutes I have to leave to bring my son to his cub scout meeting, so I think I'll read Fool's response to my post until I find an easy error to refute, and then refute it. So here goes...

...

Seven minutes to go! I found it!

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.

Six minutes to go (okay, so I'm slow at editing posts...)

Fool, you knew you were misrepresenting my Christian position when you wrote: "You're unable to condemn an act unless you first know who comanded the act."

You and I had a specific discussion on this very topic. Remember? I stated clearly that NOT everything that God could theoretically do would be righteous.

Five minutes...

I reminded you about the story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, and I said (close enough to verbatim) "If Jesus would have submitted to Satan, and bowed down and worshipped him, that would have been evil, and Jesus would no longer be our righteous and holy God."

You remember that. Of course you do. (If not, ask Phy, and he can create a transcript for you.)

So when you wrote, "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..." when you wrote that, you knew your were lying about my position. And either you just didn't care, because of your emotional bias, or you couldn't think of a way to make this first argument of yours without knocking down that straw dummy that you had erected.

Four minutes...

[All I did was check Preview Post ]

Three minutes...

[All I did was fix a couple typos, and checked Preview Post again]

Two minutes...

[All I did was write the Title for the post; I always do that last]

One minute...

[Final proof read. Gotta go, that's good enough to trap a fool.]

Bye,
-Bob Enyart

 

[koban]

I reminded you about the story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, and I said (close enough to verbatim) "If Jesus would have submitted to Satan, and bowed down and worshipped him, that would have been evil, and Jesus would no longer be our righteous and holy God."

Why would that have been "evil"?

Would it have been "evil" if it had been commanded by the Father?

If the actions of God could potentially be evil, doesn't that mean that there exists an order of good and evil independant of God?

 

[fool]

The clock says that in eight minutes I have to leave to bring my son to his cub scout meeting, so I think I'll read Fool's response to my post until I find an easy error to refute, and then refute it. So here goes...

...

Seven minutes to go! I found it!

Six minutes to go (okay, so I'm slow at editing posts...)

Fool, you knew you were misrepresenting my Christian position when you wrote: "You're unable to condemn an act unless you first know who comanded the act."

You and I had a specific discussion on this very topic. Remember? I stated clearly that NOT everything that God could theoretically do would be righteous.

Five minutes...

I reminded you about the story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, and I said (close enough to verbatim) "If Jesus would have submitted to Satan, and bowed down and worshipped him, that would have been evil, and Jesus would no longer be our righteous and holy God."

You remember that. Of course you do. (If not, ask Phy, and he can create a transcript for you.)

So when you wrote, "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..." when you wrote that, you knew your were lying about my position. And either you just didn't care, because of your emotional bias, or you couldn't think of a way to make this first argument of yours without knocking down that straw dummy that you had erected.


Bye,
-Bob Enyart

I didn't agree with you on that premise.
Although you're alot closer to being an absolutist than Knight.
Did Jesus ever wash a mans feet?
God could kneel any time he wants and not change his nature, kneeling does not constitute any transfer of power.
You got anything on the rest of my post? (time allowing)

 

[fool]

Oh Bob?
By stating what you think would constitute God doing something evil you have in fact established a metric external to Him by which to judge. I remember you said that he was self attesting since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cross check each other. But being wrong by commitee is still being wrong.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The clock says that in eight minutes I have to leave to bring my son to his cub scout meeting, so I think I'll read Fool's response to my post until I find an easy error to refute, and then refute it. So here goes...

...

Seven minutes to go! I found it!

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.

Six minutes to go (okay, so I'm slow at editing posts...)

Fool, you knew you were misrepresenting my Christian position when you wrote: "You're unable to condemn an act unless you first know who comanded the act."

You and I had a specific discussion on this very topic. Remember? I stated clearly that NOT everything that God could theoretically do would be righteous.

Five minutes...

I reminded you about the story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, and I said (close enough to verbatim) "If Jesus would have submitted to Satan, and bowed down and worshipped him, that would have been evil, and Jesus would no longer be our righteous and holy God."

You remember that. Of course you do. (If not, ask Phy, and he can create a transcript for you.)

So when you wrote, "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..." when you wrote that, you knew your were lying about my position. And either you just didn't care, because of your emotional bias, or you couldn't think of a way to make this first argument of yours without knocking down that straw dummy that you had erected.

Four minutes...

[All I did was check Preview Post ]

Three minutes...

[All I did was fix a couple typos, and checked Preview Post again]

Two minutes...

[All I did was write the Title for the post; I always do that last]

One minute...

[Final proof read. Gotta go, that's good enough to trap a fool.]

Bye,
-Bob Enyart

:first: POTD

 

[Granite]

Oh Bob?
By stating what you think would constitute God doing something evil you have in fact established a metric external to Him by which to judge. I remember you said that he was self attesting since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cross check each other. But being wrong by commitee is still being wrong.

Good point captain!

 

[koban]

bump

I reminded you about the story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, and I said (close enough to verbatim) "If Jesus would have submitted to Satan, and bowed down and worshipped him, that would have been evil, and Jesus would no longer be our righteous and holy God."

Why would that have been "evil"?

Would it have been "evil" if it had been commanded by the Father?

If the actions of God could potentially be evil, doesn't that mean that there exists an order of good and evil independant of God?

 

[fool]

:first: POTD

One from the vault eh?