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

[Jefferson]

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

Thursday April 6th, 2006. This is show # 69.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

You condemn God even if He brings the righteous to their eternal paradise so of course you're going to condemn Him in any other circumstance. So what you've done is you have not convicted God in the court of rational thought. You've convicted yourself as being biased to hating your Creator.

Summary:
* Born-again, conservative, married, churchgoers poll among the happiest people and significantly lift the percent of Americans who are happy!
* Biff from Denver CO will urge the elders of his church to not trust the word of the lying couple who admit to living together but deny fornicating (and he will withhold his ultimatum)!
* Tim from Longmont CO asks Bob to explain the KGOV Immigration Solution.
* Suzy from Ft. Collins CO vents regarding illegal immigrants, and Bob tries to moderate her anger and steer it away from envy and toward a proper solution.
* Debating an Atheist: Fool (from TOL) has hit a dead end. He proposed that the God of the Bible is unjust, so Bob constructed a step-by-step analysis of his argument, to find out where Fool's thinking departs from biblical justice. For example, Fool might argue that God is unjust for killing the wicked and punishing them in hell. But he short-circuited his ability to get to that argument, when Fool revealed that he would even condemn God if He blessed the righteous by bringing a believer to paradise in heaven, sometime prior to his natural death. So, of course Fool will condemn God for bringing a child to heaven or for punishing the wicked, if in fact he also condemns God for blessing the righteous! With this kind of hatred for his Creator, Fool shows us why the Bible does not refer to unbelievers as The Confused or The Mistaken, but... The Wicked. Fool is welcome to call back if he can find a way around this dead end, or to address another topic.
Today's Resource: Our audience LOVES the video Bob described in today's show, Get Out of the Matrix! You've GOT TO SEE IT, and there's a money-back guarantee if you don't LOVE IT! So click or call 800-8Enyart to order it in VHS or DVD!

 

[Shadowx]

Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

Gen 20:4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

Gen 20:5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Gen 20:7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

Abim didn't win an argument and defeat God's wisdom..I have no clue how anyone can get that from this encounter..

God already knew Abim was innocent with regards to a crime against Abraham. He showed up with FULL knowledge of the situation, to prevent the actual sin/crime in scaring abim. It was a warning.. He is agreeing with abim and expounding on his initial statement. It is really this, "You WILL be a dead man if.." Not, "Wow..you are right abim..i didn't think of it that way.."

God interrupted abim with that warning.

Shadowx

 

[Granite]

I thought fool did a good job with the few opportunities he had to speak.

 

[Jefferson]

I think fool bristles at the fact that God actually owns His own creation. That very ownership is why it is not immoral for God to end one person's life sooner than another person's life.

Look at this way: If you create a painting or a post on TOL or anything whatsoever, as the creator you are the owner and as the owner you have the inherent right to destroy your own creation whenever you please. You also have the right to let someone else destroy it for you.

fool can't stand the fact that he is God's property.

 

[Granite]

I think fool bristles at the fact that God actually owns His own creation. That very ownership is why it is not immoral for God to end one person's life sooner than another person's life.

Look at this way: If you create a painting or a post on TOL or anything whatsoever, as the creator you are the owner and as the owner you have the inherent right to destroy your own creation whenever you please. You also have the right to let someone else destroy it for you.

fool can't stand the fact that he is God's property.

The problem with the painting analogy is that the painting is not necessarily made in the image and likeness of its creator; as well a painting possesses no sentience or free will whatsoever.

If we're nothing more than chattel this talk about the "sanctity" of life is totally bogus.

 

[fool]

I think fool bristles at the fact that God actually owns His own creation. That very ownership is why it is not immoral for God to end one person's life sooner than another person's life.

Look at this way: If you create a painting or a post on TOL or anything whatsoever, as the creator you are the owner and as the owner you have the inherent right to destroy your own creation whenever you please. You also have the right to let someone else destroy it for you.

fool can't stand the fact that he is God's property.

A slave is property, is it right to beat him to death when he has done nothing wrong?
A dog is property, is it OK if you repeatedly run it over with a lawn mower?
Rights and responsablitys are two side of the same coin.

 

[Jefferson]

The problem with the painting analogy is that the painting is not necessarily made in the image and likeness of its creator; as well a painting possesses no sentience or free will whatsoever.

You would be right if the people earned the image and likeness of their creator and earned their sentience and free will. But they didn't. It was a gift. It's like someone who gives cars for presents. Is the giver immoral because one person's car is made better and will last longer?

If we're nothing more than chattel this talk about the "sanctity" of life is totally bogus.

Wrong. The sanctity of life has to do with acknowledging that we have no right to take life unless it is sanctioned by the Creator (Owner) of that life.

 

[fool]

You would be right if the people earned the image and likeness of their creator and earned their sentience and free will. But they didn't. It was a gift. It's like someone who gives cars for presents. Is the giver immoral because one person's car is made better and will last longer?

Wrong. The sanctity of life has to do with acknowledging that we have no right to take life unless it is sanctioned by the Creator (Owner) of that life.

How can we have free will if we don't own our lives?
I'll say it again, If Yaweh wants someone dead he can do it himself.
This has the advantage of eliminating misunderstandings as to who's suposed to get smote.

 

[Jefferson]

A slave is property, is it right to beat him to death when he has done nothing wrong?
A dog is property, is it OK if you repeatedly run it over with a lawn mower?

No, because a dog or a slave has never been owned by anyone. We actually only just have mere stewardship over God's property. Does the rancher own his cattle? You would say yes but the Bible says no: "For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, And the wild beasts of the field are Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; For the world is Mine, and all its fullness." (Psalm 50:10-12)

 

[Jefferson]

How can we have free will if we don't own our lives?

Are children supposed to obey their parents? Yes. Does this mean children do not have free will?

I'll say it again, If Yaweh wants someone dead he can do it himself.

Sometimes He does do it Himself. He did it Himself in Noah's flood, when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, when He sent the plagues in Egypt, etc. He will also do it Himself again during the time of the book of Revelation.

But the point is, since it would be a perfectly moral act for a creator to destroy his own creation, then it would also be perfectly moral for someone to carry out that moral act on the creator's behalf, under the creator's authority. Why should anyone feel ashamed for performing a perfectly moral act?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Just listened to the show...

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

 

[Granite]

You would be right if the people earned the image and likeness of their creator and earned their sentience and free will. But they didn't. It was a gift. It's like someone who gives cars for presents. Is the giver immoral because one person's car is made better and will last longer?

Wrong. The sanctity of life has to do with acknowledging that we have no right to take life unless it is sanctioned by the Creator (Owner) of that life.

Immoral, no, but we're not talking about the value of a product or gift.

Justifying the murder of children is heinous, despicable, wretched, and appalling, and I don't care who or what tries to dress up what's going on here. On one side Enyart started repeating (practically chanting) "You hate God" as some kind of bizarre meme, while fool was saying he didn't think killing infants was a good idea. (That's when Enyart let fool get a word in edgewise, which was increasingly rare as the program continued.) The show was close to satire or black comedy. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[allsmiles]

:rotfl:

i listened to this farce last night and have come to the conclusion that not only is Bob Enyart an obnoxious human being but...

well, that's pretty much it.

good job fool, with what little space Enyart gave you to actually state your position and your thoughts. he spent the bulk of the debate telling you what you think and what your position is without giving you much of an opportunity to actually state it for yourself.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If Yaweh wants someone dead he can do it himself.

Excellent... and the next you become god of the universe you are free to handle the wicked however you desire.

 

[koban]

:rotfl:

i listened to this farce last night and have come to the conclusion that not only is Bob Enyart an obnoxious human being but...

well, that's pretty much it.

good job fool, with what little space Enyart gave you to actually state your position and your thoughts. he spent the bulk of the debate telling you what you think and what your position is without giving you much of an opportunity to actually state it for yourself.

Ya noticed that, huh?

I thought fool showed admirable restraint a number of times. Bob's style reminded me way too much of Hilston's in the latest BR.

 

[koban]

Excellent... and the next you become god of the universe you are free to handle the wicked however you desire.

Would that include "wicked" babies?

 

[allsmiles]

Ya noticed that, huh?

I thought fool showed admirable restraint a number of times. Bob's style reminded me way too much of Hilston's in the latest BR.

fool was cool, calm and collected... he knew exactly what he was there to say and when Bob stopped talking for a few seconds he was able to give the listening audience a little crumb of his feelings.

Enyart was stuttering, stumbling through his words, and did you hear that guys voice? like finger nails on a chalk board.

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."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Would that include "wicked" babies?

Of course.

 

[fool]

Just listened to the show...

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

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. And in the end all he had left was to screech that I must hate God. (cause I won't kill an infant). It's his show so I didn't expect a level playing field I think that I did a good job of exposing his moral relativism.

 

[Caledvwlch]

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. And in the end all he had left was to screech that I must hate God. (cause I won't kill an infant). It's his show so I didn't expect a level playing field I think that I did a good job of exposing his moral relativism.

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).