Atheist Admits Assumptions About Evil

[Jefferson]

Atheist Admits Assumptions About Evil

Thursday June 15th, 2006. This is show #119.

Summary:
* Atheists claim The Problem of Evil disproves the existence of a good God, who cannot exist, they argue, since the world is filled with evil. Well, after Bob rehashes with atheist Dr. John Henderson another fallacy, that you can only know that which your five senses tell you, the discussion turns to The Problem of Evil and this atheist makes some admissions that powerfully refute his own argument.
Today's Resource: Read and enjoy the comfortable and helpful 170-page manuscript version of Bob Enyart's Does God Exist? debate against Zakath, TOL's resident atheist!

 

[bob b]

I find it remarkable that people actually subject themselves to interviews with Bob Enyart when he so easily demolishes their arguments against the existence of God.

Even fool was able to do better than Dr. Henderson (which admittedly is not saying much).

 

[Toast]

That was a fantastic show. Bob Enyart was really well prepared for that one. Another win for the good guys!

 

[Servo]

A must listen! The second half especially.

 

[allsmiles]

i can't get the show to play

i doubt i'm missing much. from what i have heard, the "debates" are nothing more than Bob ignoring the opponent's position, he redefines their position, and then (while speaking over the opponent the entire time) Bob creates a rebuttal to his false reinterpretation of his opponent's position.

i don't know why people bother with Enyart either Bob.

 

[bob b]

...
i don't know why people bother with Enyart either Bob.

It is remarkable, but the reason seems to be that Bob is a pastor and many people believe that it will be a lark to demolish such an "easy" target.

The classic case was when many years ago Bob wiped up the floor with Eugenie Scott in their debate, similar to what happened with Dr. Henderson. Eugenie had totally underestimated "the fundamentalist" TV talk show host. I suspect Dr. Henderson had also erred in his estimation.

 

[Turbo]

It is remarkable, but the reason seems to be that Bob is a pastor and many people believe that it will be a lark to demolish such an "easy" target.

The classic case was when many years ago Bob wiped up the floor with Eugenie Scott in their debate, similar to what happened with Dr. Henderson. Eugenie had totally underestimated "the fundamentalist" TV talk show host. I suspect Dr. Henderson had also erred in his estimation.

So true. Michael Shermer was another fine example. He didn't even have the guts to stick it out through the whole show.

And speaking of guys who couldn't stick it out to the end, let's not forget Zakath!

 

[allsmiles]

It is remarkable, but the reason seems to be that Bob is a pastor and many people believe that it will be a lark to demolish such an "easy" target.

there's nothing easy about having a raving lunatic talk over you, deliberately redefine your position and then condemn you based on that false definition. there's nothing about what Enyart believes or posits that's hard to demolish. getting around his "style" is the difficult part.

 

[rehcjam]

Wow, Christianity is more than just raw intellectual power and reason.
It is amazing to me that even “good” and moral atheists, not nicer than God atheists, atheists that even know that homosexuality is wrong cannot reason it out.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

there's nothing about what Enyart believes or posits that's hard to demolish.

Then why don't you call him up and do it. 1-800-8-ENYART.

 

[allsmiles]

Then why don't you call him up and do it. 1-800-8-ENYART.

Are you kidding?

For all of the reasons I listed above Jack.

:duh:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Are you kidding?

No, I'm serious.

 

[allsmiles]

No, I'm serious.

Well, Jack, I made it fairly clear what I think of Bob's style and methods. Why would you think that I would ever entertain the idea of calling into his show after all that I've said about him on this thread alone?

 

[Lighthouse]

You're a coward, allsmiles.

 

[Stripe]

aw go on allsmiles .. just call in and be all antagonistic so we can listen to bob hang up on you .. *wink*

 

[Frank Ernest]

Atheist Rules for Debate

When your side is on the losing end of a debate:

there's nothing easy about having a raving lunatic talk over you,

1. Claim your opponent is mentally deranged.

deliberately redefine your position and then condemn you based on that false definition.

2. Claim your opponent is using strawman arguments especially when he has accurately stated your case.

there's nothing about what Enyart believes or posits that's hard to demolish. getting around his "style" is the difficult part.

3. Claim that factors totally outside the debated issue prejudiced the debate "causing" one to lose.

:darwinsm:

 

[Stripe]

3. Claim that factors totally outside the debated issue prejudiced the debate "causing" one to lose.

its not fair... he used the truth to make points....

 

[Frank Ernest]

its not fair... he used the truth to make points....

Addendum:
4. Claim the debate was "unfair."

:darwinsm:

 

[Stripe]

i think the best method remains to never front up in the first place....

 

[Frank Ernest]

i think the best method remains to never front up in the first place....

Addendum:
5. Use deception. Never admit to your actual argument.

:darwinsm: