Zakath agreed to give Enyart rights to Battle Royale VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Here's what I recall of Taoist...

Here's what I recall of Taoist...

taoist said:
The refutations followed a direct request by Pastor Enyart in the course of the post-game show, which included the combined response of a number of atheists on TOL, though Bob seems to have conveniently misplaced that memory. [That thread] somehow seems to have vanished from TOL, no doubt due to some inadvertent deletion.

Fortunately, it still has a following in PDF format, or so I infer from the odd request that still comes in to my yahoo email account. -Jesse

BE: Odd, no doubt. What I recall of Taoist is summed up below. And whatever multiplied posts he hereafter may have offered, I was finished with BR VII.

The Battle Royale Center Ring still lists Post Game Show - BR VII . At the time, Flipper combined the three atheist posts from himself, Taoist, and Heusden.

My reply is still there also.

Here, I'll just quote the beginning of my reply to Taoist's first argument.

Taoist: Pastor Enyart believes in a God who is (a) the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, (b) existing eternally, (c) powerful, (d) wise and knowledgeable, (e) personal, (f) loving, and (g) just. Of the good pastor’s seven attributes, the last five could describe any good mortal ruler, and are anything but unique to a divinity. The first two are impossible to ascertain by natural, mortal beings…

Enyart: Any Mortal: I will show below that apart from God’s existence, Taoist could not claim that these “last five could describe any good mortal ruler.” But first, notice the form of Taoist’s argument: In principle, I reject as irrelevant anything in a description of God that could also be descriptive of men. Imagine if we were debating whether the moon really exists or if it’s just a phantom in the sky, and I offered that the moon has mass as evidenced by its pull on the oceans, and Taoist shoots back: Well, the Earth has mass also, so I reject that part of the definition. Debating atheists is like dealing with spoiled brats. This is the kind of irrationality that we theists must put up with. And Taoist leads off his argument with this. Typically, I lead off my arguments with my second strongest and most well thought-out point (I try to save the strongest for last). If any single attribute of God is proved conclusively, then God’s exists. (I know, I know, the average atheists cannot process that last statement… but that’s not my fault.) If I showed a physics proof that God’s eternal power must exist, then I would have shown that God exists, regardless of what other “power” we can find in the universe. (I know, I know, the atheist comprehension thing…) If my definition redundantly stated (perhaps only to humor Huey), that “God exists,” well then Taoist could shoot back, “so do men! nah, nah, nah.” If I stated, “God can think,” TA: “so do men!!” “God is alive,” “so are men, three strikes and you’re out Bob!!!” The monotheism in the world teaches that God created man “in His likeness,” that is, we have personalities and power, we can embrace wisdom and knowledge, we recognize justice, and we can love. That is the belief system that Taoist has volunteered to refute. I’m discouraged at the sloppy reasoning displayed when Taoist starts off by rejecting non-unique attributes of God. For I also described God as “the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally,” which by definition distinguishes Him from any “mortal.” Now let’s look at those five attributes that we share, albeit imperfectly, with God... -END QUOTE- (from Post Game Show - BR VII)

Why Taoist would want to remind anyone of all this is beyond me. -Bob Enyart
 

Caille

New member
Bob Enyart said:
BE: Odd, no doubt. What I recall of Taoist is summed up below. And whatever multiplied posts he hereafter may have offered, I was finished with BR VII.

The Battle Royale Center Ring still lists Post Game Show - BR VII . At the time, Flipper combined the three atheist posts from himself, Taoist, and Heusden.

My reply is still there also.

Here, I'll just quote the beginning of my reply to Taoist's first argument.

Taoist: Pastor Enyart believes in a God who is (a) the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, (b) existing eternally, (c) powerful, (d) wise and knowledgeable, (e) personal, (f) loving, and (g) just. Of the good pastor’s seven attributes, the last five could describe any good mortal ruler, and are anything but unique to a divinity. The first two are impossible to ascertain by natural, mortal beings…

Enyart: Any Mortal: I will show below that apart from God’s existence, Taoist could not claim that these “last five could describe any good mortal ruler.” But first, notice the form of Taoist’s argument: In principle, I reject as irrelevant anything in a description of God that could also be descriptive of men. Imagine if we were debating whether the moon really exists or if it’s just a phantom in the sky, and I offered that the moon has mass as evidenced by its pull on the oceans, and Taoist shoots back: Well, the Earth has mass also, so I reject that part of the definition. Debating atheists is like dealing with spoiled brats. This is the kind of irrationality that we theists must put up with. And Taoist leads off his argument with this. Typically, I lead off my arguments with my second strongest and most well thought-out point (I try to save the strongest for last). If any single attribute of God is proved conclusively, then God’s exists. (I know, I know, the average atheists cannot process that last statement… but that’s not my fault.) If I showed a physics proof that God’s eternal power must exist, then I would have shown that God exists, regardless of what other “power” we can find in the universe. (I know, I know, the atheist comprehension thing…) If my definition redundantly stated (perhaps only to humor Huey), that “God exists,” well then Taoist could shoot back, “so do men! nah, nah, nah.” If I stated, “God can think,” TA: “so do men!!” “God is alive,” “so are men, three strikes and you’re out Bob!!!” The monotheism in the world teaches that God created man “in His likeness,” that is, we have personalities and power, we can embrace wisdom and knowledge, we recognize justice, and we can love. That is the belief system that Taoist has volunteered to refute. I’m discouraged at the sloppy reasoning displayed when Taoist starts off by rejecting non-unique attributes of God. For I also described God as “the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally,” which by definition distinguishes Him from any “mortal.” Now let’s look at those five attributes that we share, albeit imperfectly, with God... -END QUOTE- (from Post Game Show - BR VII)

Why Taoist would want to remind anyone of all this is beyond me. -Bob Enyart







Really Bob - as a supposedly intelligent adult, you're proud of this nonsense ?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Bob Enyart said:
Enyart: Any Mortal: I will show below that apart from God’s existence, Taoist could not claim that these “last five could describe any good mortal ruler.” But first, notice the form of Taoist’s argument: In principle, I reject as irrelevant anything in a description of God that could also be descriptive of men. Imagine if we were debating whether the moon really exists or if it’s just a phantom in the sky, and I offered that . . .
POTD :first:
 

Caille

New member
Caille said:
Really Bob - as a supposedly intelligent adult, you're proud of this nonsense ?



"Somebody" anonymously gave me bad rep for this (75 points worth) with the comment "lame response", so I thought I would expand a bit before I have to go.


Bob's post is full of convoluted arguments, ad hominems and childish nonsense. My first introduction to TOL was BRVII. I found it fascinating at first, but read in dismay as Enyart's contributions deteriorated more and more towards this kind of nonsense. In short, what might have become something worthy of study for insight into "ultimate truth" turned into just another case study on a overbearing bully.
 
Last edited:

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Caille said:
"Somebody" anonymously gave me bad rep for this (75 points worth) with the comment "lame response", so I thought I would expand a bit before I have to go.
That was me. Your response was lame.
 

taoist

New member
Bob Enyart said:
Why Taoist would want to remind anyone of all this is beyond me. -Bob Enyart

As a means of republicizing my response to "all this" of course. A little eye-opener for you, Bob ... TOL doesn't constitute the only forum on the web any more than christianity constitutes the only belief system for humanity. And while "The Taoist and Pastor Enyart" received only a slim popularity here, deleting the thread from this forum in no way removed it from the web, where it still has a loyal and growing following.

:darwinsm:

But it's good to see you remain faithful to your first calling, Bob ... responding to your own words while rhetorically foisting them on someone else, whether it be God or the taoist. However, purveyors of absurd spiritual messages are of little concern to me. My original interest was engaged in the concern that you might want to follow-up your religious career with a swing into politics. My concerns in that area have been well assuaged though by the volume of readers still carrying copies of the original shadowgov webpages and other amusing electronic misdeeds.

While we'll no doubt keep an eye out on you, pastor, you're clearly not a meaningful threat to either reason or the republic.

What remains of continuing interest to me are anecdotal and faithful renderings of individual journeys in the search for spiritual truth, from devout christians or muslims, buddhists or hindus ... or even fellow Taoists. It's entirely possible that members of your congregation might be able to add to the collection I've been expanding for a number of years, but your duplicity assures me your own tellings are exceedingly unlikely to make the list.

In peace, Jesse
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
taoist said:
And while "The Taoist and Pastor Enyart" received only a slim popularity here, deleting the thread from this forum in no way removed it from the web, where it still has a loyal and growing following.
I don't remember that thread.

Maybe nobody else does either. :think:

Thousands of threads are deleted from TOL every year, and trust me we have NEVER deleted a thread that was worth keeping, unless of course by mistake.

Do you want to re-post some of the highlights?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
taoist said:
.

While we'll no doubt keep an eye out on you, pastor, you're clearly not a meaningful threat to either reason or the republic.
Of course he isn't a threat to reason. He's quite reasonable. Of course, as one who escapes reason, I'm sure it's difficult for you to see.
 

Lion

King of the jungle
Super Moderator
The debate was a slaughter and poor Z did the only thing he could do... runaway--run away--run away! :dog:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top