One third the way through Battle Royale VII... who is winning?

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by quip
Have I missed it somewhere in this debate or is Bob still avoiding providing an argument toward one particular theistic perspective or is he still talking generalities about some hypothetical "creator".


This omission is important.
The Christians on this form may adopt Bob's argument to imply the Christian God yet this may not be the case-- Bob will not indicate to us otherwise.

To purport that our universe was created does not necessarily conclude this alleged 'creator' is the (singular) Christian God.

Bob's debate only indicates "creation" which could be applied to polytheism, pantheism and/or agnosticism and of course Bob's move toward a creator could be supporting views of Allah, Vishnu or some other religious deviation.

Zak needs to address and attack this deistic ambiguity.

I think if he addresses it, he will look foolish. The debate can exist solely on "any God" for now. A seperate debate might house which god.

I think if Zakath admits "a god" exists, he's lost the debate.Even holding out for "which god" is a foo'ls errand. The Christian God postion becomes incredibly strong once one admits that there is a god.

 

[Rav_Yeshai]

debate subject too vague

debate subject too vague

The debate is too vegue too tell who is winning. is it, "Does A god exist? or "Does the christian god exist?"

If it is the latter I think Zakath (if he did his homework on the pagan roots of christos catholicism christianity and thier pagan holy days) would leave a very large hole in mr. enyart's ideaology.

having that debate anytime soon?!?!

Im up for it

 

[Bob Enyart]

How do we determine who won the debate?

How do we determine who won the debate?

I'd like to propose a test for who won the debate. Of course, it's possible to win a debate and still be wrong. But in determining the truth of a debated position, it helps to know which side more effectively produced, weighed, and presented evidence. And then, the observer can decide whether or not a sufficiently broad base of credible evidence was used to merit a final conclusion, or whether the losing side simply failed to produce available evidence, and missed opportunities to show the weakness in his opponents rationale.

It would be a worthwhile insight to know the true opinion of the two debating opponents as to who won the debate. However, human nature and pride what it is, a clear loser in a debate will often not admit to defeat. Why? He may simply be afraid of losing face, and letting his supporters down. On the other hand, he may be afraid that admitting defeat will cause an internal battle within himself, forcing him to admit that his own position is not as strong as he thought it was.

So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: Whichever side publicizes the completed debate is the side that has won the debate. If both sides publicize the debate, then the audience can conclude both sides truly believe they have won. However, in our experience, only one side typically wants to publicize the debate.

So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart

Or Zakath could give an outside source... say some atheist website or atheist author the right to use Zakaths argument in Battle Royale VII the right to reprint or use for profit or publicity etc. We shall see if Zakath would want to do that or if the outside source would be interested.

 

[Bill Clinton]

I am with Zakath on the morality issue.

 

[Zakath]

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
...So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: Whichever side publicizes the completed debate is the side that has won the debate. If both sides publicize the debate, then the audience can conclude both sides truly believe they have won. However, in our experience, only one side typically wants to publicize the debate.

So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

:ha: I'm so glad there's no bias towards the fellow with the established media organization in Pastor Enyart's test... :chuckle:

Pastor Enyart, maintaining my anonymity assures that I do not make money off of what I do here at TOL.

• I don't have a congregation.
• I don't teach Sunday School.
• I don't have a radio show.
• I don't have a webcast.
• I don't even have a web site.

It doesn't really matter to me how you publicize or do not publicize the debate. Once we're done, it will stand as written here on TOL until it gets archived off...

All I'm doing is enjoying the chance to debate you on a topic of mutual interest to both of us...

 

[Spartin]

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
I'd like to propose a test for who won the debate. Of course, it's possible to win a debate and still be wrong. But in determining the truth of a debated position, it helps to know which side more effectively produced, weighed, and presented evidence. And then, the observer can decide whether or not a sufficiently broad base of credible evidence was used to merit a final conclusion, or whether the losing side simply failed to produce available evidence, and missed opportunities to show the weakness in his opponents rationale.

It would be a worthwhile insight to know the true opinion of the two debating opponents as to who won the debate. However, human nature and pride what it is, a clear loser in a debate will often not admit to defeat. Why? He may simply be afraid of losing face, and letting his supporters down. On the other hand, he may be afraid that admitting defeat will cause an internal battle within himself, forcing him to admit that his own position is not as strong as he thought it was.

So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: Whichever side publicizes the completed debate is the side that has won the debate. If both sides publicize the debate, then the audience can conclude both sides truly believe they have won. However, in our experience, only one side typically wants to publicize the debate.

So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart

It could be that Zak is just here debating this for the benifit of the people that visit here. There is no need to publicize the "winner" of this debate unless you are looking for some sort of gain out of this. Broadcasting how you "beat" an athesist is just self-serving for your hold on your congregation. I think what is posted here, should stay here. Let it be one of the many focal points on this site. I use winner and beat in quotes because both sides will have a subjective view on the outcome so nobody really is going to "Win" or "Beat" the other one.


Spartin

 

[Flipper]

Spartin:

There is no need to publicize the "winner" of this debate unless you are looking for some sort of gain out of this. Broadcasting how you "beat" an athesist is just self-serving for your hold on your congregation. I

I guess you're not familiar with Bob E's radio show then? Basically, he's had to resort to pleading for his Christian listeners to get their atheist friends and family members to call in. Bob, you see, wants a confrontational radio show but for the last 6 months or so it's been as hard-hitting as "The Actor's Studio" but with less interesting and penetrating questions ("Ditto! Bob, you're so clever and funny when you call faggots `fags'. Where do you get all your ideas?"). Sometimes, even Bob sounds a little bit embarrassed by all the fanboy attention but it's hard to tell. I would be.

So the Battle Royale is Bob's bid to kick start some controversy-by-proxy. It's quite usefully filled up a few hours as he picks through the posts sentence by sentence. And who knows, maybe it will provoke someone to call in? Mind you, having seen what minimal traffic his plugging of this debate has driven to TOL, I'm thinking not.

So, basically, you're right. Zakath's interest with this debate begins and ends with getting Bob on here and thrashing it out. However, Bob also wants to boost his flaccid show and a debate like this helps him get publicity and material. Perhaps he also sees it as a witness opportunity and I expect he'll try to extract as much mileage of it as he can.

Normally, I would advise against giving Bob any oxygen of publicity, but his show is doing sufficiently badly that it probably doesn't matter.

 

[Eli_Cash]

That has to be one of the dumbest criteria of winning a debate I've ever heard of. I thought debates were supposed to be won or lost on the merits of the arguments. In that case, Enyart has lost so far, considering that all his evidence only points to gaps in human knowledge.


I apologize if this sounds like a personal insult. It was not intended to be, but I could not find a more applicable description of Enyart's criteria. I do not mean to suggest that Bob is himself dumb.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Flipper
Bob, you see, wants a confrontational radio show but for the last 6 months or so it's been as hard-hitting as "The Actor's Studio" but with less interesting and penetrating questions ("Ditto! Bob, you're so clever and funny when you call faggots `fags'. Where do you get all your ideas?"). Sometimes, even Bob sounds a little bit embarrassed by all the fanboy attention but it's hard to tell. I would be.

Obviously Flipper never listens to Bob. For if he did he would know that Bob never calls homo's "fags".

 

[Flipper]

Well, Bob's show has been steadily losing its appeal since its taming down, so I'm a bit out of touch with his preferred epithets. Perhaps it was "homos", or something equally clever and edgy.

Either way, he's not going to be receiving the Non-Phallic Award for Progressive Sensitivity at the Sociopolitical Equality Multi Racial Gender Non-specific Collective Recognition Conference (award ceremony is too exclusive).

I've been listening to the current crop as they're specific to this debate. And, I can't deny it, enjoying a little schadenfreude at his much reduced circumstances and appeals for cash. I toyed with the idea of calling in to request some books and tapes to hasten the bleed, but decided to let nature take its course instead.

 

[quip]

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Re: How do we determine who won the debate?

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate.

LOL :chuckle:

I suppose Bob also sees this same technique as explanatory in blaming our (multi-billion dollar) liberal media empire for our current moral decline :thumb:

 

[JOHN_IGNATIUS]

Bob, come out and play...

Bob, come out and play...

Well, Mr. Bob,
Since you decided to jump in and let us know how confident you are of a win, I'd like to jump in and ask you a few questions myself.

Is proving that there is a "creator" of the universe going to get an atheist saved? Do you care? If you can only convince people of a "creator", but not of the Christian Faith, then how can you call that a win?

I dare you to prove that Jesus is the only way. And if you don't, then you are a waste of time.

If you are afraid to try and prove that the Christian God is God, then you don't have a hair, one.

Brent

 

[quip]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
I think if he addresses it, he will look foolish. The debate can exist solely on "any God" for now. A seperate debate might house which god.

I think if Zakath admits "a god" exists, he's lost the debate.Even holding out for "which god" is a foo'ls errand. The Christian God postion becomes incredibly strong once one admits that there is a god.

Zak has already alluded to the "truth" of other religions in his argument to which Bob has stealthy circumvented.

Yet, Zak stopped short on the argument… Why?

Zak does not have to admit to "a god" to illustrate this religious incongruity.

It logically follows that Bob must have some faith-based foundation for his "creator" and if Bob's belief is indeed the Christian faith, his pseudo-scientific argument for a creator does not correspond to the word of his God according to the Christian Bible.

This contradiction is important!

 

[Prisca]

JOHN_IGNATIUS

You asked Bob,"Is proving that there is a 'creator' of the universe going to get an atheist saved?"

In 1995, I became a Christian by listening to very similar debates to the one that is going on in Battle Royale VII. I had never heard science used as evidence for the existance of God before. I had been an atheist for many years and I suddenly found my world view crumbling from beneath me. It was only then that I was willing to consider the existance of God as a reality rather than a myth.

You asked, "If you can only convince people of a "creator", but not of the Christian Faith, then how can you call that a win?"

Sometimes you need to teach people how to walk toward God before they will run to Christ.

Becky

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Becky
...In 1995, I became a Christian by listening to very similar debates to the one that is going on in Battle Royale IIV. I had never heard science used as evidence for the existance of God before.

You still haven't if you're relying on Pastor Enyart's posts... :chuckle:

 

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
You still haven't if you're relying on Pastor Enyart's posts... :chuckle:

Too bad the other side of the table is quite empty.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shaun
Too bad the other side of the table is quite empty.

Patience, grasshopper.

You were expecting what? Perhaps piles of concrete, physical evidence that a non-physical, imaginary entity does not exist? :chuckle:

How much evidence could you produce to demonstrate that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist?

 

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
Patience, grasshopper.

You were expecting what? Perhaps piles of concrete, physical evidence that a non-physical, imaginary entity does not exist? :chuckle:

How much evidence could you produce to demonstrate that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist?

Keep your philosophical meanderings for the weak-minded, Zakath. I was on your side once--I know the arguments. I also know the flaws that are rarely admitted.

You may have tasted what you think was religion--but you have not tasted my Jesus.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shaun
Keep your philosophical meanderings for the weak-minded, Zakath. I was on your side once--I know the arguments. I also know the flaws that are rarely admitted.

Since you've apparenty abandoned logic and reason for religion, you certainly qualify for my meanderings...

Perhaps you'd even try to answer my question, instead of dodging it?

You may have tasted what you think was religion--but you have not tasted my Jesus.

"Tasting Jesus"? Are you Roman Catholic, then?