Not everyone likes Dan Barker as a debater. Why? Because he falls for what they describe below:And from the linked web site:Barker will affirm, "I know the God of the Bible does not exist"...Okay, seriously, this is getting ridiculous. In fact, it's rapidly becoming my number one pet peeve about theist/atheist debates. I'm going to try to make this real simple.Attention debaters: Stop falling for this! Theists who challenge you to a debate are not representatives of the National Forensics League. They are not a neutral party trying to set up an objective and fair confrontation for both sides. They are deliberately trying to stack the deck against you. They want you to lose the debate before you set foot in the room.How in the world did Dan Barker fall for this? One of the strongest tools that atheists have is attributing the burden of proof to the theist. I don't know that unicorns do not exist. I don't know that Russell's Teapot orbiting beyond Mars does not exist. I simply don't have any reason to believe that they do.By accepting this ridiculous topic, (a) Dan Barker is forced to defend a position that he probably doesn't hold; (b) he's now locked into a position where the theist can just spout vague pseudo-philosophy about knowledge and epistemology, and not defend the concept that a god exists at all.Some atheists think that we need better debaters.They have a post on how to manage an atheist debate and how even people like Richard Dawkins aren't all that good at debates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey if you want some real fun, try debating people who believe that Sylvia Browne is a psychic, and channels an entity from the spirit world named Francis. Yowch! I subscribe to what you are saying entirely Reynold, (love your aluminum foil by the way) we can easily get pulled into defending an assertion, when in fact there has yet to be a credible argument for believing in any god, much less the god as described in the bible.And I feel it is telling that many theists spend their time attacking "atheism" whatever they think that is, and spend so little time making credible arguments for their assertions that the god of the bible exists.(I really should spend a little more time proof-reading comments before I send them, thus the deleted comments.)
As an addendum, I understand it's kind of boring to watch a debate where the atheist keeps saying, I'm not convinced, I don't believe you, it doesn't make sense. But then BOOM you just made an assertion that "it doesn't make sense" then they expect you to provide a credible argument to your assessment that "it doesn't make sense. That's why debating theists is a no win game. Much like debating the Time Cube guy, and the Quest for right guy.Oh did I just make an assertion? oops.There just isn't any evidence that is convincing to me that god exists, much less the god of the bible. Anymore I mean, I used to believe.
You don't make sense ScaryJesus, NiceJesus does though.
ha, got you Asshole Boyfriend! Now you've got to back that assertion up with an argument. (Christ, I need a beer)
The debate Barker had with Doug Wilson would satisfy the Atheist Exp guys, I should think. It was entitled "The Triune God of Scripture lives."Funny thing is, it was a total disaster for Barker. It was approximately as bad a beatdown for atheism as the Bahnsen-Stein debate, but far more entertaining.
James White did a nice review of the Barker/Wilson debate on his radio show complete with audio clips and commentary.Audio 1Audio 2 (2nd part of the show was on the debateAudio 3aDios,Mariano
From the site that Rhology linked toFor example when Barker asked about the origin of evil, Wilson admitted that God allows the presence of evil. I wish I could see a video of this, because I would have loved to have seen Barker's face. I'm reminded of how Walter Martin once dealt with this question. He pointed out that if God did not allow the existence of evil for a time, none of us would be here because he would have to destroy all of us. How many of you are glad that God chose to do things his way instead of our way? I am!If Barker was a good debater he's have shot down that piece of bs by simply pointing out that "god" could have tossed the devil and his "fallen angels" into hell right off the bat instead of setting them loose on earth where they'd be able to trick and corrupt people. That "serpent" thing is why we're so allegedly "evil" in the first place. One does not need to have eliminated people in order to eliminate evil.
If Barker was a good debater he's have shot down that piece of bs by simply pointing out that "god" could have tossed the devil and his "fallen angels" into hell right off the bat instead of setting them loose on earth where they'd be able to trick and corrupt people.And then Wilson would have probably simply asked Barker to prove that this course of action would have been objectively good. And Barker would have gone back to his self-referential, question-begging, circular "Then there would be less harm in the world!" line of reasoning, and he'd have gained no ground.Barker has nothing b/c atheism has nothing.
"That "serpent" thing is why we're so allegedly "evil" in the first place."Wait, didn't you hear? The new religion of Darwin has it we do "evil" because of that "monkey" thing.The high priests Dawkins and Gould may have not seen eye to eye, but they both faithfully agreed that our pesky genes make us do bad things. (Subjectively of course, since no honestly "evil" action exists in the real world - just simply events that inconvenience our politically correct feelings.)