Wow, this is one of the more bizarre debating events I’ve heard of. See the video of Debate 101: the Schooling of Dan Barker.
Dan Barker has made a career out of being a former minister. The skeptics love guys like him and Bart Ehrman. I mean, you can easily ignore all the people who convert from atheism to Christianity (a la yours truly) but if you catch a few going the other way that is the ultimate proof of Christianity being false, eh?
The weirdness occurred when Barker interrupted James White when White quoted Barker’s own book, which was for sale in the lobby of the venue where they were debating (so it wasn’t like Barker had repudiated it).
The debate was whether Christianity is just a copycat religion. That argument is really bad on many levels, but what was worse was how Barker rudely and proudly objected to his own material being quoted.
Also see Dan Barker: Yes, I’ve Made the Same Argument for Seventeen Years. So What?
Eternity Matters 
So many rarely appreciate their own words coming back to haunt them.
It happens in politics too. Which is why Obama voted “present” so often. He didn’t want a record to come back to bite him.
People like Pelosi who at one time says protest is the best form of patriotism one year, and then when HER choice for president is in office and people protest, she makes horrible accusations of them.
However, I am beginning to believe they don’t even care if it is brought up. They aren’t embarrassed, they are too uppity to let that phase them.
I don’t think though, it should stop us for speaking truth, even if it is THEIR truth.
🙂
LikeLike
Overall that was a bit painful to watch.
No offense to the guy, but I’m better on my feet when it comes to defending atheism than the proclaimed atheist who has written a book (books?) on the topic.
I do think his objection was possibly fair, however. More info is needed. What was the topic of the debate? (I know that it was mentioned, but I didn’t catch the audio because the person mentioning the topic slightly turned away from the mic). Since apparently this is Mr. White’s opening, quoting the person’s written statements on the topic of debate is very fair game.
I’ve seen a number of Mr. White’s debates. He’s a solid debater. Sometimes he gets a bit excited and speaks quickly, but most folks do things like that. All in all, I think I’ve seen several hours of him debating in various forums, and I think I’ve seen the range of his public expressions pretty well.
All that being said, it was hilarious watching him really try to fighting the exasperation at Mr. Barker’s repeated objection to his own words on the topic at hand being cited. “The book that is being sold in the lobby.”
LikeLike
The topic of the debate was “Is the Jesus story cut from the same story as other ancient mythologies?”, a topic Dan has written on, and lectured on often.
LikeLike
The topic of the debate was precisely what was being referenced in the book: The alleged borrowing of “mystery” religions when Christianity was formed.
Yes, the part about the book being sold in the lobby was a classic!
LikeLike
Wow, that is truly sad of Dan Barker. However, I want to do something a little off topic. I have a student in my class whose a well known atheist on campus. I attend the real USC (South Carolina) and this person has won an award for his atheism or something. He is now currently on a campaign to try to revitalize the science education on evolution and how that one does not have to be atheist to believe in it because all the scientific community believe in it and it is valid. But I believe he is double-minded. He is very excited for his hero, prophet of Atheism, Richard Dawkins is coming on campus.
One atheist publish an article in our newspaper called, “The Daily Gamecock” how bringing someone on campus like Dawkins will not sit will for religious orgs because he is a bully. However, this student in my class written an article about they (atheists) need not be ashamed. This young man clearly has an agenda. Even though he says that evolution is not atheistic the coming of Dawkins surely negates that. Well, all I ask is for you all to pray. I have to do alot of digging for myself concerning evolution.
LikeLike
Hi Mercedes,
Thanks for that information. Yes, for people like Dawkins evolution and atheism are inextricably linked. Anyone denying that is clueless or lying. He may be a good biologist but his philosophy and reasoning are lousy.
LikeLike
Why is evolution and atheism linked? Evolution certainly contradicts the Bible in the minds of most, but there are plenty of people who believe in a God whose existence is consistent with our biological origins.
You say this man clearly has an agenda. I hear that all the time about people. What does that mean? He wrote an article that atheists need not be ashamed. That’s an agenda? I understand that the guys seems to be an advocate for his beliefs, but if that is a sin, then the Christians who accosted me weekly on my campus back in the day need a talking to.
I’m pretty sure that Dawkins will be giving a talk on evolution alone, as he has switched gears lately, and is not speaking about religion much anymore. His latest book is a proof of evolution, addressing in detail, and with solid evidence, each of the arguments that people use to disprove it. Denial of the fact of evolution to a biologist is akin to telling a linguist that English, French and Spanish just appeared as languages not long ago, and that Latin never existed.
I’m glad you want to do some digging into evolution. There are some great books out there, but please read at least one book from somebody who believes the theory.
LikeLike
Only in the overly broad definition of evolution. I’m sooooo sick of that rhetorical trick. No evolution comments will be permitted that equivocate on the “things change” evolution (duh) and the “molecules to man, caterpillars/butterflies, elephants, etc.” evolution (only in your wildest fantasies). That works out in the world but not here.
Sorry, I just don’t have time to correct that fallacy every time you commit it. I’m telling you very clearly and in advance so you won’t waste keystrokes and then blame me. It will be your own fault, so don’t boo-hoo about it when it happens. Hitting the “delete” button is way easier than re-typing this correction every time. If you want to play word games like that you need your own blog. I refuse to host such transparent disingenuousness here.
LikeLike
Sorry for the analogy, I probably should have known it would offend you, and I meant to attribute it to Dawkins, although I think it is accurate. You should know that I’m not being disingenuous, and I committed no fallacy.
Are you saying that there can be no discussion of evolution here, or that there must be limit to the discussion that stops at certain points?
LikeLike
I thought my comment was pretty clear: No equivocation on the term “evolution.” You can’t play the word game of stating the obvious (“things change”), which we all agree with, then act like it is just as obvious scientifically that full-blown Darwinian evolution is a fact.
That is a spectacular lie and it won’t be permitted here. If you have chosen to believe that lie, then perpetuate it elsewhere. I don’t have time to keep correcting it here. If your conscience won’t permit you to use the term micro-evolution then you’ll just have to sit out those conversations.
LikeLike
The debate in full is now on youtube here. More Barker debates are here.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brian! Keep up the great work on your blog.
LikeLike
I just came across this post as one of my posts, referenced one of your earlier ones. I agree with the first respondent–give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, right? Christ will claim what is his as well…
LikeLike