Dan Barker vs. James White and Matt Slick
September 28th 2009 01:18
The following is a compilation of two reviews I wrote based on debates I got to go to in Newberg, Oregon.
Dan Barker came to Newberg, Oregon, not for one debate, but two. In the morning session of The Believer's Reason Conference and Debate held at Newberg Christian Church, he debated Dr. James R. White about topic "The Jesus Story is Cut from the Same Story as other Ancient Mythologies."
Dr. James R. White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries (www.aomin.org) based in Phoenix, Arizona. It is a Christian apologetics organization. He is also a professor, and I might add, a formidable debater.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin. He is one of America's leading Atheists, co-hosting Free Thought Radio and also acting as a contributing editor to Freethought Today.
Both men are accomplished authors. I haven't read any of Dr. White's work, but have read and greatly enjoyed "Godless" by Dan Barker. It is described as the story of "How an evangelical preacher became one of America's leading Atheists."
The debate followed a strict format, allowing for statements, rebuttals, and cross-examinations. It began with Dan Barker began with a story about "Three Little Donkeys" that, although slightly different, followed the fairy tale of the "Three Little Pigs." He used this to demonstrate a technique used throughout history, emulation. He also used the example of "Romeo and Juliet" being updated differently in "West Side Story."
He then went on to show example after example of how specific parts of the bible emulated mythologies much much older. Perhaps the most striking was how biblical author Mark very closely followed Homer's Odysseus.
But he also showed parallel myths from the bible and more specifically, the Jesus Story, that coincided alarmingly well with others from the ancient world.
Dr. White, to his credit, more than just held his own. Still,, his argument did eventually run out of steam. His primary assertion was that Dan Barker, like many Atheists, suffers from so-called "parallelomania," or the desire to find parallels where none, according to Dr, White, exist.
The session lasted around three hours, and was lively and interesting throughout. I, as an Atheist, was happy to see Dan Barker defend our positions so deftly. I would invite anyone to read "Godless" or any of his works. If they want the opposing view, Dr. White has quite a few offerings. Newberg Christian Church is to be commended for allowing on scholarly debate to take place.
This Saturday, September 26th, was a long one for Dan Barker. His morning debate with Dr. James White lasted over three hours. His evening match against Matt Slick went about as long. Still, I think Dan came out on top of both contests. The second debate was titled "Is There Reason to be Good Without God?"
Matt Slick is president and founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org) and resides in Boise, Idaho. He holds a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. He currently hosts Faith and Reason Radio, broadcast in the Boise area and over the internet.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin. He is one of America's leading Atheists, co-hosting Free Thought Radio and also acting as a contributing editor to Freethought Today.
The debate with Matt Slick wasn't nearly as impressive on a scholarly level as Dan Barker's earlier debate with Dr. James White. Matt Slick was, in my opinion, roundly beaten early and became unable to move past his own circular logic.
In his opening statement, he attempted to use a procedural trick to claim himself the presumptive winner. He said that because Dan Barker was taking the affirmative position on the question "Is There Reason to be Good Without God?," It was incumbent upon Dan to prove his point empirically according to scientific method. And since Dan Barker obviously can't scientifically quantify "good," than his point is lost. Of course that's a silly position to take.
Barker defined good as "something that does less harm," or an act that reduces harm in the world. That could range from saving a drowning person to ending an injustice. Matt Slick went on to say "if you don't have a standard, you got nothin." refusing to acknowledge Barker's definition of good.
Then when asked for his definition of good, Slick said it came from God, because "I believe him." When asked how he knows that it's good, he said "I believe him." A good explanation of faith, but hardly an objective view.
Dan Barker went on to say "any system that uses threat of harm" is "morally bankrupt." He went on a rant about how the god of the bible is petty and mean, not himself meeting reasonable criteria of good.
This topic was especially interesting to me, as I hold that it is more moral to be good simply because it is what you choose to do than to do it for heavenly reward or to avoid hellish punishment. And Atheists, as a whole, are happier, healthier, and more charitable.
I was pleased to see Dan Barker so easily make his point, but I must admit I would have welcomed a better challenge. Matt Slick came off as just that, a slickish kind of used car salesman. Needless to say, I didn't buy the Edsel he was pushing.
Dan Barker came to Newberg, Oregon, not for one debate, but two. In the morning session of The Believer's Reason Conference and Debate held at Newberg Christian Church, he debated Dr. James R. White about topic "The Jesus Story is Cut from the Same Story as other Ancient Mythologies."
Dr. James R. White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries (www.aomin.org) based in Phoenix, Arizona. It is a Christian apologetics organization. He is also a professor, and I might add, a formidable debater.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin. He is one of America's leading Atheists, co-hosting Free Thought Radio and also acting as a contributing editor to Freethought Today.
Both men are accomplished authors. I haven't read any of Dr. White's work, but have read and greatly enjoyed "Godless" by Dan Barker. It is described as the story of "How an evangelical preacher became one of America's leading Atheists."
The debate followed a strict format, allowing for statements, rebuttals, and cross-examinations. It began with Dan Barker began with a story about "Three Little Donkeys" that, although slightly different, followed the fairy tale of the "Three Little Pigs." He used this to demonstrate a technique used throughout history, emulation. He also used the example of "Romeo and Juliet" being updated differently in "West Side Story."
He then went on to show example after example of how specific parts of the bible emulated mythologies much much older. Perhaps the most striking was how biblical author Mark very closely followed Homer's Odysseus.
Dr. White, to his credit, more than just held his own. Still,, his argument did eventually run out of steam. His primary assertion was that Dan Barker, like many Atheists, suffers from so-called "parallelomania," or the desire to find parallels where none, according to Dr, White, exist.
The session lasted around three hours, and was lively and interesting throughout. I, as an Atheist, was happy to see Dan Barker defend our positions so deftly. I would invite anyone to read "Godless" or any of his works. If they want the opposing view, Dr. White has quite a few offerings. Newberg Christian Church is to be commended for allowing on scholarly debate to take place.
This Saturday, September 26th, was a long one for Dan Barker. His morning debate with Dr. James White lasted over three hours. His evening match against Matt Slick went about as long. Still, I think Dan came out on top of both contests. The second debate was titled "Is There Reason to be Good Without God?"
Matt Slick is president and founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org) and resides in Boise, Idaho. He holds a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. He currently hosts Faith and Reason Radio, broadcast in the Boise area and over the internet.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin. He is one of America's leading Atheists, co-hosting Free Thought Radio and also acting as a contributing editor to Freethought Today.
The debate with Matt Slick wasn't nearly as impressive on a scholarly level as Dan Barker's earlier debate with Dr. James White. Matt Slick was, in my opinion, roundly beaten early and became unable to move past his own circular logic.
In his opening statement, he attempted to use a procedural trick to claim himself the presumptive winner. He said that because Dan Barker was taking the affirmative position on the question "Is There Reason to be Good Without God?," It was incumbent upon Dan to prove his point empirically according to scientific method. And since Dan Barker obviously can't scientifically quantify "good," than his point is lost. Of course that's a silly position to take.
Barker defined good as "something that does less harm," or an act that reduces harm in the world. That could range from saving a drowning person to ending an injustice. Matt Slick went on to say "if you don't have a standard, you got nothin." refusing to acknowledge Barker's definition of good.
Then when asked for his definition of good, Slick said it came from God, because "I believe him." When asked how he knows that it's good, he said "I believe him." A good explanation of faith, but hardly an objective view.
Dan Barker went on to say "any system that uses threat of harm" is "morally bankrupt." He went on a rant about how the god of the bible is petty and mean, not himself meeting reasonable criteria of good.
This topic was especially interesting to me, as I hold that it is more moral to be good simply because it is what you choose to do than to do it for heavenly reward or to avoid hellish punishment. And Atheists, as a whole, are happier, healthier, and more charitable.
I was pleased to see Dan Barker so easily make his point, but I must admit I would have welcomed a better challenge. Matt Slick came off as just that, a slickish kind of used car salesman. Needless to say, I didn't buy the Edsel he was pushing.
| 88 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Servetus
In the debate Slick used very over-the-top graphic real life examples of immoral actions, eg. slaughtering babies, a dentist molesting/raping a woman in a dentist chair when under anesthesia, and other face grimacing examples.
In the debate Dan uses less graphic examples of "immorality" like pricking a baby with a needle, causing temporary pain, yes, but the medication injected causes healing.
I say all that above to say this below.
I've noticed that a healthy man seldom thinks about his body and a good man seldom thinks about his "soul."
Those that are constantly thinking and lusting and
contriving schemes and ways to take advantage of others, those that betray the trust of others more often are the ones that are then marinated with accentuated guilt and remorse when religion enters into their lives.
Religion offers a solution to people like that. Religion offers them salvation from themselves. They can carry on though with their sinister actions and thought processes because Religion offers a way out of it through repentance and the guilty feelings go away until the next nefarious thought pops up.
Religion attacts evil minded people because it assuages their yucky feelings when they commit evil or think evil and it gives them what I call "sin on credit" so they can have their devils cake and eat it too.
My point is?
I think Rev. Slick is one of them. I could be wrong but I think I am entitled to my suspicions.
Comment by Servetus.
"Religion ATTRACTS. evil minded people . . .
Not as typed "attacts"
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by jigawatt
Here's the <a Really Long Link
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by jigawatt
Really Long Link
Comment by jigawatt
Really Long Link
Comment by Anonymous
Barker violated debate rules and presented fabrications as fact. How can anyone think he came out on top? The man is an overly emotional dimwit.
Why not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Oh wait - it's because he knows it doesn't exist.
James White was the clear winner.
Comment by Anonymous
Barker violated debate rules and presented fabrications as fact. How can anyone think he came out on top? The man is an overly emotional dimwit.
Why not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Oh wait - it's because he knows it doesn't exist.
James White was the clear winner.
Comment by Anonymous