1. Carl Wieland, head of Creation Ministries International, dared David Nicholls of the Atheist Foundation of Australia to organize an “atheist” vs. creationist debate at the upcoming large atheist conference in Melbourne (you see, it’s an “atheists” vs. the creationists debate at an atheist conference because Wieland wants his flock to belief evolution is just the religion of atheism and not accepted facts that people accept regardless of whether or not they’re religious). Nicholls hilariously declined the request:

If you skirt the question about accredited articles, then it is no wonder you are having trouble finding people to debate. Debate is not science, it is playing upon the prejudices of the audience. Scientific conclusion is about peer reviewing work from accredited scientific journals. I really can’t see Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist taking seriously or bothering to debate about alien abductions even though millions believe it to be true. There are just no credible studies on this as there are no credible scientific studies that support creationism.

Wieland of course went to PZ Myers himself, who responded with nothing but the image presented above.

2. Has science validated the ancient Ayurvedic ‘Neti pot’ as a legitimate medical treatment? – I first heard about the Neti pot a few years ago when it was featured in an episode of Six Feet Under. At the time, I didn’t know what to make of it but had since become somewhat skeptical of it from the little literature I’ve seen on it. A recent review article in American Family Physician found it effective adjunctive therapy for symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis (and they say real “Western” medicine only treats the symptoms). Well a new study made some interesting findings about the Neti pot. It seems that while it may be effective in treating short-term nasal irrigation, long-term use can be harmful.

3. Freedom From Religion Foundation gets strong atheist sign up in Illinois Capitol Building for second year in a row – The text is very similar to the text used on last year’s Washington display that I wasn’t too pleased with, so this is kind of a mixed bag. While I’m willing to be more abrasive towards religion in other venues, I don’t think it’s appropriate to stick such a mean-spirited message on a federal building, regardless of the cause. You choose your battles and you take your audience into account. I don’t even encourage strong anti-religious sentiments on billboards but sticking it on government land is far harder to reasonably defend. It’s one thing when cranks complain that the entirely inoffensive billboards are attacks on their faith because they’ll be seen for what they are, cranks. But you put out actual attacks on people’s beliefs on government property and you’re the one who looks like the giant douche. And I’m really starting to think Dan Barker is a douche.

The Rufus Factor

4. Naked mole rats may be key to human survival from stroke -

Two University of Illinois at Chicago researchers report in the Dec. 9 issue of NeuroReport (now online) that adult naked mole rat brain tissue can withstand extreme hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation, for periods exceeding a half-hour — much longer than brain tissue from other mammals.

The findings may yield clues for better treatment of brain injuries associated with heart attack, stroke and accidents where the brain is starved of vital oxygen.

Dan Barker, self-acclaimed “friendly   neighborhood atheist,” (not to be confused with your average “friendly neighborhood rapist” or “friendly neighborhood mass-murderer”) has written books and is a great authority in the camp of the fighters for “freedom from religion” that even atheist “destroyers of fables” in far-away land as that of the once brave and rusty Teutons refer to in their quest to make everyone else believe exactly what they believe (or don’t).

While I might even contemplate joining a fight for freedom from established religion, it’s not really so much the established religious institutions that the anger of the sometimes not that friendly neighborhood atheists is waged against, as evident from one of the acclaimed writings on the net that I had to wade through as a painful but necessary step in a debate with one of Darwin’s staunchest Teutonic fighters for universal equality of thought.

And thus the resulting reply to Dan Barker’s 19th chapter of his book “Losing Faith In Faith,” “Dear Theologian” – a fictitious letter written by God (in reality a very pitiful image of the same that Dan Barker must have had in his head – no wonder he became an atheist – and yet another confirmation of the sense God was making when He commanded us not to make ourselves any images of Him. The result – as in Barker’s case – can obviously be lethal) to His imaginary friend, the open-minded theologian:

An Answer to “Dear Theologian – Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker Chapter 19“

(Quote:) “If you say that everything needs a designer and then say that not everything (Me) needs a designer, aren’t you contradicting yourself? By excluding me from the argument, aren’t you bringing your conclusion into your argument? Isn’t that circular reasoning?”

Not if You belong to a totally different category, which Your Son, Jesus, stated, you evidently are. “God is a Spirit.” True that things natural need a Creator, but as far as spirits are concerned, hey, that’s a whole nuther ball game. You tell us!

(Quote:) “If you are saying that I don’t need to ask where I came from because I am perfect and omniscient while humans are fallible, then you don’t need the design argument at all, do you?”

No, I personally don’t. Except for the fact that we have never ever witnessed in all of our history any single process or force to produce one single shred of information without an author, much less the gigabytes of information present and in a process of exchange in ever single living cell.

We may not know where You come from, but from all we have ever observed in nature, the information in our cells and thus all of creation couldn’t have come about by itself.

Maybe that’s the difference between You and us.

(Quote:) “You say that I am eternally existent, and I suppose I would have no objection if I knew what it meant.”

Like so many half-baked believers do and project their own thoughts, dreams and doubts into the imaginary god concocted in their minds as a self-made continuation of some information they’ve been given (should have stuck to that info, bro, cause that’s the stuff it’s all comin’ from), this is not God speaking, but Mr. Barker.

The same applies to the babble that ensues in the same paragraph.

(Quote:) “Perhaps you created me.” If the theory of evolution would stand a chance in a lifetime to ever turn out to actually be right and proven, then perhaps you’re right, Mr. Barker. Along with all the other dog barking up that tree since decades.

It still wouldn’t explain, though, there all the information in creation came from without an author if we never have observed any poppig up by itself. And if “But then where does the information in God come from” is the only thing you can come up with, I feel sorry for you. As the Source of all that Information, and not part of it, we simply happen to imply that the Source is not subject to the same rules as the product, just as a water tap isn’t liquid.

(Quote:) “I contain evidence of design…”

Says who?

The very implication of God states that He doesn’t, dummy.

(Quote:) “Nothing comes from nothing.”

True when applied to our physical realm. The difference between the physical and the spiritual Realm is that it’s not subject to the same rules of time and origin.

Of course, I have no proof for that other than what the Bible says. I have no other proof except the fact that information in our realm always needs an author, and that I talked to Him this morning. No, He didn’t answer me back. Not this morning. But yesterday. And a whole lot of other days before that. And He answered a lot of other people’s questions, too.

And what I and they have learned from them is that contrary to folks who are trying to cook up every possibly thinkable excuse to eradicate the existence of God from their minds (and pay a lot – I mean, a lot of money to provide “evidence” for them), He doesn’t lie. He simply doesn’t. And that makes Him very very different from folks who brainwash my children into believing they’re mutated monkeys.

(Quote:) “What was it that caused me to exist, as opposed to not existing at all?” - … asked the little two-dimensional square in the lonely world of Flatland, since he couldn’t possible imagine anything as atrocious as a cube or ball, or any other 3-dimensional object to exist, let alone a 4th or 5th dimension… A dimension where existence might not be subject to the rules of Cause and Effect. Just because I create a game with rules doesn’t mean I’m bound to the same rules, even if the little playmen and soldiers in my game would like to believe I am.

Just because I tell my kids to go to bed at 9 doesn’t mean they tell me that’s when I have to go to bed.

(Quote:) “If I don’t need a cause, then why do you?”

Because we’re different, and You are so totally not like the mind of Mr. Barker.

We need a cause because we are Your creations. You don’t need one cause You’re the Creator.

Bobby needs a spanking because he was a naughty boy. daddy doesn’t need one cause he was being a good daddy.

(Quote:) “You created me. Is that such a terrible idea?”

Yes, because the dude you are is the concoction of a pitiful sad mind like Mr. Barkers, and if you were really God, you were the perfect reason for 7 billion people to commit suicide simultaneously. Thankfully, Mr. Barker’s mind is not really God, and thus we can all live happily ever after.

(Quote:) “I know that you think many other gods were created by humans: Zeus, Thor, Mercury, Elvis. You recognize that such deities originate in human desire, need, or fear.”

Maybe that’s what’s wrong with Theologians, and they’re the wrong guys to talk to, dude!

Since they don’t have any more grasp on true spirituality than the Pharisees who saw to it that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, they probably also don’t see the spiritual origin of the aforementioned deities (with the exception of Elvis, that is)…

Contrary to Barker’s aforementioned statements, there are spiritual entities who like to compete with God, and used to try to get people to worship them until they realized they could fool people of the 20th and 21st centuries even better by getting them to worship themselves and deities like “Mr. Barker’s mind.”

(Quote:) “The Persians created Mithra, the Jews created Yahweh, and you created me. If I am wrong about this, please straighten me out.”

Yessir. The Persians worshiped Mithra (slight difference between worshiping and creating a deity, a spiritual entity desiring to be worshiped), Yahweh created the Jews and all of us, and you’re right – the “god” Mr. Barker created in his mind is truly a pitiful concoction.

(Quote:) “What is my purpose? To please myself?”

Well, that’s probably what the pitiful god concocted and perceived by Mr. Barker would ask, but the true God has already answered that question in a simple phrase 2000 years ago: His purpose is to love. It’s His whole essence, and that’s what He does.

Probably something incomprehensible for minds like Mr. Barker’s since they don’t have a friggin’ clue what on earth I’m talking about, but don’t worry, guys… one day you’ll wake up and realize, “Oh, so that’s what it was all about!”

(Quote:) “Since I am already perfect, by definition, then I don’t need such a purpose. I’m just sort of hanging out, I guess…”  – whined Mr. Barkers pitiful little mind, presumably perfectly incapable of the perception of an existence dedicated for the purpose of another.

Do you have any kids, Mr. Barker? I hope not, but if you did, would you sit there and whine, why can you go to school when I have to sit here and take care of you? Probably, but not God.

See, God’s a good daddy.

Mr. Barker needs a spanking, because he’s been a bad boy, but God doesn’t because He’s a good daddy.

(Quote:) “It feels great to be perfect. But it gives me nothing to do.”

Again, Mr. Barker is concluding from his own pitiful state that God would have to be the same kind of – excuse the language, idiot. I don’t mean to insult anyone, but an idiot by the Greek definition is a person whose life only revolves around himself. And only idiots get bored.

So, just because you happen to be such a person, Mr. Barker, shame on you fro implying that God would be like you.

(The same goes for the pathetic rest of that paragraph)

(Quote:) “If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes.”

Shows how far away the god of Mr. Barker (whom he thankfully chose not to believe in anymore) is from the Real Thing. Contrary to Mr. Barker’s philosophy (or that of his made-up god), “Less is sometimes more” is actually a lot closer to divine philosophy. One reason why He’s devoting so much attention to our insignificant little spec of dust in the vast universe.

He’s terribly into details, which obviously you can’t say about Mr. Barker, who never seems to have cared much about what he actually believed in and devoted his life to as a preacher.

(Note that the following paragraph is pure crap not worth repeating).

(Quote:) “Doesn’t it bother you, just a little, that the source of meaning for your life has no source of its own? And if this is true, then isn’t it also true that ultimately you have no meaning for yourself either?”

Yes, it does. That’s why I’m going to follow Mr. Barker’s example now, become an atheist, believe that I’m a mutated monkey and find fulfillment and purpose in decimating the earth’s overpopulation by getting me a gun a mow down some of my fellow students (After all, isn’t that one of kids’ favorite activities who were brainwashed with Evolution and “there is no God”?)

Now that sounds purposeful! Thank you, Mr. Barker, thank you, all praise be unto you, I worship you, my… my god…

- Except that I’ve already been there. On the atheist and self-worship trip, that is, and dude, if you think God sucks, just wait a few years!

(Quote:) “I want to find that happiness in something other than myself. Is that a sin?”

No, and that’s precisely what the real God has been doing all along.

(Quote:) “You can’t have a love relationship with someone who is not your equal.”

Says who? The Homosexual Union of California?

(Quote:) “If I created hell, then I don’t like myself.”

I can imagine that Mr. Barker does not like the idea of a God who would have created hell.

But he’s perfectly alright with electing and paying taxes to a government that is creating hell on earth every day for thousand, tens and hundreds of thousands of his fellowmen.

But he would have to take some sort of responsibility for that himself. He simply cannot do that.

So he blames it all on a God he thankfully doesn’t believe in.

(Quote:) “If I did create a hell, then … how would I know if people were claiming to love me for my own sake, or simply to avoid punishment?

Good point. Actually the first good point in this entire fabrication so far. And it should give you something to think, Mr. Barker. What were the motivations for you to believe in such a God?

If it was just to save your own neck, then it’s no wonder you landed where you did.

See, fear is never a good incentive. And unfortunately, there are a lot of people like you, who worship God out of fear. In reality, hell is merely that which we are supposed to save others from. Because we love God and them. Whether it be the hell on earth your government creates for its victims every day, or the sort of hell the perpetrators of that hell on earth will reap as a reward for their actions.

If you know God, you know you’re not going there. So why be afraid of it?

If you don’t know God, it’s because you don’t know love, because God is Love.

(Quote:) “How would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them?”

Shitty, I admit. But that notion is rather based on a slight error in translation, rather than actual fact. The Greek word used for “forever and ever” in relation to hell is more correctly translated “eon” or an age. Little comfort, you may say, but be honest: how soon would you like to see Hitler or Pol Pot in Heaven?”

(Quote:) “I don’t need to be loved.”

I can’t prove it, but I disagree. Something about love: it works two ways. Neat thing about God: He allows Himself to be vulnerable enough to be hurt by us (as evident in the act of Jesus’ crucifixion). Unrequited love sucks whether you’re God or human.

(Quote:) “I don’t even want to be loved because to want is to lack.”

A-no.1 professional bullshit! – You’ll have to admit that!

(Quote:) “If all I am doing is throwing the dice of “free will” and simply reaping the harvest of those who choose to love me, then I am a selfish monster.”

Sounds like the perfect accusation of the god you’ve been worshiping all along against the true God: the Devil is always accusing God of being a selfish monster. When he’s the grossest monster all along, and if there’s one thing he cannot stand it is the love He has for humans.

I know free will sometimes sucks for all of us. Because most of us – like you – make the wrong choices.

It may come across as selfish and monstrous of God to want to be loved by us, but then He simply leaves the whole ordeal and decision up to us. It’s all voluntary. Isn’t that exactly what you want, Mr. Barker? So what the hell are you complaining about?

(Quote:) “I know you have tried to get me off the hook. You explain that Yours Truly is not responsible for the sufferings of unbelievers because rejection of God is their choice, not mine. They had a corrupt human nature, you explain.”

We all do. Some simply make the right choices anyway at some point in their lives.

(Quote:) “If certain humans decide to do wrong, where do they get the impulse? If you think it came from Satan, who created Satan? And why would some humans be susceptible to Satan in the first place? “

Because men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Most men, anyway. Just like you were, and I have been probably more times than you, and everyone of us does, we prefer Satan’s shiny temptations because they appear so much cooler than what God has to offer. The notion of being your own boss, not having to kowtow to some almighty Head-honcho.

The problem is that sooner or later you will find out that as terrible as God may have been as a master, you’ll turn out even worse. You may doubt it now and think you’re all so goody and clever, but the truth is going to hit you eventually, and you’ll see the difference between fake and genuine godhood.

(Quote:) “If I am perfect, then how in God’s name did I end up creating something that would not choose perfection? Someone once said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.”

Another good point, but again making God subject to the rules of the game He created.

And basically, it’s all founded on your own self-righteous conception of what is good and what is evil, or bad for us. You claim it was downright evil of God to have allowed evil.

I claim that you’re being short-sighted.

Short-sightedness is when the caterpillar thinks the cocoon is the end. Or the grain of wheat thinks it’s the end when it falls into the ground and dies. Shortsightedness is when all we see is the here and now. But God has promised a better there and then. You may not believe those promises. I do. And I say, who’s to say that this current age of the Fall of man is not going to be the best for us all?

A lesson and an experience we’re never going to forget?

Short.sightedness is when we think we know better than God to discern between good and evil.

(Quote:) “Was Eve Perfect? If she was, she would not have taken the fruit. If she wasn’t, I created imperfection.”

God saw all that He had made that it was good. He didn’t go as far as to say perfect – yet.

See, sometimes a little process of imperfection is what it takes to make something perfect.

The dark conrasts that are needed to make the picture perfect. The sickness necessary for us to appreciate health…

Short-sighted would be our notion to claim that our idea of a “perfect” picture would be better.

(Quote:) “I could not live with myself if I thought my actions were causing harm to others.”

You’ll get over it. Mr. Barker and millions of his country-men watch innocent people die on behalf of their government or their own lethargy or selfishness every day, and I assure you, it’s not You causing the harm, it’s we ourselves. Most of us just wouldn’t admit it in a million years.”

(Quote:) “If you are my creator, then I could spout tenderness out of one side of my mouth and brutality out of the other. I could dance with my lover on the bones of my errant children, and pretend to enjoy it. I would be very human indeed.”

Well, since you evidently are only the pitiful outgrowth of someone’s distorted idea of the Real Thing, that is true. And we humans take every right to act in such a biased way, but what do we care, as long as we have You to blame? – Or our half-cooked perception of you, anyway.

If we would stick to the information we have about You, we would know that You are without partiality, not a respector of persons, and that You want every soul to come to the light.

But since that’s so utterly different from our own nature, it’s easier to reject who You truly are and make up our own concoctions of you, and call that “god” and worship it, only to blame You then when our own phantasy has let us down, as in poor Mr. Barker’s case.

(Quote:) “Jesus spent only about thirty-six hours of an eternal life sentence in hell …If my righteous judgment demanded absolute satisfaction, then Jesus should have paid the price in full, don’t you think?

Again, applying earthly rules of time to spiritual scopes that poor little carnal barking minds know nothing of, tsk, tsk. Just a little correction on your faulty math, though, Bark: 3 days makes a wee bit more than 36 hrs., don’t you think?

Besides, His episode in hell was no punishment. His death was an act that He took upon Himself to atone the punishment for us. His 3 days in hell were for the purpose of “preaching to the spirits in prison,” and should give you a bit more of an insight about hell: there is a way out, otherwise He might as well have saved His breath, right?

(Quote:) “Beyond that, it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that justice?”

Well spoken, Lucifer, I mean Mr. Barker – although you must admit, some of your trains of thought sound devilish familiar, don’t they? Why don’t you just admit that the great villain of the story was always a lot more to your liking, which is also why the god you pretended to serve was so much like him (you were not the only Christian doing that, by the way)?

- Always the accuser of the saints, and of course, of God Almighty Himself, because you’d just love to have that position yourself, instead of dancing on some other sucker’s parade, right?

And truly spoken as a man or deity of justice as well, and righteousness, well, at least self-righteousness.

But the difference is that according to the story, Jesus isn’t just any old ordinary dude.

It’s God bleeding for you, and it’s not as if you’re the only ungrateful s.o.b., but nevertheless ungrateful.

I bet you wouldn’t mind seeing Him crucified again and again and again, wouldn’t you? – And perhaps hammer a nail into one of those arms yourself with glee?

Well, that’s precisely what you’re doing. And you know what? He loves you anyway.

I know you hate that fact more than your own miserable existence, but some facts not even all the distortions of your brain can change.

(Quote:) “It is tough to open my arms to welcome believers into heaven who have avoided the rap for their own actions.”

Well, that’s precisely what hell is for, dweeb – the one you said you’d hate yourself so much for, had you created it… Again, along with the consequences we already reap for our actions in this life…

(Quote:) “Let’s assume that Jesus and I worked it all out and that evil will be punished and good rewarded. How do I know the difference? You are insisting that I not consult any rule book. You are asking me to be the Final Authority.”

Who says that no books will be opened? Ever read the Book of Revelation? Let me guess: “Yes, but it never made any sense to me.” I know. I see.

He may be the final Authority, but He won’t stop Himself from recruiting the counsel of many others. Unlike the lonely dude of a god in your brain, the Real God isn’t a one-man-show.

Team-work is the order of the new day, and you can bet your hiney that righteous judgment will be found in each case.

(Quote:) “To have a nature or character means to be one way and not another. It means that there are limits.”

Only if imposed by some limited half-brain. Not if your very “nature” already implies that you have not limits. Just because Lex Luthor says to Superman, “You can’t fly,” doesn’t mean he won’t fly anyway.

(Quote:) “If my “nature” is clearly defined, then I am limited. “

God’s nature is defined by love. Now, if that means your definition of love, who clearly is unable to love anything but yourself, then we’d all be in bad shape if those limitations were imposed on God.

Who’s making the rules, dude? You? Or Him? I know you hate it, but He does, and you just can’t help it. It is that way! Get over it!

(Quote:) “…to say that God has such-and-such a nature is meaningless.”

Just as meaningless as love is to folks like you, while to those who actually live, it is everything.

(Quote:) “If I have no limits, then I have no identity.”

Says who? Barks Almighty? Sounds great, but looks real shitty under the scrutiny of reality.

(Quote:) “If morality is discovered in nature, then you don’t need me, except maybe to prod you along.”

A kid will learn how to walk by himself eventually, but it’s still great to have a parent to “prod him along,” isn’t it? Well, in most cases. In your case, I suspect it may well have been an exception.

But whoever you’re angry with– that person or phantom is not God!

(Quote:) “I don’t have an environment.”

Says who? Mr. “I-don’t-have-an-imagination-worth-a-penny”? Or Mr. “I-once-was-a-preacher-but-didn’t-read-my-Bible”?

Don’t limit the Almighty or anyone else to the pitiful dark emptiness of the abyss of your mind!

It’s horrible enough you have to live with it.

I realize that the barks of Mr. Barker are already nearly 20 years old, and this response may be a little late, although I doubt that I’m the first one to answer his “letter.”

But since it is still used as a reference and argument by those who seek to free the world from religion in order to replace it with their own ideology, which will doubtlessly be much better and more efficient than the ones of their predecessors like Adolph Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zee Dung,

I guess you people will mind me posting my answer here, but I’ll do it anyway…

I recently discovered this podcast called the Ex-Christian Monologues, and the first episode is a conversation turned debate between ex-preacher, now atheist activist Dan Barker and Jason Gastrich, Director of Jesus Christ Saves Ministries. Even though it’s nearly two hours, it’s worth a listen. Click here if you want to listen for yourself, or here if you want to read the full transcript.

Here are some highlights:

…

Jason: Well the core message of the Bible I think could probably be understood by a first grader, second grader, it’s really not that difficult to see the plan that God has laid out for us in the Bible.

Dan: I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to show it to my first grader. I mean, it’s a pretty ugly book when you look at it, and it’s a real demeaning book to human nature. . . . [Crosstalk] . . . And the whole concept of salvation, the whole idea that there needs to be a salvation, is a real insult to humanity. In other words, we are all deserving of damnation. We’re no good. We can’t think. We can’t figure it out. We all have to bow like humble slaves before this master who tells us what is right and wrong, who has expressed his grace to us. How lucky we are that he has died and given his free gift to us, so that we can avoid this punishment that we all deserve. Now that really is an ultimate insult that cuts to the core of what it means to be human, and it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You raise kids to think that, “Oh, I’m a sinner, I might go to Hell,” that’s horrible. And “I’m no good, I need to surrender.” Well I mean, a lot of people grow up with this attitude that they are no good, and that they are sinners, and they act it out.

…

Dan: Yeah, I know what that is. “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair . . .” [Genesis 6:2] I know that, and . . . But Jason, are you telling me this with a straight face? I mean do you really sincerely believe this stuff about the angels coming down and having sex with human beings? [Crosstalk.] That was a, that’s a myth. I mean that’s part of the Bible that is legendary and mythical. You don’t really believed that happened, do you?

Jason: Well it’s compounded again in Jude, and yes, absolutely . . .

Dan: You do. You actually believe that some angelic creatures came down from Heaven and . . .? I mean, this is the twenty-first century, Jason. You’re an adult. You’re talking about devils and angels and demons and . . . Think about what you’re saying and how ludicrous this appears to an intelligent person. That stuff did not happen. Those are myths that the Israelites made up to try to explain, in their own bumbling way, what the origin of the world was like…

…

Jason: I don’t doubt that you have. Um, do you think that it takes blind faith, or would you call it, I like to call it, “informed faith,” because I don’t feel like I just have a blind, empty faith. I feel like my faith is based on the concepts in God’s Word.

Dan: But why faith in the first place? I mean, what good is the concept? Why even put that word out in front of you to say we should have “blind faith” or “informed faith”? Why not just say, “Use your mind,” and use your free mind to examine and decidefor yourself whether you think this is true or false? What does faith have . . . like when you use the word “faith,” you’re admitting that the assertions you are accepting by faith cannot be accepted on their own merits. You need something extra. You need something above and beyond the evidence to make it true. Anytime someone uses the word “faith,” its a cop out. They’re admitting defeat. Faith is a kind of agnosticism because if you knew it was true, you wouldn’t need faith.

…

Dan: Even today. Read Henry Morris. Read Duane Gish.

Jason: I’ve read [some of] them. I have their books on the shelf right here.

Dan: Well read them. The Fossils Say No! What they’re pretending is if you could somehow demolish evolution, that would make creationism win by default, without having to actually provide a case for creationism. They come to creationism a priori.They come to it as true, regardless, and the way they think they can win the fight is by destroying evolution. Suppose they did. Suppose they destroyed evolution completely. They can’t, but suppose they did. Now, where’s their case? Where’s theirscience for their Book of Genesis? They have nothing. And you have to admit there is nothing. There’s no experiments, there’s no observational records, there’s no data that’s being kept. All you have is a belief of something that was taught to you in Sunday school.

…

Dan: It says that it’s the nachash, if you know the Hebrew word. And so the Book of Genesis has these two contradictory creation stories, that cannot be reconciled and yet we’re supposed to pretend that this is allowed to stand as a scientific account of the origin of [humanity.]

Jason: It’s funny that you mention that. I just got that question in my forum yesterday, and I’m going to get to that. I have the answer to it, but I just need to do a little more research to go ahead and put it right.

Dan: Yeah, and you think in advance that there must be an answer to this, right? Don’t you see how you are committed in advance? With your kind of thinking–I’m trying to be ad hominem here, but I used to be like you–but the way I used to think, I was actually blind to the possibility that the Bible had contradictions, because I would not allow myself to see what was before my very eyes. The Bible is discrepant and contradictory, and yet if you go into it with the mindset that there must be an answer, and “I’ll get back to you and find it for you,” well then of course you’re going to find something. I mean, we could all find . . .

…

Dan: Well, it doesn’t bother me. It’s like Christians use that all the time, you know: “You’re going to risk your eternal life if you don’t think the way I do.” Fine. If there’s a God who wants to send me to Hell for thinking for myself, then let him do it. Let him prove what a macho man he is and send me to Hell. Will that make me worship him any more? Will that make me have any more respect for the integrity of the supposed “Word” of his? No it won’t. I’m proud of the skepticism. I’m happy to be a critic. I’m glad that somebody should denounce, and put this very God under the microscope. Don’t you see what I’m saying?

…

I would feel sorry for Gastrich if he weren’t so arrogant in his ignorance.

Common Sense Atheism has posted a list of what he considers the best Atheist Books of the past 10 years. Top of the list is John W. Loftus’ Why I became an Atheist: A former preacher rejects Christianity

Prometheus Books

The book is often praised for its author’s first hand knowledge of Christianity, and evangelical Christianity in particular. John will be at the SBL in New Orleans, speaking in the session on Religulous. You can also visit his blog, Debunking Christianity.

John is also editing a new collection of essays with contributions by Hector Avalos, Robert Price, Richard Carrier and others. The forward is by Dan Barker.

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

You can preorder it (due out on Prometheus Press in April) on Amazon.com but alas, not yet an Amazon.ca or Chapters.ca. Darn ‘merykans.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, what would my favourite atheist book be? Not that I’ve read many. Most of my reading is either biblical scholarship or Terry Pratchett novels (believe it or not, I can tell the difference).

Here’s a tip: Pratchett’s Small Gods is one of the best parodies of organized religion and belief EVER!

“The figures looked more or less human. And they were engaged in religion. You could tell by the knives (it’s not murder if you do it for a god).”

I think my favourite book in favour of atheism is Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, which I am just about finished reading. I really must read more on evolution and evolutionary explanations for religion. I don’t know how much I follow that whole meme thing, but clearly the kind of thinking that goes into the core structures of religious thought are pretty fundamental to the human being as an animal. There must be an evolutionary explanation for that kind of thought.

I wonder if I can find this book to read next:

Technorati Tags: John+W.+Loftus, atheist, Christianity, Debunking+Christianity, religion, Christian+Delusion, Dan+Barker, Richard+Carrier, Hector+Avalos, Robert+Price, Religulous, Terry+Pratchett, Small+Gods, Daniel+Dennett

Okay, I’d first like to thank Brian at Apologetics315 for having an audio link up so quick for the September 26th debate between James White and Dan Barker.  For those of you that have not heard about it yet, you likely don’t worry much about apologetic debate and don’t follow that scene.  For those of you that did, it’s quickly becoming one of the more astounding statements made in public apologetic debate, to date.

Dan Barker delievered his opening address on the various parallels that Christianity has with other preceding mythological tales from various other religious sources.  He started with a ficticious story about 3 little donkeys and a nasty elephant, and commented on how his story was obviously borrowing from the three little pigs story, based on what is essentially known as ‘common sense’ in our culture, regarding childrens stories and literature.  After that, he listed a bunch of parallels from various ancient mythological tales and religious lore.  I won’t repeat it all, but it’s essentially along the lines of how other religious lore that preceded the story of Christ contained all the various elements of the story of Christ (virgin birth, 12 disciples, death and resurrection, etc.).  Barker argued that the story of Christ was, simply put, a patchwork quilt of various pieces that were ripped off from the blankets of other religions and sewn together.  A majority of his argument was similar in form and content to his published works that contained commentary on these subjects, namely Losing Faith in Faith (from 1992) and Godless (from 2008, though I’ve heard it was released in 2007)

Then, 30 seconds or so into his opening presentation, James White was interupted by Dan Barker when White stated that he’d present his case built against Dan’s arguments presented in his book and would respond to Dan’s opening statement in his cross examination period.  Dan wanted to make a point of order, and the point was that they were not debating his book.  I remember when I first heard that statement, I was floored, thinking that Dan Barker was objecting to White’s quotation of his work.  Surely Barer wasn’t suggesting that he had abandoned the arguments in his latest book?

After listening to the audio of the debate, I think Barker was suggesting something slightly different.

It seems that Dan objected to how White had an opening statement that addressed the arguments put forth in his two books as opposed to Barker’s opening statement, thinking that somehow White should be immediately responding to the opening address that Barker had just delivered.

It seems that Barker thought that White was “avoiding the issues” when White was not rebutting Barker’s opening statement with White’s own opening statement.

The reasoning that Barker seemed to give was that he “may have changed his mind” on something(s) that was in his books.  Barker seemed to think that White should have responded to what he had just said.  Later in the debate, it seems that Barker had abandoned some of the arguments about Mithras that he had gathered from The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, written by Barbara G. Walker.  It seemed that Barker had studied her other books A Treasury of Knitting Patterns, A Second Treasury of Knitting Patterns, Charted Knitting Designs: A Third Treasury of Knitting Patterns, Knitting from the Top, Mosaic Knitting, The Book of Sacred Stones, Feminist Fairy Tales, The Secrets of the Tarot, The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, etc. and started to have some suspicions about her scholarship.  She’s obviously not an atheist (more likely a wiccan), and spilts her writing between books on mystic feminism and knitting.  I cannot understand why Barker would have ever taken her seriusly as a scholar and I understand why he would distance himself from her.

Either way, it appeared that Barker didn’t want White bringing her up and didn’t want White attacking some of his arguments on the basis of the comically bad sources that he used.  I applaud Barker in recognizing that at least one of his sources is a non-scholarly source; unworthy of quotation or reference in a serious address on the subject of the origins of the story of Christ.

I think in the fury and the nerves of the debate, Barker wanted White to interact with what he said that day, not what he had written years ago (because he may have changed his mind).

It was still completely bizarre, but I think many people heard it as Barker saying that he didn’t want White quoting his book, as if that were somehow unacceptable in debate or somehow reprehensible.

I cannot understand how Barker would think such a complaint would be legitimate unless he had communicated his change of argument to White before the debate, so White could modify his opening statement to remove the elements that Barker had removed from his repertoire.  Entering a debate with a position modified from something you previously held is understandable.  Not communicating that to your opponent (or apparently anyone else in any sort of public way) is clearly not being forthright, and complaining about it is being downright absurd.  Obviously, White and Barker aren’t neighbors and don’t frequent the same locales.  How else would White learn about Barker’s espoused positions, except for his publically available printed work?  The complaint is silly, especially seeing that Barker is seasoned debater, with +60 debates under his belt.  He definitely knew better and I’m guessing that he was searching for an angle to slam White, right off the start.

Barker’s no stranger to mockery, and no stranger to special pleading argumentation.  The whole “I didn’t quote your books” complaint worked against Barker; it rightly shows that he has no concern for interacting with the specific case offered by his opponent but instead is only interested in gaining a public forum to make fun of Christianity.

- A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions – Proverbs 18:2.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

The other day I posted on a Barker vs White debate while it was going on. You may find the post here -

http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/futility-of-unbelief.html

Dr. White has provided the video clip of the event -

Please make sure to visit www.aomin.org as Dr. White has posted a number of times on this rather strange incident.

This is quite an interesting clip of James White attempting to give his opening remarks in a debate with Dan Barker, an atheist. James himself says that it is…

The single most amazing incident in my nearly 20 years of debate thus far. Dan Barker, “one of America’s leading atheists” (as per the cover of his own book), objects to my quoting him in a debate! A truly amazing example of atheistic non-ethics, to be certain.

First blog post in MONTHS!

Well, I just got off the AOMin chat channel and finished listening to the White/Barker detate that happened.  It was a little over 3 hours, and it was definitely quite the show.  Right off the bat, I’m not going to pretend that I remembered everything that was said (and won’t suggest that my representation of the debate is factually inerrant in any way), but here’s my synopsis:

1.  Dan comitted a fatal error right off the start.  When White started his opening statement, Barker interupted him and pleaded for a point of order; he asked that White would not quote from his own book Godless.  Why?  Barker essentially has changed some of his positions from the book (released in 2008) and doesn’t want to have to defend some of the things that he’s changed his mind on.  Ironically, the book was apparently for sale on the merch table at the debate though.  Fatal error is an understatement.  Barker came to the debate and brought his latest book, but protested to his opponent actually refering to his published offerings on the subject.  If Barker is still in transition on the issues of the debate, selling his book at the debate while admitting it’s error is both a marketting flaw and a debating seppuku.

White rightly remarked that he’d never heard of anyone doing that in a scholarly debate.  Usually, people desire to have people quote their books (as opposed to some T.V. interview, or some sound bite, or a blog post, etc.).  It seems that when a person writes a 400 page book on an issue, they’re relatively confident on the subject matter and have done enough thinking about the issue to think it’s worth publishing, for the benefit of the world at large.  Barker is a bizarre exception to this rule.

2.  Barker got horribly outgunned by White on the various source texts that are used to establish the Isis/Mithras/Osiris issue, as well as the supposed Christian borrowing from those texts for the creation of the “Jesus Myth”:

• First, White knew the source material and had done original language work that adequately challenged the translation of some of the source documents.  Barker apparently does not know Greek enough to simply read a Greek text without helps, since he had nothing to say about White’s interpretative points stemming from original language work.
• Secondly, White commented on the parallels and showed how utterly non-parallel they are; i.e Osiris was “resurrected”, but this really means he was hacked to pieces and sewn together and ultimately became a zombie.  Not quite as similar to the resurrection of Christ as many people attempt to portray it.
• Barker admitted that the Old Testament’s essential message was one of how the Israelites were constantly flirting with idolatry; thus he made the effort to show how the Israelites were familiar with paganism and attempted to incorporate it into Judaism.  White responded by pointing out that the univocal response to paganism in the OT was one of disgust; the prophets consistently and constantly showed a hatred of paganism in all its beliefs and practices.   Also, the paganism was essentially set by the leadership; i.e. when a king was bad, the nation was bad (idolatrous like Ahab or Manasseh), but when the leadership was good, the nation was good (non-idolatrous like David or Josiah).  It’s very hard then, knowing how completely “anti-idolatry” the Jews were after the Babylonian captivity, to suggest that anyone in Judaism would support what would have clearly been idolatrous concessions, if early Christians were Jews stealing from paganism to make up their Christianity.  The Jews, especially the leadership (Pharisees and Sadducees), would have condemned any pagan concessions, and the early Jewish converts would have gone with them in condemning the ‘psuedo pagan message’ that the Christians were delivering.  This is not the case with Christ though.  Everyone knew he was a miracle worker, and the historical records of the gospel suggest blasphemy where Christ said he was God.  This was an utter attack against the Jewish monism that was found nowhere in preceding paganism.  The 1st and 2nd century Jews knew that Christianity was new and different, but nobody thought it was a reversion to, or new version of, pagan idolatry.  Many things were rightly said of early Christianity by the Jews, but ‘pagan rip off’ was not one of them.
• Barker completely abandoned this topic in both of his Q&A periods, which is telling.  Barker used his Q&A time to pursue obvious ad hominem arguments; namely the idea of Young Earth Creationism and ideas surrounding Mormonism and their “scriptures”, attempting to establish evidences of inconsistency with White.  The YEC questions were simply attempting to show that White was a crack pot, and Barker didn’t go near Mithraism/Isis/Osiris, etc. in his Q&A time.  In channel, everyone was consistently asking “Why is he changing the debate subject?” and “Why is he using such obvious rhetorical traps and ad hominem arguments?”

3.  Barker started off the debate attempting to give proof that Christianity stole from pagan sources to manufacture the “Jesus story” but ended up the debate reverting to a pleading for uncertainty.  He closed his final statement suggesting that White looks for “proof” when you cannot prove anything, suggested that Christianity is unprovable, his atheism is equally unprovable but more rational (though he abandoned any form of reasoning, outside of ad hominem attacks against White, to show how it is more rational), and gave the standard “I only believe in 1 less god than you” line.  Barker was on the ropes, and it seemed like he knew it.  I was wondering where his notorious “capital ‘A’ atheism” (I’m going to prove that God does not and can not exist…) went by the end of the debate.

I’m guessing that’s why the “Jesus never existed” camp is so utterly small (what, >10 biblical scholars support that, if that?), and why the “Jesus is entirely a concoction from earlier pagan myths” camp is not much bigger (what, >100 biblical scholars, if I’m being generous?).  The first position, when thrown in the ring of actual debate and when demanded to present its factual evidence in the face of articulate and informed rebuttal, is simply atrociously weak and utterly indefensible.  The second position, when thrown in the ring of actual debate and when demanded to present its factual evidence in the face of articulate and informed rebuttal, needs to rest in ambiguity and has to completely ignore the numerous glaring differences between Christ and the pagan ideas in order to argue for precious few tiny similarities.

The web groups that applaud things like Zeitgeist are essentially filled with high-school level skeptics who are incompetent critical thinkers that are allergic to self-critical examination, and the whole “Jesus never existed” and  “Jesus is a concoction of pagan components” positions are built upon bizarrely improbable skepticism stacked upon bizarrely improbable skepticism stacked upon bizarrely improbable skepticism.   Let’s face it; the majority of people who support the latter position on a popular level, have no training in anything relevant to anything biblical (Ancient Near Eastern History, Religious Studies, Classical or Semmitic languages, let alone Biblical studies, theology, exegesis, biblical languages).  I think that’s why biblical scholarship (i.e. the SBL or…*cough* the ETS) currently has less than a dozen scholars who positively defend the position as opposed to the thousands of currently active biblical scholars who, although they represent a wide variety of opinions about Jesus, recognize that he was a figure who was not simply a figure built from the lego blocks of the paganism that came before.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts.  I look forward to none of the coming comments, knowing who usually comments on this sort of stuff!  Hooray!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

My wife and I are currently listening to a debate (live) between well known atheist Dan Barker and Christian apologist Dr. James White through www.aomin.org.

Dan Barker just finished his opening statement which more or less left us with the old argument that the account of Jesus was borrowed from mythology. This is not why I am writing this post.

After Barker’s opening statement, Dr. White got up to begin his opening statement. As Dr. White always does his homework, his opening statement was full of quotes from Barker’s books. One would think that Mr. Barker would be glad to have his works read and quoted, but this was not the case!

Before Dr. White could even finish his first quotation, Barker loudly objected to having his own book quoted! He kept saying, “I may have changed my mind”. There was a short spat regarding this and Dr. White (as well as my wife) pointed out that Barker is still selling the books that Dr. White was quoting from. The moderator did not uphold Barker’s objection.

If I were an atheist, I would be ashamed of Dan Barker and concerned about his confirmation of the truth of Christianity. His thinking and behavior show that he is clearly just a man who hates God and has no apologetic, which is exactly what the Bible says he is. (Romans 1.20b)

Update: To make matters worse, Barker just quoted from his own book with respect to naturalism and miracles.

Second Update: Dr. White has written about the event here – http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3514

Prometheus Books is preparing a new volume edited by John Loftus called 

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

A website has been created to call attention to the tome, which is scheduled to be available in April 2010. One endorsement of the volume has already been posted.

From Dr. Michael Martin, professor of philosophy emeritus and author of the books The Case Against Christianity and Atheism: A Philosophical Justification:

John Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have certainly produced one of the best and arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known. Using sociological, biblical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological and ethical criticisms, this book completely destroys Christianity. All but the most fanatical believers who read it should be moved to have profound doubts.

Loftus was an evangelical minister who gave up his faith. His book “Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity” explains it all and has become highly regarded in the atheist activist community. He is also the mastermind behind the “Debunking Christianity” blog.

The book has 15 chapters by 9 authors including Loftus, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Dan Barker (of the Freedom from Religion Foundation), and Hebrew Bible scholar, Hector Avalos.

Yours truly was supposed to have contributed a chapter, but there’s been too much going on and I simply could not keep the commitment. Alas. 

Technorati Tags: Christian+Delusion, atheism, faith, Christianity, Prometheus, John+Loftus, Hector+Avalos, Robert+Price, Dan+Barker, Richard+Carrier

It’s rather disturbing when atheists start to mimic theists in their attempt to gain attention or converts. Especially disturbing are the so-called “Atheist Billboards.”

Atheist Billboards are popping up all over the place. In some cases these god-less billboards are appearing in the buckle of the “Bible Belt” of the United States – the state of Alabama, for example. The billboards are either ignored, protested or the first shot in a “Billboard War” – after the atheist billboard comes down, an ultra-religious billboard goes up.

My question is:  Who is advising these atheists on what to put on their billboards?

I ask because some of these Atheist Billboards echo Biblical themes.

For example:

This is straight out of Scripture. In the Bible’s New Testament, the writers repeatedly warn that the big danger in this life is living as a good and moral person and expecting to be rewarded for it. In other words, you certainly CAN live a good, clean, pure and moral life without God – the Bible agrees with the billboard. Scripture also says many people don’t believe in God – “for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” [Matthew 7:13] Again, the Bible agrees with the atheists – you are NOT alone.

Second example:

Oh – if that could only be so. Religion is the “binding back of the soul.” The Apostle Paul warns the new Christians of the First Century A.D. not to trade one set of shackles for another. Paul tells them you’ve been set free from sin AND from religion – don’t “become bound” to another set of empty rules and senseless repetitive acts. [Galatians 4] The huge problem with 21st Century Christianity is the empty, repetitive, unreasoned dogma that so-called “men of God” are allowed to get away with. The atheists behind the “Imagine No Religion” billboard may want to read the book More Jesus, Less Religion.

Number Three:

Again, what is not true about this? Human beings are certainly capable of building a “better world” without prayer. Even Christians can’t deny the fact that our world is a much better place to live (on average) than it was during Jesus’ day. We live longer, common diseases have been eradicated or are treatable, literacy is common instead of a rarity, we can travel and explore with ease – prayer had little or no role in any of these things. You can’t “pray” yourself a better world. I’ve heard many a preacher say, “You have to put feet to your prayers!” Prayer is just empty words unless those words and desires are acted upon.

Example Four:

So many religious people accept traditional dogma as fact and make no attempt to see if what they have been told is true. Nothing illustrates this better than the recent popularity of teaching Dispensationalism and the “Rapture” of the Church. Even though there is no evidence for a Rapture in Scripture and Dispensational teaching was recently invented in the 19th Century, both of these theories are taught as fact – as dogma – and many, if not most, Christians lap it up as reality. They never follow the Biblical instruction of Paul the Apostle when he said, “Examine the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so.” [Acts 17:11]

And finally…

Evolution does occur. To what extent is still being hashed out, but Charles Darwin has certainly rattled some religious cages over the years. Literal Creationists have to resort to pretzel logic to explain what we see in geology, in the fossil record, in biology and in the study and exploration of other worlds. [Examples of pretzel logic: The Gap Theory, The Day-Age Theory, The Ideal Age Theory – but the craziest theory I’ve ever heard from a pulpit is that God intentionally buried the dinosaur bones to test our faith.] If left to Literal Creationists, we would still believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe and every other celestial object orbits it – but, thanks to men – men that challenged long held Church tradition, mysticism and dogma, we now know a little more of the Truth. It is to the detriment of Christians everywhere when Christianity as a whole does not pursue Truth with the same drive and passion as men like Darwin did. Instead, Christianity runs from science and embraces mysticism.  Ignorance – the best friend of mystic dogma.

Overall, these atheist billboards are pretty weak. None of them say anything new.  None of them really take a stand.

And if I were the chairman of the Atheist Billboard Committee, I’d be checking the ranks of the godless for a Christian mole.

“Do right.”

Strangely enough the first time this simple directive appears in the Bible it is an imperfect man uttering these two words while questioning the morality and judgment of God.

Look it up yourself – Genesis 18:25.

The man is Abraham.

The situation – Abraham is interceding for the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah – much like a criminal defense attorney pleading with a judge for leniency, Abraham is trying to broker a deal for his very guilty client(s).

25) That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked – that be far from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Why would Abraham argue the defense of Sodom & Gomorrah before the ultimate Judge?

It wasn’t the first time Abraham defended Sodom & Gomorrah. Earlier, in Genesis 14 we are told the story of Abraham physically rescuing the leaders, the people and the goods of Sodom & Gomorrah. Abraham risked his life and the lives of his men to re-establish these two “wicked” cities.

Oh yeah – did I mention that one of Sodom’s city leaders was Abraham’s nephew Lot?

This guy, Lot, sure received a lot (sorry) of very special attention.

But what did he do to deserve it?

It must have been Lot’s strong conservative moral stance in the face of Sodom & Gomorrah’s moral bankruptcy.

Let’s look.

1) Lot offers his home as shelter and protection for two “angels” that enter the city of Sodom. [That’s good. Okay, so far.]

2) Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped by the townspeople gathered outside his front door. [What?!! Does “Focus on the Family” know about this?]

3) To his extended family, Lot appears to be jesting when he speaks seriously of God’s impending judgment. [Probably because Lot left all of those Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and Sam Harris books lying about the house.]

4) Lot hesitates, protests and ultimately delays the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah – the two angels have to physically drag Lot out of the city. [I can see Lot standing with a garden hose ready to save his house.]

5) Lot loses his wife on the way out – she is “left behind” and dies. [Ever notice in the Bible that most of the wives mentioned are bad influences on the men?]

6) After finding a cave to hide in, Lot becomes drunk and impregnates two of his daughters – he fathers his own grandkids, Moab and Ben-ammi. [This is sick – but not unprecedented – after all, where did Cain find another woman…?]

And yet, the Apostle Peter refers to Lot as “righteous” –

2 Peter 2: 7 & 8 – “…and if He rescued righteous Lot…for by what he [Lot] saw and heard that righteous man…felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their [inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah] lawless deeds.”

Either there was a lot more to Lot than is mentioned in scripture, or –

– morality is a bit over-rated.

Okay.  I listened to the White vs. Barker debate on the Dividing Line live stream tonight, and then went to a Shai Linne concert at Masters College, so I’m writing this quick and late (it’s bedtime).

The audio from the debate switched off between White’s Skype feed (good) and one fella’s cell phone (he called Rich Pierce and streamed the microphone from his cell phone).  The audio was pretty bad for most of the time (mostly cell phone feed) and I couldn’t hear it much at all.  None the less, it was quite the exchange.

I can easily say that Barker doesn’t have a case for atheism beyond what he’s been repeating since before 1997.

He seemed to throw out the same arguments he’s used before…

…The Bible has contradictions in it; i.e. God is described 1 way in 1 verse and another way in another verse…

…therefore God cannot exist (due to inherent self-contradiction).

White delivered his opening arguments, using a intelligent design argument to attempt to show the differences in their worldviews (and Barker’s inconsistency) and Barker basically ignored him and threw out a long list of Bible contradictions.

Barker also tried to pull off the whole “the Bible has been tampered with and changed over history”, and talked to White as if this would be new information to him.  Barker gave the whole “Did you know that we don’t have the originals of the Bible?  What we have is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy” argument.  White responded and pushed him on the issue, and Barker backed away from it fairly quick (for some reason).  Barker understands nothing about textual criticism (as does almost everyone, Christian or atheist), so that’s understandable.

White also challenged his ‘bible contradictions’ and pursued several, like the whole ‘murder vs. killing in the Old Testament’ one (which I blogged about earlier today).  White asked him about lexical sources, and I believe that Barker somehow suggested that he learns the meanings of words from looking up the various uses of the words in the Bible and building up their meaning…

…i.e. it seemed that Barker claimed to do his own lexicography.  Not even joking.  I had to have misheard that one.

There was some back and forth Q & A, and Barker and White chopped at each other on biblical manuscripts, supposed contradictions, materialism and functionalism.  Barker asked White about how God could be Spirit and Barker consistently refused to accept White’s claim that God could be incorporeal and yet still think, since thoughts are the functions of a brain (*sigh*).

Barker also (attempted) to use the design argument against White, making the Dawkins argument that since designers are more complex than what they design, then God must be the most complex being in existence and likely then does not exist.  I didn’t hear or make out White’s response to that one.

All in all, Barker seems oblivious to the fact that he has been responded to, comprehensively, on all his ‘bible contradictions’ repeatedly; White himself started his Q&A time by saying that if Barker had done his homework, Barker would know that White had responded to all his ‘bible contradictions’ over the last 6 or so episodes of the Dividing Line.  Baker didn’t seem to care, and took strong offense to the whole accusation that he takes scripture out of context.  He claimed that he dealt with all the biblical passage in context in his books, and White was the one tearing scripture out of context.  Not much to say to that.  Barker is as blind as he is deaf to anyone who would disagree with him.

Honestly, from all the “Barker vs. whoever” debates I’ve listened to, I don’t know if Barker knows what a Bible scholar means when they say “context”.  He certainly didn’t learn it from his Pentecostal friends, and he apparently didn’t learn it at Asuza Pacific.  Someone should explain the term to him, just to be sure.  I’m guessing that to him it means “place in the sentence or paragraph” or something along those lines.

I cannot wait for the MP3, and I would love to hear another White vs. Barker debate.

As for who won the debate, I couldn’t hear it that well to make a judgment.  They both got audience laughs and they both had arguments.  I don’t think Barker has reality based arguments, nor arguments that show any meaningful understanding of Christianity, so I don’t expect much from Barker.  It you’re wondering about whether or not to buy it, I want to buy it simply to hear some of the comments that both made that had the audience laughing so hard…and I am seriously interested in Barker’s responses to White (which I didn’t hear too much of).

I’ll get the MP3 and give a serious review later on.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

I was doing some lexical writing today and figured I’d share a lexical refutation to the whole “God commands not to kill and then commands killing” stupid ‘contradiction’ in the Bible that many skeptics bring up.  The passage in question is Exodus 20:13, and this apparently contradicts other passages like Exodus 32:27 or 1 Samuel 15:2-8.

This whole contradiction boils down to a silly and incompetent lexicographical and exegetical ability in the skeptic.  Hebrew, like every language, uses synonyms.  Synonyms don’t mean exactly the same thing, but often carry similar meanings with differences in semantic range or nuance.  Like all words in all languages, the words for “killing” and “murder” derive their meaning and nuance from the context in which they are found.  This seems to be a concept that simply escapes the understanding of many skeptics (whether consciously or not is a question though).

The word in Exodus 20:13 is רצח (ratsach), and it can mean kill, slay, murder, etc. depending on context and stem (Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual).  Hebrew doesn’t have 1 word for killing and 1 word for murder; it has multiple words that can be rendered either one.

In Hebrew, “murder” can be rendered from רצח (ratsach) or הרג (harag).  Okay, that’s two words…not really a large multiple of words.  Either way,  Harag is a much more common term, occurring 167 times in the Old Testament verses the 47 occurrences of ratsach.

Ratsach has a semantic range  in the verbal form of “to murder, slay, kill” and carries a connotation of taking a life, or one who takes life.  It occurs, by far the most, in the nominal form as opposed to the verbal form, and this nominal form is almost always translated along the lines of “slain” (as in a person[s] who is killed) or “murderer” (one who has killed another person[s]).  This is the verb appearing in Exodus 20:13.

Harag has a semantic range  in the verbal form of “to kill, slay, murder, destroy” and carries a stronger connotation than ratsach, one of violent death (due to sword, attack from wild beast, etc.), often in the context of battle.  The verbal form is more frequent than the nominal form, and this is the verb appearing in Exodus 32:27.  in a nutshell, ratsach carries more of the nuance of “murder/manslaughter” where as harag carries more of the nuance of “murder/kill in anger/kill in battle”, and ratsach usually describes the person committing harag.

Lots can be said, but essentially 2 different words in 2 different context is not a clear and obvious bible contradiction, especially given their semantic ranges.

Also, in Hebrew “kill” can be rendered from:

רצח (ratsach)
הרג (harag)
זבח (zabach) – mostly carries connotation of “sacrifice/offer sacrifice”
חלל (chalal) – mostly carries connotation of “slay/fatally wound” (generic term)
טבח (tabach) – mostly carries connotation of “slaughter/butcher/kill ruthlessly”
מות (mot[h]) – mostly carries connotation of “die/kill/put to death”
נכה (nakah) – mostly carries connotation of “hit/beat/strike/attack”
קטל (gatal) – only appears 3 times in the OT, but mostly carries connotation of “slay”
שחט (shachat) – mostly carries connotation of “kill (a sacrifice)”

Hebrew has no shortage of words that could be translated “kill”, though the nuances of the words varies and depends on context, but likely because death was no stranger to Ancient Near Eastern life.  What this boils down to is that God didn’t outlaw all killing in the OT in Exodus 20:13.  There was still wars, still temple sacrifices, etc.  What God outlawed was the unjust taking of one person’s life by another person.

We understand this difference in modern times.  Nobody would confuse the difference between the taking of life by the man who beats his wife to death and the taking of life of the police officer who arrives on scene, is attacked himself and shoots the assailant, fatally wounding him.

The assailant committed tabach (or nakah), but the policemen committed harag.

The assailant is a ratsach, but the policeman is not.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

James White is debating Dan Barker on the topic “Does the Triune God of Scripture Live?”, tonight at 7:00 in Urbana Illinois.

I’ve been waiting for this debate for a long time, and it’s something to keep in your prayers for today.  I don’t recommend that one prays that White would have victory over Barker, or that Barker’s errors would be manifest clearly and that White would show his errors clearly.

Dan’s hack & slash use of scripture and continuous appeals to biblical contradictions need to be met head on, with serious lexicographical and exegetical refutation.  I imagine that White is up to the challenge, as much as anyone else.  I do definitely agree with that.

Dan does need to be taken to task for his pseudo-intellectualism, high school-level bible scholarship, his irrationally dogmatic faith in naturalism and his position of being a capitol “a” Atheist (he believes that he had knowledge, positive knowledge, that God does not exists…and this is essentially built on all his horrid bible ‘contradictions’).  That is true too.

But, even if Dan gets reduced to stuttering and admitting he’s wrong (kinda unlikely), that will do nothing but make atheists mad and remove Dan from the forefront of atheist apologists/evangelists.

Prayers should be made that God would open Dan’s eyes and soften his heart.  Prayers should be made that Dan would understand the falsehood of his “I was the most Christian guy ever” claims of the past, the reality of his sin, his self-idolatry, and his need for a savior.  Dan needs to be saved from the just punishment of his sin, like everyone else.  People who pray should pray for his salvation, not his defeat in debate.

Also, people should pray for White.  Pray that Christ gives White a love for Barker and a concern for his salvation.  Pray that White would be gentle with him as a person and treat him lovingly, yet would be firm with his bad argumentation.  Pray that White would have clarity of thought, precision of speech and remembrance of all his preparation.  Pray that he would have safety in travel, and that future debates with Barker would become realities.  Pray that he would have rich time in God’s word before the debate, that the Word would dwell in him richly and come out in his speech and actions.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

I am currently reading godless by Dan Barker. I actually sent him an email about it because every line had me thinking “Yep.” “Yep.” “Yep.” And so on. Our stories are so very similar–I could easily write the younger, female version of this book (well, perhaps if I had a bit more writing talent! ). I find his perspective very enlightening. While I have not written very much lately due to time constraints, many of my posts reflect the struggle it is to denounce belief held dear. Which is why it made me happy to read, “The . . . nostalgia [of missing faith and conservative beliefs] lasted about a year, and has been replaced with embarrassment that I ever believed or missed my belief.”

I hope that I am never embarrassed for missing my belief–I think that is part of the growth process and part of letting something go; it means it sincerely meant something to you. However, it is nice to know that it does eventually pass. Really, I miss it less and less as time goes by, though I do occasionally feel a pang of longing.

I am really enjoying this book. I often find myself somewhat alone in my experiences even in a room full of atheists. At the community Freethinkers meeting yesterday, a local author gave a presentation based on one of her books. She said that we should not be so quick to judge fundamentalist Christians; that they aren’t hurting anybody, and she attempted to refute the notion that many wars had religious motivations. (Yes, because only half the wars had religious motivations, it can’t possibly be harmful! She even erroneously, I and many others believe, included the current Iraq War.) For someone like me who has personally seen the harm fundamentalism can cause, the presentation grated heavily on my nerves, and I squirmed in my seat, longing to say something (I would have given the opportunity!). I was sitting in a group of de-converted college students and none of us enjoyed the presentation. One of them happened to be gay, and felt stung by the presentation as well. “All of the bashing, most of it is done by Christians,” he told me afterward. Sorry, fundamentalism isn’t harmless! While I don’t believe we should be “angry atheists,” I don’t believe that we should condone that kind of behavior, either. Ever eaten supper with a dominionist? If you do nothing but smile and be nice, don’t be surprised when we are a theocracy!

But I digress. Dan Barker explains the intricacies of fundamentalism very well. I love my de-converted friends online and in the real world, because we get it. None of us are angry, sign wielding, Christian haters, but you wouldn’t ever hear any of us say that religion is harmless, either. It’s nice to read an entire book written by someone else who gets it.

Dinesh D’Souza will engage in a student led debate at Harvard University with Dan Barker on April 22, 2008. Their topic will be “Christianity vs. Atheism.”

Dinesh D’Souza is a leading conservative Christian intellectual and author of What’s So Great About Christianity. Mr. D’Souza’s bio is available here.

Dan Barker is the president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the largest atheist organization in America devoted to the separation of church and state. Mr. Barker’s bio is available here.

Dr. R.C. Metcalf is scheduled to debate Dan Barker at Tufts University on the topic of the Resurrection. The debate is being sponsored by the Tufts Freethought Society. Last year’s debate was between Dr. Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, and Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great About Christianity, on the topic of the existence of God. This debate can be viewed here via YouTube clips organized on Richard Dawkins’ website.

Dan Barker is the president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the largest atheist organization in America devoted to separation of church and state issues. Mr. Barker was once an evangelical pastor and is an accomplished songwriter. He is the author of Losing Faith in Faith. Dan’s bio is available here.

Dr. R.C. Metcalf’s bio is available at ThinkAgain.us.

How much respect should you have for a doctor that cuts you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?

Dan Barker

Dan Barker’s Losing Faith in Faith has been for a very long time not only the best selling book on atheism, but practically the only book on atheism. Even though independently published, it was the number one book about atheism until the God Delusion was released and set the world of atheists books on it’s ear.

Not one to miss out on the post God Delusion wave of free thinking, Dan updated his experiences in godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. The book narrates Dan’s personal experiences as a preacher that found himself losing his religion,  and also examinations the philosophical arguments and Biblical criticisms that lead him to leave the fold.

The book is divided into four sections; Rejecting God, in which Dan recalls his early life as an evangelical preacher and Christian music composer and his subsequent “fall” from grace; in Why I Am An Atheist he examines the logical arguments against holding a belief in a god or gods; in What’s Wrong With Christianity he examines Biblical contradictions, the reasons why Christianity is not a moral belief system, and the Jesus Myth hypothesis; and in In Life is Good he fills us in on the rich life he has been leading as an atheist activist.

godless is a very comfortable and casual read, especially for an atheist book, that are very often stuffy – full of logical arguments and science. Each chapter reads like a one hour speech, and they seem like they would be best delivered orally. Not that there is anything wrong with that, if you’ve had the pleasure of hearing Dan speak in person you can attest to what a good speaker he is and you will probably hear his voice and see his mannerisms as you read along.

Dan Barker communicates with both reason and emotion, and he does both very well. If I would ask for anything more from this book it would be a deeper insight into his time preaching and his psychological state of mind as he was changing his mind about Christianity. The section on his de-conversion is very short and left me wanting more details. What  Dan does tell, though, is told very well, strongly and intelligently.

Recommended