Debate: 'Jesus: myth or Messiah?' Dr. James White vs. Dan Barker

eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Debate: 'Jesus: myth or Messiah?' Dr. James White vs. Dan Barker

This may be old news to some, but there was a debate between James White (Christian) and Dan Barker (atheist) on the subject of the alleged mythological foundations of Christianity.

The debate took place on September 26, 2009 in Newberg, Oregon.

You can watch it on Youtube at:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo   - (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw1gVAWaRVw - (Part 2)

 

The debate audio (mp3) is also available for $4.00 at www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php
 

These debaters did a great job explaining their positions, check it out!

 

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Televised debate? Please.

Televised debate? Please. Science is far too vast to be done justice in such a format. A theist needs only their holy book, while a scientist has literally billions of sources to sort through. Written debate is the only way to go, unless you're like me and have incorporated theist tactics into your strategies. Most scientists are too busy studying reality to do such, and get shocked speechless by theist delusions. Then they don't have time to present the thousand different studies proving an offhand comment for the ignorance it exemplifies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely.

Vastet wrote:
Televised debate? Please. Science is far too vast to be done justice in such a format. A theist needs only their holy book, while a scientist has literally billions of sources to sort through. Written debate is the only way to go, unless you're like me and have incorporated theist tactics into your strategies. Most scientists are too busy studying reality to do such, and get shocked speechless by theist delusions. Then they don't have time to present the thousand different studies proving an offhand comment for the ignorance it exemplifies.
I totally agree with you. There is so much evidence of scientific fact and all they have is their little book of damnation. I don't get where these christians hate reality and science so much. It has made their little existence so much more comfortable through the years.

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Because you're taking so

Because you're taking so long to respond to my obliteration of your posts, I started to watch the vid. By the 1:39 point, I discovered a few things. First, that comments were turned off, thereby removing the possibility to respond. Second, that the debate took place in a location hostile to atheism (note two indicators: the opening graphic, and the silence greeting the introduction to the Freedom from religion foundation debator, following the applause for the theist debator).
One wonders just how much more will be discovered by watching the whole hour, let alone the second half of it. Lol. You really think this is going to help your case. We'll see how much I can watch before having more to say. And I'm just a layman. I shudder to think what will happen to your posts should any of the scientists and philosophers here decide my critique is lacking, and tackle your claims themselves.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
18:00 in and bored. I'll

18:00 in and bored. I'll have this marker to tell me where to pick up again should I decide to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

I think you would disagree with the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation on how this issue is best discussed. Science and the atheist theory of reality are not explicitly a part of this debate so I wouldn't voice your complaints too loudly on that.

There is a reason I posted this within this forum and not an area pertaining to science.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Irrelevance. Irrelevance.

Irrelevance. Irrelevance. Irrelevance. In that order. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:I think you

eXnihilO wrote:

I think you would disagree with the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation on how this issue is best discussed. Science and the atheist theory of reality are not explicitly a part of this debate so I wouldn't voice your complaints too loudly on that.

There is a reason I posted this within this forum and not an area pertaining to science.

 

If so, I do disagree.

Televised debate has a place, but it is about winning a crowd with charisma and speech making tactics, not intellectual superiority.  Most televised debates have something like "15-15-5-5-4-4-Q&A" and that simply isn't enough time to tackle *any* argument, much less a debate between atheism and theism about the historicity of Jesus.  People write large books about that, you can't condense it that much for either side.

Debates like this don't convince people, they just confirm pre existing opinion. (I'm not even criticizing the theists here, I don't care who is debating what, if the topic is advanced and complex then televised debate is not appropriate to actually hash anything out.l

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I suppose you mean "Dr."

I suppose you mean "Dr." James White. How much of a "Dr." are you really when your "degree" is from an unaccredited school?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Vast - run this link to a Dan/James script...

Vastet wrote:
Irrelevance. Irrelevance. Irrelevance. In that order. Smiling

 

Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE











































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

http://www.flamewarrior.com/barker_interview.htm

 

I think you'll like it....

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That was amusing.

That was amusing. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

mellestad wrote:

If so, I do disagree.

Televised debate has a place, but it is about winning a crowd with charisma and speech making tactics, not intellectual superiority.  Most televised debates have something like "15-15-5-5-4-4-Q&A" and that simply isn't enough time to tackle *any* argument, much less a debate between atheism and theism about the historicity of Jesus.  People write large books about that, you can't condense it that much for either side.

Debates like this don't convince people, they just confirm pre existing opinion. (I'm not even criticizing the theists here, I don't care who is debating what, if the topic is advanced and complex then televised debate is not appropriate to actually hash anything out.l

This wasn't televised, only recorded if that makes sense.

It was well over 2 hours... You don't get something like that on TV.

Maybe you should watch it before giving your response.

Take care

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Whether televised or not, it

Whether televised or not, it is a formal debate structure, which is grossly insufficient considering the subject matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

For some reason, only atheists dislike formal debates it seems, why is that...

I think I know based on the ones I hear them partake in.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Only atheists dislike formal debates

eXnihilO wrote:

For some reason, only atheists dislike formal debates it seems, why is that...

I think I know based on the ones I hear them partake in.

 

You are rapidly becoming a joke.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:For some

eXnihilO wrote:

For some reason, only atheists dislike formal debates it seems, why is that...

I think I know based on the ones I hear them partake in.

In so far as there may be some truth to that observation, it is maybe because the debate format advantages the side pushing the more easily expressed ideas, and reality is in fact very complex.

Also, scientific knowledge is typically not established with 100% proof, even when it is by far the most accurate match to observation, whereas the Theists can proclaim their nonsense with utter certainty.

Then there are the tactical games that are often employed, throwing claim after outrageous claim at the rational side, each of which may involve detailed arguments to refute. This leaves the Atheist apparently confused, simply because they don't even know which one to start addressing, and don't have nearly enough time, before another stupidity is thrown at them.

In short, serious Atheist/Rationalist thinkers find themselves typically up against debaters who have honed a largely unchanged set of arguments and become skilled at throwing them out in a manner best calculated to keep the other side off balance.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:For some

eXnihilO wrote:

For some reason, only atheists dislike formal debates it seems, why is that...

I think I know based on the ones I hear them partake in.

I'm pretty sure I covered that in the first response...

*Looks*

Yep, it's still there. Your failure continues.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:For some

eXnihilO wrote:

For some reason, only atheists dislike formal debates it seems, why is that...

I think I know based on the ones I hear them partake in.

 

Lol.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:mellestad

eXnihilO wrote:

mellestad wrote:

If so, I do disagree.

Televised debate has a place, but it is about winning a crowd with charisma and speech making tactics, not intellectual superiority.  Most televised debates have something like "15-15-5-5-4-4-Q&A" and that simply isn't enough time to tackle *any* argument, much less a debate between atheism and theism about the historicity of Jesus.  People write large books about that, you can't condense it that much for either side.

Debates like this don't convince people, they just confirm pre existing opinion. (I'm not even criticizing the theists here, I don't care who is debating what, if the topic is advanced and complex then televised debate is not appropriate to actually hash anything out.l

This wasn't televised, only recorded if that makes sense.

It was well over 2 hours... You don't get something like that on TV.

Maybe you should watch it before giving your response.

Take care

 

I did, and my point still stands.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

Vastet wrote:

I'm pretty sure I covered that in the first response... *Looks* Yep, it's still there. Your failure continues.

Debates are helpful if you believe that you have something to offer intellectually, otherwise I join with you in their uselessness.

That being said, no Christian should debate merely to win, but to edify the body of believers.

This is all rather ironic coming from a guy who found it worthwhile for some reason to post over five thousand replies on the internet in hopes to discuss his worldview, most of which can be read in 30 seconds.

If a debate isn't even good enough to present positions on this topic, your entire being here is just not helpful so why waste your time?

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've posted a hell of a lot

I've posted a hell of a lot more than 5000 times on the internet. I had more than 20,000 at the first forum I joined, before fancy things like post counters were even introduced. When it was killed I moved on to another, where I easily doubled that even before I became an SMOD. Then it died, but I'd started posting on gaming forums before I found the RRS on a day that holds a special irony for me, seeing as how christians are everywhere in this part of the world. I won't make you guess how many of those posts deal specifically with atheism or politics, it hovers around the 30% mark.

Also, I didn't ever say debate was irrelevant, I said formal debate was. As this setting is by no means formal, I don't see how even you could take things so out of context.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi eXni

eXnihilO wrote:

Debates are helpful if you believe that you have something to offer intellectually, otherwise I join with you in their uselessness.

That being said, no Christian should debate merely to win, but to edify the body of believers.

 

Are you saying that part of the whole point of debates like this from your perspective is to expound your opinion (sorry, god's truth) to the infidel in the hope his seed might fall on receptive ground?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

eXnihilO wrote:

Debates are helpful if you believe that you have something to offer intellectually, otherwise I join with you in their uselessness.

That being said, no Christian should debate merely to win, but to edify the body of believers.

 

Are you saying that part of the whole point of debates like this from your perspective is to expound your opinion (sorry, god's truth) to the infidel in the hope his seed might fall on receptive ground?

 

 

I think he is right, mainly because most of the theists I see debating are not trying to win intellectually or factually, they are just trying to preach to the choir and fire up the people who already agree with them.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

When we debate, we do so to defend the Truth of God.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:When we

eXnihilO wrote:

When we debate, we do so to defend the Truth of God.

 

Exactly, when you debate/prepare you already 'Know' the 'Truth', which is why most theists do so poorly.  You are honor bound to defend undefendable and ridiculous claims.  The most painful debate I have ever seen was with a very intelligent theist defending young earth creationism and a literal flood.  It was like watching a sporting event where the two participents had equal athletic ability but one of them had all of his limbs amputated and a blindfold on.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:When we

eXnihilO wrote:

When we debate, we do so to defend the Truth of God.

Proof by Repeated Assertion much?

Virtually all Christian "debates" are based on willful mistranslations of original texts.  And that is far from the "Truth".  It's a lot more like another word.  One that starts with "L".  Or perhaps "D".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

I stumbled upon a link to a free mp3 of this:

 http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/white-barker-debate-09.mp3

It's 2:42:15

If you have already concluded how you will think on this subject for the rest of your life, there is no need to listen to it, but if you fancy yourself open-minded you shouldn't waste any time. I think it's one for the books.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:If you have

eXnihilO wrote:
If you have already concluded how you will think on this subject for the rest of your life, there is no need to listen to it, but if you fancy yourself open-minded you shouldn't waste any time. I think it's one for the books.

Gotta love the projection.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The first and most prolific

The first and most prolific weapon they use.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


libertarianbob01
libertarianbob01's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilo's misunderstanding of atheism, theory, and reality

*** eXnihilo: Science and the atheist theory of reality ... snip ***

Greetings to the reader. Happy New Year.

This poster's remark betrays a misunderstanding of use of the "a" prefix. When a noun is prefixed with "a", the resultant meaning of negation connotes a not or without state, so atheism means to be without or not having theism. Theism is the unwarranted and unjustifiable fantasy of magical super beings somehow interacting with Homo Sapiens. Compare theism to deism. Deists believe magical super beings exist but that they do not interact with Homo Sapiens. Neither theists or deists can shoulder their burden of proof to show magical super beings exist.

 

Atheists lacks such silly beliefs, and hence makes no positive statement regarding magical super beings. This is often characterized as weak atheism or agnosticism and is contrasted with Positive or Strong Atheism. PA or SA do make positive claims that bear a burden of proof and can be justified via means of Metaphysical Naturalism or Objectivism.

 

The poster wrongfully suggests there occurs an atheist theory of reality. This is false. Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief while agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Neither position make positive claims regarding the nature of reality. Strong or Positive Atheism is informed by Metaphysical Naturalism or Objectivism and do assert that magical super beings either do not exist or are impossible. In either case, however, no assertion of a theory of reality is made by answering the question of theism. The happy fact that information can be drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism and Objectivism showing theism/deism up as delusional fantasies is only a delightful side bar of proper rational philosophy. Metaphysical Naturalism and Objectivism offer scientifically validated coherent philosophical systems that include worldviews, metaphysics, epistemology, Aesthetics, Morality, and Politics. Theism or Deism only offer absurd mythology.

 

The poster misused the word “theory”. A scientific theory is not in any way speculative or uncertain. The word theory when used in context of methodological naturalism, The Scientific Method, means a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity. The poster here employs a standard equivocation technique used by many religious writers to muddy the waters invoking a red herring.

 

Best Regards

Implicit with belief through faith is that the proposition at hand is unable to stand on its own merits.