I am very pleased to announce that my debate with Dan Barker, President of the
Freedom From Religion Foundation, on the topic: “Prophecy and Archaeology
Validate the Bible as the Word of God” is now available online on my
website and also on Youtube.
(Of course, in this second debate Mr. Barker was in the negative and I
was in the affirmative.) Mr. Barker and his organization are very
well-known, and I trust that God will use the debate to lead many atheists,
agnostics, and others to reconsider whether they ought to continue to rebel
against God and His Word. The debate was held at the University of
Wisconsin at Whitewater, where my church has a campus ministry. The
debate was sponsored by our campus group, the campus Philosophy Club, and the
campus Secular Student Alliance.
I
believe that the very positive way in which the debate went was an answer to
the prayers (and fasting) of God’s people. The mythicist nonsense that Dan
Barker borrowed from Dorothy Murdock as his basis for rejecting the Bible in
our previous debate, “The Old Testament is
Mainly Fiction, Not Fact” available on my website and on Youtube, was also
thoroughly debunked, while prophetic and archaeological evidence for the Bible
was set forth for which this most prominent of atheists–despite c. 125 other
public debates to this point–had no answer.
believe that the very positive way in which the debate went was an answer to
the prayers (and fasting) of God’s people. The mythicist nonsense that Dan
Barker borrowed from Dorothy Murdock as his basis for rejecting the Bible in
our previous debate, “The Old Testament is
Mainly Fiction, Not Fact” available on my website and on Youtube, was also
thoroughly debunked, while prophetic and archaeological evidence for the Bible
was set forth for which this most prominent of atheists–despite c. 125 other
public debates to this point–had no answer.
I
was also pleased that Mr. Barker essentially renounced his entire argument in
the previous debate, as well as consistency in his anti-Biblical, anti-absolute
situational ethics, by his passionate claims that what he himself has regularly
taught was not something that he, or sometimes, even any other atheist of his
stripe, has ever believed. (A few
examples are at the bottom of this post).
was also pleased that Mr. Barker essentially renounced his entire argument in
the previous debate, as well as consistency in his anti-Biblical, anti-absolute
situational ethics, by his passionate claims that what he himself has regularly
taught was not something that he, or sometimes, even any other atheist of his
stripe, has ever believed. (A few
examples are at the bottom of this post).
If
you believe that the content of either or both of the debates is good, please
link to the webpage on my website or embed the videos from YouTube. Also,
please feel free to “like” the videos on YouTube and to post
comments, not only on this blog post, but also on the YouTube pages for the Old Testament Fiction / Fact
Debate and the Prophecy / Archaeology
Debate. I opened up the comment sections on both debates on YouTube
not that long ago because I believe it helps more people to end up watching
them, and the first debate is already filled with comments from angry atheists
who I am delighted are watching the debates–as otherwise they would very
likely never, ever listen to anything said by a Christian–but their comments,
like saying I am a “Timothy McVeigh wannabe,” or making various
intellectually ridiculous and blasphemous affirmations, often evidence such
blind anti-God fanaticism that it would be good to have some Christians mixing
in something rational. Furthermore, I don’t want a lot of atheists to
“dislike” the second debate on Youtube and drive its rating down if
they are honest enough to admit that it was very clear that Dan Barker’s
arguments were very poor, as it is highly likely that the large majority of
people who will watch the debates are militant atheists who adore Mr. Barker
(something for which I am glad).
you believe that the content of either or both of the debates is good, please
link to the webpage on my website or embed the videos from YouTube. Also,
please feel free to “like” the videos on YouTube and to post
comments, not only on this blog post, but also on the YouTube pages for the Old Testament Fiction / Fact
Debate and the Prophecy / Archaeology
Debate. I opened up the comment sections on both debates on YouTube
not that long ago because I believe it helps more people to end up watching
them, and the first debate is already filled with comments from angry atheists
who I am delighted are watching the debates–as otherwise they would very
likely never, ever listen to anything said by a Christian–but their comments,
like saying I am a “Timothy McVeigh wannabe,” or making various
intellectually ridiculous and blasphemous affirmations, often evidence such
blind anti-God fanaticism that it would be good to have some Christians mixing
in something rational. Furthermore, I don’t want a lot of atheists to
“dislike” the second debate on Youtube and drive its rating down if
they are honest enough to admit that it was very clear that Dan Barker’s
arguments were very poor, as it is highly likely that the large majority of
people who will watch the debates are militant atheists who adore Mr. Barker
(something for which I am glad).
Finally,
if you have a university in your area, I would encourage you to consider
starting a campus ministry. Surveys of evangelicals indicate that only c. 2% of
Christians are converted after their 30th birthday in the USA, while 34% are
converted between the age of 15 and 29. While it is certainly true
that the large majority of evangelical congregations do very little to get the
gospel out to every person in their area, and so such statistics are not
necessarily true for Biblical, separatist Baptist churches, it is still very
highly probable that people in college or in high school are not yet as
hardened as people who have passed that point in life without receiving
Christ.
if you have a university in your area, I would encourage you to consider
starting a campus ministry. Surveys of evangelicals indicate that only c. 2% of
Christians are converted after their 30th birthday in the USA, while 34% are
converted between the age of 15 and 29. While it is certainly true
that the large majority of evangelical congregations do very little to get the
gospel out to every person in their area, and so such statistics are not
necessarily true for Biblical, separatist Baptist churches, it is still very
highly probable that people in college or in high school are not yet as
hardened as people who have passed that point in life without receiving
Christ.
In
addition to making the Dan
Barker – Thomas Ross debate, “Prophecy and Archaeology Validate the Bible
as the Word of God” available on my website and on Youtube, I have also
embedded the debate below for your viewing edification.
addition to making the Dan
Barker – Thomas Ross debate, “Prophecy and Archaeology Validate the Bible
as the Word of God” available on my website and on Youtube, I have also
embedded the debate below for your viewing edification.
(Note: the original sources for all of the following
paragraphs can be examined at the debate review website here.)
paragraphs can be examined at the debate review website here.)
Example
one where I was perfectly accurate in pointing out Mr. Barker’s statements, but
he claimed that he never said them and that I was misrepresenting him, was his
denial that he ever taught that the Bible was copied from pagan myths (note
that he did not retreat from this at the start of the debate—only when pressed
on how ridiculous Murdock was did he do it).
You will have to hear for yourself by listening to the debate what he
claimed he has always taught instead—it is almost too ridiculous to believe
anyone would argue this way without hearing it yourself—but when you are trying
to argue that people in Iceland in the 10th century A. D. somehow
influenced the Biblical accounts of Moses, written c. 2,000 years earlier, you
will probably come up with some ridiculous stuff. Furthermore, in our first debate he said that
“the Israelites were copying and mimicking [pagan] stories,” but now he denied
that he ever taught that, and admitted that this would be a ridiculous thing to
claim. On the Freedom From Religion
Foundation website, the “non-tract” that they have distributed since 1992—that
is, for 25 years as of this year—has as its very first sentence: “The story of
Jesus was copied from earlier mythologies,” such as stories about the Mexican
god Quetzalcoatl that somehow managed to cross the Atlantic Ocean to influence
the writers of the Bible. I think Mr.
Barker knew that the game was up with Ms. Murdock, so he just lied about what
he taught (and continues to teach, for that matter—the “nontract” is still up
on the FFRF website now, and still for sale to convert people to atheism, even
though now it is a long time after our debate in which he claimed he never made
the “copied” claim), and trusted that his adoring followers would never take
the time to check up on his claims—as indeed the large majority of them will
not, so he will continue to make money selling them books.
one where I was perfectly accurate in pointing out Mr. Barker’s statements, but
he claimed that he never said them and that I was misrepresenting him, was his
denial that he ever taught that the Bible was copied from pagan myths (note
that he did not retreat from this at the start of the debate—only when pressed
on how ridiculous Murdock was did he do it).
You will have to hear for yourself by listening to the debate what he
claimed he has always taught instead—it is almost too ridiculous to believe
anyone would argue this way without hearing it yourself—but when you are trying
to argue that people in Iceland in the 10th century A. D. somehow
influenced the Biblical accounts of Moses, written c. 2,000 years earlier, you
will probably come up with some ridiculous stuff. Furthermore, in our first debate he said that
“the Israelites were copying and mimicking [pagan] stories,” but now he denied
that he ever taught that, and admitted that this would be a ridiculous thing to
claim. On the Freedom From Religion
Foundation website, the “non-tract” that they have distributed since 1992—that
is, for 25 years as of this year—has as its very first sentence: “The story of
Jesus was copied from earlier mythologies,” such as stories about the Mexican
god Quetzalcoatl that somehow managed to cross the Atlantic Ocean to influence
the writers of the Bible. I think Mr.
Barker knew that the game was up with Ms. Murdock, so he just lied about what
he taught (and continues to teach, for that matter—the “nontract” is still up
on the FFRF website now, and still for sale to convert people to atheism, even
though now it is a long time after our debate in which he claimed he never made
the “copied” claim), and trusted that his adoring followers would never take
the time to check up on his claims—as indeed the large majority of them will
not, so he will continue to make money selling them books.
Example
two is where I quoted Mr. Barker’s exact words about Dr. Israel Finkelstein,
and Barker claimed that his exact words were a misrepresentation. One wonders what I was supposed to do instead
of quoting his exact words—quote something less accurate than them? The point, though—and Mr. Barker has done c.
125 debates, so he knows exactly what he is doing—was to convince people by
angrily making a denial and a claim of misrepresentation and hope that nobody
will check up on his claim.
two is where I quoted Mr. Barker’s exact words about Dr. Israel Finkelstein,
and Barker claimed that his exact words were a misrepresentation. One wonders what I was supposed to do instead
of quoting his exact words—quote something less accurate than them? The point, though—and Mr. Barker has done c.
125 debates, so he knows exactly what he is doing—was to convince people by
angrily making a denial and a claim of misrepresentation and hope that nobody
will check up on his claim.
Example
three of a perfectly accurate pointing out of Mr. Barker’s statements, which he
brazenly claimed he never said, was his affirmations that in certain
circumstances, because of his non-absolute, situational ethics, mass-rape would be justifiable.
He actually has made this argument in multiple previous debates, not
just one. For example, in his debate
with Kyle Butt, Mr. Barker affirmed that he would have a moral obligation in
certain circumstances to commit rape and joked about raping two million girls.
Mr. Barker’s interaction with Kyle Butt was as follows:
three of a perfectly accurate pointing out of Mr. Barker’s statements, which he
brazenly claimed he never said, was his affirmations that in certain
circumstances, because of his non-absolute, situational ethics, mass-rape would be justifiable.
He actually has made this argument in multiple previous debates, not
just one. For example, in his debate
with Kyle Butt, Mr. Barker affirmed that he would have a moral obligation in
certain circumstances to commit rape and joked about raping two million girls.
Mr. Barker’s interaction with Kyle Butt was as follows:
Mr.
Butt: “When would rape be acceptable?” . . . [In your debate with Peter Payne,
Mr. Barker, you said] [“]Yes, it would be morally acceptable to rape that girl
[for a greater good] . . . Do you still believe that?
Butt: “When would rape be acceptable?” . . . [In your debate with Peter Payne,
Mr. Barker, you said] [“]Yes, it would be morally acceptable to rape that girl
[for a greater good] . . . Do you still believe that?
Mr.
Barker: It would be horrible. It would be regrettable. I would hate myself. . .
. But I would have the courage, if that was the only option—if that were the
only option, then I would go through with it. I would pity that woman. I would
pity myself. But morality would require me to take th[at] course of action[.] .
. .
Barker: It would be horrible. It would be regrettable. I would hate myself. . .
. But I would have the courage, if that was the only option—if that were the
only option, then I would go through with it. I would pity that woman. I would
pity myself. But morality would require me to take th[at] course of action[.] .
. .
Mr.
Butt: Now, let me ask you this next question. Could you rape two girls [for a
particular greater good]?
Butt: Now, let me ask you this next question. Could you rape two girls [for a
particular greater good]?
Mr.
Barker: Well, we’re getting into computational.
Barker: Well, we’re getting into computational.
Mr. Butt:
Sure.
Sure.
Mr. Barker:
Yeah.
Yeah.
Mr.
Butt: Two thousand?
Butt: Two thousand?
Mr.
Barker: I don’t know if I’m up to it. I don’t know if you are?
Barker: I don’t know if I’m up to it. I don’t know if you are?
Mr.
Butt: I am certainly not. And, if you did notice, that is pretty appalling to
make a joke about something that is the most brutal crime that humanity can
think of. So continue. Two million? . . .Would it be permissible to rape two
million girls?
Butt: I am certainly not. And, if you did notice, that is pretty appalling to
make a joke about something that is the most brutal crime that humanity can
think of. So continue. Two million? . . .Would it be permissible to rape two
million girls?
Mr.
Barker: [For a greater good?] Yes. Yes, it would be. . . You can’t get through
life without some harm.
Barker: [For a greater good?] Yes. Yes, it would be. . . You can’t get through
life without some harm.
Mr.
Barker has also affirmed this alleged moral imperative to rape, that “raping
women . . . would be the moral choice,” in other public debates.
Barker has also affirmed this alleged moral imperative to rape, that “raping
women . . . would be the moral choice,” in other public debates.
I am
very glad that Dan Barker had to retreat from his atheistic claims, and the
best that he could do was to claim that he never said what the record makes
perfectly clear that he did indeed say.
Don’t hold your breath on him ceasing to make the “Bible is copied from
pagan myths” claim, either—while I am not a a prophet, I expect that the
“non-tract” on the FFRF website is not going away any time soon, but Barker and
his organization will continue to make money selling things like this, and continue to make the claim in speeches to adoring crowds of atheists, while
claiming when pressed on it by Christians that he has never, and no atheist has
ever, made such claims.
very glad that Dan Barker had to retreat from his atheistic claims, and the
best that he could do was to claim that he never said what the record makes
perfectly clear that he did indeed say.
Don’t hold your breath on him ceasing to make the “Bible is copied from
pagan myths” claim, either—while I am not a a prophet, I expect that the
“non-tract” on the FFRF website is not going away any time soon, but Barker and
his organization will continue to make money selling things like this, and continue to make the claim in speeches to adoring crowds of atheists, while
claiming when pressed on it by Christians that he has never, and no atheist has
ever, made such claims.
Ha! As soon as Barker asked if Jesus was ever mentioned by name in the OT, I hoped you'd go to Zechariah 3, and you did!
Dear Bro Robbins,
Don't expect him to stop making the argument, though, even though at the end he had switched from "Jesus Christ is not mentioned by name" to "Jesus is the perfect name for the Messiah, so that is why the NT writers made up/picked that name."
Yes, I heard him make that comment. It's important to remember that these debates are meant for those who listen and "have ears to hear." Mr. Barker's conscience is truly "seared with a hot iron;" he really isn't listening to what you're saying. We have to count on the Spirit to use His word to impact those who listen to and hear the debate.
Dear Bro Robbins,
You are exactly correct. I was not speaking or seeking at all to convince Mr. Barker-while I cannot see inside of him, I think it is highly likely he has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The point indubitably is to reach those who, by grace, are willing to listen.
Thanks.