Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

The Debate Is Up!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Debate Is Up!

    The debate is up for all who want to hear.

    http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=11801

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      Notes: You seemed a bit nervous in your opening and were speaking a bit too fast, trying to get everything in, and it was clear you were just reading a prepared statement. Dan seemed more relaxed and spoke to the audience. It was easier to follow his arguments. I had a hard time following yours because you spoke so fast and seemed to try to cover too much ground.

      But, in your reply, you were more relaxed and did a terrific job as you spoke to the audience instead of just reading. Your answers were great. You do well engaging with the audience.

      Dan's opening and his reply were just full of stereotypical atheist arguments that we have all heard ad nauseum. He didn't seem to bring up anything significant or new. His arguments about logic were simplistic and irrelevant. Like his argument about God being simple means he can't think. derp. Two plus two equal four not existing when the dinosaurs... -- his argument about God being "bad" - how can there be "bad" or "evil" to complain about if there is no objective morality? He also talked a lot about his books. Shades of John Loftus! And finally, his repeating that he doesn't need to provide any evidence and trying to put all of the burden on you. Then he shouldn't be debating anyone.

      I am listening the the Q&A now...

      Comment


      • #4
        Nick affirmed the Virgin Birth!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Nick affirmed the Virgin Birth!!!
          I haven't even gotten to the 20 minute mark yet. I would appreciate it if you didn't spoil the plot for me, thank you very much.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I haven't even gotten to the 20 minute mark yet. I would appreciate it if you didn't spoil the plot for me, thank you very much.
            I am at the closing!

            Nick's closing is awesome!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              [CP Grammar nazi mode] You pronounced nihilism as KNEE-i-lism!! It's NIGH-a-lism. [/cp mode off]

              Comment


              • #8
                Dan's closing. Not convincing. He argues the value of life increases because there is no God. Uh, no. It means nothing matters. Nothing is special. We are just dust in the wind.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm at Barker's opening statement right now. I don't have much to say about your opening statements, other than to agree with what Sparko wrote.

                  "Why not just reveal Himself to me directly?"

                  He can do that, through the Holy Spirit, as long as you don't close yourself off from Him (and in some cases you could argue that He does it even if you close yourself off from him, cf. Paul's conversion). Not really an argument meant to convince others though, more like reassurance for the Christians who need it.


                  "Nobody knows if God exists. Nick doesn't know it. If he does, then I would know it too."

                  The usual atheistic arrogant ignorance on display, like usual. There is nothing about logic and reason that says people cannot have justifiable reasons to believe, or even know, that certain propositions are true, even if those reasons can't be shared with others. The witness of the Holy Spirit being one such reason, for example.

                  "Theism is not knowledge, it is faith"



                  "The Bible even says in Hebrews 11:6: 'He who comes to God must believe that he exists' "



                  Then he follows with the usual claptrap about atheism being a lack of belief and how the burden of proof lies on the theist...


                  For a textbook example of "assuming the conclusion" (in this case the truth of his own scientism) look no further than Barker's remark starting at 23:42 "Then there's a lack of a good evidence for God..." where he pretty much excludes any evidence apart from empirical as acceptable.

                  Then he talks about Nick's arguments begging the question when not even a minute ago he was doing the very same thing he's accusing Nick of doing.

                  Also, the God of the gaps argument? I mean, it is Dan Barker, so it's not surprising, but really?


                  I'm pretty sure Paul's statement about there not being division among Christians is a command, exhortation, or a wish (or some combination of the three), not a prediction, or assurance that there won't be divisions in Christianity. Barker might be a former preacher, but you would never come to that conclusion by yourself just by listening to his understanding of what the Bible says.


                  "Paul also said 'God is not the author of confusion', but can you think of a single book that has caused more confusion than the bible?"

                  The cause of that confusion would be the sinful desires, inclinations and darkened understanding of man, not God.


                  "All you have to do, is walk into any children's hospital, and you know that a good god does not exist."

                  Appealing to emotions, as usual when it comes to atheists and the problem of evil. Of course, since that's all they have on that issue.


                  He also propagated the common (and quite dishonest) idea among atheists that Christians apologists/philosophers are arguing that people who don't believe in God cannot do good.

                  27:20 and onwards is another demonstration of Barker assuming the truth of his worldview. ("Look how many supernatural events and miracles are recorded in the bible. Surely you can't believe in something like that? )


                  "God confessed, he tortured a good man and killed his children, for no reason."

                  Except that's not what the text says at all. God is saying that satan had no reason to incite God against Job, he's not saying that God didn't have a reason for listening to satan. Another demonstration of Barker's lack of qualifications when it comes to his former vocation as a preacher. He can't even manage basic reading comprehension.

                  ----

                  I have nothing really to comment about your first reply, other than that I agree with Sparko that you did a much better job than with your opening statement, probably because you were not slavishly reading from a prepared statement.

                  The only thing I'm wondering about is your comment that Job never lost his children in the first place. I would be interested in knowing more about this reading/interpretation of the passage, because the natural reading of most English (and Swedish) translations of the passage makes it seem like he was given other sons and daughters to replace the ones he had lost, not that he was given back his old children.

                  ----

                  Just finished watching the Q&A section as I'm writing this. You did a fine job answering the questions directed at you. It's a shame you weren't given the opportunity to address more of the wrong ideas, misconceptions and misreadings of scripture that Barker brought up however, because I think a lot of people in the audience would have benefited from seeing how they can (and ought to be) be interpreted in a way that respects and takes the sociocultural and historical background of the New (and Old) Testament into account.

                  ----

                  Skipping Nick's closing statement, because there's not really much that I feel the need to comment about there.

                  ----

                  "...You see something in the bible you don't like? Well, just say 'hyperbole', or just say 'metaphor', and 'voila!' it goes away..."

                  When Barker lost his faith in God and Jesus as his saviour he obviously needed a replacement, and it seems like he decided to nail common sense, intelligence and well-researched scholarship on the cross of wooden literalism.


                  "...Then we are captives, to people like Nick, who are going to tell us 'what it really means'..."


                  I suppose "having to do some hard thinking" is one of the personal sufferings Barker feels point to the non-existence of God. Also, seems to me like he's basically saying "Don't bother reading scholarship and research about a collection of books written close to 2000 years ago in a completely different socio-cultural and historical background from your own! There's no way what so ever any misunderstandings could arise from that kind of thinking! Trust me, the person who fails basic reading comprehension, on this matter, there's no way I could lead you wrong!"
                  Last edited by JonathanL; 04-11-2019, 01:00 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Chrawnus. When I say Job didn't lose his children, I mean that they are still there and he will see them in the resurrection. He did not get twenty kids in the end. He got ten more. Ten + ten.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Dan's closing. Not convincing. He argues the value of life increases because there is no God. Uh, no. It means nothing matters. Nothing is special. We are just dust in the wind.
                      I think Dan's whole "Hell is a terrible reason to be good" and "you don't think much of yourself or your friends if you work for rewards in Heaven rather than just being nice".....

                      I thought that could have been exploited --- it's BECAUSE I'm saved that I ENJOY serving people, and it's not a fear of Hell --- God gave me a love for people and a joy in serving....
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        I think Dan's whole "Hell is a terrible reason to be good" and "you don't think much of yourself or your friends if you work for rewards in Heaven rather than just being nice".....

                        I thought that could have been exploited --- it's BECAUSE I'm saved that I ENJOY serving people, and it's not a fear of Hell --- God gave me a love for people and a joy in serving....
                        It's also just false. The reason we do anything is because of some kind of self-interest. Even following Jesus. Why does He talk about rewards so much? He's appealing to our self-interest which isn't necessarily wrong.

                        I've said before that with regards to marriage for example, if sex was off the table, men would not get married. We need an incentive. The woman is our incentive.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          Chrawnus. When I say Job didn't lose his children, I mean that they are still there and he will see them in the resurrection. He did not get twenty kids in the end. He got ten more. Ten + ten.
                          Ah, I misunderstood you then. That makes more sense. But if I misunderstood it then someone else might have misunderstood did as well, so it might be a good idea to clarify what you mean next time, if you ever bring up the same point.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Trying to say yhat something is metaphor is not a dodge is the subject is metaphorical. I will listen to this debate at a later time.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                              Trying to say yhat something is metaphor is not a dodge is the subject is metaphorical. I will listen to this debate at a later time.
                              yep. Dan makes the mistake that if something is a metaphor or hyperbole than everything is. No, it's not. And you can tell by the context. How does Dan get through the day if he thinks that if someone uses hyperbole then everything they say is hyperbole? Nick answered him well on this with his comment about being so hungry he could eat a horse. When you bother to study the culture of the ANE, you will learn many of the idioms used during that time and manners of speaking. Dan just tries to interpret everything form a modern perspective and takes everything literally merely to dismiss it.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              62 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              63 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X