Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza Debate Videos

[JM]

Another very interesting Debate between Atheist and Christian

Dan Barker former Christian, worked with Kathryn Kuhlman, preacher, teacher turned atheist - Wrote - Losing Faith in Faith from Preacher to Atheist

Dinesh wrote - What is so great about Christianity

Long debate but some great questions posed

YouTube - Part 1 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debates

YouTube - Part 2 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debates

YouTube - Part 3 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debates

YouTube - Part 4 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debates

YouTube - Part 5 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debates

YouTube - Part 6 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debates

that will get you started it goes up to like 16 videos a lot to post here

[JM]

Part 4 was very interesting regarding belief and knowing, along with debating and why atheists respond with books to Christian claims

[JM]

Part 5 - Dinesh really didnt answer the question but I have to agree with him on the basis of saying that a lot of people are nuts about their exprience which they refer to being God.

Now it might not be, but its one point that Atheism has a tough go trying to disprove..

A persons Experience

Now in saying that.. Dan provides a nice rebuttal which I think was not sarcastic or in your face but was like... hey im willing... show me

[JM]

In this debate, its easy to see how Christians today, if not educated, and thoughtful.. could easily buy into a concept of God that is so commonly taught today

Great debate, though I feel they should have been allowed longer for their answers on both sides as they were cut off by the lunatic in the middle and his sidekicks

[Someday]

I listened to part one and stopped there, I will listen to the rest later. So far....Barker was either a very bad preacher or he is purposely distorting things for his argument. Examples??
Jesus borrowed the golden rule. Of course He did, He was rephrasing the Torah from 1300 BC, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself." Not Confucius or Buddha as so many like to suggest. Is God not supposed to speak from the Torah? Ever? Lol
He mentions Jesus telling His followers that He came not to bring peace on earth but a sword. Did he not read Revelations where that sword is shown to be issuing from His mouth like a tongue? In other words, the enemy within is slain by the Word of God, not a literal sword. Never mind, he was a fundy and probably looked for a Rapture and the rebuilding of a new Temple in Jerusalem so that people can sacrifice animals like they erroneously thought God wanted in the Old Testament. Then of course, they would wait for the abomination of desolation to enter it and usher in the greatest of all wars. He probably forgot that the temple is within. No wonder he is an Atheist!
He takes parables and distorts the meaning in order to say that Jesus was big on slavery. Is that what he thought the parables were about when he was a Christian? Wow. This guy was really a preacher? No way. If so, then he is lying about something.......

I noticed the emotional appeal to children lying in a hospital. Nice fallacy to go along with the above. Again, his understanding is shallow at best.
He tries to set himself up as a weak atheist by stating he has a simple lack of belief in God. No, it's a decision he made, not a simple lack of belief. The podium in front of him is lacking a belief in God. The strong atheist has every bit of burden of proof as the theist. Atheist cliches are not proof, otherwise there would have been a Nobel prize awarded to someone for this a long time ago.
It seems to me he traded militant fundamentalism for militant atheism, nothing more. Go figure.

OK, I'll stop, I didn't even listen to the "for" argument yet. I'm not being fair. But there is so much he says in that one little opening that screams to be picked on.

At least this one isn't poisoned by scrolling tidbits across the screen by a person that can't spell. That made for a big improvement over the last one I listened to.


Blessings

[JM]

Originally Posted by Someday

I listened to part one and stopped there, I will listen to the rest later. So far....Barker was either a very bad preacher or he is purposely distorting things for his argument. Examples??
Jesus borrowed the golden rule. Of course He did, He was rephrasing the Torah from 1300 BC, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself." Not Confucius or Buddha as so many like to suggest. Is God not supposed to speak from the Torah? Ever? Lol
He mentions Jesus telling His followers that He came not to bring peace on earth but a sword. Did he not read Revelations where that sword is shown to be issuing from His mouth like a tongue? In other words, the enemy within is slain by the Word of God, not a literal sword. Never mind, he was a fundy and probably looked for a Rapture and the rebuilding of a new Temple in Jerusalem so that people can sacrifice animals like they erroneously thought God wanted in the Old Testament. Then of course, they would wait for the abomination of desolation to enter it and usher in the greatest of all wars. He probably forgot that the temple is within. No wonder he is an Atheist!
He takes parables and distorts the meaning in order to say that Jesus was big on slavery. Is that what he thought the parables were about when he was a Christian? Wow. This guy was really a preacher? No way. If so, then he is lying about something.......

I noticed the emotional appeal to children lying in a hospital. Nice fallacy to go along with the above. Again, his understanding is shallow at best.
He tries to set himself up as a weak atheist by stating he has a simple lack of belief in God. No, it's a decision he made, not a simple lack of belief. The podium in front of him is lacking a belief in God. The strong atheist has every bit of burden of proof as the theist. Atheist cliches are not proof, otherwise there would have been a Nobel prize awarded to someone for this a long time ago.
It seems to me he traded militant fundamentalism for militant atheism, nothing more. Go figure.

OK, I'll stop, I didn't even listen to the "for" argument yet. I'm not being fair. But there is so much he says in that one little opening that screams to be picked on.

At least this one isn't poisoned by scrolling tidbits across the screen by a person that can't spell. That made for a big improvement over the last one I listened to.


Blessings

Both sides must be heard to see the ludicrousy or logic of the debate not just one side someday

[Someday]

Listened to part 2.

I did like the reference to "crayon Christianity". That was the Christianity I knew and rejected in my youth. Some people never outgrow that and some even preach it loudly from the pulpit.

While Dinesh makes a good case why many lower caste people would find Christianity more appealing than Hindu, it's certainly not evidence that it is more true.

Barker forgets one aspect of science in his discussion of it. Science is rooted in the material, natural universe as it should be. It is not even remotely equipped to investigate the possibility of the supernatural. If God is not made of material things, then God cannot therefore exist. My own self awareness is non existent to science.

Blessings

[El Peatieablo]

That Dinesh D'Souza character is really annoying. Here are some of the more insane things I can remember off the top of my head (I've watched the series slowly over the last week).

He keeps using "if we are just Darwinian primates then..." to attack atheist positions. Sometimes he uses the ideas of Darwin to describe the origin of the universe or abiogenesis. Not all atheists share these ideas, a lot of them have nothing to do with Darwin, and "Darwinian primates" is about the most stupid piece of rhetoric I've heard in a long time.

And what's with this guy and avoiding the question? On a few of them he didn't really even address the question he just went off on a tangent and rambled about something Dan Barker had said earlier. He better learn "O Canada" just in case the U.S. starts a draft-he'll probably dodge that too.

He should really just knock it off with the whole "christians are persecuted" bit. He gets mad about a few people saying "you're wrong and here's why". Universities near me have christian groups holding mock stonings of homosexuals and leave death threats against atheists and even at least one moderate christian on university property and on the doors to their rooms. He doesn’t have much to complain about here.

I especially liked D'Souza's response to Barker’s question. He is willing to accept that a 2000 year old book is exactly what god wants us to hear, but the voice of god speaking directly to him must be the work of the devil. Doubethink is doubleplusgood.

He’s always attacking the “new atheists”. The only time he really tried to support this was saying that Richard Dawkins isn’t qualified because he’s just a biologist. Religion can assault the branch of science in which he is considered a leader and he isn’t qualified to speak on the subject, but D’souza (who doesn’t seem to have any relevant education) is qualified?


Ok; I’m done.