Before we begin I would like to express my wholehearted agreement with Dan Barker's article Believers Are No Better. Barker believes like so many Christians that believers are no better than non-believers. Please send this article to all Christians and non. You can tell them the staff at "Atheism Sucks" endorses it. Thanks, Dan, for your, uh, thought-provoking article. Now for more common sense...

Barker is so uppity and goody-goody in his atheistic worldview it can make you sick. He even sings in his debates! I guess you could say Barker is nuanced. An appeal to emotion is totally in his grasp and he sure does love using it! And atheists sure love overlooking this fallacy. Anyway, it seems Barker is no smarter then as a "Christian" than he is now as an atheist. After all he not only believes Jesus encouraged castration but that he stole a donkey, too. *Sigh* Sometimes, we're happy to have skeptics like Barker around. It makes our job easier to see how delusional one must be in order to refute Christianity.

8/31/04: A Career God-Hater

I doubt he�d recognize me today. I was barely twenty years of age when I began a series of appearances on KFYI radio in Phoenix on the radio program of one Tom Leykis, one of today�s best known �shock jocks.� I was �debating� in studio with one Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Barker is a genius, inarguably: a musician who helped to design the rail network for the entire Northeastern US (or so he told me back then). A tremendously bright fellow, I remember corresponding some with him after the appearance on Leykis� show. I will also never forget the few highly unpleasant moments I spent with he and his �girlfriend� (I honestly don�t recall if they were engaged or just what). She was a true NARAL/PPoA/NOW �in your face� type feminist (the polar opposite of my wife, to be sure). It was quite an eye-opening experience for this young Baptist.

Well, I had recently purchased the debate Barker had with Doug Wilson, not so much because I wanted to hear another theist/atheist debate, but for the transparently honest reason that I like to listen to those I will be debating debate. It�s called being prepared. I happen to know Pastor Wilson is doing the same thing, and that quite wisely. (In passing, I enjoyed Doug�s presentation, I appreciated his willingness to affirm the truth even when Barker tried to make him back off by presenting his question in the absolutely worst possible light, and confirmed what I already knew: Doug Wilson wrote the book on the use of humor and, yes, sarcasm, in argument---and I mean that seriously, check it out---and will be a formidable opponent in debate, though I want to make sure everyone is clear on one thing: Doug Wilson and I agree on so much of the truth our disagreement, while important and worthy of discussion, should not, by any stretch of the imagination, be taken to mean we will be engaging this debate as anything but brothers�but I mean �brothers� in the very sense I will be defending as the only meaningful use of the term in the debate!).

Listening to Barker brought back memories of the studio in central Phoenix and my encounter with Barker that day on KFYI. But it also reminded me that bright, intelligent, well-spoken individuals can still be utterly foolish in their thinking. As I listened to Barker vainly seek to define God out of existence I could detect, very clearly, the same insatiable hatred of God he had displayed two decades earlier. I do not know what the source of that hatred is (he was an ordained minister, however, he was so in a very anthropocentric, legalistic church, and in fact found Doug Wilson�s thorough-going Calvinism just a tad bit unsettling at times), but in the classic fulfillment of Hebrews 6 Dan Barker has been caused to love a lie. It is a sobering thing to hear such a bright intellect twisted and torn, vainly seeking to define out of existence the very God he knows so well is there. I can see how fellow God-haters would find his arguments compelling, limited, as they were, to the human plane. �God can�t exist because of this�� and then he would go off into an argument that always had the same fatal flaw (which Doug very rightly pointed out a number of times): his entire argument would be based upon defining God in human terms with human limitations. I suppose those arguments might have value for those who have a very limited conception of God and who seek to argue from the creation to the Creator, but Wilson had presented a Van Tillian opening, and no matter where you fall in the apologetic spectrum, the fact of the matter is the Bible says men know God exists (Romans 1:18-22), and hence are active in suppressing that knowledge. Few people give a more stark, sobering example of that suppression than Dan Barker.

If you would like to get a copy of the Doug Wilson and Dan Barker debate, click here. Strangely, Barker thought he won this debate!

Has Dan Barker been honest lately?

Notice on Barker's website he doesn't list a debate he had with Dr. Robert Morey. When told that he debated Morey, this is what Barker said:

Robert Morey

It wasn't a debate because it wasn't formal or controlled? Well, at least, it wasn't a shouting match. Oddly, he didn't think his radio discourse with Jason Gastrich was a debate either. But the infidel guy thinks so (you have to pay the infidelguy to listen to the debate, but you can get it here for free!).

Anyway, there was a moment in the Morey debate that reflects perfectly how Barker functions mentally in discourses - HE WILL LIE. Here's a partial transcript between him and Morey:

Morey: That's what George Smith *unintellible* debated him on the radio. He said he had no beliefs about anything thus he didn't have to defend anything.

Barker: I never said that.

Morey: No, George Smith.

Barker: George Smith never said that either.

Morey: (laughter) Well, yes! It's right on the radio with me, I debated him.

Barker: (silence)

George Smith never said that? Are you sure, Mr. Barker? Although we don't have a copy of the debate between Morey and Smith it seems plausible that Smith in fact said this. For example, in a speech, Smith said something similar here:

If I say to you, X is true, I am intellectually responsible for providing some kind of reasons for accepting it. If I do not provide you any reasons or I provide reasons that are invalid, you are legitimately justified in rejecting my claim to knowledge as unfounded and hence irrational. This is probably the single most important principle in regard to the defense of atheism.... You are not asserting the truth or existence of anything; you are challenging the theists' claim to truth. Your only responsibility in this regard is to examine critically the views of religionists, subject them to rational scrutiny, and either accept them or reject them on that basis. That is your sole responsibility. You have done your job after that. (bold mine)

Obviously, if you assert nothing, it follows that you defend nothing too. Yup, Morey quoted Smith correctly. And Barker lied about Smith!

Furthermore, George Smith says in his own book Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1979): "The atheist qua atheist, whether implicit or explicit, does not assert the existence of anything; he makes no positive statement." (p. 18: bold mine)

Here's yet more proof of Dan Barker's dishonest tactics. The following was transcribed from a debate with Christian Michael Butler (and, yes, Barker thinks this was actually a debate):

BUTLER: So, rationality, let�s just talk about logic, can be reducible to physical processes?

BARKER: Yeah, but that�s meaningless. [What?!] Yes, anything�s reducible...

BUTLER: Yes, but it�s meaningless? If it�s yes, then it can�t be meaningless.

BARKER: Everything�s reducible to something else.

BUTLER: So, you�re saying logic is reducible to naturalistic processes?

BARKER: Well, logic is a function - a concept of a brain and the brain itself is a physical thing. Without a brain there would be no logic or values or concepts.

BUTLER: Can you name one current philosopher that holds to that view of logic?

BARKER: Can I name one?

BUTLER: One.

BARKER: Who holds the view of logic being a concept?

BUTLER: No, a function of the brain. Just one.

BARKER: I... I would think, uh, except for theistic philosophers, I think all philosophers... [Hasn't named a philosopher yet]

BUTLER: I know of no...

BARKER: ...would agree that logic is a...[Still hasn't named a philosopher]

BUTLER: I know of no philosopher - atheist, Christian, agnostic - that holds that view. The idea that logic can be reducible to brain functions or functionality of material things is, uh, held by nobody I know. And the reason is because it�s incoherent. How can logic be reducible to something physical?

BARKER: Well, everything can be reduci... football can be reduced to the laws of physics. But football is, uh... whatchacallit? [This is where it gets weird] A, uhm, an emergent, or epiphenomenal thing that happens when we conceptualize it. Everything can be reduced to something. But that doesn�t ... that doesn�t... uh, diminish the... the emergent property of what happens when the complexity increases so where you have something like a concept within a mind within... which is a function of a brain. [This is where he starts spinning] To say that it reduces to molecules, uh, is, uh... well, I�m gonna talk about it in my rebuttal... it is... it�s a non-argument, it�s... it�s an attempt to drag down... [This is where it gets more weird] Otherwi... If... if I reduce then so do you. Your decision to accept the bible then reduces to molecules. So.. uhm...

[Audience reaction] [I share their reaction: "wha?"]

BUTLER: I don�t understand that at all...

BARKER: Well, your brain is...

BUTLER: ... can you explain that again?

BARKER: ... your brain is looking at the Bible and making a decision based upon physical light-waves that come to your brain which your... which your brain processes... through the mind... and then you make a decision about these symbols and words that you read that they some how associate to your mind. And you know your mind is a part of a brain. And you know when the brain dies the mind dies. You know that!

You should listen to the audio: Barker was stuttering like porky pig! Okay, aside from totally dodging the original question, Barker says later in the debate:

And, virtually, every philosopher and every scientist in cognitive science that I've been reading would agree that mind is a function of the brain.

Okay... name one. Name one philosopher or scientist. You're so sure about it, Mr. Barker, yet you failed to name one. But, here's your lame excuse for not naming a philosopher or scientist in the debate (the following comes from an e-mail):

Oh, now you know! Forget the quote, Mr. Barker. Just name them. That was the question you totally dodged and spun on... and apparently are still spinning on. Furthermore, what's with the "I... I would think, uh, except for theistic philosophers, I think all philosophers... would agree that logic is a [function of the brain]"? There is no "I would think" there's just "I know". The truth is, Mr. Barker, you have blind faith in your atheistic worldview and you were willing to lie to justify it. Sorry, pal, there ain't no use denying it.

>>>The Truth behind Barker�s Lies<<< What �We All Know� about a Lie by Kyle Butt, M.A.

One of the most fundamental problems with an atheistic philosophy is that it can concoct no standard from which to derive ethical judgments. About the best atheism can do is say that the majority should rule, or each situation should be decided "on its own merits" (situationalism). In Dan Barker�s book, Losing Faith in Faith, he attempts to show that the Bible, based on the moral standard of God, is not a truly moral book, and that only atheism provides moral answers to life�s toughest questions. As an example of the Bible�s "incompetence" in the area of ethics, Barker cites the ninth commandment�Do not bear false witness�which is repeated in the New Testament (Mark 10:19), as inadequate because it fails to admit "the possibility of ethical dilemmas" (1992, p. 345). According to Dan Barker, there are some instances in which lies are "considered virtuous." He further stated, "We all know that it is sometimes necessary to tell a lie in order to protect someone from harm" (p. 345, emp. added). Barker gives a scenario about a woman who is being hunted by her abusive husband, and he concluded: "I would consider it a moral act to lie to the man." Barker, then, finds it a moral practice to lie if he thinks that such a lie will keep a person from harm. What is one of the things that Barker thinks is most harmful? (this is a Bible warning label from Barker's website) Listen to his statement: Religion is a powerful thing. Few can resist its charms and few can truly break its embrace. It is a siren who entices the wandering traveler with songs of love and desire and, once successful, turns a mind into stone. It is a Venus fly trap. Its attraction is like that of drugs to an addict who, whishing to be free and happy, becomes trapped and miserable (p. 51). From this statement, one can see that Dan Barker places religion at the top of his "most harmful" list. On page 233 of his book, he declared: "Religious morality is dangerous." (a bumper sticker from Barker's website) On page 286, he said that certain religious people are "abusing their children" by teaching them things like "evolution is a Satanic lie." Putting Mr. Barker�s statements together in logical form: (1) he considers it moral to lie in order to "protect someone from harm;" (2) he considers religion to be harmful; (3) then it must follow that Mr. Barker would lie in order to dissuade a person from believing in God or religion. (bold mine) If Mr. Barker is willing to lie, it seems to me that one should be leery about what he presents as "fact" in his writings about religion. REFERENCES Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith�From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Let it be known, dear readers, that we at "Atheism Sucks" don't feel the need to lie about atheism. On the contrary, we like to tell the truth about it Hopefully, by knowing the truth about atheism you will turn away from it.

Dan Barker has stated in his essay Christian Terrorism In Oklahoma City that "Timothy McVeigh is a Catholic." Lie! The Atlanta Journal-Constitution described McVeigh as "an avowed agnostic". Furthermore Maggie Gallagher reports McVeigh's "last-minute decision to see a Catholic priest just before his execution surprised everyone who knew him." She aslo reports "McVeigh's last public act before he was executed was to distribute copies of the 1875 poem 'Invictus.' It begins: 'I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul,' and ends 'I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul' -- sentiments that to a Christian are at least vaguely blasphemous." We repeat: If Barker lies to make a point how much more can we trust him to interpret the Bible or scrutinize Christianity?

Friendly? If you go through Dan Barker's website about 99% of it is committed to showing how bad and evil religion is. And as we showed above he insults people's intelligence by lying about religion. How friendly is that? You'd think that he would spend more precious time showing what's so great and friendly about atheists. But, nooooo! Instead you find such insulting images like this...

(taken from his website)

Oh, how friendly of you, Danny! He actually thinks the pastors of your church are nothing more than dogs! Now that's dogmatic! And even downright fascist!

Not only that but Danny thinks Christians are equivalent to Al Qaeda! Oh, but Danny is so "friendly"? The madness!

Speaking of unfriendly remarks I think Kyle's essay on Barker comes in handy here:

Whoever Digs a Pit will Fall into It
By Kyle Butt, M.A.

One of the most outspoken atheists of the past couple of decades is a man named Dan Barker, who wrote his most recognized work, Losing Faith in Faith, after he �deconverted� from a form of evangelical Christianity to naturalistic atheism. In 1992, he was the public relations director for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In his book, Baker uses a host of arguments to attack religious people who have attempted to �reconvert� him. In a chapter titled Why I Am An Atheist, Barker lists several reasons that religious people have offered to explain his �deconversion.� Sadly, many of those people attacked Barker�s character. The following is a brief list of some of the allegations they made against Barker.

�You are arrogant and hate God.�
�Your heart is in the wrong place.�
�You are cold, empty, and pessimistic.�
�You are an angry person.�
�You are too stupid, limited, or afraid to see what is obvious to everyone else.�

After denying these allegations, Barker stated: �A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when character, rather than content, is attacked. Bertrand Russell pointed out that ad hominem is a last-ditch defense of the losing side� (1992, p. 88). Therefore, according to Barker (who agrees with Russell), a person who uses arguments that attack character is a person who is fighting desperately on the losing side.

While the truth of Russell�s statement may be questioned (since there are many ill-informed ad hominem arguers who happen to be on the right side), it nonetheless is quite interesting that Barker falls headlong into his own pit by repeatedly attacking character rather than focusing on real evidence.

In fact, only a few pages earlier, Barker wrote an entire chapter titled �Ministers I Have Known,� in which he proceeded to attack the general character of ministers he has known. On page 78, Barker commented, �When I think of ministers I have known�I picture the overweight perspiring Foursquare preachers, waving their hankies, shouting and prancing about the stage, ruling their churches like little kingdoms.� Just one paragraph later, he included in this list the �skinny Mexican pastor in Nogales whose second wife was pregnant with his twelfth child!� And the televangelist I know who ran off with his secretary and was back on the air in less than two years.� The rest of the chapter consists of the same attack on the general character of ministers, as Barker views them. Near the end of the chapter, Barker wrote: �I have a friend who says if you were to take all the preachers in the world and lay them end to end, it would be a good idea just to leave them there.�

Now, let us apply Barker�s own reasoning to his chapter on ministers. The entire chapter attacks the character of ministers, and thus would be classified as an ad hominem argument (from the Latin meaning �to attack the man�). But, according to Barker, those who use such arguments are using �a last-ditch defense� and are on �the losing side.� In this instance, I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, in his treatment of those who are against abortion, Barker stated: �This is the real drive behind the antiabortionists: misogyny [hatred of women�KB]. I don�t believe that any one of them cares a hoot for a fetus� (p. 213, emp. added) Such a statement is definitely a bold, ad hominem attack on the motive and character of those who disagree with abortion. I, for one, can say with certainty that I do not hate women. However, I also can say with certainty that an unborn baby is innocent, and that God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17). It is on this basis that I must stand as an antiabortionist. Once again, using Barker�s own thoughts, he must be �arguing from a position of weakness.�

Please note that this article has not attacked Barker�s character. He is not referred to as a misogynist or anything of the kind; nor are any moral indiscretions alleged in an attempt to discredit his arguments. On the contrary, his own words have been used to show that, if his thinking is indeed correct about ad hominem arguments, then he is arguing from �a position of weakness rather than content,� and such an argument is a �last ditch defense of the losing side.�

[For a more in-depth refutation of Barker�s book, see: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BWTB.html]

For more hypocrisy on Dan Barker look below.

Stuff like this isn't original among atheists. Speaking of originality, have you heard Dan Barker's latest tune? *GASP* It's so original! Here's a sample. Talk about propaganda! Anyway, I guess I can see atheists bobbing their heads to this sort of music, which goes to show how much taste they have. Try doing the Running Man to this. Is it any wonder philosopher John Mark Reynold's comments: "His (Barker's) 'Happy as can be. . . I am your neighborhood atheist' gives Shatner a run for his money for unintentional musical parody. Do yourself a favor listen to his music... and then consider: if his music is this bad (where you have some ability to judge and where his "credentials" are strongest), what does that suggest about his philosophy?"

Telling People What to Think
By Kyle Butt, M.A.

But, as one digs deeper into Barker�s book, it quickly becomes clear that those sentiments do not find a willing practitioner in the person of Dan Barker. In his chapter on prayer, Barker wrote:

Don�t ask Christians if they think prayer is effective. They will think up some kind of answer that makes sense to them only. Don�t ask them, tell them: �You know that prayer doesn�t work. You know you are fooling yourself with magical conceit.� No matter how they reply, they will know in their heart of hearts that you are right (1992, p. 109, emp. in orig.).

From Barker�s statement about what should be �told� to those who believe in prayer, it is easy to see that he does not necessarily believe his previous statement that �no one can tell you what to think,� or that a person should use his own mind �to find out what is true.� In fact, what Barker is really trying to say is that a person should only think for himself if such thinking will lead him to believe that there is no God, or that prayer does not work, or that all religion is nonsense. If thinking for himself leads a person to believe in the efficacy of prayer or the existence of God, then that person should be �told� what to believe.

In truth, the Bible demands that each person weigh the evidence for himself or herself. First Thessalonians 5:21 states: �Test all things; hold fast what is good.� Among those things that should be tested are the writings of skeptics like Barker. When blatant inconsistencies pepper their pages like so many spots on a Dalmatian, then those writings should not be �held fast.�

Freethought: Not So Free After All
By Kyle Butt, M.A.

One of the most outspoken defenders of freethought is a man named Dan Barker. Prior to his �deconversion� into freethought, he was a zealous denominational preacher and missionary. In his most famous written work describing his new-found atheism, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, he includes an entire chapter titled, What is a Freethinker? At the end of this chapter, Barker says, �Freethought allows you to do your own thinking�. Freethought is truly free� (1992, p. 136). Obviously, Mr. Barker wants everyone who comes in contact with freethought to believe that it is an avenue of thinking that allows each individual to go where his or her thoughts lead.

Upon further investigation, however, freethought is not so free after all. On the very first page of his chapter on freethought, he contends, �No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.� So, according to Mr. Barker, since he and his group of freethinkers do not think they see enough evidence for the Bible�s inspiration, then all �freethinkers� must reject conformity to the Bible. What happened to the idea that freethought allows �you to do your own thinking.� Again, on the same page he wrote, �Freethinkers are naturalistic� (p. 133), meaning that freethinkers cannot believe in anything outside the realm of what can be measured scientifically using the senses. What if certain evidences compel a person to believe in a supernatural deity? According to freethought, a person is not free to follow that type of evidence. Once again, freethought proves to be much less �free� than we have been told.

Another telling statement from Barker�s pen comes on page 134, where he says, �Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.� Freethought, then, allows a person to choose freely any set of ethical and moral standards, as long as those standards conform to the �humanistic morality� adopted by Barker and his fellow �freethinkers.� But what if those moral standards fall outside the realm of �humanistic morality?� Then a freethinker must choose some other standard�or cease to be a freethinker.

In one of his concluding paragraphs, Barker states: �A multiplicity of individuals thinking, free from the restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted� (p. 135). Barker subtly omits the other restraints such as naturalism and humanism, from which freethinkers are not free. In essence, freethinkers, according to Dan Barker, are those people who think like him and his fellow freethinkers. If a person does not think like the humanistic, naturalistic Dan Barker, then that person must be an enslaved thinker, not a freethinker. In reality, �freethought� is a misnomer and is not free after all. In fact, it is one of the �least free� ways to think that is available in the marketplace of ideas. In actuality, the only thing that can ever make a person free is the truth (John 8:32). From the statements quoted above, it is evident that Dan Barker and his fellow freethinkers are not really interested in freedom but, rather, are interested in forming a group of �freethinkers� that toes the party line on such false concepts as naturalism and humanism.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith�From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Mr. it's-not-dogmatic-to-call-your-pastor-a-dog is notorious at misconstruing the Bible and does a hasty retreat with a sarcastic "oh, you Christians always know the real interepretations" schtick when challenged on his so-called interpretation. Sadly, he gets away with this. But, he never seems to challenge the Christian's interpretation right back. He reverts to "you see, these Christians always know what the Bible is about especially if there are contradictions - they always have an explanation - isn't that convenient?" (is Dan Barker reading Capaldi's book? Sure seems like it!). Aside, from these ad hominem attacks he hardly deals with the Bible verse in question. If challenged on the context he does the ol' rolling eyes routine with a pithy "oh, yeah... context."

Oh, Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling...

John Mark Reynold's book review of Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith

Atheism Develops a Media Culture(July 23, 2003) Lately, I have noticed the rise of the "tv evangelists" of free thought. When a Christian, Barker was involved in producing some of the most groan inducing versions of the mass marketed American version of "Christianity." He has simply switched products. One cannot play his atheist music, for example, without fealing a bit guilty. His "Happy as can be. . . I am your neighborhood atheist" gives Shatner a run for his money for unintentional musical parody. Do yourself a favor listen to his music... and then consider: if his music is this bad (where you have some ability to judge and where his "credentials" are strongest), what does that suggest about his philosophy? Barker has little or no training in philosophy and then deals with what he has read in a juvenile manner. His story begs several questions. . . including personal motivations for leaving the faith.

I remember listening to a debate where you mentioned you were willing to admit you're wrong. Thanks for being, uh, "honest", Dan. But, we know that's all a bunch of bunk. Yet you've been corrected and corrected and corrected on your Bible interpretations and you never, never, never seem to have an exhaustive reply to them. Could you at least admit that you're wrong, then? Instead, with a wave of a hand, and a sour look on your face, and the rolling of your eyes, you merely dismiss it as a "Christians always have the answers to these obvious contradictions but they know in their hearts they're wrong" routine. Well, you can continue your ad hominem attacks if you like (so much for your "friendly neighborhood Atheist" hubbub), but we're willing to overlook that if you give us a reply to these sites:

Taking the Freedom From Religion Foundation Quiz
Dan Barker's Easter Challenge Challenged
Dan Barker Bible Quiz Answered
Dan Barker's Easter Challenge Eviscerated
Dan Barker reduced to shame
Ten Barks
Watch your Beattitude
Barker's Blunder on the Resurrection
...the "impossible" size of Noah's Ark
Does Picking Up Sticks Deserve the Death Penalty?
Does The Word "Perfect" Really Mean "Perfect"?
A Donkey and Her Colt
Hate Your Parents�or Love Them?
Israelite Plundering and a Missing Donkey
Jesus Christ�Dead or Alive?
Prophecies�True and False
The Resurrection Narratives
The Skeptic and the Old Testament
They Heard Him�They Heard Him Not?
Do the Resurrection accounts HOPELESSLY contradict one another?

We cannot find anywhere on the web of any replies by you concerning the Bible "contradictions". But, now's your chance! There's no chickening out now. We're waiting as of September 1, 1992 (the date of the publishing of your book Losing Faith in Faith) for a response. Hurry, the clock is ticking...

Our Favorite Dan Barker Moments...

In his debate with Michael Horner:

Dan: Because, like a lot of fundamentalists, you're going to weasel your way, and say, "Oh, but I didn't mean what I said." Okay?

Mike: If you're going to accuse me of a contradiction, let's hear it, Dan. Let's hear it.

Dan: I will tell it in my closing statement that he blatantly contradicted himself.

Mike: In a closing statement where I won't have a chance to respond. You know, that's -- talk about weaseling. Let's hear it. [laughter]

Dan: Okay, well, I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what: somebody ask him a question about it, then, okay, afterwards, to give him a chance.

Mike: He still won't tell. He still won't tell me. Unbelievable.

Barker: But, see? My view is positive towards Mike. I think there's hope for Mike. [laughter]

Questioner #12: I think there's hope for you!

Barker: I think Mike can also be a part of that process of improving his theology and his philosophy and coming up to a better, more inclusive, more moral way of living. The Christian way of living is not a more moral way of living. And I think Mike is the way I used to be years ago, and I see a lot of myself in him . . .

Horner: Give me a break.

Barker: . . . and this is not condescending. This is not to condescend to him. It's just to say that some of us grow at different rates than others, and Mike's still a little further . . .

Horner: Give me a break! [laughing]

Questioner #12: With all due respect, sir, you are the way I was years ago. [applause]

In his debate with Michael Butler:

BARKER: A being is a being.

...

BUTLER: So, rationality, let�s just talk about logic, can be reducible to physical processes?

BARKER: Yeah, but that�s meaningless.

...

BARKER: Well, everything can be reduci... football can be reduced to the laws of physics. But football is, uh... whatchacallit? A, uhm, an emergent, or epiphenomenal thing that happens when we conceptualize it. Everything can be reduced to something. But that doesn�t ... that doesn�t... uh, diminish the... the emergent property of what happens when the complexity increases so where you have something like a concept within a mind within... which is a function of a brain. To say that it reduces to molecules, uh, is, uh... well, I�m gonna talk about it in my rebuttal... it is... it�s a non-argument, it�s... it�s an attempt to drag down... Otherwi... If... if I reduce then so do you. Your decision to accept the bible then reduces to molecules. So.. uhm...

BARKER: Logic is a little bit like... an armpit.

BARKER: Mike is committing at least two sins tonight - 'course I don't believe in sin.

BARKER: The justification for induction is that it works....I'll be happy to throw it away.

BARKER: How do you digest digestion?

BARKER: "...Jesus was compassionate enough to say that there are some slaves that you ought not to beat as hard as other slaves. This isn't a contextual thing... [about ten seconds later] So, in context slavery was the norm that Jesus was conforming to..."

Anti-Barker Links:
oFreethought: Not So Free After All
oTelling People What to Think
oWhat "We All Know" about a Lie
oWhoever Digs a Pit will Fall into It
oAnswering the Allegations
oThe Historical Christ�Fact or Fiction?
oThe Historicity of Jesus Christ
oThree Rules of Human Conduct
oDan Barker is growing FANGs and here
oHow the Holiday Season has Become Ground Zero in the Culture Wars. Read how Barker hates nativity scenes.
oDan Barker's debate with Christian Phil Fernandes. Barker is selling this debate for $20 but Fernandes is selling it for only $10! No surprise: Barker's organization thought Barker won this debate. Read Beth Taylor's airhead criticism.
oA response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's "Why Jesus?" Non-Tract: Introduction, Peace And Compassion, Family Values, Equality and Social Justice, Moral Advice, Reliability, Good Example, Author's Summation, Online Caveat, My Summation, Addendum - 3/10/2002
oChristian and English Studies Perspectives on Dan Barker. Read how Barker compares Christians to al Qaeda terrorists.
oTHE THINKING PATTERNS OF AN EVANGELIST TURNED ATHEIST EXAMINED TO SHOW FLAWED REASONING oAtheist Richard Carrier examines a debate between Barker and Rajabali (note: this was not a Christian debate).
oA Swift Response to Dan Barker's "Cosmological Kalamity"
oLosing Face and Brains
oBarker�s Blunders: A Response to Dan Barker�s "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" By David Wood

A Challenge to Anyone who meets Dan Barker in Person...

In his debate with Doug Wilson, Dan Barker claimed he knew the Bible "inside out." This is what we would like you to do if you meet Barker in person, ask him the most hard and difficult question about the Bible you can think of and see if he responds correctly. Surely a person who knows the Bible inside out should answer immediately. Don't e-mail him the question, because that will give him time to look up the answer (however, that will prove he doesn't know the Bible inside out). Don't ask any trick questions either, ask Barker excruciatingly difficult questions. Or how about this: Approach Dan Barker with a Bible in your hand, randomly flip through the Bible and pick any passage (try doing the "eenie, meenie, miney, mo" method), identify which book, chapter, and verse you find, and ask Barker to recite it. A person who knows the Bible inside out ought to tell you the verse verbatim. Don't let him peek now ;-) And try to pick a non-popular verse, too (for instance, if you randomly flip to John 3:16, Genesis 1:1, Romans 6:23, etc.). Be sure to e-mail us his reaction.

All right, one more with feeling this time...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home