YOU CAN'T USE MY BOOK, JAMES!!

I'm sure many of you have already see this on James Whites' page (DrOakley1689). The debate between himself and Dan Barker that took place in Newberg, Oregon.

Here we see, from my perspective, the same episode where Baker requested that his book "Godless" be not mentioned. Funny!

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• atheism
• apologetics
• debates
• Dan
• Barker
• Freedom
• from
• Religion
• Foundation
• James
• White

[motormansglove]

i would love to see this dikl guy go on the atheist experience and debate matt dillahunty or jeff dee. won't happen. he prefers the cowardly position of hiding behind his keyboard in his mom's basement.

[vekl]

@motormansglove

Why don't YOU debate me instead? Or are YOU the coward?

[wearegettingthere]

Another theist who does not want to deal with the arguments presented. What else is new?

However, if I were Dan, I would have waited until Spin Doctor White's remarks were completed and simply state to the audience that he appreciated Spin Doctor White's sermon, but he failed to address any of my arguments I presented in the opening statement.

All Dan did was get the idiot Christian you tuber who uploaded this video and his non-thinking buddy's feathers ruffled.

[vekl]

@wearegettingthere

Well, at least you're watching the video. Thank you for that.

[harryscrotumsballs]

@vekl

Your counterfeit gratitude aside, speaking only for myself and not for the guy you responded to; I watched the entire debate. White was not able to invalidate Barker's argument. I'm not surprised a religionist like yourself would try to bring focus to one very small portion of the debate in an attempt to give credibility to a presupposing sophist charlatan like White.

[vekl]

@harryscrotumsballs

Well, at least you watched the video. Thanks for watching!

[Tatarize]

The mod is right, you can use it clearly as a statement of what atheists say on the subject, but perhaps not present it as the statements they are making now. But, it's obviously admissible. Even if only in a limited context of the claims made by the community at large.

[whyteay]

@SuperTruthbeknown I heard it, you were rambling on a bit.

[vekl]

@SuperTruthbeknown Actually, I would like to hear a debate on it myself. I'll admit that I do believe in the hell doctrine, and I haven't yet seen any valid argument against it, but I'll also admit that it's an area that I haven't done too much study on. But if you wanna set something in a couple of months, I'd LOVE to talk debate it. Let me know.

[screwdibby03]

Really? I have long had no respect for Barker as an academic and scholar, but this is just stupid. Who does that, really? I love when people say that Christians are the ignorant ones, but there are obviously ignorant people in every world view!

[MRKetter81]

@grandpasfolly Dan "schooled" White? You clearly know little to nothing about apologetics. Dan used a 50 year old argument used by passed atheists that were just as poor scholars as Dan is in their time.

All of the historical parallels Dan made were on vastly different timelines and regions; the larger portion of them weren’t even remotely close to being in the same context.

Most heavy debating atheist scholars recognize the stupidity of "evangelical atheism"; you should too.

[CBALLEN]

How embarrassing to say "Don't use what I said in my book"! James asked him if he wanted to repudiate it ,Dan said "no",his only defense is"What if I changed my mind"?He still had his book for sale so what is that supposed to mean?

[ahumblechosenservant]

This is clear evidence that Dan Barker propogates atheism because he knows that it sells. That's the only reason I can think of for him not wanting Dr. White to quote his own material. Dan Barker knew that it would be detrimental to his sales.