Below is a review of my debate with Dan Barker by an atheist, James Lazarus. He's a metaphysical naturalist, and one of the classiest people I've had the pleasure to interact with.
Anonymous, I seriously do recommend losing the attitude. It must really be awful waking up in the morning and hating. Feeling unsettled because someone might have become a Christian. Besides, you might get ulcers.
To quote:
'Congrats Paul...you beat Dan Barker, some ex-fundy preacher, singer/song writer, in a meaningless "debate".'
As Travis notes, Dan Barker is an experienced debater. He is a reasonaly well-known advocate for atheism. Certainly he is better known than you are (although as you are anonymous, I'll admit that's not hard). And he is also a very clever person with experience in the field of debating Christianity. Your placing the word debate in quotation marks seems to indicate you didn't thnk it was a debate. May I ask why?
Lastly, given that the debate was on a substantive motion, I would suggest it is possessed of meaning.
In general, I concur with the review of the debate. Paul did a better job than Dan, and Dan seemed ill-prepared to take on a presuppositional apologist. In Dan's defense, I'm not sure that he had ever debated a presup before, or that he knew what he was getting into. He seemed rather ill-prepared to deal with transcendental arguments.
Anon,
Have you ever beaten anyone in a written or oral debate on anything? Or do you mostly just throw barbs at people? Perhaps you could contribute constructively to this dialogue by pointing out Dan's errors and helping him out by giving us what he ought to have said? Or you can just hide behind anonymity and keep flaming...
This is another attempted excuse for Barker that won't fly.
Excuse? Hardly. I clearly stated he was unprepared. I then posited a possible explanation, based on inference, from his apparent mischaracterization of the presup use of the TAG.
I was not aware of Barker's former debates, and honestly don't follow him much. I think his plugging of his IQ is...a little insecure, perhaps? I've always been rather ambivalent about IQ, knowing many persons such as myself with moderate to severe learning disabilities (ADD, ADHD, audio, visual, or cognitive). While a high IQ usually does give you a good idea of the learning potential you're dealing with (in my experience), once we move past a few standards of deviation above normal I can tell little difference...excepting prodigies and savants, whose abilities are typically not measured well by standard IQ tests because they are so narrow in scope.
For what it might be worth, I have written on Dan Barker’s debate with Peter Payne on ethics. Mr. Barker has, by his own standards, discredited himself from making any charges that anything at all is absolutely wrong and therefore, has disqualified himself from criticizing the Bible, God, Christianity, etc. (if he was consistent). I actually quoted his comment likening humans to broccoli. If you are interested, my review is entitled Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs (for reasons that become shockingly obvious). aDios, Mariano
Congrats Paul...you beat Dan Barker, some ex-fundy preacher, singer/song writer, in a meaningless "debate".
ReplyDeleteI guess this proves you're a genius and that your god exists!
Your family must be very proud.
Anonymous, I seriously do recommend losing the attitude. It must really be awful waking up in the morning and hating. Feeling unsettled because someone might have become a Christian. Besides, you might get ulcers.
ReplyDeleteTo quote:
'Congrats Paul...you beat Dan Barker, some ex-fundy preacher, singer/song writer, in a meaningless "debate".'
As Travis notes, Dan Barker is an experienced debater. He is a reasonaly well-known advocate for atheism. Certainly he is better known than you are (although as you are anonymous, I'll admit that's not hard). And he is also a very clever person with experience in the field of debating Christianity. Your placing the word debate in quotation marks seems to indicate you didn't thnk it was a debate. May I ask why?
Lastly, given that the debate was on a substantive motion, I would suggest it is possessed of meaning.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteLet's remember that the infidel community contacted *me.*
let's remember that on their message boards thye said "Barker was an animal in debate."
Let's remember that Reggie Finley said that Barker was going to beat me so Reggie could "move on" with another theist in the dust.
Let's remember that Dan is many atheists champion debater. Let's remember that they put him up as one of the best.
Even if all the things you say are true, what does this say about the state of atheist debaters? What does this say about Reggie?
I'm glad you note that Dan lost because this proves that Reggie failed to accomplish his mission of "getting rid of me."
In general, I concur with the review of the debate. Paul did a better job than Dan, and Dan seemed ill-prepared to take on a presuppositional apologist. In Dan's defense, I'm not sure that he had ever debated a presup before, or that he knew what he was getting into. He seemed rather ill-prepared to deal with transcendental arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
Have you ever beaten anyone in a written or oral debate on anything? Or do you mostly just throw barbs at people? Perhaps you could contribute constructively to this dialogue by pointing out Dan's errors and helping him out by giving us what he ought to have said? Or you can just hide behind anonymity and keep flaming...
TW,
ReplyDeleteThis is another attempted excuse for Barker that won't fly.
Excuse? Hardly. I clearly stated he was unprepared. I then posited a possible explanation, based on inference, from his apparent mischaracterization of the presup use of the TAG.
I was not aware of Barker's former debates, and honestly don't follow him much. I think his plugging of his IQ is...a little insecure, perhaps? I've always been rather ambivalent about IQ, knowing many persons such as myself with moderate to severe learning disabilities (ADD, ADHD, audio, visual, or cognitive). While a high IQ usually does give you a good idea of the learning potential you're dealing with (in my experience), once we move past a few standards of deviation above normal I can tell little difference...excepting prodigies and savants, whose abilities are typically not measured well by standard IQ tests because they are so narrow in scope.
Anyway, you're a silly wabbit.
For what it might be worth, I have written on Dan Barker’s debate with Peter Payne on ethics. Mr. Barker has, by his own standards, discredited himself from making any charges that anything at all is absolutely wrong and therefore, has disqualified himself from criticizing the Bible, God, Christianity, etc. (if he was consistent). I actually quoted his comment likening humans to broccoli. If you are interested, my review is entitled Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs (for reasons that become shockingly obvious).
ReplyDeleteaDios,
Mariano