The Dan Barker Fiasco On Youtube Fundies Are Getting Moist Over

[Tyson]

On the website www.city-data.com (go to the Religion and Philosophy section, but be warned they are pretty petty over there and love to ban folks), there was a YouTube video put up by Christians about Dan Barker making some gaff. I can barely hear the video so I am not sure what all the hoopla is about, but they are taking it and running with it that a former minister turned atheist made a fool of himself. Of course this now translates into a new logical fallacy:

 

"If atheist/agnostic makes fool of himself, god must be real"

 

It also appears that to avoid Mr. Barker defending himself or opinions, they disabled the comments section on YouTube to leave the video as the lasting example. Does anyone know if Mr. Barker addressed this OR if there are some alternative comments? Here's the video:

 

 

[OpheliaGinger]

I looks like he was just trying to correct the (moderator?) that the issue up for debate was not his book but about whether or not Jesus is real or just another myth, but they guy kept going back to Barker's book.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Hmmm.... As much as I appreciate Barker, I have to agree with the Christian guy on this one. How can Barker reasonably object to the other guy quoting his book in the debate, a book which was for sale there at the debate? It doesn't matter that the book wasn't the subject of debate, Barker agreed to participate in the debate and therefore his published work is fair game in the debate.

[mwc]

I could see an objection if the guy was quoting some informal place like an internet forum or blog but he was quoting from his official, and presumably, scholarly work. It would have been best for Dan to just let it go and then perhaps explain how he now differs from that position though that may effect his post-debate sales.

 

Maybe Dan needs to consider putting out a revised edition, or retiring it altogether, if he is so far from that position that references to that work now hurt him? Not to mention that it seems dishonest to leave the book for sale in its current state if he has changed his mind on its contents. But as I haven't read his books maybe this isn't a problem? Those of you who have would know better.

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

mwc, that's pretty much my position as well. I also thought it was a little childish for Dan to claim that it's "not fair" to quote his work in a debate with him. How is that unfair?

 

Incidentally, I just bought "Godless" a couple weeks ago and have been planning to read it after I finish the book I'm on now ("Lost Christianities" by Ehrman). I should probably try to view the rest of that debate and see how much they discuss the book and if he shows that his position has changed significantly.