Former Christian Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza Debate
Former Christian Dan Barker now turned anti-Christ advocate and Dinesh DSouza debate the existence of God. If you have a couple of hours go through the complete video. Also, at least Dinesh understands the Philosophical Metaphysical Naturalism and atheism of Darwinian evolution as you will hear him argue in the vid. The scientific principles that we've discussed in "Is Evolution Science" and "Does Science Presuppose Atheism" and other posts such as "Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception" provide a good foundation for understanding the arguments and reading between the multiple lines of Barker's obfuscations.
The atheists claim that Dinesh was emotional, and threw red herrings and ad hominems. Quite the opposite was true. Barker threw out all kinds of red herrings. I guess the godless say anything to try to divert from the truth that Dan Barker was HANDLED, and that atheism, as a world view, makes some fanciful leaps of unfounded faith as Dinesh allows Barker to reveal.
Barker Makes 5 Assertions 4 Of Which Get Blown To Smithereens:
1- There are no good arguments for Christianity. Any argument for Christianity is a bad argument.
2- We can't know God because he is undefined and undefinable
3- There is no agreement in the Christian community on God's nature, moral principles and what God supposedly says (this topic went undeveloped)
4- There are no good replies to arguments against God such as the problem of evil arguments.
5- There is no need for God for man to live morally
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE VIDEO AT THE INFIDEL GUY SHOW BY CLICKING HERE
All Of That Was the Diversion
You see, Barker claims morality without God. This is what he said in an interview earlier this year:
“You can be truly moral as a nonbeliever, instead of just following orders,” ... “People who don’t believe in a god — millions of good Americans — have happy, productive, moral, charitable, meaningful lives, without a belief in a god.”
Is that so? Yet at the beginning of his statements he claims that he receives royalties off of work that he did while he was a Christian. In fact, he is quite happy to receive income from a purpose (Christianity) which he says damages the world and every human being. I ask, where is ANY MORALITY in that? Is that what his godless standard of morality allows?
In other words, Barker, the atheist champion, feels totally justified receiving MONEY from something he believes is destroying humanity. The question is that if one doesn't believe in God and also believes that belief in God is damaging, how is it morally acceptable under any circumstance to make a living off of it? In other words while he claims to be good without God, he doesn't realize that he is committing and touting the most immoral act imaginable...He's PIMPIN' the church!
I say this Mr. godless morality...GIVE THE MONEY BACK! What a FARCE! And I might add that I won't even get started on these supposed morally equal atheists that encourage him.