Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press, a gospel preacher, author and lecturer, will debate Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation on February 12 at 7 p.m. The debate will be held at the University of South Carolina.
Barker will affirm the proposition, “I know that the God of the Bible does not exist,” and Butt will deny that proposition.
Please keep brother Kyle in your prayers in the coming days as he prepares for this opportunity to confess God publicly and remind hearers of the eternal truths.
For more information, see this flyer. Or better yet, read this article in Brotherhoodnews.com which has an interview with a representative of the atheist group that is sponsoring the debate.
by Tom Barker
10 Feb 2009 at 19:30
Yes, everyone pray hard! I am Tom Barker, Dan Barker’s brother.
I live in California and I am a born-again Christian and love it! Please pray hard that God will be honored and glorified to the entire audience at the lecture hall. Please also pray that God will speak to Dan’s heart through Kyle Butt. With me, can you imagine (if we could actually see the spiritual world around us) the number of angels and demons battling above in the lecture hall during the “debate”? That would be awesome – I can only imagine. I love my brother Dan very much but loathe the Satan and evil inside of his heart. We have all been praying for years for Dan and will continue to do so. If atheists promote “free thought” and tolerating/valuing individual differences, then why do they attack Christians? I don’t get it. Talk about hypocrisy! May the Peace of the Lord calm Kyle Butt’s heart and give him a heart of wisdom during this debate. God, please love Dan through Kyle. In Jesus Name, Tom Barker
by Matt Clifton
10 Feb 2009 at 20:29
Tom,
It is good to “meet” you, thank you so much for dropping by. I cannot imagine the heartache such family division must cause, and we will add to your prayers for your brother. May God bless you richly in all things according to His will! And stop by any time…
Matt
by Darrell Barker
11 Feb 2009 at 00:06
Matt and Tom, I’m certain, mostly, that you are cognizant that a formal debate such as Dan and Kyle are participating
in is won or lost not by those in the audience who’s opinions are thoughtfully or emotionally “fixed,”
but rather a winner is determined by the attending “fence sitters” who would be honestly and logically swayed either way by keen persuasive points made with the reasoned and oratory skills of the best prepared debator.
May the best man win.
by Matt Clifton
11 Feb 2009 at 07:15
Darrell,
Debates are definitely for the persuasion of “fence sitters.” No one really knows how effective debates are, but any time we can express godly truths in a public forum, nothing but good can come.
Thanks for coming by, Darrell. Are you also a relative of Dan Barker?
by Darrell Barker
11 Feb 2009 at 12:48
Hi Matt, nice to “meet” you too, sir.
A nice clean and sharply designed web presentation you have here.
I digress . . . yes, I am related to Dan.
Matt, if I may find respectful fault in your reasoning, and if I’m wrong in my thinking, help me understand then how it is that “nothing but good can come” from when a teetering “fence sitter” in the audience falls off that proverbial fence and onto the firm and green-grassed ground of Dan’s position?
If that were to happen on the 12th, and it does at these kinds of debates, (Dan’s done 60 of them) then I fail to see how, in your perspective, you’d think that that could be “good” for the kingdom you think you’ll be going to.
Sigh, in your religious thinking, isn’t it then that Dan would have sent one more “lost soul” to your God’s hell and if that’s so, why hasn’t your “all loving God” stopped Dan from doing such? Perhaps he can’t stop Dan, evidenced, for one, by the fact that your God is also most ineffectual for the last 35 years to achieve the overturn of Roe v. Wade too?
Matt, the “good” you speak of, I think, lies in the fact that an opportunity to hear a rigorous debate and exchanging of ideas in an atmosphere of inquiry and truthful evaluation has civilly taken place.
What say ye?
by Matt Clifton
11 Feb 2009 at 12:50
Darrell,
Thank you. It seems I’m “meeting” several members of Dan’s family here. Glad you dropped by.
There’s no fault in the reasoning, but our different perspectives certainly cause us to see things differently.
Have you heard the old joke about God owning one pasture, Satan another, and there’s a fence running between the two? One man could not make up his mind between God or Satan, so he says to himself, “I’ll just sit on the fence, and not take sides.” The devil laughs heartily, and the man asks him why he’s laughing. Satan says, “Because I own the fence!”
Therein lies the rub, Darrell. Satan owns the fence. If those who are on the fence about the existence of God swing toward atheism, they have not really fallen away from God, because they weren’t with Him to begin with.
Whenever the living and powerful word of God is publicly proclaimed, God is magnified. I appreciate any atheist group who would allow a man like Kyle Butt to stand before them and tell them about God. It’s a no-lose situation.
God, of course, allows man free will. If this were not true, there would be no sin of any kind. The existence of Roe vs. Wade has no bearing on God’s loving nature. His love is proven in many ways, but a man like you ought to appreciate the fact that He has left you free to chose as you will.
He has also proven His love for us in sending His very own Son, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for your sin and mine (Romans 5:9). Have you fully investigated the claims that Christ made, and the evidence before us? If I can help you in any way, just let me know.
Inquiry and evaluation is always good. Christianity has nothing to fear from honest inquiry. But the true victory is in the fact that whatever the outcome of the debate, God’s word will have been proclaimed to people who otherwise might not have heard or considered it.
Thanks again for your visit, and for your graciousness and polite manner.
May God bless you, now and in the future.
Matt
by Darrell Barker
11 Feb 2009 at 12:49
Matt, the “good” you speak of, I think, lies in the fact that an opportunity to hear a rigorous debate and exchanging of ideas in an atmosphere of inquiry and truthful evaluation has civilly taken place.
What say ye?
by Darrell Barker
11 Feb 2009 at 12:59
Hi Matt, This is Norman Barker, Dan’s Dad. I’m having Darrell type this reply for me, thank you.
_______________________________________
Dan Barker has no “evil or demons” in his heart. He is a gentle kind man. Very brilliant, unassuming and very capable of reasoning things through. He does not “attack” christians.
No person, family or otherwise can say that he’s ever attacked them. We support him completely.
Think Hard Dan.
Norman Barker
by Matt Clifton
11 Feb 2009 at 13:00
Norman,
Thank you for your comments. There are many who do not believe in God who are yet kind, compassionate and caring people. I’m sure you are proud of those qualities in him.
If there is anything I can do for you, just let me know.
Matt
by LaRae Meadows
11 Feb 2009 at 19:27
Tom. I hope you find a way to open your mind and find the peace that removing youself from the submission to a meaningless idea can provide. Your brother is not trying to hurt you, he is trying to help you see a more beautiful world in which your mind is no longer bound in a box that never existed. Let in the real love, the love you can not feel because you make up a feeling of love for a god that does not exist. Love is real but it is best felt when our eyes are wide open, not closed in prayer.
by Matt Clifton
11 Feb 2009 at 20:00
LaRae,
Thanks for your comment. The curious thing about your statement is that without God, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Without absolute standards, love itself is meaningless. While you talk about “real love,” without God there can be no real love.
Yes, love is real, but it can only be felt while walking in the light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I want to invite you to investigate His claims, and hear the truth. You can read about salvation here on my site, view a free video by visiting Searchingfortruth.org, or picking up a Bible and giving it a good read.
God bless you, and thank you for stopping by.
Matt
by Janine
11 Feb 2009 at 21:23
I don’t find it appropriate that a brother (tom) says that kind of thing about his own brother (Dan) on a website. Its not only hurtful but just plain wrong. Whatever his personal feelings about him he should keep to himself. To say that he loathes the devil and satan in his heart is not only out of line but factuly wrong, Dan Barker is a wonderful guy.
by Matt Clifton
11 Feb 2009 at 22:06
Janine,
I appreciate your comments, and thanks for stopping by. I’m sure Tom and Dan, being brothers, will work this out between themselves. Atheists come to this site from time to time and express opinions, some of which are pretty radical and personal. We should afford believers in God the same freedoms, should we not? Besides, to an atheist, wouldn’t a comment referring to “demons in his heart” be pretty meaningless?
If I may ask a personal question, Janine: Are you a Christian?
Matt
by Tom Barker
11 Feb 2009 at 23:23
Matt Clifton:
Just to clarify. There are three boys in our Barker family. Dan
Barker is the oldest, I (Tom) am the middle brother and Darrell (above) is the youngest brother of ours. Hope this helps clarify who is who….. Thank you for allowing us to express our hearts. Tom Barker
by Matt Clifton
12 Feb 2009 at 09:50
Tom,
Thanks for that information. I know it must be difficult as a family when a member takes a public position as a debater. I’m praying God will bring peace to your family, and that God’s word will flourish tonight during this debate.
You all (the entire family) are welcome to express yourselves during this time. God bless you all.
Matt
by LaRae Meadows
12 Feb 2009 at 13:31
Matt,
Thanks for your response. It’s nice that you actually interact with the people on your board, not just post and run. I also appreciate that you aren’t a snotty brat. Thanks you.
I think you mistake atheist for uneducated about the bible. I would venture the guess that most atheists know the bible very well. I certainly do. I think the more you study the bible in its historical context, any hint of what was once remarkable about the bible is flicked away.
As for having no sense of right and wrong without god, that’s just silly and insulting. If two people have the exactly the same level of faith in god, can one be more moral than another by doing good deeds, not bringing harm, being generous and kind? I bet you’d say yes. If two people of equal faith can have separate moral standing, than there is a measure of “right and wrong” outside of god. We use that measure to find our way. As for your reading, I suggest reading “The Moral Animal”. It’s a quite good explanation of why there is morality outside of god. I also suggest “Religion Explained” which may shed some light on why you want to believe in god.
As atheists we have more to lose by doing it wrong the first time. There is no absolution, no forgiveness, no do over. There is only what good we are able to do now. We see the consequences of our behavior and we know god can’t fix it so we must do it ourselves. We are responsible for the world we have created and only we have the power to improve it. The environment, poverty, crime, joy, peace and prosperity are not whims of god, but products of people.
I hope you take the time to examine your beliefs and why you believe them. I encourage you to take a biblical history class at a reputable college. Understand the context of the time it was written. You’ll understand why atheists are atheists if you open your mind to the truth, not what you hope is real.
I hope someday you will be able to feel love as purely as I do. I hope you will be generous with your days and I hope you will find freedom from old ideas that no longer serve the common good.
Thank you for your time Matt.
LaRae
by Matt Clifton
12 Feb 2009 at 16:19
LaRae,
You are very welcome.
Thanks…I think?
As an evangelist, I try to take every opportunity to spread the good news about Jesus Christ. Would it show any love for you (or for God, for that matter) if I just ignored you? I don’t make any assumptions about anyone’s intelligence levels, study experience, etc. I just offer to share what God has told me to share.
And by the way, we are in total disagreement about studying the Bible in its historical context. I’ve found it to be the other way around completely. The more we know about the Bible and history, archaeology, etc., the more sure I become about the truth contained in God’s word.
Certainly I do not mean to be insulting, but one must realize that if there is no absolute standard of right or wrong, a person can just make up his own ethics on the spot, right? After all, my understanding of right and wrong should be as good as anyone’s.
There is a logical problem with your example above. In your example (separate moral standing with the existence of God), there is still an absolute standard of morality. You would have to provide an example of an separate moral standing without the existence of God. Unfortunately, no one can prove something called “morals” exists without referring back to the Creator of morality. One certainly cannot prove “love” exists outside of the existence of God.
From the standpoint of the Bible, none of us has more to lose that any other man or woman. The Bible says we have all sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The result of living outside of God’s will is spiritual death (Romans 6:23). If the Christian worldview is correct, and I am firmly confident that it is, then an atheist does indeed have a lot to lose. Eternity is a long time!
For the theist, there is also no “do over.” But through Christ, there is absolution and forgiveness of sins.
This is a pretty good summation of the humanist worldview. “We created everything, and we can fix everything.” People have had this view for a long time, and even in ancient times it was refuted by men like Paul, who said:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. — Romans 1:20-25.
The difference nowadays, though, is that the “creation” that man worships is himself. That’s a lot of what humanism is about. I’m sure there are some “unselfish humanists” out there, but for the most part the philosophy is based on self.
I try to do this every day.
The Bible says we are to be ready to give a defense for the things we believe.
Now who’s making assumptions?
On my way to the Master of Divinity degree, I’ve taken a few of those. 
I feel the love of God, which surpasses all human understanding. Any religion that does not serve others is not based on the pure teachings of Christ. I urge you to lay aside the mistakes you’ve seen in history of people who claim to follow Christ, and instead seek Him alone. Man-based religion is not much different from atheism. Seek Him purely, and you will find Him.
If you need any assistance, we’re here.
May God bless you today and in the days to come.
Matt
by Wayne
12 Feb 2009 at 20:41
Good job Kyle!
You represented yourself and Christains all over world in admirable fashion. I thank God for giving you the courage, knowledge and wisdom to participate in such a forum.
Mr. Barker seems like a descent, but misguided individual. It is my hope that he accepts Jesus Christ into his heart before it is everlasting too late!
by Stephen Smith
12 Feb 2009 at 21:27
I agree with Wayne. I am also very proud of you, and more importantly, glad that God was truely glorified! I would like to briefly comment on the contradiction made by Dan in terms of morality. In the beginning of the debate, Dan thanked Kyle for pointing out that TRUTH is not proven by MAJORITY RULE. But later, when Kyle questioned Dan if the physician in the “appendix removal” example was moral in his thought, Dan’s response is that the physician was not moral because there are “ENOUGH” of us here who can “determine” that he is immoral. His judgement about morality is being based on majority rule! I realize that I am interchanging truth with morality in the above statement (appropriately I think), but did anyone else hear the inconsistency there?
by Darrell Barker
13 Feb 2009 at 16:02
Hello.
If we are looking for human consistency, or as I call it, perfection, then don’t look within Stephen, because you won’t find it there, and, respectfully, I don’t recall having heard your name or seen you in a public debate recently, so for the sake of equal time of analysis of thought, could you find the time to engage with me so I can find inconsistency in you?
I’ll be fair, I’ll make a concerted effort to highlight your good points, if you make any, and while I wait for your first proposition, could you find something good to say about “the other side” of the debate last night?
by LaRae Meadows
13 Feb 2009 at 17:55
Matt,
I appreciate that you took so much time to respond to my lengthy letter. It is obvious you care a lot about people around you, and I know you are just trying to look out for me. Thank you.
The story of Jesus is just a rehashing of many other stories. If you had a grasp on the history, culture, stories and languages of the time, it would be more obvious to you. I know you’ve probably heard the list before but I think it would be great for you to revisit the stories again, I suggest strongly getting to know the story of Horus.
None of us make up our morals as we go along. Atheists have the same incentive to be good people as you do. It does none of us a great service to be inhuman to each other, to disrespect or harm each other. We are social animals and all of our well being is resting on the well being of others. We all get a lot further when we work together. Not believing the same thing does not stop us from being dependent or reliant on the goodness of each other.
But the bible does not provide absolute rules. I suggest you watch the TED talk on Living Biblically to understand how impossible the “absolute rules” of the bible are. Even the less impossible rules aren’t followed by most Christians. I assume you do wear blended fabrics, eat cheeseburgers and meat on Sunday? I can see that you cut your hair.
You, all of you, are so much more remarkable when you are the product of circumstance meant to bring out the best in all things. You and I are both so remarkable because any tiny change and we would not have existed. After generations and after struggle and evolution, we found our way into the world. Every flower, every bee, every kangaroo, every pygmy marmoset is as remarkable. There is real beauty in that, real satisfaction and real reality.
by Matt Clifton
14 Feb 2009 at 12:43
LaRae,
Thanks again for stopping by.
You are very welcome.
Yes, I have studied that also. Osiris-Dionysus, Mithra, Horus, et al. It can actually be shown that these cults likely developed similar stories after the time of Christ, borrowing from Christianity, not the other way around.
Kyle Butt actually has a very good treatment of this subject, and I would like for you to read it. There are two parts:
Part One
Part Two
Well, I would say Christians have a lot more reasons to be good.
But yes, we can all work together and be kind to one another without everyone being Christian. But, it’s very hard to do with men like Richard Dawkins (and others) running around attacking Christianity, isn’t it?
This is a common “argument from absurdity” that atheists use. The fact is, man is not bound by the Law of Moses any longer. When Christ died on the cross, He did away with the Law (Romans 7:6, Eph. 2:14-16, Col. 2:14). Christians are under absolutely no obligation to refrain from wearing blended fabrics, meat on Sunday (never heard of that one, BTW), or cutting our hair. Jesus said, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).
Evolution would be a blind process, LaRae. How could it “mean” to bring out the best in all things? Evolution can’t think, or feel, or love, or hate.
Exactly. And one of the biggest arguments for the existence of God is the perfect balance within which we all exist. Have you every watched the DVD “The Privileged Planet?” It’s a book, also. Pick it up sometime! There is nearly zero chance that life could have come about on its own. Zero, LaRae!
Thanks again for posting here. God bless you!
Matt
by Darrell Barker
14 Feb 2009 at 14:54
Matt, I’ve had a few days to think through my reply to you, Tom, LaRae, Janine, et al. and deciding what to specifically reply to with a positive atheist emphasis has me going in all different directions in this medium and a succinct response to the Feb 12th evening debate has me conflicted.
I think it clearly observable that most people want to get along (evidenced by the debate) and adding, to also be left alone to our own devices, coupled, conversely, with compelling others to see things the way we see things.
I get that. What I don’t get is dogma, closed mindedness and the complete embracement of letting others do your thinking for you, together with a convincing need to fool oneself with outer world imaginary friends. Tom said about all these alleged “angles and demons” overhead during the debate:
“I can only imagine . . .” Well, certainly, Tom can ONLY imagine those things and pretend his God exists because it’s a figment of his religiously inculcated mind. He could, if he wanted to, imagine ANYTHING that would disrespectfully make his older brother appear inept in his thinking.
Matt, I too was a born again Christian, being raised in it and worshipping your imaginary friend in complete mental delusion. I see now that the main motivating reason I did so was out of a fear stemmed from my uncertainty of what’s beyond the wall of death and being told how “it is” from the preacher man.
In consideration of time and space, I’ll not type the names of all the books I’ve researched on this subject, for it is vast in comparison to the limited books I’d read as a clueless common believer.
I’m aware of the weakness of an argument pointing to authority, for today I am my own final authority of what I think, but I think it appropriate to mention one author. Most Christians learn about their religion and God and their savior through preachers, I did too, but when I went a level higher, the scholar level, that’s when I found out how pitifully inept most preachers are and how uninformed I was.
I recommend to all my correspondence they read Scholar Bart Ehrman’s books: Just Google his name and see for yourself.
To mention a few though: Lost Christianities, MisQuoting Jesus, God’s Problem, The Book Of Job.
You’ll read about his unique journey. Professor Ehrman was a born again Christian, like me, and through his academic studies and honest inquiry, having access to the oldest known biblical manuscripts (not any of which are original) and comparing them, he had to be honest with what he found and he became an agnostic.
I don’t worship Ehrman, but I do respect his thorough research into these biblical matters. In fact just last night I came upon an interview with him you might find interesting. [link edited by Matt Clifton]
Matt, as for the debate, Dan Won. At least in this neighborhood. I had a friend over to watch it streaming live on the internet. He was one of those “fence sitters,” one as I define them, not as your joke defines them, and he astutely saw through Butt’s preaching tactics and finally, after years of struggling emotionally with his fears of not being worthy enough and concerns about burning in a hell for a mere opinion, he finally abdicated his belief in your God. He was also disappointed in Butt going off topic, he was surprised that Butt’s arguments were about design and morality since the debate was supposed to be about the God of the bible.
I will say something positive about Butt, to be fair: I Liked His Tie.
As for Butt’s insidious moral dilemma rape question, if I were up there, and like what Dan tried to do in reframing the question by using a better analogy about using a needle and inflicting pain into crying babies, additionally, I’d of stopped Butt right in his tracks and not given him the respect of a corresponding reply to such a sick question of raping to save the world scenario.
I resent Butt’s attempt to “trap” Dan in the clear desire to make Dan look like a monster.
Ok, that’s enough for this continuing reply.
Thank you again, Matt, for moderating this exchanging of ideas.
by Matt Clifton
19 Feb 2009 at 10:27
Darrell,
Thanks for writing.
That same argument could be turned around and directed to the atheist side as well. Perhaps a Christian thinks atheists are letting Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins do their thinking for them. Perhaps Christians think atheists have fooled themselves into believing there is no higher being than themselves. To say that Christians are just “letting other people do their thinking for them” is the height of being close minded, because it shuts out any possibility that you may, in fact, be wrong. Plus, do you really think men like William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis, etc., are simply “letting others do their thinking for them?” These are highly intelligent and extremely skilled men, and yet they are convinced that there is a God.
IMO, it is dangerous to go to “the scholar level” to seek truth about salvation. Scholars worry more about publishing and getting attention than they do your eternal soul. It is also dangerous to rely solely on preachers. This is one of modern Christianity’s biggest mistakes.
Instead, we can go to the Bible as our source. We can go to the book ourselves, and do our own research. That is independent thought. That is free thinking. Not going to preachers or scholars alone for our answers. In the end, we each are responsible for our own souls. We must do the best we can, and seek all the information we can. But in the end, we must decide for ourselves, and weight the evidence for ourselves.
I have read Lost Christianities, Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Scriptures. While the books were thoughtful, I found nothing in them to convince me of Ehrman’s positions. Timothy Paul Jones has a good follow-up to the problems with Erhman’s work in his Misquoting Truth. I recommend everyone read that as well.
We all have opinions on who won. I would not have expected you to say Kyle won.
As for your friend, if you are as open-minded as you say, perhaps you could recommend a reading list of Christian apologists for him? Would you do that? I will give you a recommended list if you will forward it to him. This would go a long way in the spirit of not letting other people do his thinking for him.
Yes, his tie was very nice, I will agree.
Kyle’s whole point there, Darrell, is that without an absolute standard of morality, who can say that rape is a “sick question?” Without God there is no absolute standard of morality. Man cannot create one for himself, because he has differing opinions on what is right and wrong. There are men in prison who think rape is okay. Dan, of course, does not feel such a horrendous crime is okay, nor do you and I. But I would submit for your consideration that Dan, and our nation as well, got our sense of morality from the God of the Bible, not from ourselves.
You are welcome, sir. Thanks for dropping by.
by Stephen Smith
14 Feb 2009 at 23:44
In response to Darrell:
Why would you equate consistency with perfection? Consistency is simply a result of truth. Therefore, whatever is not consistent is not true. This is why I do not believe Dan to be truthful in regards to the reasoning of moral judgement. I do not expect perfection of Kyle or Dan, but I do base a decision of who is truthful by how consistent he argues. Is that unreasonable? Truthfully, I expected Dan to be inconsistent, not through any fault of his own, but by virtue of the fact that atheism itself is inconsistent.
Respectfully, I wasn’t the one who participted in a public debate. So, I’m not really sure anyone is interested in a critique of me. I was simply giving an observation that I thought might provoke CONSTRUCTIVE conversation. Not intending to be sarcastic, but I thought that is the point of submitting a comment.
As stated above: Proposition 1 –Atheism Is Inconsistent–
Dan was less condescending in this debate than most of his others.
Sincerely,
Stephen Smith
by Darrell Barker
18 Feb 2009 at 23:43
Hey Matt, on Feb 14th I submitted a reply. It’s not been posted by you and says: “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” What can you do to accelerate my reply?
Thank you.
Darrell Barker
by Matt Clifton
19 Feb 2009 at 06:49
Darrell,
I appreciate your post, and just want you to know I will approve it when I get a chance to reply to it in full. This is a private website, not a public forum, but I usually approve most posts. However, I never post a comment unless I reply to it, so when my schedule allows me a full response, I will post it. Lord willing, that will be today sometime.
God bless you,
Matt
by Stephen Smith
20 Feb 2009 at 19:38
I couldn’t agree more with Matt’s response to Darrell. And Darrell, Kyle’s scenario of raping to save the world is a scenario that is created by the atheist’s illogical proposition that truth and morality are never absolute but ALWAYS relative/situational.
The scenario can only be “sick” if there are absolute truths (which there are). But how can an atheist call any senario sick if he/she denies absolute truth?
To say that the scenario is “sick” sounds like an ABSOLUTE judgement. In making that statement Darrell, I applaud you. I would ask that you simply be consistent (ie if you’re going to make an absolute statement, think of the possibility that there is likely absolute truth).
If everything is relative, NOTHING can be dismissed as “sick.” In the debate, Dan said that “there are enough of us here” who can decide that the physician in the Nazi example was immoral. How can something be immoral if there are no absolute truths. Because “enough people say so?” I thought that Dan applauded the idea that truth cannot be determined by majority rule. How are these two thoughts reconciled? (ie. truth is not determined by majority, but morality is) Propostion #2 for you Darrell: They can’t be!
by Josh King
21 May 2009 at 09:46
Truth only comes from the living word of God. I’ve seen again here that false teachings(atheism) can never hold up in a debate with the REAL truth. God Bless