@@donny5429 Never said that was the reason. It was just an observation. If you watched and understodd, you'dknow why Dan won this debate by a country mile.
I love how the Christian is getting bent out of shape as he misses the point and then proves Dan’s point for him. By insisting that humans write the Psalms, he admits that the entire book isn’t gods word, which then opens the door for any skeptic to say, how do we tell what is gods word and what isn’t? He walked right into Dan’s trap.
Without God, human can ot be a good person. Without fear of God and turning away from evil, we can not find God is real! Sins darkened person's heart and make people think no Heaven and no Hell! Only they enter Hell like the rich man in Luke, they will cry out for mercy! Too late for them!
@@ruthtian7818 Notice how you run so eagerly to the most horrific threat available to you. If someones logic defeats yours, you banish them to eternal torture. This is most revealing of the nature of how the church has used the bible throughout time.
@@ruthtian7818 [Without fear of God and turning away from evil, we can not find God is real!] Are you claiming God to be a psychological product of desperation of some sort ?
He is right in saying that Dan's interpretation is wrong but I'm slightly irritated that he didn't stick with one interpretation, instead he gave multiple (which I think weakened his arguement)
@@bogdanoff3.066 Dan's interpretation is extremely biased. It is clear he cherry picks verses out of the context to paint God out to be an exclusively immoral character and completely ignores the good God does or the fair punishments or what He did in the New Testament when He was in human form.
@@wildwarrior5680 Saying he ignored the good God when he is showing you specific parts that contradict “good” is not cherry picking. And there is no context that could make most of them good anyway. What you are requesting is that he doesn’t actually make his argument in order to show parts that are irrelevant to it
Why on Earth would any Christian WANT to try and and reconcile Old testament garbage with the radically new teachings of Jesus ? Nothing could be more insane.
Is it just me or did it feel like most of the points Randall made actually benefited Dan's argument. Also as a former Catholic, having read the Bible from cover to cover, Dan is 100% correct. I literally couldn't believe what I was reading. There is no amount of context required that will ever justify slavery, rape and infanticide. If it was an all powerful being delivering his word he would have told them something useful like how to create paracetamol or ibprofuen, not something as silly as don't worship other gods. How vein
@@AbiNomac the first 5 commandments are silly if you're an all powerful God. It's the kind of thing a dictator scared of losing power would come up with.
@@williammartucci6444 - William, you mean the first four. Anyway, it isn’t as you assume. The Almighty is definitely not looking to be worshipped and there is nothing that scares God. These are instructions to us to experience the greatness of life. I have to repeat, it’s about us having the greatest life experiences. First, you have to understand that God doesn’t need us. When we were created we were given free will. Think of the relationship with God as one of a parent and child. Parents don’t need their kids. They want them. Parents raise the child, instilling the best they have to move the child into adulthood hoping they have given enough so the child can have the best life possible. Same with God. He instructions to us is the best on offer to give us the best quality of life. So, we as His creation were given life for the purpose of God to enjoy us (same as a parent) and for us, it is for the enjoyment of living. Hopefully, living with God in our life but we do have free will to choose. Dictators don’t give you free will. God knows if we want love in life, His love is greater than any other love. He loves unconditionally, He protects and blesses and so on. No one else can do that for you. So He is encouraging us to seek His love above any other to experience what the highest love is. Again, He doesn’t need our love. He is telling us where we are to find the greatest love. If we are listening, it saves us years of heartache and searching. So it’s God simply telling us, “If you want the best in life, come to me, put me first for your own sake, and not mine.” I was an atheist once and had your beliefs. I also wondered why the Bible referred to God as a jealous God. This made know sense to me. Jealously is a petty emotion. I wondered how the almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator could have such small-mindedness. I wondered for years. The many Christians I asked over the years said the same thing, that God is jealous because we love others before him. This didn’t sit well with me. It didn’t help me to accept that God was real. I had many other queries like the inconstances that appear in Genesis. Adam and Eve and their two sons were the first people on Earth. So who did Caine marry when God punished Him and sent into the wilderness to start over and find a wife, after he murdered his brother? There were so many I found ridiculous. Fortunately, I had all that answered and it saddens me that Christians don’t know the real meaning of the Bible. The word jealously was used to describe the term, “fiercely protective.” Jealously contains the characteristic of wanting to protect. The original meaning has been lost in translation. The phrase we know is, “God is jealous God. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.” (lord here doesn’t mean God, it means the Law). The real phrase is, “God is a fiercely protective God. Vengeance is mine says the Law of Life.” This is about someone being done wrong by and if they are in a relationship with God, He fiercely protects them and has the Law on His side to deliver justice. The Bible is a great manual for living when it is understood.
@@AbiNomac I see what you're saying Abi. I would actually agree that it is a book to help you live a good life if you were an Israeli Shephard 2000 years ago but times have changed and it is clear the book is not the word of God or even inspired by God. It's just the word of humans that wrote things down on paper that society had been doing for thousands of years earlier and claimed it was God's word. Also jealous and fiercely protective, doesn't really matter when you look at gods actions. It you can find one, just one good deed that god did that didn't come at the expense of something truly horrific I'd be surprised. I'm glad u think God is love as most religious people do, it is however contrary to what God does in the Bible. Do you know why Saul is no longer king in the Bible?? It's because after salughtering the men women and children he left a little bit of live stock alive. If parents punished their children like God does he's be in prison for the rest of his life. God very clearly wants to be worshipped, I'm not sure why you think he doesn't. He spends ages on the Bible explaining how many animals need to be sacrificed in order to worship him properly. I swear I'm not making this up. I honestly wish I was.
@@williammartucci6444 - as the Bible is about the law of life, it is as relevant today as a maths or science text book. You clearly don’t know that it is about law or that would have been your main argument. And if you did know, you’d understand the contents in which these “evil” things in the Bible happened and the “so-called evil acts of God.” Which is laughable understanding your and mainstream understanding. I’m not going to argue with you. You need more education on the subject. All the best to you.
Wow, I'm not going to lie, but by looking at Randal Rauser's body language I can tell he really struggles with those verses in the bible. I kind of know, because I was once like that :(
Sometimes that's the best medicine. Is it any wonder why there are s many passages pitting God against the "wise". What is it about intelligence that causes anxiety among the religious? perhaps for the same reason militaries prefer the simple-minded. They are more prone to be brain-washed and indoctrinated.
@@jstube36o, stupidity is the hallmark of the self-conceited atheist like Dan. They don’t seek knowledge, especially the knowledge that counts. They just want to get a dopamine rush from morally pontificating.
@@jstube36many verses about praising people who believe without reason to also, interesting that no religious person will talk about how these beliefs are coded into the text to encourage faith based belief without good reason
@@zaydevans2077 Paul, in one of his letters, strongly advises his followers to keep clear of unbelievers. To not associate with unbelievers, to not work with or marry them. Question is what is Paul's anxiety about these unbelievers? Maybe because with reason and common sense, they see through Paul's sermons? Why, in Revelation, John the author imagines that unbelievers will be cast into the "Lake Of Fire". Thus equating unbelievers with murderers. Says all you need to know. That disbelief is evil. That is a huge red flag, that the religious tend to purposely ignore.
And not everyone holds to eternal conscious torment. And most people believe that the fire in brimstone language is figurative language. Read the passages for yourself and figure out what you believe that Jesus is trying to communicate by using this kind of imagery.
At 1:15 after listening to Randal, my question is, if there are a multitude of possible interpretations, how do we know which one is correct? That gave weight to Dan's position.
No, it doesn’t. There are countless controversies that face us every day. Do we just raise our hands and give up because neither side is going to give way in their current convictions? I have never heard a more anti-intellectual complaint in my life!
I started to drift off when that apologist spoke at length. He literally just spews word salad drivel seemingly totally unconnected with the question at hand. He NEVER just gets to the point. ANY POINT.
I find it interesting that Randal was introduced as being very charitable, but starts his argument with a character assassination. It's like christians have a different definition of charitable....
Years ago, Dan had the same realization that I had last October. He came to it on his own in his 30s. I needed the help of TH-cam videos and was 64. A couple verses in, the Bible says that God created a hard dome above the flat Earth to hold back the water that fills universe so that there would be a space for the air. The people who wrote this had no idea what they were talking about. Why would you believe anything they said if it couldn't be verified independently ? My lifetime of doubts and disappointment all made sense. God was never there to begin with and now he was gone from my head. Not for nothing does Paul use slavery as an image of Christianity. Dare to ask the questions that could set you free.
Actually the dome thing depends on the translation. You can look at that yourself www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3130%26context%3Dauss&ved=2ahUKEwjGzeOEp-TtAhUK7qwKHRGxCUsQFjAFegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw13VjfisCcLjCYC8jfBhddd But regardless, the bible wasn't a science textbook and never tried to be a science textbook. I mean in less than a century ago we made completely inaccurate statements about molecules. I would be surprised if we didn't do something similar thousands of years ago on a text that wasn't even focused on science. However, their lack of telescopes and microscopes which might interfere with scientific discovery doesn't interfere with recording revelation.
You just need to keep doing mental gymnastics. Just remember, all the good stuff and teachings in the bible, is totally legit and what god meant. All the bad, immoral and ignorant things, well that's just bad translations and man writing things into the bible. Not to be taken literally. Honestly i don't get how Christians watch this and can't see the obvious problem they have....
@@jacoblee5796 I didn't know abiding by scholars research is mental gymnastics. That's the equivalent of a YEC calling evolution mental gymnastics. But the Hebrew language is a high context cultural filled with idioms and metaphors. And even without cultural consideration it's clear both "good" and "bad" parts are idioms and metaphors. We aren't literal beams of light for the world.
@@JP-rf8rr Your doing it and not even realizing it. Tell me, do these so called scholars have an agenda? What about Islamic scholars? Do they have an agenda? How about Mormon scholars? How wonder, can you see the point yet?
@@jacoblee5796 Half the scholars aren't even theists let alone Christians. And most of the Christian scholars are Christian in name only. Also this is fallacious, like a YEC saying experts have an agenda.
Watching people who are experts in theology argue by deflecting conversation to navigate the atrocities from the Bible is like watching little kids lie about obvious things. I get it. You spent your whole life believing in a magical thing. It’s ok to say you were wrong. Dan is a legend who just tells the truth.
@@yunsohn which one of the 1000's of fictional deitys should I believe in? zeus, Allah, jesus, shiva, buddha, judaism, etc. there are around 4200 different religions be more specific on what to believe because 1. either they all are false and don't exist or 2. one exists and hopefully I get lucky to be born in the right place on the map. Be specific.
@@everyzan-m2q kinda depends on which side of the fence you lie my friend. I mean you could believe in “free will” or as I do on “determinism”. Atrocities is a word used to describe the pestilence, slave owning practices, misogyny, bigotry, killing on levels that would rival are histories greatest villains, etc.that the Bible of western culture seems to preach about. MORALS ARE A HUMAN TRAIT! The overall well being of our procreation and longevity as a species don’t have anything to do with one of the made up fictional deity’s. Blurting out random thoughts is not how you make invalid points, valid. Good effort. Old argument. Come with some better research and then maybe we can have a conversation about morality. Your environment and track through life changes that morality towards the overall survival of that environment. ITS CALLED EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION. Even tho I am a double major in philosophy and biology, you can still obtain this info from your 8th grade biology class. Or, hey, look it up. Keep thinking. Ya, your incorrect.
He may be a good performer but he utterly discredits himself. Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@malirk I have been listening to and reading Barker for may years and that statement is in keeping with his Atheism. In fact, I featured him in my book "Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors" (www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%E2%80%9Cno-end-books%E2%80%9D-publications). That quote is from when he claimed rape could be moral in certain circumstances during his debate contra Kyle Butt.
Wow, Randall is so offended at the mere reality that he is participating in a debate. Did he not realize that the entire purpose was to debate with someone about something they disagree on?? Dan Barker outclassed this guy in every aspect, including emotionally.
@@johncook19Dan doesn’t understand the Bible. Especially coming from a Protestant background. He believes God is a moral monster and just reads the Bible literally without context. That’s what Randall is trying to explain. Dan is a good dude I presume. But when he debates educated people. He struggles. Kind of like he did with John Lennox.
As a Christian, I hate that Dan is so got dang good lol. Never seen him loose. That being said, he hasn't changed my mind, I still serve Yahweh with all my strength. But he has made me think.
Dan: Men wrote the bible. Randy: No, God wrote the bible! Dan: Which part? Randy: None of it. Human beings wrote the scriptures just like Americans wrote our history.
Bach would be offended by you using his image. Every composition he wrote, he would sign Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone). You clearly are not doing that, but wasting your time with moronic anti-theists like Barker
@23:08 - No, no, no, no Randal. Address what Dan just stated, in what context would it be permissible and a reflection of a loving god to be the one allowing and as Dan pointed out, doing the "lifting the skirts" himself so that these women were to be raped. In what possible context could that be something that maximizes the well-being of humans and minimizes harm? How is that a reflection of a loving god?
Glad to learn that you are pro-life. But you are beginning with a conclusion since you imply a condemnation of being "killing" I think you mean "murder," and "drowning babies, condoning rape" no such thing in the Bible, "slavery," whereby you seem to be using a generic term to make points: but how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, for adhering to them and for demanding that others do so as well? Please begin at the start and then work your way towards a conclusion.
@@saffronhammer7714 Friend, I am constantly finding that Atheist are scared to death to dig even one level deeper, or higher, than the knee-jerk beginning with conclusions manner to which they have become accustomed.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom You might want to enlarge your circle then. And perhaps I should as well, considering I think the same of most of the theists I know. ;-)
@@saffronhammer7714 Yet, friend, the difference is that I am speaking about you directly based on what you are stating while you are punting to some generic somebodies.
As an atheist I want to thank Cameron for setting up this debate. If we had more civilized dialog like this the world would be a better place. Take care everyone.
I have not yet found anything worthy of worship. Many people and things deserve conscious respect, but not blind worship. Religion expects blind acceptance of dogma. Science looks to the future and the finding of knowledge.
Randal says God accommodated "moral imperfections" of the ancient Israelites like genocide and rape, and yet he punishes them severely whenever they breached minor technical laws?
The Bible says God is not the author of confusion. If so, why was God so inept as to give us a book that cannot be read and understood at face value and without Randall's claim for the need of interpretation and scholars.
Dan is calm, puts forward logical and considered arguments, and tells it as it is without all the spin doctoring of his opponent. Conclusion: the Christian must cherry pick the Bible to come up with their loving God. Fine, but don't elevate the Bible above any other book.
Have you considered that maybe the "spin doctoring" is really just understanding the material with enough depth that it takes you to new conclusions? The text is complex and seeped in historical, cultural and theological context, but skeptics insist on reading it no differently than fundamentalists do.
Lol. TRIGGERED! It's incredible that Randal appears to not understand that Dan isn't coming from the Christian perspective. Sadly, he comes across like a 5-year-old telling Dan that he should read like a believer, and THEN it would make perfect sense. Randal! Dan doesn't believe what you believe! Just in case you missed it. You're supposed to communicate WHY he should see it like you do, not just that he should...
The problem for Dan is the bible includes the new testament. So when he says no one is there to help us interpret these old testament passages he is dead wrong. God himself as Christ incarnate was constantly telling us how to interpret the old testament: trueandreasonable.co/2019/11/12/anti-theists-and-pharisees-can-interpret-the-old-testament-the-way-they-want-i-will-interpret-it-the-way-god-wants/ I think Randall and other apologists often forget this.
@@niceforkinmove5511 I mean in regards of confirming legitimacy. "Correct" interpretation of mythology is subjective. People today "interpret" the New Testament in different ways, which, in turn, leads to different interpretations of the old. Same problem, different era.
Yes, and then listing tons of possible interpretations without realizing that none of them actually makes it that much better. So, they were not all killed but "only" displaced - wow, that of course makes the whole thing basically an act of kindness... Or it's all just figuratively, or it actually didn't happen at all (even admitting the logical contradiction to the presupposition of an all-loving god, so it simply cannot be true - even though it's right there in the book that is supposedly the true word of god himself!) - well, if it is irrelevant then why even mention it in the story that is supposedly intended to teach us about god's true nature?
God- love the neighbor Dan to Randal- what does god mean by that. Randal- he means exactly what it says love the neighbor. God-kids that disobey there parents should be stone to death. Dan to Randal - what does god mean by that. Randal- well you have to read it with a Christian lens, even though it says that he doesn’t mean to kill ur kids 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Dan surely won this debate. In this topics, Randall's argument is totally destroyed. Randall seems a good person and hold more progressive view. He is not justify genocides like Paul Copan. I hope more christian can be more progressive like Randal.
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood What arguments? He critiques old testament ethics and cherry picks verses out of context without considering the primary message of the Holy Bible as a whole. And his interpretation is very biased and philosophically weak.
@@wildwarrior5680 You mean, weaker than the arguments FOR god/s?`I can't quite believe that... So he is critiquing the Old Testament for its horrible ethical standards - what's wrong with that? Are you trying to say the OT is NOT the word of god? Or that the OT ethics are good? Out of context how? The verses he _chose_ are pretty clear and straightforward. What kind of interpretation would _you_ cherry-pick? There is _so much_ wrong with verses all over the Bible, it wouldn't be easy to find one that is _not_ prone to criticism. Also, it is kind of hysterically hypocritical to accuse a Bible _skeptic_ of cherry-picking - the favorite past-time of any preacher and priest for thousands of years. The primary message of the Holy Bible as a whole - hmm... which message would that be - that there is a god? Or that we need a totalitarian leader to be good? Or that we should abandon everything that we love and 'unconditionally' love Jesus instead, because we don't want to be tortured for eternity? Or how primitive and scientifically ignorant goat-herders from 3,000+ years ago can still control us with a nonsensical fantasy story, despite our technological and ethical progress? I'm really not sure what you're talking about...
Wow. Randal just accused Barker of “rhetorical violence.” Take a look at the text you’re defending before casting stones. The self-righteous hypocrisy is shameful, Rauser.
It does not really matter since Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Nonsense. There exist justified theories of morality that don’t necessitate an absolute standard. Morality is a contentious, tricky issue. The only ones who are disqualified from discussing it are the idiots who insist in clinging to divine standards of moral absolutism.
@@johnlove2954 Yes, there is. I can appeal to maximizing human pleasure and contentment and minimizing pain for all sentient creatures. This doesn’t need to be a universal, cosmically grounded truth in order for it to still be the most reasonable goal of each individual who lives in society. The Bible is no more useful as a moral guide than any other religious text. And a hint about tactics - claiming that people who don’t accept the Bible can’t have a justified moral will instantly make you look like a dumbass. This debate has been played out.
@@mrmaat _" Yes, there is. I can appeal to maximizing human pleasure and contentment and minimizing pain for all sentient creatures. "_ Nope. It is just a slogan. If you really believed and so did the atheists like Dan, they would sell a lot of stuff they have and give money to poor because that is one way you can maximise human pleasure and reduce pain. The fact that we don't see atheists do that is because it is just like a slogan. It is used by atheists because it is a cope and they need something to make themselves feel virtuous. People who are actually moral need not do that. _"And a hint about tactics - claiming that people who don’t accept the Bible can’t have a justified moral will instantly make you look like a dumbass. This debate has been played out. "_ And here you prove my point. You basically say - "If you don't agree with me, you look like a dumbass". To who? I suppose to your crowd. It is hilarious that you and your friends think that saying "If you don't agree we are moral, we think you are idiot" makes you look moral, when it just does the exact opposite. Atheism is just like giant self-righteous fundamentalism, without the virtue part, of course. It is literally the worst of both worlds.
My parents have made me go to church my whole life and yet I'm still more persuaded by Dan's arguments than I am Randal's arguments. I really do love the way Dan debates.
That's what happens when you stop listening to imaginary friends and using your own brains (as an ex muslim wish i had done the same a long long time ago)
If you listen to Randal's "logic", you could use the same arguments for Scientology and every other cult. The entire notion that one must internalize all the belief's assumptions in order to "actually understand the book correctly" is the definition of how cults work. This entire conversation is a good study in psychology, projection, etc ...
Christian apologists are in a codependent relationship. It leads them to defend the indefensible. Randal admits he "struggles" with Yahweh, his partner, who seem supportive of rape. Randal defends the behavior of his partner as codependent people are want to do, the classic example is "my husbands DUI is not what it seems". IMHO the most inexcusably inhumane act of Yahweh is when he lost his temper over the actions of a few and responded with by unleashing his beloved aqua-genocide, which only Noah and his brood survived. Ricky Gervais has a brilliant routine where he has illustrations from a children's book about the myth projected on a screen for his audience. Christians actually inculcate their kids that this capricious genocide was a good thing. I want to vomit when I realize this mindset is permeates our great nation.like a dark fog of unenlightenment.
The only Christian sect that originally fought against slavery was the Quakers, they also participated in The Underground Railway, and treated woman as equals. If they had been the dominant religion in America things may have been different.
1:18:00 I think another question to ask here is, "Why does God need to have humans fight his battles in the first place?" Personally, I won't even give my respect to a man that won't fight his own battles (especially when he picked the fight in the first place) let alone give my worship to a God that expects me to fight his battles.
Chrisians: When a good thing happens, it is God. see God is love Atheists: What about this bad thing done by God Chrisians: First, God is love so when there is a negative, it is poetic or blame something else.
Dan - Asking multible questions Randal - Keep tap dancing and changing subjects it's fun seeing a representative for a religion of peace alway being so angry and apprehensive.
Actually Randal is quite articulate, it’s barker that’s being the stubborn mule. If Dan took a second he would have figured out that Randal doesn’t even believe in the so called “Canaanite genocide”
@@akimoetam1282 Then Randell should of been able to answer with authority and conviction. Instead, well, we all can see it. very frustrating for someone who is honestly willing to listen and learn from these 2 wise fellows. however , one of them speaks with conviction and the other weasles out of answering non stop. No matter what the validity of the claims are, One should have the honesty to confront them. Thats all, nothing other than that there is a big diffence between the two styles is what I have commented on and not the subject matter. This is self evident. thanks
@akim oetam no one said Randall isn't articulate. However, his inability to answer a question has nothing to do with his articulation. Dan Barker isn't stubborn at all. He sees things from a neutral perspective. As a former Catholic, as Dan Barker put it, reading the Bible Cover to Cover is more likely to turn you athiest. Randall can choose to believe that there was no caaninite genocide but the Bible clearly states God commanded these things. It's a shame that Randall never once gave a reason to believe God is good and worthy of worship. He just asserts that that is the case and tries to fit the horrific events in the Bible around it. Here is an exercise, read the Bible and find one good thing that God did that didn't come at the expense of something horrific. If you can I'll be impressed.
So Randal's entire argument is that one cannot read the Bible by oneself. The person has to rely on "scholars and experts". But who are these "scholars and experts"? If as claimed that the Bible was written by God Himself, do you think the end product is so unclear that it has to be interpreted by other people. So the God is not as communicative as "scholars and experts"? And where do "scholars and experts" get their knowledge from?
Randal Rauser spouts the usual incoherent babble of theologians. It’s beyond me how anybody can use the Bible as a source for information and yet here we are in the 21st century still talking about divine inspiration. Rauser swerves round every question Dan Barker asks. I hope the Christian watches this video back and it helps him to see how nonsensical he sounds and how ridiculous his propositions are.
The bible includes the new testament. So when Dan says no one is there to help us interpret these old testament passages he is dead wrong. God himself as Christ incarnate was constantly telling us how to interpret the old testament: trueandreasonable.co/2019/11/12/anti-theists-and-pharisees-can-interpret-the-old-testament-the-way-they-want-i-will-interpret-it-the-way-god-wants/ I think Randall and other apologists often forget this.
Or- if God's Non-existence was as obvious as Dan Barker claimed, there would be no debate. However- Billions across the Planet Earth disagree with Dan's position. ( Nice try!!)
@@janmerrywest Like the horrible fairy-tale of Atheism? Atheist regimes killed over 60 million in the 20th Century alone. You apparently have never read the works of Solzhenitsyn.
I get sick of this excuse that a modern day reader of the bible is getting it all wrong, couldn't this god make it more clearer so every generation could understand him ?Is he not powerful or clever enough to do that? Even humans seem to manage to do this
@Keatsian Nightingale It is insanity to assume that every story in the Bible must be either true, or God inspired. This is impossible because there are at least 50 contradictions, plus all the OT fairytales that defy all reason, and experience. But there are many zombies who blindly believe everything corrupt churches tell them to believe. Are you one of them ???
@@ManoverSuperman So you believe in talking snakes, men living in whales and being turned into pillars of salt, do you ? 🤣🤣 What kind of pervert are you??
@Keatsian Nightingale Age has much to do with it, as we know that folk had very primitive beliefs 2,000 + years ago. The Hebrew tribes practiced the sacrifice of animals, believed in witches, and all kinds of superstitious beliefs that the Roman authorities included in this old book called the Bible. God had nothing to do with such nonsense, obviously. The OT judgmental tyrannical murderous made up god figure, is nothing like the real God of perfect love, who judges no one that Jesus teaches. A child of ten would know this, but there are some incredibly stupid so - called Christians, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by superstition and nonsense, poor fools !!
Wouldn’t a worthy god first demonstrate that they were real first. If any claimed god were ever able to fulfil the above criteria they would then have to demonstrate that they were worthy of worship. You guys are putting the cart before the horse.
All the OT god condoned atrocities are certainly horrendous, but they’re nothing in comparison to the same god torturing the majority of his creation in hell for eternity essentially because he’s the champion of hide and seek.
@@zach2980 Mate, I'm asking you why is burning in hell for eternity horrendous, not a list of "horrendous" acts compiled by a person harboring vitriol.
@@Arven8 this may be a great filter humanity might not surpass, whereby the inability for enough of us to truthfully analyze and contend with information honestly. Likely a survival mechanism from millennia of lacking an ability to have solid truths, we evolved to accept "feelings of truth" which instinctively overrides competing information / conclusions despite our advancements in determining more accurate truths.
@@ManoverSuperman moral truths exist. Assuming minds exist, and there are minds that have moral boundaries. Then moral truths exist. Morals are not absolute. Morals are mind based ideas of good and bad choices. I acknowledge I do not know, but try to understand the best I can. A religious person claims to know, and understand a god. Keatsian, please DO NOT understand what you are saying. Rauser is simultaneously begging the question and claiming to know the answer, meanwhile distorting scripture.
26:30 - "If it's just David talking and it's not God's word, then there's no real purpose for it to be in the Bible." Randal is completely right - Dan might not be a Christian anymore, but he's still a fundamentalist.
Try using the "but this was written by Solomon" (or an unknown writer) argument with a Christian who believes in using corporal punishment on their children as taught in Proverbs and see how convincing they find it. Randal must know that this is the case. The moderate, philosophical view he has is not shared by the vast majority of Christians.
Here he didn't even do a fundamentalist Christian reading. He uses an Islamic view on how the scripture should be. No Christian fundamentalist I'm aware of says that the bible is gods dictated word with no influence of the human author. Not every act which is recorded in the bible is liked and recommended by god.
Well you cannot claim that the entirety of the Bible is gods word but concede that point when the words show God in a negative light. So no. Randal is wrong and Dan is right... after all Randal made the assertion that the Bible IS gods word but made an oxymoronic explanation for it, without admitting that he just admitted he is wrong.
The amount of apologizing just goes on and on and on. How about the start of an Apologetics Church, they can stand outside and say sorry, sorry, sorry, yes we know our savior is a nutty jealous jackass way worse than Stalin, Hitler...but he is a good guy.
@V K Interesting, thanks... My current understanding of life is yes, these things are bad. They dont make me upset (I secretly yearn for this kind of behavior on earth), Yes the do hurt people physically and emotionally I suppose. I dont care. The history of evolution has taken man to cooperation for the most part, and safe living in large cities is what I say as an atheist. :)
@@zachg8822 We can all list words but this is not Twitter, you can actually elucidate your point so, “Slavery, Genocide, Child Abuse...” what goes after the “…”?
Christianity arises FROM the Bible. STARTING with a Christian view when reading the Bible is definitionally begging the question. If you can’t get to the Christian view from the Bible without starting from that view, you’re just smelling your own farts.
Great job moderating this discussion. Barker says he reads the text and considers what it says, while the Christian dude says that he reads the text and if it doesn’t come out as love and goodness that he must have misinterpreted it. Ummmmmn isn’t that exactly the opposite of how logic and reason work? Much respect for the moderator for allowing these guys to talk it out. I always hate it when the moderator breaks it up before they can really talk.
The Christian glossed right over Dan’s indictment of gods rape command! That pisses me off. He went right to his prereleases rebuttal to the killing babies passage. This guy is sooo triggered and dishonestZ
Is it the word of god or isn’t it? And how do you tell which parts were written by humans and which were spoken by god? Christianity is such a frustrating mess.
Many of these religious debates go into the "Nitty-Gritty" details of the various religious text - and/or a kind of a he-said/she-said type argument; which I find very tedious and boring. For me, ALL of these religious text are beside the point (and completely useless as a tool for knowledge) once you understand the FACT that all life on Earth has been evolving, and continues to evolve, for 100's of millions of years - Including Humans. Once you understand that Humans evolved and were NOT created by a magical supreme being, It's GAME OVER! Religion loses. End of debate!
Isaiah 45:7 says God created EVIL. He doesn't just allow it, he created it. Therefore, according to the author of the Bible, if God exists, he is responsible for everything Evil. That includes slavery, rape, genocide, misogyny, torture, Satan, etc. If you can't create something from nothing, then if God created evil and humans that are sinful, it means that God has evil inside him and is sinful.
@@jessewinn5563 I say the same thing about Dan Barker he mostly just Poisons the Well and shows that he doesn’t have any understanding of Christian history beyond the most rigid fundamentalist completely superficial level possible.
No attempt was even made to justify that the Christian God is worthy of worship during the entire discussion. Dan was quite clear this God is not worthy and spoke well to that point. Randall failed completely to present a case that God is worthy of worship. This is regardless of an individuals starting point on this question.
Did Rauser just say the Psalms are an expression of the human experience? That's what all writing is, from Beqwulf to Virginia Woolf. If Rauser had studied valuable things like English and creative writing, he'd know this. If he'd ever read George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language," he'd know how to communicate clearly in plain English. I refer Rauser to Orwell's section on "Pretentious Diction."
Ehrman v Lacona - Mike loses his voice Slick v Barker - Slick loses his voice Barker v Rauser - Randals mic keeps cutting out The absent god of atheism is keeping believers silent with his special magic powers!!
So then are you on the same boat he is in? Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@northernlight8857 Indeed, if you are right then it matters not that you are right since we would be on the same boat aimless drifting upon an accidental ocean of utter meaningless relativism which would mean you could not ever condemn anyone for anything including if they believe in God and tell you that you are wrong.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom You think that the options are religion or nihilism. There are many other options. And even with a god you dont get objectivity. And judging by the bible and the quran the god seem very primitive human to me and not very godlike.
@@northernlight8857 I would never say “religion or nihilism” but, perhaps, following The Way (as Jesus is known) or nihilism (by any other name and au fond). And since Jesus is The Way and The Truth then we get objectivity. Also, what “seem very primitive human to” you is not a standard.
Why can't any Christian answer these simple questions Dan is asking. As a now very skeptical Christian I am losing it over the lack of answers. For the record, as a Christian, I do not view the Bible as literal as Dan is presenting it. In my opinion, the proper Christian view of the Bible is that it is both human and divine. The Psalmists did cry out to God. God was not dictating the language used by the Psalmist back to Himself. Randall keeps avoiding and tip-toeing past Dan's questions and he keeps talking past the issues. The reason I have become so skeptical is because I'm asking the same questions Dan is asking and no Christian has a consistent and sufficient answer.
Life finally made sense to me when I stopped believing in all that inconsistent nonsense. Religions have been man-made dating far before the time of Jesus. Clearing the mind after being brain-washed as a child takes time.
@@jameystone2650 You are so true I can't even tell you enough. I struggled the more I indulged in christianity. The more I read the bible the more nonsensical it got. I struggled to make my worldviews fit into what that book said. One day, I thought, "Well what if the Bible is wrong?" Then I started to see more and more of the light. It's like a huge rock was lifted off me. I no longer had to defend the indefensible. I was free to form my own worldviews in the direction that my logic and rationality pointed me. More importantly, I was no longer conflicted! This was the 1st point of enlightenment for me. Freedom from religious ideology. No longer a fanatic. It's truly liberating
@@johnmonk3381 I'm happy for you. Now we know what being "born again" truly feels like. 😀 It's like coming up for air after being under water for too long.
Maybe this god should know not to put a couple of forbidden trees in the middle of a garden with people who don't know right from wrong yet, and a talking serpent that they will actually listen to instead of running away from it scared sh*tless because serpents can't talk. It is like a parent putting a baby in a crib with a loaded gun, telling the baby not to use the gun, and then putting their sibling in the room to show them how to use it. Whose fault is that when they get shot?!?!?
Why was it so HARD for Randal to answer the simple question about the poor woman who saw her on whole people mas sacred?? This, sadly, is what religious dogma does to people who, in other contexts, are rather very much intelligent. When I was Catholic, I would defend all sorts of atrocities of the bible and I would reject all arguments my Atheists friends talked to me about, because I was TERRIFIED of the mere thought of god not being real.
@@juance2262 did I ever say that? Also, do you consider donkeys can talk in real life or that it's possible for a human being to walk in the middle of the ocean?
@@FaiaHalo Basically you told me about your bad experience defending Catholicism and that is why Christianity is irrational, and the bible does not say that a donkey spoke because yes, the bible says that God made a donkey speak and Jesus walked in the sea thanks to the action divine and not of his own free will.
I do like him, but it is a valid point that you have to appreciate literary genre. So I don’t think it’s dumb to point out hyperbole in Psalm 14, even if I question that that gets you out of your 1 Samuel 15 sorts of parts.
I hate that when Randal speaks mostly only intellectuals will understand him but Dan speaks usually where the common layman can understand ... Plus even at the end we don't see Randal admitting that he might be wrong ... arrogant in my opinion.
God has many needs and wants. I know he needs money. He also says he wants love, obedience, worship, praise and a personal relationship. I could help him get what he wants if he would stop hiding.
Randall just got his ass spanked thoroughly for all to see, defending a truly dispicable being to the death and to his own detriment. Dan comes out as the good guy here, Randall well insert your own word. Also Randall constantly evades and does not answer the question as usual for Christians to skate around the issue rather than addressing it for in addressing it the obvious is known
Throughout the whole conversation, it felt like Dan Barker was just saying, "Listen, Mr. Theologian Randal Rauser, we don't need biblical scholars to tells us the context of the bible because I've read it for myself using nothing but 21st-century logic and became an atheist. Therefore, Bible debunked." Every time Randal would answer any of his moral objections to scripture using historical context that aided him to reach his conclusion, Dan would blow it off and say, "That's just your interpretation. And every scholar differs from each other" Without citing a pair of differing scholars. I don't know if Dan just wasn't prepared for this conversation but his rhetoric of saying that humans spontaneously gain something as arbitrary as "Morality" without the Christian God, call the Christian God the evilest character of all creation, then say that people who worship the evilest character of all creation can be morally upright people who improved humanity for the better like Martin Luther King Jr. is downright... Odd.
Seeing how dans definition of morality is anything that causes one harm almost everything on this planet can cause you harm so is by dans Definition a lot of things are immoral
@@philosophyjunkies6693 Yup. And so has Dan Barker. And he still doesn't know what he's talking about. At least being aware of the historical and literary context of when and how each book was written separates the individual from the people who claim to "Read the bible" and those who have a better understanding of it. Dan Barker proved to me that you can read something and completely misunderstand it.
@@masonimous I don't believe it really helps. I've studied lots of patristic and Christian commentary on that stuff its still bad. Outside the Christian bubble it just looks like grasping at straws.
@Mike Just three among thousand of embarrassing and ignorant contradictions.: The first verse Gen.1;1 has scientific contradictions. The trinity is a theological contradiction. The resurrection has ton of historical and theological contradictions. And if you don't understand the contradictions, you need to study science, theology and history. There is an encyclopedia of bible contradictions for god's sake, look it up.You cult mentality has forced you to study the bible devotionally and faithfully, but now if you want to get out of the blood cult, you must study the bible historically and critically.
@Mike You don't know much astronomy do you? It is totally contradictory to the development of the universe. It would of been impossible for human character god to 'create' heavens and the Earth in that sequence of the great expansion of the universe. The Earth is from our SUN and solar system, it can only come from a star, and the stars were not created yet in verse one. And that is just one major problem for christian theology the fact that the pre-scientific writer or/and writers of that verse wrote down what they THOUGHT happened, not what is scientific. The oldest translation of Gen 1:1 goes like this: old time land owner owned sky land. It has nothing to do with god, heaven or earth as these word came in much later to increase the power of their gods and devils. That is what man do.
@@bogdanoff3.066 Yes and it could very well be that the entirety of the bible/god/devil... invention is factually false but in some case be metaphorically true.
Is this logical then: Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@malirk I have been listening to and reading Barker for may years and that statement is in keeping with his Atheism. In fact, I featured him in my book "Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors" (www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%E2%80%9Cno-end-books%E2%80%9D-publications). That quote is from when he claimed rape could be moral in certain circumstances during his debate contra Kyle Butt.
@@GrrMania He is one of my favorites: as examples of poor argumentations, faulty logic, Biblical ignorance, a professional troublemaker who makes a living by playing the victimhood card, etc., etc., etc.
I love how Cameron said condescendingly "so read his book, Randal, you've got to read his book before you can object" however he didn't say anything about Randal saying that same thing about his own books numerous times beforehand. It really shows Cameron's bias
Cameron is a Christian (check any of his websites!) so he expected much more from Randal than Dan. Unfortunately, a sprinkle of bias from a moderator does not help one's position in an argument.
@@mcotto4083 yeah he’s more biased than I would like him to be, but he was not a terrible moderator at all, I actually think you did a good job, Justin Brylee is a great moderator though he’s really good at being neutral, and not himself unless he needs to.
So, why didn't god give us an algorithm or protocol on how to interpret the Bible? Randal Rauser is definitely using his own wisdom and understanding to interpret the Bible. Without an algorithm or protocol for interpretation by Trinity God, how can we know the correct interpretation? Randall Rauser is obviously choosing the interpretation that helps him sleep at night. LOL
We know the correct interpretation. The most modern writer of it was a man called Thomas Troward. And we know this to be the truth because it can and has been tested.
Here’s a more accurate summary: Dan: i read the most literal meaning and how it makes me f e e l Randal: do you even know how to read, like in general? Bc no one with basic 9th grade reading skills reads like this. Then it goes back and forth...
@@akimoetam1282 I would agree Randal is very petty and condescending. He basically strawmans Dan throughout this entire discussion. So yeah, I'd agree with that summary on Randal. But you are misunderstanding Dan if you think that's what he's saying.
Dan absolutely destroyed him. Such a non-aggressive and confident speaker.
I 100% agree. Dan brings up very concise, logical, and common sense points that this other clown always deflects from.
So he’s right because he is non-aggressive and a confident speaker? Good observation.
@@donny5429 Never said that was the reason. It was just an observation. If you watched and understodd, you'dknow why Dan won this debate by a country mile.
@@donny5429 he didn’t say that was the reason why he destroyed the opponent.
@@dimitardimitroff9763 Do you think that we’re supposed to know everything as humans?
I love how the Christian is getting bent out of shape as he misses the point and then proves Dan’s point for him. By insisting that humans write the Psalms, he admits that the entire book isn’t gods word, which then opens the door for any skeptic to say, how do we tell what is gods word and what isn’t? He walked right into Dan’s trap.
Without God, human can ot be a good person. Without fear of God and turning away from evil, we can not find God is real! Sins darkened person's heart and make people think no Heaven and no Hell! Only they enter Hell like the rich man in Luke, they will cry out for mercy! Too late for them!
@@ruthtian7818 Notice how you run so eagerly to the most horrific threat available to you. If someones logic defeats yours, you banish them to eternal torture. This is most revealing of the nature of how the church has used the bible throughout time.
@@ruthtian7818
[Without fear of God and turning away from evil, we can not find God is real!] Are you claiming God to be a psychological product of desperation of some sort ?
@@ruthtian7818 were good people because we do the exact opposite of what the bible teaches. Its hot trash XD
@@MyContext could just.. appear to us also or is he incapable? Is he not real or too lazy or doesmt care?
im listening to Dan's book right now. So happy i can learn from his journey
Randall didn’t answer any questions. Just kept saying Dan isn’t using the right interpretation and not specifying which one to use
He is right in saying that Dan's interpretation is wrong but I'm slightly irritated that he didn't stick with one interpretation, instead he gave multiple (which I think weakened his arguement)
@@bogdanoff3.066 Dan's interpretation is extremely biased. It is clear he cherry picks verses out of the context to paint God out to be an exclusively immoral character and completely ignores the good God does or the fair punishments or what He did in the New Testament when He was in human form.
@@wildwarrior5680 Saying he ignored the good God when he is showing you specific parts that contradict “good” is not cherry picking. And there is no context that could make most of them good anyway. What you are requesting is that he doesn’t actually make his argument in order to show parts that are irrelevant to it
@@psilosydetrusenses4125 The only people who share your line of thinking are atheists who have never finished reading the Bible.
@Johnny Santana Bot
Why on Earth would any Christian WANT to try and and reconcile Old testament garbage with the radically new teachings of Jesus ?
Nothing could be more insane.
Is it just me or did it feel like most of the points Randall made actually benefited Dan's argument. Also as a former Catholic, having read the Bible from cover to cover, Dan is 100% correct. I literally couldn't believe what I was reading. There is no amount of context required that will ever justify slavery, rape and infanticide. If it was an all powerful being delivering his word he would have told them something useful like how to create paracetamol or ibprofuen, not something as silly as don't worship other gods. How vein
It’s only silly to those who think they know what they are reading.
@@AbiNomac the first 5 commandments are silly if you're an all powerful God. It's the kind of thing a dictator scared of losing power would come up with.
@@williammartucci6444 - William, you mean the first four. Anyway, it isn’t as you assume. The Almighty is definitely not looking to be worshipped and there is nothing that scares God. These are instructions to us to experience the greatness of life. I have to repeat, it’s about us having the greatest life experiences.
First, you have to understand that God doesn’t need us. When we were created we were given free will.
Think of the relationship with God as one of a parent and child. Parents don’t need their kids. They want them.
Parents raise the child, instilling the best they have to move the child into adulthood hoping they have given enough so the child can have the best life possible. Same with God. He instructions to us is the best on offer to give us the best quality of life.
So, we as His creation were given life for the purpose of God to enjoy us (same as a parent) and for us, it is for the enjoyment of living. Hopefully, living with God in our life but we do have free will to choose. Dictators don’t give you free will.
God knows if we want love in life, His love is greater than any other love. He loves unconditionally, He protects and blesses and so on. No one else can do that for you. So He is encouraging us to seek His love above any other to experience what the highest love is. Again, He doesn’t need our love. He is telling us where we are to find the greatest love. If we are listening, it saves us years of heartache and searching.
So it’s God simply telling us, “If you want the best in life, come to me, put me first for your own sake, and not mine.”
I was an atheist once and had your beliefs. I also wondered why the Bible referred to God as a jealous God. This made know sense to me. Jealously is a petty emotion. I wondered how the almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator could have such small-mindedness. I wondered for years.
The many Christians I asked over the years said the same thing, that God is jealous because we love others before him. This didn’t sit well with me. It didn’t help me to accept that God was real. I had many other queries like the inconstances that appear in Genesis. Adam and Eve and their two sons were the first people on Earth. So who did Caine marry when God punished Him and sent into the wilderness to start over and find a wife, after he murdered his brother? There were so many I found ridiculous.
Fortunately, I had all that answered and it saddens me that Christians don’t know the real meaning of the Bible.
The word jealously was used to describe the term, “fiercely protective.” Jealously contains the characteristic of wanting to protect. The original meaning has been lost in translation.
The phrase we know is, “God is jealous God. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.” (lord here doesn’t mean God, it means the Law).
The real phrase is, “God is a fiercely protective God. Vengeance is mine says the Law of Life.”
This is about someone being done wrong by and if they are in a relationship with God, He fiercely protects them and has the Law on His side to deliver justice. The Bible is a great manual for living when it is understood.
@@AbiNomac I see what you're saying Abi. I would actually agree that it is a book to help you live a good life if you were an Israeli Shephard 2000 years ago but times have changed and it is clear the book is not the word of God or even inspired by God. It's just the word of humans that wrote things down on paper that society had been doing for thousands of years earlier and claimed it was God's word. Also jealous and fiercely protective, doesn't really matter when you look at gods actions. It you can find one, just one good deed that god did that didn't come at the expense of something truly horrific I'd be surprised. I'm glad u think God is love as most religious people do, it is however contrary to what God does in the Bible. Do you know why Saul is no longer king in the Bible?? It's because after salughtering the men women and children he left a little bit of live stock alive. If parents punished their children like God does he's be in prison for the rest of his life. God very clearly wants to be worshipped, I'm not sure why you think he doesn't. He spends ages on the Bible explaining how many animals need to be sacrificed in order to worship him properly. I swear I'm not making this up. I honestly wish I was.
@@williammartucci6444 - as the Bible is about the law of life, it is as relevant today as a maths or science text book. You clearly don’t know that it is about law or that would have been your main argument. And if you did know, you’d understand the contents in which these “evil” things in the Bible happened and the “so-called evil acts of God.” Which is laughable understanding your and mainstream understanding. I’m not going to argue with you. You need more education on the subject. All the best to you.
Wow, I'm not going to lie, but by looking at Randal Rauser's body language I can tell he really struggles with those verses in the bible. I kind of know, because I was once like that :(
Yep cuz that’s the only reason he would be agitated.
Sometimes that's the best medicine. Is it any wonder why there are s many passages pitting God against the "wise". What is it about intelligence that causes anxiety among the religious? perhaps for the same reason militaries prefer the simple-minded. They are more prone to be brain-washed and indoctrinated.
@@jstube36o, stupidity is the hallmark of the self-conceited atheist like Dan. They don’t seek knowledge, especially the knowledge that counts. They just want to get a dopamine rush from morally pontificating.
@@jstube36many verses about praising people who believe without reason to also, interesting that no religious person will talk about how these beliefs are coded into the text to encourage faith based belief without good reason
@@zaydevans2077 Paul, in one of his letters, strongly advises his followers to keep clear of unbelievers. To not associate with unbelievers, to not work with or marry them. Question is what is Paul's anxiety about these unbelievers? Maybe because with reason and common sense, they see through Paul's sermons? Why, in Revelation, John the author imagines that unbelievers will be cast into the "Lake Of Fire". Thus equating unbelievers with murderers. Says all you need to know. That disbelief is evil. That is a huge red flag, that the religious tend to purposely ignore.
"It comforts me to believe everyone who disagrees with me will burn forever."
- Christian statement of faith
And not everyone holds to eternal conscious torment. And most people believe that the fire in brimstone language is figurative language. Read the passages for yourself and figure out what you believe that Jesus is trying to communicate by using this kind of imagery.
At 1:15 after listening to Randal, my question is, if there are a multitude of possible interpretations, how do we know which one is correct? That gave weight to Dan's position.
No, it doesn’t. There are countless controversies that face us every day. Do we just raise our hands and give up because neither side is going to give way in their current convictions? I have never heard a more anti-intellectual complaint in my life!
@@ManoverSuperman Well I guess you don't get out much.
The fact that an intelligent man like Dan once believed this nonsense shows what a powerful hold religion has over the human mind
I started to drift off when that apologist spoke at length. He literally just spews word salad drivel seemingly totally unconnected with the question at hand. He NEVER just gets to the point. ANY POINT.
I didn't hear any word salad. This was one of the better debates I've heard in awhile. Jmo
Is ANY God Worthy of Worship?
I find it interesting that Randal was introduced as being very charitable, but starts his argument with a character assassination. It's like christians have a different definition of charitable....
Yeah, Randal was nasty a couple of times. I was surprised at that. I think it was because he knew he was losing.
Years ago, Dan had the same realization that I had last October. He came to it on his own in his 30s. I needed the help of TH-cam videos and was 64. A couple verses in, the Bible says that God created a hard dome above the flat Earth to hold back the water that fills universe so that there would be a space for the air. The people who wrote this had no idea what they were talking about. Why would you believe anything they said if it couldn't be verified independently ? My lifetime of doubts and disappointment all made sense. God was never there to begin with and now he was gone from my head. Not for nothing does Paul use slavery as an image of Christianity. Dare to ask the questions that could set you free.
Actually the dome thing depends on the translation.
You can look at that yourself www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3130%26context%3Dauss&ved=2ahUKEwjGzeOEp-TtAhUK7qwKHRGxCUsQFjAFegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw13VjfisCcLjCYC8jfBhddd
But regardless, the bible wasn't a science textbook and never tried to be a science textbook. I mean in less than a century ago we made completely inaccurate statements about molecules. I would be surprised if we didn't do something similar thousands of years ago on a text that wasn't even focused on science.
However, their lack of telescopes and microscopes which might interfere with scientific discovery doesn't interfere with recording revelation.
You just need to keep doing mental gymnastics. Just remember, all the good stuff and teachings in the bible, is totally legit and what god meant. All the bad, immoral and ignorant things, well that's just bad translations and man writing things into the bible. Not to be taken literally.
Honestly i don't get how Christians watch this and can't see the obvious problem they have....
@@jacoblee5796
I didn't know abiding by scholars research is mental gymnastics. That's the equivalent of a YEC calling evolution mental gymnastics.
But the Hebrew language is a high context cultural filled with idioms and metaphors. And even without cultural consideration it's clear both "good" and "bad" parts are idioms and metaphors. We aren't literal beams of light for the world.
@@JP-rf8rr Your doing it and not even realizing it. Tell me, do these so called scholars have an agenda? What about Islamic scholars? Do they have an agenda? How about Mormon scholars? How wonder, can you see the point yet?
@@jacoblee5796
Half the scholars aren't even theists let alone Christians. And most of the Christian scholars are Christian in name only. Also this is fallacious, like a YEC saying experts have an agenda.
Dan Barker is fearless, pulling no punches. Above us, only sky. Thank you.
Watching people who are experts in theology argue by deflecting conversation to navigate the atrocities from the Bible is like watching little kids lie about obvious things. I get it. You spent your whole life believing in a magical thing. It’s ok to say you were wrong. Dan is a legend who just tells the truth.
Spot on Iron Marc
Just admit and believe. It's OK
@@yunsohn which one of the 1000's of fictional deitys should I believe in? zeus, Allah, jesus, shiva, buddha, judaism, etc. there are around 4200 different religions be more specific on what to believe because 1. either they all are false and don't exist or 2. one exists and hopefully I get lucky to be born in the right place on the map. Be specific.
Atrocities aren't immoral on atheism, so that failed.
@@everyzan-m2q kinda depends on which side of the fence you lie my friend. I mean you could believe in “free will” or as I do on “determinism”. Atrocities is a word used to describe the pestilence, slave owning practices, misogyny, bigotry, killing on levels that would rival are histories greatest villains, etc.that the Bible of western culture seems to preach about. MORALS ARE A HUMAN TRAIT! The overall well being of our procreation and longevity as a species don’t have anything to do with one of the made up fictional deity’s. Blurting out random thoughts is not how you make invalid points, valid. Good effort. Old argument. Come with some better research and then maybe we can have a conversation about morality. Your environment and track through life changes that morality towards the overall survival of that environment. ITS CALLED EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION. Even tho I am a double major in philosophy and biology, you can still obtain this info from your 8th grade biology class. Or, hey, look it up. Keep thinking. Ya, your incorrect.
Bravo Dan Barker, what a wonderful performance ! He ran circles around Randal
He may be a good performer but he utterly discredits himself. Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Answer this question then (assuming you're a Christian)... is it objectively evil to intentionally kill a child?
@@KenAmmi-Shalom You gotta timestamp this.
@@malirk I have been listening to and reading Barker for may years and that statement is in keeping with his Atheism. In fact, I featured him in my book "Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors" (www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%E2%80%9Cno-end-books%E2%80%9D-publications). That quote is from when he claimed rape could be moral in certain circumstances during his debate contra Kyle Butt.
@@pazuzil No. But it is always wrong to murder a child. Now, you answer.
Wow, Randall is so offended at the mere reality that he is participating in a debate. Did he not realize that the entire purpose was to debate with someone about something they disagree on??
Dan Barker outclassed this guy in every aspect, including emotionally.
Of course he is Dans too good for Randal who is a nice person but uses at ontology.
Randal would believe in fairies if Jesus was used in the story of humptydumpty !
@@johncook19Dan doesn’t understand the Bible. Especially coming from a Protestant background. He believes God is a moral monster and just reads the Bible literally without context. That’s what Randall is trying to explain. Dan is a good dude I presume. But when he debates educated people. He struggles. Kind of like he did with John Lennox.
Can you imagine people willing to defend murder, rape, genocide and slavery...? Oh...wait.
I dont know whats wrong with these things, matt dillahunty and almost every atheist says morality is subjective.
It is only possible to defend such things if you are religious
@@ATOK_ tell that to joseph stalin, pol pot and jeffrey dahmer
@@ceceroxy2227 I will if I meet them some day
@@ATOK_ good point
listening to dan leaves no questions in my mind. it’s very calming. like seeing someone unraveling a complex mess calmly with steady hands and ease.
Dan is so relaxed
Atheist: "I can be wrong"
Christian: "I can never be wrong."
Is that really what you get from listening to Randal Rauser?
Yes.
@@HaecceitasQuidditas there wasn't anything but that.
you obviously know nothing about Randall Rauser has said over the years. That is not his approach to his Christian faith.
@@Benjamin-to2zq you've clearly never read the bible so sit down n read.
As a Christian, I hate that Dan is so got dang good lol. Never seen him loose. That being said, he hasn't changed my mind, I still serve Yahweh with all my strength. But he has made me think.
Good! That's exactly what his intention is: to make you think! Half way to the Truth.
Hmmm... Imagine talking to a woman who agrees her husband beats her, but then says she still loves him and know he loves her and will stay with him.
watch his debates with rev john rankin.
@@gondolier41413 Will do, thank you my friend.
@@Fastlan3Brain rot take right here folks.
Dan interrupts Randal - not ok, Randal interrupts Dan... nothing happens
Dan: Men wrote the bible.
Randy: No, God wrote the bible!
Dan: Which part?
Randy: None of it. Human beings wrote the scriptures just like Americans wrote our history.
Bach would be offended by you using his image. Every composition he wrote, he would sign Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone). You clearly are not doing that, but wasting your time with moronic anti-theists like Barker
@23:08 - No, no, no, no Randal. Address what Dan just stated, in what context would it be permissible and a reflection of a loving god to be the one allowing and as Dan pointed out, doing the "lifting the skirts" himself so that these women were to be raped. In what possible context could that be something that maximizes the well-being of humans and minimizes harm? How is that a reflection of a loving god?
In no context is killing and drowning babies, condoning rape and slavery morally acceptable, let alone Righteous.
Glad to learn that you are pro-life. But you are beginning with a conclusion since you imply a condemnation of being "killing" I think you mean "murder," and "drowning babies, condoning rape" no such thing in the Bible, "slavery," whereby you seem to be using a generic term to make points: but how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, for adhering to them and for demanding that others do so as well? Please begin at the start and then work your way towards a conclusion.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom I'm good, but thanks for the suggestions!
@@saffronhammer7714 Friend, I am constantly finding that Atheist are scared to death to dig even one level deeper, or higher, than the knee-jerk beginning with conclusions manner to which they have become accustomed.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom You might want to enlarge your circle then. And perhaps I should as well, considering I think the same of most of the theists I know. ;-)
@@saffronhammer7714 Yet, friend, the difference is that I am speaking about you directly based on what you are stating while you are punting to some generic somebodies.
As an atheist I want to thank Cameron for setting up this debate. If we had more civilized dialog like this the world would be a better place. Take care everyone.
Yes
Agreed
I have not yet found anything worthy of worship. Many people and things deserve conscious respect, but not blind worship. Religion expects blind acceptance of dogma. Science looks to the future and the finding of knowledge.
Randal says God accommodated "moral imperfections" of the ancient Israelites like genocide and rape, and yet he punishes them severely whenever they breached minor technical laws?
The Bible says God is not the author of confusion. If so, why was God so inept as to give us a book that cannot be read and understood at face value and without Randall's claim for the need of interpretation and scholars.
That is a great observation
Dan is calm, puts forward logical and considered arguments, and tells it as it is without all the spin doctoring of his opponent. Conclusion: the Christian must cherry pick the Bible to come up with their loving God. Fine, but don't elevate the Bible above any other book.
Calm snobbery you mean😅
Have you considered that maybe the "spin doctoring" is really just understanding the material with enough depth that it takes you to new conclusions? The text is complex and seeped in historical, cultural and theological context, but skeptics insist on reading it no differently than fundamentalists do.
Dan Barker is the one Cherry picking in order to make a points.
@Awesome Wrench Jehovah what.
@Awesome Wrench you’re thinking of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I Think you mean Yahweh.
Lol. TRIGGERED!
It's incredible that Randal appears to not understand that Dan isn't coming from the Christian perspective. Sadly, he comes across like a 5-year-old telling Dan that he should read like a believer, and THEN it would make perfect sense.
Randal! Dan doesn't believe what you believe! Just in case you missed it. You're supposed to communicate WHY he should see it like you do, not just that he should...
The problem for Dan is the bible includes the new testament. So when he says no one is there to help us interpret these old testament passages he is dead wrong. God himself as Christ incarnate was constantly telling us how to interpret the old testament:
trueandreasonable.co/2019/11/12/anti-theists-and-pharisees-can-interpret-the-old-testament-the-way-they-want-i-will-interpret-it-the-way-god-wants/
I think Randall and other apologists often forget this.
@@niceforkinmove5511
Sorry, two thousand year old stories don't confirm 3 thousand year old stories.
@@klaytonlewis8080 Confirm them? I don't think we are talking about confirming the old testament we are talking about how to interpret it.
@@niceforkinmove5511
I mean in regards of confirming legitimacy.
"Correct" interpretation of mythology is subjective.
People today "interpret" the New Testament in different ways, which, in turn, leads to different interpretations of the old.
Same problem, different era.
@@klaytonlewis8080 Yes but as a Christian I believe Christ was God. When God tells you how to interpret the old testament that is not just anyone.
Nice, when Randal refer to the genocide as a " difficult texts"
Yes, and then listing tons of possible interpretations without realizing that none of them actually makes it that much better. So, they were not all killed but "only" displaced - wow, that of course makes the whole thing basically an act of kindness... Or it's all just figuratively, or it actually didn't happen at all (even admitting the logical contradiction to the presupposition of an all-loving god, so it simply cannot be true - even though it's right there in the book that is supposedly the true word of god himself!) - well, if it is irrelevant then why even mention it in the story that is supposedly intended to teach us about god's true nature?
Classic
Also I bet if you dig deep enough the Bible is against Christians watching pure flix
Why do theists host these debates? It's not a good look for your religion. What an absolute destruction of the apologist. Brutal
God- love the neighbor
Dan to Randal- what does god mean by that.
Randal- he means exactly what it says love the neighbor.
God-kids that disobey there parents should be stone to death.
Dan to Randal - what does god mean by that. Randal- well you have to read it with a Christian lens, even though it says that he doesn’t mean to kill ur kids 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Dan surely won this debate. In this topics, Randall's argument is totally destroyed. Randall seems a good person and hold more progressive view. He is not justify genocides like Paul Copan. I hope more christian can be more progressive like Randal.
Dan’s Stubbornness ≠ winning
@@akimoetam1282 He is not any more or less stubborn than any religious person. He won because his arguments were better.
Dan won the debate? Really i don`t see how . Dan did win the debate on being the most stubborn
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood What arguments? He critiques old testament ethics and cherry picks verses out of context without considering the primary message of the Holy Bible as a whole. And his interpretation is very biased and philosophically weak.
@@wildwarrior5680 You mean, weaker than the arguments FOR god/s?`I can't quite believe that...
So he is critiquing the Old Testament for its horrible ethical standards - what's wrong with that? Are you trying to say the OT is NOT the word of god? Or that the OT ethics are good?
Out of context how? The verses he _chose_ are pretty clear and straightforward. What kind of interpretation would _you_ cherry-pick? There is _so much_ wrong with verses all over the Bible, it wouldn't be easy to find one that is _not_ prone to criticism.
Also, it is kind of hysterically hypocritical to accuse a Bible _skeptic_ of cherry-picking - the favorite past-time of any preacher and priest for thousands of years.
The primary message of the Holy Bible as a whole - hmm... which message would that be - that there is a god? Or that we need a totalitarian leader to be good? Or that we should abandon everything that we love and 'unconditionally' love Jesus instead, because we don't want to be tortured for eternity? Or how primitive and scientifically ignorant goat-herders from 3,000+ years ago can still control us with a nonsensical fantasy story, despite our technological and ethical progress?
I'm really not sure what you're talking about...
Wow. Randal just accused Barker of “rhetorical violence.” Take a look at the text you’re defending before casting stones. The self-righteous hypocrisy is shameful, Rauser.
It does not really matter since Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Nonsense. There exist justified theories of morality that don’t necessitate an absolute standard. Morality is a contentious, tricky issue. The only ones who are disqualified from discussing it are the idiots who insist in clinging to divine standards of moral absolutism.
@@mrmaat Then Baker defeats himself. If morality is tricky, there is no way to condemn anything in the Bible
@@johnlove2954 Yes, there is. I can appeal to maximizing human pleasure and contentment and minimizing pain for all sentient creatures.
This doesn’t need to be a universal, cosmically grounded truth in order for it to still be the most reasonable goal of each individual who lives in society.
The Bible is no more useful as a moral guide than any other religious text.
And a hint about tactics - claiming that people who don’t accept the Bible can’t have a justified moral will instantly make you look like a dumbass. This debate has been played out.
@@mrmaat
_" Yes, there is. I can appeal to maximizing human pleasure and contentment and minimizing pain for all sentient creatures. "_
Nope. It is just a slogan. If you really believed and so did the atheists like Dan, they would sell a lot of stuff they have and give money to poor because that is one way you can maximise human pleasure and reduce pain.
The fact that we don't see atheists do that is because it is just like a slogan. It is used by atheists because it is a cope and they need something to make themselves feel virtuous.
People who are actually moral need not do that.
_"And a hint about tactics - claiming that people who don’t accept the Bible can’t have a justified moral will instantly make you look like a dumbass. This debate has been played out.
"_
And here you prove my point. You basically say - "If you don't agree with me, you look like a dumbass". To who? I suppose to your crowd.
It is hilarious that you and your friends think that saying "If you don't agree we are moral, we think you are idiot" makes you look moral, when it just does the exact opposite.
Atheism is just like giant self-righteous fundamentalism, without the virtue part, of course.
It is literally the worst of both worlds.
😂
I've never heard an apologist before, at least not this in depth. I'm floored to hear the mental gymnastics involved. It's utterly insane.
My parents have made me go to church my whole life and yet I'm still more persuaded by Dan's arguments than I am Randal's arguments. I really do love the way Dan debates.
That is because apologists ARE insane - or liars.
Dan Barker never loses a debate.
That's what happens when you stop listening to imaginary friends and using your own brains (as an ex muslim wish i had done the same a long long time ago)
Except he has
@@bogdanoff3.066 no, he is just one of my many awesome gods. He always wins.
No, the truth is he never can win a debate. He’s so childish and puerile.
@@ManoverSuperman Dan has a talent for misinterpreting versus.
I love Dan and all the work he does with Freedom from Religion.
Why I’ll be do is look for things to complain about and look for the most insignificant things.
@@pleaseenteraname1103why are they insignificant and why should we care what you find insignificant?
@@princegobi5992 Because I understand the subject better than Dan I guess I don’t really think I’m that insightful but still more insightful than Dan.
Any person demanding worship is evil by definition. A good person won't even consider being worshiped in the first place.
@Kyle Coffey
For a such "perfect" being, especting to be worshiped would just show that being is a total crap.
@@ianosgnatiuc prove it
@@intrynsic
To prove what? Definitions are not proved, they're stated.
@@ianosgnatiuc Prove that a perfect being expecting worship is total crap.
@@intrynsic
What don't you understand about how things are defined? That's definition of what the crappy person is.
If you listen to Randal's "logic", you could use the same arguments for Scientology and every other cult. The entire notion that one must internalize all the belief's assumptions in order to "actually understand the book correctly" is the definition of how cults work. This entire conversation is a good study in psychology, projection, etc ...
Christian apologists are in a codependent relationship. It leads them to defend the indefensible. Randal admits he "struggles" with Yahweh, his partner, who seem supportive of rape. Randal defends the behavior of his partner as codependent people are want to do, the classic example is "my husbands DUI is not what it seems".
IMHO the most inexcusably inhumane act of Yahweh is when he lost his temper over the actions of a few and responded with by unleashing his beloved aqua-genocide, which only Noah and his brood survived. Ricky Gervais has a brilliant routine where he has illustrations from a children's book about the myth projected on a screen for his audience. Christians actually inculcate their kids that this capricious genocide was a good thing. I want to vomit when I realize this mindset is permeates our great nation.like a dark fog of unenlightenment.
The only Christian sect that originally fought against slavery was the Quakers, they also participated in The Underground Railway, and treated woman as equals. If they had been the dominant religion in America things may have been different.
Only in Christianity can you justify anti slavery. Be calm.
1:18:00 I think another question to ask here is, "Why does God need to have humans fight his battles in the first place?"
Personally, I won't even give my respect to a man that won't fight his own battles (especially when he picked the fight in the first place) let alone give my worship to a God that expects me to fight his battles.
That's a very good point and so true :-) If god is all powerful and powerful enough to make universes why does he need humans to do his dirty work.
The concept of worship is insane. If I was god, I wouldn’t care if people worshipped me or not, because I’m not a sociopathic douche.
Good for you bro, want a trophy?
Notice, atheists^^ If they had a good response they’d make it, but all they have is emotional outburst.
@LuthAMF Can you edit your comment so it isn’t occultist dogshit please?
@LuthAMF what
@LuthAMF “God works in mysterious ways.” Gullible idiot.
Chrisians: When a good thing happens, it is God. see God is love
Atheists: What about this bad thing done by God
Chrisians: First, God is love so when there is a negative, it is poetic or blame something else.
Dan is the man! Winner 🏆
Dan - Asking multible questions
Randal - Keep tap dancing and changing subjects
it's fun seeing a representative for a religion of peace alway being so angry and apprehensive.
I felt the same way. Randall couldn't answer a question without moving the question elsewhere
Actually Randal is quite articulate, it’s barker that’s being the stubborn mule. If Dan took a second he would have figured out that Randal doesn’t even believe in the so called “Canaanite genocide”
th-cam.com/video/lI6r8S9DKMg/w-d-xo.html
@@akimoetam1282 Then Randell should of been able to answer with authority and conviction. Instead, well, we all can see it. very frustrating for someone who is honestly willing to listen and learn from these 2 wise fellows. however , one of them speaks with conviction and the other weasles out of answering non stop. No matter what the validity of the claims are, One should have the honesty to confront them. Thats all, nothing other than that there is a big diffence between the two styles is what I have commented on and not the subject matter. This is self evident. thanks
@akim oetam no one said Randall isn't articulate. However, his inability to answer a question has nothing to do with his articulation.
Dan Barker isn't stubborn at all. He sees things from a neutral perspective. As a former Catholic, as Dan Barker put it, reading the Bible Cover to Cover is more likely to turn you athiest. Randall can choose to believe that there was no caaninite genocide but the Bible clearly states God commanded these things.
It's a shame that Randall never once gave a reason to believe God is good and worthy of worship. He just asserts that that is the case and tries to fit the horrific events in the Bible around it.
Here is an exercise, read the Bible and find one good thing that God did that didn't come at the expense of something horrific. If you can I'll be impressed.
So Randal's entire argument is that one cannot read the Bible by oneself. The person has to rely on "scholars and experts". But who are these "scholars and experts"? If as claimed that the Bible was written by God Himself, do you think the end product is so unclear that it has to be interpreted by other people. So the God is not as communicative as "scholars and experts"? And where do "scholars and experts" get their knowledge from?
Good point
Randal Rauser spouts the usual incoherent babble of theologians. It’s beyond me how anybody can use the Bible as a source for information and yet here we are in the 21st century still talking about divine inspiration. Rauser swerves round every question Dan Barker asks. I hope the Christian watches this video back and it helps him to see how nonsensical he sounds and how ridiculous his propositions are.
The bible includes the new testament. So when Dan says no one is there to help us interpret these old testament passages he is dead wrong. God himself as Christ incarnate was constantly telling us how to interpret the old testament:
trueandreasonable.co/2019/11/12/anti-theists-and-pharisees-can-interpret-the-old-testament-the-way-they-want-i-will-interpret-it-the-way-god-wants/
I think Randall and other apologists often forget this.
If a being as powerful as this man's god wanted to give us a message there would be no debate
Or- if God's Non-existence was as obvious as Dan Barker claimed, there would be no debate.
However- Billions across the Planet Earth disagree with Dan's position.
( Nice try!!)
@@robinrobyn1714 There is debate because people still believe in these horrible fairy stories
@@janmerrywest Like the horrible fairy-tale of Atheism?
Atheist regimes killed over 60 million in the 20th Century alone.
You apparently have never read the works of Solzhenitsyn.
That's so true
@@janmerrywest Or-' if God's non Existence was as obvious as Atheists make it out to be, then this debate wouldn't be necessary.
THAT'S SO TRUE.
Basically 'I cherry pick the bits of the Bible I like and make excuse for the psycho bits'
I get sick of this excuse that a modern day reader of the bible is getting it all wrong, couldn't this god make it more clearer so every generation could understand him ?Is he not powerful or clever enough to do that? Even humans seem to manage to do this
Why do folk assume that just because a story was included in an old book it must be true ?
Um, the oldness has absolutely nothing to do with it, pal. Are atheists even capable of rational thought?
@Keatsian Nightingale It is insanity to assume that every story in the Bible must be either true, or God inspired.
This is impossible because there are at least 50 contradictions, plus all the OT fairytales that defy all reason, and experience.
But there are many zombies who blindly believe everything corrupt churches tell them to believe.
Are you one of them ???
@@ManoverSuperman So you believe in talking snakes, men living in whales and being turned into pillars of salt, do you ? 🤣🤣
What kind of pervert are you??
@Keatsian Nightingale Only very stupid morons could believe Old testament nonsense and fairytales.
@Keatsian Nightingale Age has much to do with it, as we know that folk had very primitive beliefs 2,000 + years ago.
The Hebrew tribes practiced the sacrifice of animals, believed in witches, and all kinds of superstitious beliefs that the Roman authorities included in this old book called the Bible.
God had nothing to do with such nonsense, obviously.
The OT judgmental tyrannical murderous made up god figure, is nothing like the real God of perfect love, who judges no one that Jesus teaches.
A child of ten would know this, but there are some incredibly stupid so - called Christians, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by superstition and nonsense, poor fools !!
Dan Barker: "You can't tell me how to interpret the Bible."
Also Dan Barker: "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong."
If I respect someone it's because I know they exist, for instance I no longer respect Santa Claus.
Really enjoyed this thanks to all involved 👍
Wouldn’t a worthy god first demonstrate that they were real first.
If any claimed god were ever able to fulfil the above criteria they would then have to demonstrate that they were worthy of worship.
You guys are putting the cart before the horse.
@@TheWorldTeacher No.
@@TheWorldTeacher what are you trying to convince me of?
@@TheWorldTeacher slave to what?
@@TheWorldTeacher you asked me if I was a theist. What was my answer?
@@TheWorldTeacher Calling people a slave yet you lack reading comprehension and just copy and paste. Real classy.
Thanks!
Excellent debate. I won just by listening and contemplating. Thanks!
All the OT god condoned atrocities are certainly horrendous, but they’re nothing in comparison to the same god torturing the majority of his creation in hell for eternity essentially because he’s the champion of hide and seek.
Horrendous how?
Heard of annihilationism?
@@ApozVideoz seriously? Read Dan’s book. Or just the Bible.
@@jennywidner4889 yeah, I’m all for it and suggest believers embrace it for their mental health. However, what denominations teach it?
@@zach2980 Mate, I'm asking you why is burning in hell for eternity horrendous, not a list of "horrendous" acts compiled by a person harboring vitriol.
Randall is very clearly interpreting the scripture in a way to continue feeling good about being a Christian.
He sure has a lot of interpretations up his sleeve.
@@Arven8 this may be a great filter humanity might not surpass, whereby the inability for enough of us to truthfully analyze and contend with information honestly. Likely a survival mechanism from millennia of lacking an ability to have solid truths, we evolved to accept "feelings of truth" which instinctively overrides competing information / conclusions despite our advancements in determining more accurate truths.
If moral truth doesn’t exist, then Dan has absolutely no merit over Rauser. And THAT is an objective conditional.
@@ManoverSuperman moral truths exist. Assuming minds exist, and there are minds that have moral boundaries. Then moral truths exist.
Morals are not absolute. Morals are mind based ideas of good and bad choices.
I acknowledge I do not know, but try to understand the best I can. A religious person claims to know, and understand a god.
Keatsian, please DO NOT understand what you are saying. Rauser is simultaneously begging the question and claiming to know the answer, meanwhile distorting scripture.
How can a perfect creator create an imperfect creation? By definition, the creator of an imperfect creation is not perfect.
Where did you get this definition? Has this been proven to be objectively true?
26:30 - "If it's just David talking and it's not God's word, then there's no real purpose for it to be in the Bible."
Randal is completely right - Dan might not be a Christian anymore, but he's still a fundamentalist.
Fideists never change
Try using the "but this was written by Solomon" (or an unknown writer) argument with a Christian who believes in using corporal punishment on their children as taught in Proverbs and see how convincing they find it. Randal must know that this is the case. The moderate, philosophical view he has is not shared by the vast majority of Christians.
@@befkotze
Not only is this unrelated to the OP, it's a dumb comment anyways
Here he didn't even do a fundamentalist Christian reading. He uses an Islamic view on how the scripture should be. No Christian fundamentalist I'm aware of says that the bible is gods dictated word with no influence of the human author. Not every act which is recorded in the bible is liked and recommended by god.
Well you cannot claim that the entirety of the Bible is gods word but concede that point when the words show God in a negative light.
So no. Randal is wrong and Dan is right...
after all Randal made the assertion that the Bible IS gods word but made an oxymoronic explanation for it, without admitting that he just admitted he is wrong.
Just started the video, and I already have the answer; "No".
The amount of apologizing just goes on and on and on. How about the start of an Apologetics Church, they can stand outside and say sorry, sorry, sorry, yes we know our savior is a nutty jealous jackass way worse than Stalin, Hitler...but he is a good guy.
Friend, you began with a conclusion about how being worse than Stalin and Hitler is condemnation but upon which of your worldview's premises?
@@KenAmmi-Shalom From reading the bible with how it is actually written.
Slavery, Genocide, Child Abuse...
@V K Interesting, thanks... My current understanding of life is yes, these things are bad. They dont make me upset (I secretly yearn for this kind of behavior on earth), Yes the do hurt people physically and emotionally I suppose. I dont care. The history of evolution has taken man to cooperation for the most part, and safe living in large cities is what I say as an atheist. :)
@@zachg8822 We can all list words but this is not Twitter, you can actually elucidate your point so, “Slavery, Genocide, Child Abuse...” what goes after the “…”?
Dan is brilliant and CALM
Randal is so so angry and agitated!!!
Calmness proves nothing.. Go to any card table in Vegas and see if you can tell who’s winning and who’s losing simply by looking someone’s demeanor.
@@slytheguy6761 hahahaha 🤣
Ya boy got owned!!
@@reefnreeferGrow up, kid. Maybe God will have mercy and soften your impenitent heart.
Dan: the non-religious religious fundamentalist.
Christianity arises FROM the Bible. STARTING with a Christian view when reading the Bible is definitionally begging the question. If you can’t get to the Christian view from the Bible without starting from that view, you’re just smelling your own farts.
Great job moderating this discussion. Barker says he reads the text and considers what it says, while the Christian dude says that he reads the text and if it doesn’t come out as love and goodness that he must have misinterpreted it. Ummmmmn isn’t that exactly the opposite of how logic and reason work?
Much respect for the moderator for allowing these guys to talk it out. I always hate it when the moderator breaks it up before they can really talk.
The Christian glossed right over Dan’s indictment of gods rape command! That pisses me off. He went right to his prereleases rebuttal to the killing babies passage. This guy is sooo triggered and dishonestZ
Exactly
I love how much Dan Barker reps his tribe
Is it the word of god or isn’t it? And how do you tell which parts were written by humans and which were spoken by god? Christianity is such a frustrating mess.
A little from column A and a little from column B
it seems some is and some isn't but bible says it all is and same messages are in Hebrew by most part
Many of these religious debates go into the "Nitty-Gritty" details of the various religious text - and/or a kind of a he-said/she-said type argument; which I find very tedious and boring. For me, ALL of these religious text are beside the point (and completely useless as a tool for knowledge) once you understand the FACT that all life on Earth has been evolving, and continues to evolve, for 100's of millions of years - Including Humans. Once you understand that Humans evolved and were NOT created by a magical supreme being, It's GAME OVER! Religion loses. End of debate!
Isaiah 45:7 says God created EVIL. He doesn't just allow it, he created it. Therefore, according to the author of the Bible, if God exists, he is responsible for everything Evil. That includes slavery, rape, genocide, misogyny, torture, Satan, etc.
If you can't create something from nothing, then if God created evil and humans that are sinful, it means that God has evil inside him and is sinful.
Slavery and rape are not evil according to the OT. They are actually sanctioned by god. ;-)
What a great debate. Respect from both sides
You must be in the god squad🤣
@@reefnreefer nah
The internet lists over 40,000 Christian denominations. Enough said?
Yet another absolute destruction of an apologist. Almost wasn’t fair, Dan the man! 👍
Tbf, Randal Rauser is just about the easiest opponent he could have had
We must of watched a different video.
I thought Randall had him on the defense for the first 30 minutes, but after that, Dan dominated.
Do you think that Ken ham destroys Evolutionary biologists?
@@jessewinn5563 I say the same thing about Dan Barker he mostly just Poisons the Well and shows that he doesn’t have any understanding of Christian history beyond the most rigid fundamentalist completely superficial level possible.
No attempt was even made to justify that the Christian God is worthy of worship during the entire discussion. Dan was quite clear this God is not worthy and spoke well to that point.
Randall failed completely to present a case that God is worthy of worship. This is regardless of an individuals starting point on this question.
Did Rauser just say the Psalms are an expression of the human experience? That's what all writing is, from Beqwulf to Virginia Woolf. If Rauser had studied valuable things like English and creative writing, he'd know this. If he'd ever read George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language," he'd know how to communicate clearly in plain English. I refer Rauser to Orwell's section on "Pretentious Diction."
Ehrman v Lacona - Mike loses his voice
Slick v Barker - Slick loses his voice
Barker v Rauser - Randals mic keeps cutting out
The absent god of atheism is keeping believers silent with his special magic powers!!
I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation many times, and agree with Barker.
So then are you on the same boat he is in? Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom you are in the same boat.
@@northernlight8857 Indeed, if you are right then it matters not that you are right since we would be on the same boat aimless drifting upon an accidental ocean of utter meaningless relativism which would mean you could not ever condemn anyone for anything including if they believe in God and tell you that you are wrong.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom You think that the options are religion or nihilism. There are many other options. And even with a god you dont get objectivity. And judging by the bible and the quran the god seem very primitive human to me and not very godlike.
@@northernlight8857 I would never say “religion or nihilism” but, perhaps, following The Way (as Jesus is known) or nihilism (by any other name and au fond).
And since Jesus is The Way and The Truth then we get objectivity.
Also, what “seem very primitive human to” you is not a standard.
Dan won, hands down.
Why can't any Christian answer these simple questions Dan is asking. As a now very skeptical Christian I am losing it over the lack of answers. For the record, as a Christian, I do not view the Bible as literal as Dan is presenting it. In my opinion, the proper Christian view of the Bible is that it is both human and divine. The Psalmists did cry out to God. God was not dictating the language used by the Psalmist back to Himself. Randall keeps avoiding and tip-toeing past Dan's questions and he keeps talking past the issues. The reason I have become so skeptical is because I'm asking the same questions Dan is asking and no Christian has a consistent and sufficient answer.
Life finally made sense to me when I stopped believing in all that inconsistent nonsense. Religions have been man-made dating far before the time of Jesus. Clearing the mind after being brain-washed as a child takes time.
@@jameystone2650 You are so true I can't even tell you enough. I struggled the more I indulged in christianity. The more I read the bible the more nonsensical it got. I struggled to make my worldviews fit into what that book said. One day, I thought, "Well what if the Bible is wrong?" Then I started to see more and more of the light. It's like a huge rock was lifted off me. I no longer had to defend the indefensible. I was free to form my own worldviews in the direction that my logic and rationality pointed me. More importantly, I was no longer conflicted! This was the 1st point of enlightenment for me. Freedom from religious ideology. No longer a fanatic. It's truly liberating
@@johnmonk3381 I'm happy for you. Now we know what being "born again" truly feels like. 😀 It's like coming up for air after being under water for too long.
Granted randal rauser is one of the worst apologists. There are way better ones
Maybe this god should know not to put a couple of forbidden trees in the middle of a garden with people who don't know right from wrong yet, and a talking serpent that they will actually listen to instead of running away from it scared sh*tless because serpents can't talk.
It is like a parent putting a baby in a crib with a loaded gun, telling the baby not to use the gun, and then putting their sibling in the room to show them how to use it. Whose fault is that when they get shot?!?!?
That's not what Genesis 3 is about. Try reading it as a riddle. What do you get then? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477If God is a riddler, what's stopping him from being a 🤣 joker?
@@MarkMiller-gt5tu If god exists, then he is for sure a joker. ;-)
Why was it so HARD for Randal to answer the simple question about the poor woman who saw her on whole people mas sacred?? This, sadly, is what religious dogma does to people who, in other contexts, are rather very much intelligent. When I was Catholic, I would defend all sorts of atrocities of the bible and I would reject all arguments my Atheists friends talked to me about, because I was TERRIFIED of the mere thought of god not being real.
Mmm that Randal didn’t response them doesn’t mean the Bible is false.
@@juance2262 did I ever say that? Also, do you consider donkeys can talk in real life or that it's possible for a human being to walk in the middle of the ocean?
@@FaiaHalo Basically you told me about your bad experience defending Catholicism and that is why Christianity is irrational, and the bible does not say that a donkey spoke because yes, the bible says that God made a donkey speak and Jesus walked in the sea thanks to the action divine and not of his own free will.
Dan is awesome
Agree :-)
I do like him, but it is a valid point that you have to appreciate literary genre. So I don’t think it’s dumb to point out hyperbole in Psalm 14, even if I question that that gets you out of your 1 Samuel 15 sorts of parts.
I hate that when Randal speaks mostly only intellectuals will understand him but Dan speaks usually where the common layman can understand ... Plus even at the end we don't see Randal admitting that he might be wrong ... arrogant in my opinion.
yeah that's what I think :-)
The Theist was babbling word salad, whilst Dan put things in a very simple way. Randell ignored that he and all scholars disagree. How Convenient.
No he she or it is not worthy of worship nor does he she or it deserve to be called god
God has many needs and wants.
I know he needs money.
He also says he wants love, obedience, worship, praise and a personal relationship.
I could help him get what he wants if he would stop hiding.
Good one - I wouldn't help him though 'cos he's jealous, hateful, cursing and not loving back
Randall just got his ass spanked thoroughly for all to see, defending a truly dispicable being to the death and to his own detriment. Dan comes out as the good guy here, Randall well insert your own word. Also Randall constantly evades and does not answer the question as usual for Christians to skate around the issue rather than addressing it for in addressing it the obvious is known
Just like Trumptards defend Trump.
No, you just have a lazy moral understanding. You are a child ethically
Throughout the whole conversation, it felt like Dan Barker was just saying, "Listen, Mr. Theologian Randal Rauser, we don't need biblical scholars to tells us the context of the bible because I've read it for myself using nothing but 21st-century logic and became an atheist. Therefore, Bible debunked."
Every time Randal would answer any of his moral objections to scripture using historical context that aided him to reach his conclusion, Dan would blow it off and say, "That's just your interpretation. And every scholar differs from each other" Without citing a pair of differing scholars.
I don't know if Dan just wasn't prepared for this conversation but his rhetoric of saying that humans spontaneously gain something as arbitrary as "Morality" without the Christian God, call the Christian God the evilest character of all creation, then say that people who worship the evilest character of all creation can be morally upright people who improved humanity for the better like Martin Luther King Jr. is downright... Odd.
Seeing how dans definition of morality is anything that causes one harm almost everything on this planet can cause you harm so is by dans Definition a lot of things are immoral
Have you read the Bible yourself?
@@philosophyjunkies6693 Yup. And so has Dan Barker. And he still doesn't know what he's talking about.
At least being aware of the historical and literary context of when and how each book was written separates the individual from the people who claim to "Read the bible" and those who have a better understanding of it.
Dan Barker proved to me that you can read something and completely misunderstand it.
@@masonimous
I don't believe it really helps. I've studied lots of patristic and Christian commentary on that stuff its still bad. Outside the Christian bubble it just looks like grasping at straws.
@@philosophyjunkies6693 I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know what you've found.
The object of my worship is not a He.
Randal: I am both the god of contradiction and not the god of contradiction, am I telling the truth or a lie? But don't take that at face value!?
@Mike another word, Randal says : don't worry about biblical contradiction, god is not the author of confusion?!
@Mike Just three among thousand of embarrassing and ignorant contradictions.: The first verse Gen.1;1 has scientific contradictions. The trinity is a theological contradiction. The resurrection has ton of historical and theological contradictions. And if you don't understand the contradictions, you need to study science, theology and history. There is an encyclopedia of bible contradictions for god's sake, look it up.You cult mentality has forced you to study the bible devotionally and faithfully, but now if you want to get out of the blood cult, you must study the bible historically and critically.
@Mike You don't know much astronomy do you? It is totally contradictory to the development of the universe. It would of been impossible for human character god to 'create' heavens and the Earth in that sequence of the great expansion of the universe. The Earth is from our SUN and solar system, it can only come from a star, and the stars were not created yet in verse one. And that is just one major problem for christian theology the fact that the pre-scientific writer or/and writers of that verse wrote down what they THOUGHT happened, not what is scientific. The oldest translation of Gen 1:1 goes like this: old time land owner owned sky land. It has nothing to do with god, heaven or earth as these word came in much later to increase the power of their gods and devils. That is what man do.
@@donnadeau7619 Do you not know what a metaphor is?
@@bogdanoff3.066 Yes and it could very well be that the entirety of the bible/god/devil... invention is factually false but in some case be metaphorically true.
Wow, I miss Dan Barkers debates.! Logical and Concise. Thanks Dan !!!
Is this logical then: Baker has stated, “You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case" which means that he has utterly discredited himself from every condemning anything.
Same! Dan Barker is my favorite person.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Can you timestamp when he said that? It seems maybe he said "can't" and you misheard him.
@@malirk I have been listening to and reading Barker for may years and that statement is in keeping with his Atheism. In fact, I featured him in my book "Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors" (www.truefreethinker.com/articles/%E2%80%9Cno-end-books%E2%80%9D-publications). That quote is from when he claimed rape could be moral in certain circumstances during his debate contra Kyle Butt.
@@GrrMania He is one of my favorites: as examples of poor argumentations, faulty logic, Biblical ignorance, a professional troublemaker who makes a living by playing the victimhood card, etc., etc., etc.
I love how Cameron said condescendingly "so read his book, Randal, you've got to read his book before you can object" however he didn't say anything about Randal saying that same thing about his own books numerous times beforehand. It really shows Cameron's bias
Cameron is a Christian (check any of his websites!) so he expected much more from Randal than Dan. Unfortunately, a sprinkle of bias from a moderator does not help one's position in an argument.
@@mcotto4083 yeah he’s more biased than I would like him to be, but he was not a terrible moderator at all, I actually think you did a good job, Justin Brylee is a great moderator though he’s really good at being neutral, and not himself unless he needs to.
So, why didn't god give us an algorithm or protocol on how to interpret the Bible? Randal Rauser is definitely using his own wisdom and understanding to interpret the Bible. Without an algorithm or protocol for interpretation by Trinity God, how can we know the correct interpretation? Randall Rauser is obviously choosing the interpretation that helps him sleep at night. LOL
We know the correct interpretation. The most modern writer of it was a man called Thomas Troward. And we know this to be the truth because it can and has been tested.
RR, in this debate, has converted more christians to atheism than all of Christopher Hitchens writings and debates combined....
So to sum this up
Dan: Think for yourself....
Randal: Let me do your thinking for you and you have to read the bible the way i say to.....
Here’s a more accurate summary:
Dan: i read the most literal meaning and how it makes me f e e l
Randal: do you even know how to read, like in general? Bc no one with basic 9th grade reading skills reads like this.
Then it goes back and forth...
@@akimoetam1282 I would agree Randal is very petty and condescending. He basically strawmans Dan throughout this entire discussion. So yeah, I'd agree with that summary on Randal.
But you are misunderstanding Dan if you think that's what he's saying.
@Lord Bryant So the bible was written by men for men of a certain time period. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.
"Dan: Think for yourself...." This is pure irony considering the fact that Dan is a hardcore physicalist
@@sergeysmirnov5986 Explain how that has anything to do with thinking for yourself?