ATHEIST DAN BARKER BREAKS IT DOWN

Dan Barker gives a rant about why Christianity is not RESPECTABLE! Find out why he’s wrong on tomorrow’s full episode of Trinity Radio!

Original song by
Dan Barker &
Braxton Hunter

[Toadzx]

If someone told me they strapped a loaf of bread to a plate and flung it off a spaceship I would have said they were crazy, yet here we are proving that Christianity is more respectable than certain things we have video evidence of.

[jhamilton]

Far more respectable than believing we came from nothing, out of nowhere. For no apparent reason.

[Derek_Baumgartner]

Seems like whenever someone brings up the talking donkey or the talking snake (or the bush, in Dan Barker's case), they fail to mention that the source they're 'citing' (the Bible in this case) isn't claiming to be a fantasy movie where things like this 'just happen', but rather is describing special individual miraculous cases.

All of which strike me as *far* more plausible than nature (especially DNA - speaking as a programmer. I ran a few numbers on the probability here from a coding perspective) coming into existence completely uncaused.

Nothing can't 'nothing' at nothingness so hard for a non-existent period of time to make something happen. That's nonsense.
(I say 'non existent' period of time because 'time' is part of nature: there'd be no 'time' for the mechanics of physical law to operate in before the universe began, since time began *with* the universe. Nature 'started'. Physical laws too, while we're at it.)

Far more respectable, I think, is to admit that if nature began (which philosophy, science, and Christianity agree on), then it has a cause.
And nothing can cause itself.
So, if nature (which encompasses spacetime, i.e. time and matter) began, then it has a cause outside of itself. A spaceless, timeless cause, so to speak: in other words an immaterial and eternal uncaused first cause.
Aristotle called this cause the 'Unmoved Mover': a metaphysically necessary 'stopping point' in the chain of causation without which nothing causal would exist.

And if there's an immaterial (another good word is 'spiritual') cause out there, something 'above-nature' (i.e. super-natural), then it stands to reason that if supernatural forces exist, then they can intercede into nature without breaking nature's laws (just as a man can reach over and stop a ball from rolling: the man didn't break Newton's laws of motion, he simply interceded where things would have operated normally).
---
Long story short:
-Not respectable:
=Misrepresenting a source to say that its miracle claims aren't being presented as miraculous (i.e. not nature-caused) (example: no-one thinks bushes 'just talk' if they read the Bible, especially since God was speaking out of the bush, not the bush itself! Further, no-one thinks the Gospels claim Jesus rose from the dead by natural causes)
=Thinking that absolute nothingness has any causal power
=Thinking that nature (or anything) can cause itself

-Respectable:
=Recognizing evidence that the universe began, and thus that it could not have caused itself
=That if the above happened (and we're in said universe discussing it), then similar cause(s) could be responsible for actions that laws of nature cannot fully explain
=That if similar cause(s) exist, that doesn't mean people who recognize them are incapable of recognizing natural law
(i.e. belief in the supernatural does not preclude you from recognizing natural law, or performing scientific inquiry while assuming metaphysical naturalism - example: in the 20th century, the majority of the Nobel Prize winners in Physics[72.5%] and in Chemistry [65.3%] identified as Christian)
=Recognizing that if Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true

[brando]

Bruh…. This is true art… I’m actually not even kidding, this is a well produced track 🤌

[hwd]

In the words of Mel and Kim's Respectable. "Take or leave us only please believe us we aint never gonna be Respectable", especially when it comes to Dan Barker.

[Mark-cdwf]

Barky-boy channeling his inner David Hume again:

“Miracles can’t happen because they’re, well, miraculous!”

(And therefore they’re not “respectable.”)

Only if someone (like Dan Barker) is dumb enough to beg the question by assuming God doesn’t exist to do miracles in the first place…..

[hudjahulos]

Whether or not you respect something is completely subjective. What are the criteria of respectability given atheism, by the way? Dan Barker is basically spouting off feelings and incredulity. One would hope he'd bring something more substantive to a debate.

[Steven-kisk]

My favourite atheist is Peter Atkins. He doesn’t sugarcoat his words

[gregfisher]

0:57 Hey! You included the "Eddie Haskell" Jesus!

[wordandwater]

Dan Barker talking about “respectable”. He’s the most disrespectful atheist I’ve ever heard.

[theservantsresource]

Kind of looks like God has these “brights” confounded by his word.

[eeeddddddiiieee]

Dan barker I can always count on to have meaningless discussion about meaninglessness.

[willsal]

Beat is on point. Barker needs to work on his flow. Props to his bars tho. Overall, Barker needs some work.

[PowerFactor]

I thought the whole point of miracles is that .... God overrides the laws of nature to get our attention.

[KenAmmi-Shalom]

More like, "ATHEIST DAN BARKER BREAKS...DOWN" as he always does since he has no premise upon which to discredit or accredit anything.

[darrenplies]

Not to be disrespectful but that presupposition is in need of ethical grounding or a psychiatrist.
OK back to the real world

[lancesteinke]

Atheists are so cringe that it just about needs a more extreme word to describe what it is. We get that you’re a materialist that denies the existence of spiritual things and the possibility that miracles can happen. We don’t share that philosophy. You pointing at that repeatedly and mixing some insulting language into your tirade is not really very convincing argumentation. All that is is assuming your worldview and demanding that others do the same. Most people do not do this. The majority of human beings throughout history were not atheists. If you think everyone assumes that atheism is true, you might be in for a surprise when you get outside of your atheist echo chambers.