You're still welcome, but making little to no sense.
Sorry for you then if you can't understand my point.
That may be what you meant, but no, "apologetics" is not merely "Where one defends their belief." It's where Christians defend their particular religious disciplines and doctrines. Dan Barker defends neither. He's an ex-Christian (an atheist) doing quite the opposite. And before you go there, Atheism is neither religious nor belief. It's lack of belief by definition.
We are both saying the same thing in my definition of apologetics and you're using semantics to argue. You know what is meant.
Again,
You've conspicuously avoided addressing this point. Dan Barker addressed "Is Jesus who he says he is?" Were you actually listening?
Yes, I did listen. But I didn't jot every note down. Sorry to disappoint you.
Fair questions. Here ya go:
100% smear:
I think you don't know the meaning of smear. He discusses science proving god, the god particle, and jokes about it. Because I state that he doesn't do a good job explaining the science isn't smearing. I think you're taking this too personally, or your Dan Barker, either way, taking it to personally.
Provide at least one example of someone doing better for contrast or go fish.
Straw man:
I don't have to. It's my opinion on his delivery.
Quote him saying otherwise or go fish.
Same and the fact that it's normative of all religions, not simply atheism, is the entire point.
Otherwise, fine by me.
Maybe still not getting my point after all this.
I'll try and summarize, clearly and concisely as I will admit at time, I may not do so.
Christians have created doctrines, theologies, and beliefs around Christianity and the Characteristics of the God and the Bible when Jesus himself never made any of those beliefs a tenant of being one of his disciples or being considered "saved".
Because of this, Christians have created difficult questions that are absolutely valid and require great evidence, and for some, these questions lead others to fall away from their faith. And I can understand that.
My entire point is this. If Christianity would root its system on Jesus, and the words of Jesus alone. Many of the arguments made by Dan and other atheists don't matter any more. Christians wouldn't have to worry about "sola scripture" and all the variances contained with the the gospels and letters. Are the OT stories real or not. Doesn't matter. What about science? Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best when he said "The bible teaches. how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". All the tangential, man applied beliefs that come from a hyper belief in the Bible, are moot. But many Christians don't see the error because this means they can't worship the Bible any more and continue to practice Bibliolatry.
Christianity hinges on "Is Jesus who he says he is and if you believe so, what did he teach". Period.