Another Warning
Statement of Principle
Atheists Among Us
Mutual Respect
Coming Out
Atheism 101
Assertive Atheism
Ten Commandments
Atheist in America
Christian Nation
The Other Christian God
God Endorses Cloning
Everyone Is An Atheist
Full Realization Atheism
Jesus Was A Horse Thief
Jesus Was A Human
Public Prayer
Size Counts
A Secular Pledge
Judgment Cometh
The Slocum Tirade
Pascal's Wager
Dover Decision Abbreviated
The Brilliance of Jefferson
The Brilliance of Madison
Barker Tears A New One
Gastrich Responds

Affirmations of Humanism
Frequently Asked

Gastrich Responds!

Stuff that happened about 10 Billion
years ago whether creationists like it or not.

Dan Barkers devastating appearance on Jason Gastrich's christian radio show in 2002 must still be very painful. Jason wishes to set the record straight. Jason feels he was caught unaware - on his own program - and that in trying to be cordial to his guest, he was taken advantage of - on his own program.

Yeah, I always think of the perfect answer an hour later, too.

But what Jason Gastrich really wants is a chance to revise the record to show that he really, really deserved to win the argument and that he wants to take a mulligan. He simply cannot accept that he just plain did not have the facts on his side and was was so savagely beaten that Dan should probably have been reported to an 800 number.

So, Jason emailed me and asked for some fairness. Jason's all about the fairness.

Below is the text of his message to me, my response to him, and a link to his Barker Rebuttal page which contains no surprises and nothing new, just straight up biblical literalism, a pantload of selective revisionism, and some sunday school-level creationism.

You decide if he did any better with time to reflect on the devastation. It would appear from his responses that he didn't really learn a thing. The brutality he suffered at the hands of Dan Barker will stand as a high water mark for the disabuse of prophecy.

Jason's Email

From: Jason Gastrich []
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:49 PM
Subject: Barker debate transcription


I noticed this page: Did you know that I asked Dan for a rematch and he declined? During the conversation, he caught me off guard a bit and I was trying to be a nice interviewer, but I went and researched the 30 questions he asked that I missed and I posted them online. See here:

In fairness, please link my response to the transcription of my discussion with Dan.

Jason Gastrich

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997

My Response

Hi, Jason.

I am not surprised that Barker would decline a rematch. Frankly, you got your ass kicked. The good news for you, however, is that probably not a lot of your listeners realized the havoc he wreaked on the whole notion of prophecy. Obviously you don’t.

As atheists, we all engage occasionally in debates over the literal interpretations of the bible. That’s always fun because the bible offers plenty of opportunities for criticism - it fails to stand up to a rational examination on so many levels. For instance, the allegedly scripture-based insistence that the earth is 6000 years old – this is not merely incorrect, it is provably false. That is kind of a big deal with fatal implications for biblical literalism. After all, if that is not literally true, what else in the bible is not literally true? Really, the only lesson to be gleaned from young-earthism is that no one should be getting their science at church.

But that is all a side show. To me it all leads inevitably to the ultimate question of whether or not the alleged christian deity exists. Literally, objectively, demonstrably exists. And it is clear to me, and to a rapidly growing atheist community, that the alleged christian deity is nothing more than Bronze-age mythology with no more basis in reality than Santa Claus. That also has some rather negative implications for your entire belief system and your livelihood.

I am a proponent of Fairness. I think that fairness dictates that both sides get a fair chance to make their case, and that they play by the same rules, and that those rules accommodate and require a fair and thorough examination of the facts. There are exceptions to this practice: for instance, should a Hitler be given equal air time to make his case, or can we arrive at an early decision that his proposals are to no one’s advantage? Also, is it the responsibility of a proponent of one side in an argument to provide the loser with endless do-overs? Probably not.

Calls for fairness sound a little insincere coming from the adamantly religious. Fairness hasn’t exactly been the stock in trade of organized religion in the last couple of millennia. Seems that non-believers were hunted with dogs for most of that time. No, the fairness part happened when you invited a knowledgeable and informed atheist onto your own turf and allowed him to present his views. That this exercise in fairness did not work out well for you is not my problem.

I have read your 30 responses to Dan Barker – that seemed a fair thing to do - and saw nothing but a rehash of the same tired anti-science, anti-intellectual nonsense that is hobbling the educational system in this country. What you do hurts America.

Based on all that, my initial response was to decline to provide a pulpit for you to try to salvage your credibility 8 years after Barker embarrassed you on your own radio show.

However, after considering my options, and your proprietary definition of “fairness”, I have decided that I will provide a link to your web page. I doubt it will have the effect you desire.

Rick Wingrove
The Assertive Atheist
Washington DC

Jason's Link

For more fun, google Jason Gastrich and check out his credentials here: