This debate is being put on by Mythicist Milwaukee. Since there is a supply and demand feature to anything with a price tag on it, given the ticket costs they expect a high demand (from General Admission of $30.00 to VIP $160.00). Bart will donate his proceeds to charity while it'll be a needed financial relief for Bob. I know a few of us who barely make enough to survive. So that's good for him. The debate will take place as part of a
Mythinformation Conference III in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Friday, October 21, 2016 - 6-9 PM. Earth shattering stuff here folks, sure to convince a Christian one way or another. Or, is this just another example of atheists talking to each other?
LINK.
I'm on record as saying debates don't really solve that much. But they are both educational and entertaining. So no one should have any fear if one side or the other loses the debate (although I doubt that will happen). I am curious though, why scientists don't solve their disputes this way. I can imagine it now. One scientist thinks the notion of a holographic universe is nonsense while another thinks otherwise. So they get sponsors and debate the issue. Tickets are costly because there is a high demand for the debate. Afterward both sides declare victory. One college graduate in computer science, who rejects the holographic theory, is unhappy with the debate performance of his guy so he writes a blog post saying his guy does not represent everyone who rejects the holographic theory! [But doesn't every thinking person already know that, which indicates the ignorance of that blog writer? The only reason he would say such a thing is for self-promotion because that's his
modus operandi (Just think
Jeff Lowder)].
If atheists cannot agree on the evidence then how does anyone expect to convince Christians Jesus never existed? I think we must first approach Christians as Bart Ehrman does before they can be open enough to entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. Yes, a tiny number of Christians have gone from believer to mythicist in one fell swoop, but what kind of believers they were beforehand is another question. This debate is yet another example of people who will eventually find something to disagree with if given enough time. I have witnessed this phenomena myself. People meet. They talk a bit. They agree quite a lot. But eventually they find a disagreement. They almost always do. That disagreement bothers them. They each want agreement so they argue over the disagreement. It eventually leads to anger. They part ways. In my view this is yet another divisive issue among atheists. Granted, I think it's a worthy issue, one that merits careful consideration. But as for me, I'll keep majoring on the majors, the issues that can and do actually help change the minds of believers. Do as you wish though. To each his or her own. Cheers.
I see Prometheus Books put up some blurbs of my other works there. Enjoy.