panelarrow

The God Debate Review

| 0 comments

Did you see the debate between the atheists from “The Blasphemy Challenge” and Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron? Read this report from from The Christian Worldview Network, including the “wardrobe malfunction” that happened offscreen:

“The ill-conceived notions of the debating Atheists made for a confusing and downright silly set of arguments. The platform for the debate had seemed simple enough but it proved to be too much for Brian Sapient and the young woman, who asked to be referred to as simply “Kelly”, due to her stated fear of “reprisals.” Brian and “Kelly” were so weak in their claims; they often resorted to making outrageously false statements. “Kelly” made the laughable comments like claiming all micro-Biologists unanimously agreed evolution is a provable fact, while Brian comically professed there are hundreds of transitional life-forms at the Museum of Natural History there in New York City!” Click here to continue reading!

0 Comments

  1. Ray and Kirk were wonderful, and presented their case with gentleness and respect. Brian and Kelly presented nothing compelling, and they did so in an offensive and puffed-up manner. I heard a post-debate exchange between Sapient and Way of the Master Radio Host Todd Friel. It spoke volumes. Friel was polite, articulate, & reasonable; Sapient, on the other hand, was predictably caustic, profane, & often incoherent. As Friel repeatedly tried to engage Sapient in a civil discussion, the atheist was clearly unable to bridle his tongue, alternating between cursing & calling Friel a “fraud” & other names. High volume & low insults are a poor substitute for reason & a modicum of maturity. Ad hominem attacks were the best he could muster, and I was almost embarrassed for him. I certainly don’t feel that Sapient is representative of all unbelievers; many atheists, I’m sure, are pleasant & well-mannered. That being said, however, I must add that I have yet to encounter a militant atheist of Sapient’s ilk who was not equally crass, strident, & insufferable. This can, of course, be said of far too many of my Christian brethren as well but nonetheless, this man & his ideological comrades invariably appear to be frustrated and unhappy people.

    Also, has anyone else noticed how the Rational Response Squad seems to direct the bulk of their mocking at the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit of Christianity? Conspicuous in their absence are similar attacks against Islam. On their website I see a t-shirt proclaiming “Jesus Is for Suckers” & I am asked (in profane terms) if I have the courage to declare my certainty that the CHRISTIAN god doesn’t exist. I probed deeper, visiting their “Forums” page; a search revealed no references to Muhammad or Islam. I found “Bible Errancy” but no “Qur’an Errancy,” I found “debates with Christians,” & the “Jesus Mythicist Campaign.” The flick they’re peddling (“Only 19.99!”) is exclusively devoted to denying Christ. They love to declare in their “Blasphemy Challenge” that they “are not afraid,” but methinks they are afraid of angry Muslims. In my estimation, the evidence suggests that the shared fate of Theo Van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, and a host of other murdered critics of Islam has set the agenda for the R.R.S.

    When I asked an atheist to explain the void of anti-Muslim argument among the Rational Response Squad’s rhetoric, I was told that the predominant religion in the US is Christianity, therefore Islam is not a major problem in this country, therefore the RSS focuses on the followers of Jesus rather than Muhammad’s followers. Flabbergasted, I could only respond that the families of 3,000 defenseless, murdered office workers in the Twin Towers might take issue with the idea that Islam is not a problem in this nation. It reminded me of a comment from Rosie O’Donnell: “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”

    One minor point of criticism about “our side,” however: Kirk and Ray, I would personally counsel you to lose the “crocaduck” and “bullfrog” graphics. Stuff like that is fine for an open-air preaching table or when speaking to a Christian audience, but it has no place in a debate of this sort.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.