A group of outspoken atheists has blasted a creationist ministry for allegedly false copyright claims after recent YouTube posts attacking creationism were pulled from the popular Web site.
"We believe that the actions of Creation Science Evangelism Ministries are meant to silence critics that can prove their unscientific statements ... well ... unscientific," said a statement on the Rational Response Squad Web site. "We feel as if this act to silence us should be countered."
YouTube had taken down earlier this month numerous videos containing content from the Creation Science ministry and videos criticizing the group after receiving several take down copyright notices. The popular Web site also suspended Rational Response Squad's account.
DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) requests were submitted to YouTube as the creationist group claimed copyright ownership of the material that was used by the atheist group to criticize the ministry. DMCA, passed in 1998, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability but requires them to promptly remove material from their Web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
Brian Sapient, who heads the Rational Response Squad, plans to file suit, arguing that the material they used was fair use within the boundaries of copyright law.
The atheist group's account was recently reinstated and their videos were reposted along with a host of new posts where the squad and supporters denounce the ministry and claim the recent actions were attempts to silence critics.
"Our right to speak out about the irrationality of religion is the same right you are afforded to speak about exactly the opposite," said the atheist group.
Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is led by Kent Hovind, who is well known for his creation science seminars, which are taped and widely distributed. His self-titled "Hovind Theory" which includes a literal reading of the biblical account of Noah is highly controversial among both atheists and creationists. The Rational Response Squad frequently quotes Hovind in their argument for encouraging the public to use the Creation Science content and saying "our material is not copyrighted."
The atheists further use profane language while mocking Hovind in the YouTube posts.
Hovind is currently serving a 10-year term in jail for failing to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He was found guilty in November 2006 on 58 federal counts. Hovind had argued that his ministry was tax exempt and wrote the IRS many times asking them why he was wrong if, in fact, he was wrong, according to The Conservative Voice. He did not get a response and in January was given 10 years in federal prison.
Meanwhile, the Rational Response Squad is currently entangled in several other copyright disputes.
The atheist group has also made a number of appearances in the media in more recent months, having this year debated Christian evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on national television over scientific evidence for God’s existence. They also launched last year the controversial "Blasphemy Challenge" campaign which urges the irreligious to post videos of themselves on YouTube deliberately blaspheming the existence of God and the Holy Spirit – the one sin the group identifies in the Bible as unforgivable.
Christians, in response, have launched counter campaigns such as the "Praise the Lord Challenge," posting public testimonies of themselves professing faith in the Bible and taking a stand for Jesus Christ.
RSS
This is a delayed reply (I hadn't checked back on this thread until now), but I am surprised that such an intelligent person such as yourself Citizen had only offered one statement to the several points I brought up. And the response wasn't too good because you assume that I don't believe in evolution, which I do. Evolution and other discoveries of science are not against God, as many people may believe and even some Christians. If anything, they're all testimonies of God's awesome creations, like the telephone is a testimony to Alexander Graham Bell, for example. It's strange to me that atheists (not saying that you are one Citizen) believe science supports their arguments when actually it doesn't. They may discredit what some Christians believe (beliefs that may not be correct accoridng to proper understanding of the Bible), but they don't discredit the Truth. Watching even someone like Dawkins debate against a highly respected apologist is really quite an embarrassment to Dawkins and atheists a like because he just ends up dodging the central questions. Honestly, many Christians are not that smart. But there is no doubt that the most intelligent athiest cannot even come close to the most intelligent Christian because as many truths as they may know, The Truth escapes them. And as I said before, when they finally get it ... that's when we get another atheist-turned-Chrisitan.
Good site, zenodaddy!!!
Ok. Thanks!!
http://www.u-cubed.org is the site, enjoy my friend!
Oh yeah, after reading it over again I see that I misread your reference to skipping a generation.My mistake.As far as your site, that sounds very interesting.I can use some additional teachings in these areas.Thanks!!
Thanks Golden! In reference to the 'skipping a generation' I was mainly referring to my grandfather lol. When I was 8 years old I went through the Messier Catalog and manually found most of them on my own, and then I stopped until about 6 years ago, now I just cannot seem to get enough.
We are about to rev up conversations such as these over at my ministries site if you are ever interested, same goes for Citizen as we love debates and differing of opinions.
Thanks for sharing that, zeno.I can tell that the "passion" has not skipped a generation!!
GoldenEagle,
I am very proud of my father. His grandfather was an astronomer and I guess it just skipped a generation. I have heard that before too, how being a theologian and an astronomer seem to be contradictory, but in reality, they go hand in hand.
My dad once told me that when he looks up into the stars, there is no way he could ever believe that we were a cosmic accident. His grandfather coined one of my favorite quotes, ""Sometimes when I am alone under the Stars, I look out into space and wonder if our works look as small to God as his looks great to us..."Herbert C. Carroll, 1902-1965, Amateur Astronomer & Telescope-maker (My Grandfather), April 6, 1937.'
In my opinion, atheism truly is the worlds excuse to believe anything and everything, except for the possibility that their lives may actually have a purpose.
An astronomer and a theologian? Wow, that is impressive!! To hear people today, you would think that the two could not co-exist.You should be proud .
I meant to say 'is' instead of 'was' in regards to my dad... been a long day at the office
GoldenEagle,
Thanks for the compliments. I am by no means a professional but I do study Theology and have studied cosmology and string theory several years ago. I am fortunate to come from a father who was both an astronomer and a theologian. Last year he was accepted as a Fellow at the Royal Astronomical Society in London and is in charge of the lunar done survey project... he has been working on that for the past 20 years or so.
I enjoy these type of debates because in the end we have to solutions... either someone hit the ball or the ball spontaneously and without 'reason' shot itself into the air... :-)
You rock, zenodaddy.I should have stayed out of your way and let you do your thing on this one.Your argument that something does not come from nothing (without a Creator) is one of my favorite arguments (notice I didn't say proofs) for the existence of a Creator.
'zenodaddy: That's incorrect. Creationists continuallly fail to shift the burden of persuasion, partly because they say silly things like "It's only been 300,000 years since the Big Bang," which severely injures their credibility,'
I never said anything about it being only 300,000 years since the big bang. I was referring to the time after the creation event (big bang) that we can see. The reason why we cannot see any further is because of the massive amount of light that we cannot see through. Just so we are clear... I believe the universe is between 13.2-15.4 billion years old.
'but also because all they have is the argument from incredulity, which relies not on evidence, but on an absence of evidence or, in some cases, ignoring the evidence, to insert its myths. And when that doesn't work, they resort to threats, trying to win by fear what they could not by reason.'
I do not think you are using the word 'incredulity' in the proper context...
Actually, spontaneous generation refers to the idea that life suddenly appeared without a cause.It is not a claim of Creationists, but an attempt to explain how life originated without a Creator.Louis Pasteur discredited it in the 19th century.I agree that it has more to do with the origin of life than with evolution.However, it is what atheists are left to believe, since they do not allow for a Creator.
I've listened to Bible Science and read materials from Ken Hamm for years. Have researched using the Bible and science. It seemed the info I'd uncover using science just re-enforced what I read in the Bible. Then about 15 years ago after I was "reborn" and filled with the HOLY SPIRIT it all made sense to me...To me, creation is 6000 years; The New Earth; it is so clear I wish everyone could see it as clearly as I can. You see, if you can't have 100% faith/belief in the Book of Genesis, then how can you believe/have faith in the rest of the Bible? To me the literal belief of Genesis/Creation is one of the most important acts of faith we must have...it sets the foundation for us to believe all of GOD"S WORD...if we only allow ourselves to believe part of the Bible, then we believe in nothing at all.
zenodaddy: That's incorrect. Creationists continuallly fail to shift the burden of persuasion, partly because they say silly things like "It's only been 300,000 years since the Big Bang," which severely injures their credibility, but also because all they have is the argument from incredulity, which relies not on evidence, but on an absence of evidence or, in some cases, ignoring the evidence, to insert its myths. And when that doesn't work, they resort to threats, trying to win by fear what they could not by reason.
'we should wait until we have better information, and actively search for it, rather than satisfying ourselves with 2000 year old middle eastern myths.'
I would also like to point out that we are not satisfied with not seeing the beginning... astronomers and cosmologists... cosmologists mainly are increasing our chances of seeing the actual event... or we may never be able to see the event due to the massive amount of light... which is in itself a twist or irony...
Either way you look at it... science has given people ample proof for believing in a Creator... the burden lays with the atheists who sit on the edge of reason calling out to God to prove himself... when the wind comes out of nowhere... they instead blame it on a hurricane 2,000 miles away as they fall to their deaths...
Actually I did...
'I don't know what happened before the big bang. Nobody does yet. But we should admit our ignorance rather than jumping to conclusions like "god did it."'
You are referring to a brief span of time... less then 300,000 years... we can actually see the white light from the big bang... basically, the ball is heading over the in field and you are refusing to believe that someone actually hit the ball.
Now that... is beyond reason.
zenodaddy: You completely ignored my alternative to your "fine-tuning argument". You can point to all the supposed "fine tuning events" you want, but you still have to carry the burden i laid out below.
I don't know what happened before the big bang. Nobody does yet. But we should admit our ignorance rather than jumping to conclusions like "god did it." That is the very opposite of reason. Your personal incredulity about the possibility that there was no god involved in the beginning of the universe should be given very little weight. Instead, we should wait until we have better information, and actively search for it, rather than satisfying ourselves with 2000 year old middle eastern myths.
Fine-Tuning events can be easily found by searching google, or heading over to http://www.reasons.org.
The argument that the universe started from nothing to something is not incredulity, unless something based on reason is now considered a incredulity argument. Take for instance a ball that is flying through the air... now, if you say that nothing caused that ball to move, then that is incredulity... because based on physics and gravity, we know that something had to hit that ball.
How about the universe? Nothing was there... no matter, energy, space, time, particles or anything else... just did not exist... then all of a sudden it exists... what brought it to existence? Did nothing create itself 'thought' and wondered why it did not exist?
You see, even if you went to the far fetched notion that there are multiple universes that come into and out of existence through mere chance of a champaign type of cosmic soup, you still would have to find out who or what put it there in the first place.
Like Robert Jastrow once penned
'For the scientist who has lived by his faith
in the power of reason, the story ends like a
bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance; he is about to conquer the
highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
final rock, he is greeted by a band of
theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries.”
How do you explain the watch in the field? Did it form by itself? If so, how did it gather the energy to wind itself? It is simple, it cannot.
GoldenEagle: spontaneous generation? The old creationist claim that god created people fully formed? Surely that can't be what you are referring to, because that has nothing to do with evolution.
Hey citizen, I don't want you to feel left out.You and Icelander have taught me quite a bit, too.But, like I say, I find the idea of "spontaneous generation" to be less than compelling for me.
That should be "competing hypotheses" not competing theories.
zenodaddy: "When they figured out that the universe started from nothing and that it continually expands it shattered the previous notion that the universe was eternal. Now, we know that the universe is indeed quite young (15 billion years is nothing in the grand scheme of things) and also, based on evolutions 'chance' theory, impossible that someone or something did not start the process by hand (so to speak)."
How is this not the argument from incredulity?
"However, I am getting off subject. Cosmologists have found over a hundred 'fine-tuning' events throughout the universes 'evolution' that if changed by .0001 percent, would cause not just you and me to cease to exist, but also the universe to be inhospitable to any life, period."
That's a mighty big claim you're making. To carry that burden, you'd have to show that life in this universe is the only way life is possible, that under different constants, life would not exist in some other way to take advantage of the different conditions created by the new constants. In other words, you're not considering the possibility that life fine-tuned itself through evolution to the constants, rather than the constants being set in the only way that would permit life.
I don't understand on what basis you are judging "the science of origins" as going down hill. What evidence are you offering beyond the mere fact that competing theories do exist?
It does not require any faith at all to not believe in beings for which there is no evidence (in spite of your straining and rehashing creationist arguments). It does require faith to believe in them, as apologists and evangelists are so fond of pointing out.
I don't see what you are getting at with your dog and tree questions. If there hadn't been trees, the soil may have eroded away. So what? Dogs are adapted to fill an niche different from humans, so it isn't surprising that they don't have our energy intensive brains. They don't need them.
GoldenEagle: Is creationist "science" truly worthy of your admiration?
That's why I like this site.I can learn from you guys who are better versed in science than I am.I am fascinated by the study of origins, and am indebted to you and others on this site who have taught me quite a bit about the science of origins.Thanks again!!
GoldenEagle,
The science of origins has gone downhill for the past 10 years. No longer do scientists hold onto a 'nutrient rich soup' during the very early stages (environment was way to violent- extinction level events happened far to often for even the smallest life forms to survive), then they moved onto comets and asteroids (which has also been dashed due to the gamma and alpha radiation) which basically leaves them to the conclusion that... must have been the aliens!
It requires for more faith (ironically) to believe in the non-existence of a Creator then it does to believe in one. I personally do not care of someone wants to believe that they evolved from some ape-like thing...
My only question to them is, 'when was the last time your dog contemplated why they like to chase bones and sleep all day'... or 'how did the earth know to cover the land with vegetation so that it would not all erode away'...
Even if the clock did form all by itself... who turned the spring to make it work?
Alas... the divine watchmaker argument :)
Well said zenodaddy.I also find the idea of a Creator more compelling in terms of the origin of life than "spontaneous generation", which is the idea that life suddenly appeared without a cause.There is reason enough to believe in a Creator.In fact, to my knowledge, the Bible is the only "religious book" that teaches special creation out of nothing by an eternal and self-existent Creator.
Citizen,
Much to the dismay of modern evangelicals, the biggest scientific discovery of the past 100+ years being the Big Bang Creation Event affirms, scientifically, that indeed a mighty and powerful Creator does exist and resides outside of our universe. This much we do know. Most scientists who study cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics have joined as one notable scientist stated, 'First Church of the Big Bang' due to the implications that arose from the discovery.
When they figured out that the universe started from nothing and that it continually expands it shattered the previous notion that the universe was eternal. Now, we know that the universe is indeed quite young (15 billion years is nothing in the grand scheme of things) and also, based on evolutions 'chance' theory, impossible that someone or something did not start the process by hand (so to speak).
However, I am getting off subject. Cosmologists have found over a hundred 'fine-tuning' events throughout the universes 'evolution' that if changed by .0001 percent, would cause not just you and me to cease to exist, but also the universe to be inhospitable to any life, period.
Just take a look at our solar system. Our sun is unique and not one has been found like it (the science books that state that our sun is average is indeed, lying), the moon in which you see at night, is also unique as it is 1/4 the size of earth which was caused by another planet slamming into our own during its early development (in Genesis, when it states, let their be light... this is most likely what He was referring to), then you take Jupiter... for life to exist on this planet, Jupiter is a must as it shields us most of the asteroid and comet impacts... then you have the Earth's tilt, perfect seasons.
By themselves they may not appear grand or spectacular... but everything put together... intelligent design becomes not only possible, but the most probable explanation of our existence.
Science is not the enemy to the Christian faith... zealots with no scientific understanding who sit on the pulpit of power are the ones who can become the enemy of the faith. Could we be wrong? Of course... could the young-earther's be wrong as well... of course.
Science explains a ton about God's Creation... God made us intelligent and He knew how much we would learn... besides being created for His Glory, we were also created in His Image... with intelligence.
zenodaddy: what scientific proof would that be? (the argument from incredulity doesn't qualify.)
I am surprised they did not bring up the 'Creation Museum' that they somehow suckered 30 million dollars out of people, then they turn around and charge an arm and a leg to go view it.
Since I am an old earth creationist, my views generally resound on scientific principle and scientific studies... there is a three-fold way that our Creator has revealed himself to us... that is through Nature, His Word, and Finally His Son.
When it comes to scientific proof, it will always point to our Creator when the full truth is reached.
radiofreedenver: I haven't been offended by a single thing you've said so far. Disagreement is not offense. I do, however, think its interesting that you call my acceptance of scientific truth and the superiority of reason "faith" (which it isn't. I have centuries of history of scientific discoveries as evidence. what has faith ever discovered tha was both non-obvious and that it could provide evidence for?), and then you admit that you agree with me that reason is superior to faith, by virtue of the fact that science and reason can produce healing, where faith can produce none. Why do you think that proclaiming the superiority of reason based on evidence that it works is somehow the same as proclaiming that you've imagined deities, so they must exist (as St. Anselm so famously did)?
As for your wife and love, at least you have evidence that your wife exists, and that love exists. If you were using faith in the religious sense, you'd go around proclaiming that Joanna Morgansternblattstein the mystical fairy sorceress will always love you because she is communicating telepathically with you, despite the fact that no such person has ever existed. What should the people who know you think if you started doing that?
Of course we don't know everything about the world using science, but that's what makes it fun. There is so much more to discover. One thing we do know, is that if science can't yet discover it, jumping to supernatural conclusions that make people feel good sure won't discover any truth, and that's what religious faith is.
Hi citizen.
Sorry, it seemed that my viewpoint seemed to offend you somehow. I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the inconsistency between professional methods and [my] personal methods." I am very much in agreement with Karl Popper when it comes to science and reason. I agree with Popper that science can never prove anything true, only false. Your apparent belief in scientific truth and the superiority of reason is just another form of faith, in my opinion.
That is not to say that I believe that faith in God is superior to science. When I get sick, I go to my doctor, not to a faith healer! In my experience, though, faith can transcend reason. I have faith that my wife will always love me. Can I prove it or validate it somehow through reason? No, but I still have faith that it will always be true.
As an aside, I work in the aerospace industry, writing software that steers satellites. My entire industry is based on celestial mechanics and cosmology, yet one of my coworkers believes in young earth creationism. Go figure...
The final thing that I will say is beware of absolutism. Whether in faith or reason, absolutism nearly always leads to intolerance, extremism, and ultimately, persecution.
Thanks for the discussion! I have enjoyed it.
radiofreedenver: If you got the impression that I was "bothered," I apologize, because it has not been my intent to convey that feeling at any point in our conversation. If you don't want to discuss the alleged inconsistency between professional methods and your personal methods (and reasons for it), that is, of course, your own affair. I appreciate very much that you aren't personally bothered by Humanists.
Where I'm coming from is a point of view where tolerance and respect go to the person, and tolerance automatically goes to the ideas. But respect...ideas must earn that on their own. Respect for ideas in a "It's true/valid for me, just as what you say is true and valid for you" sense can lead to potentially bad ideas being shielded from proper critique.
So you see, I respect and tolerate you, but that's a separate issue from your ideas: those are fair game for honest critique, questioning, and if need be, criticism.
"Why is faith a good thing?"
The answer to that question has tantalized philosophers for centuries. Faith is neither good nor bad, in my opinion, but it helps me to understand my place in the universe, and maybe get some insight into why I should care that I am here. I cannot deny that too many people confuse obedience to doctrine with faith, or twist the meaning of their holy books to suit their own purposes. That is how we end up with inquisitions and jihads and dominionism.
"Why is it that you recognize the fruits of science, but do not consistently adopt the method by which they were produced as your "way of knowing?"
There are some questions that religion cannot answer. There are some questions that science cannot answer, at least not yet. Perhaps if science can answer those questions someday, it may lead us back to where religion already has taken us. I doubt that you or I will be around to find out.
"Why is it good enough for you to believe in things like gods and heaven?"
Why does it bother you if I do? It doesn't bother me if you don't. I spent much of my life as an agnostic/atheist, and only returned to my Lutheran roots in my mid-thirties when I felt a spiritual void in my life that science could not fill. Based on my experiences, I think I understand your point of view, but I don't see why you seem to be so bothered by people like me. The fact that I am different from you is not necessarily bad, and tolerance and respect for our divergent viewpoints will go a long, long way to mutual understanding.
radiofreedenver: Christianist or Christian, you both have faith, by your own admission. I suppose you are saying that a Christianist's faith leads him or her to deny science, whereas your faith does not do that. But that brings up an important question: why is faith a good thing? Why is it that you recognize the fruits of science, but do not consistently adopt the method by which they were produced as your "way of knowing?"
In other words, physics, chemistry, biology...none of that was revealed through the supernatural offices of god. Scientists do not pray to learn the validity of their hypotheses...they do the experiments and gather the data.
If prayer and faith isn't good enough for them in their work (their private lives may be a different story, although that is increasingly rare, and can be explained without granting the imprimatur of science on that faith), why is it good enough for you to believe in things like gods and heaven?
Hi citizen,
Please do not confuse Christians with Christianists. Christians accept the existence of God and heaven on faith, not as a provable hypothesis. Quoting from a man named Michael Morrison,
"Faith should be built on the correct foundation, not on an overly specific interpretation when other interpretations make better sense. Belief in God can legitimately be combined with a nonliteral view of Genesis 1. Christians do not need to feel that faith requires a 6,000-year-old-earth theory, a six-day creation theory, a 'gap' theory or any other theory that attempts to squeeze scientific precision out of the biblical creation account."
I am a Christian, not a Christianist, and I do not doubt the scientific evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old. Is there really a God and a heaven? I believe there is; you believe there isn't. You and I will never know for sure until we die, I guess. That fact doesn't hurt my head and I hope it doesn't hurt yours, either.
I will close with another quote from Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use..."
I couldn't agree more.
radiofreedenver: Christianity does indeed make objective claims about the nature and workings of the universe, and you named two: that heaven and god exist. On what authority does it make these claims?
From a letter from Galileo Galilei to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
"...since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation?
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."
Those who argue for creationism or intelligent design are missing the point. Ultimately, the question is not how human beings came about, but how we use our gift of life. For me, it doesn't matter if humans evolved from something else. Humanity is still set apart, something special. As humans, our consciences tell us right from wrong. We feel love and compassion. We have minds that can discover and understand new ideas and concepts. As a result, we and we alone are responsible for our actions, and we must answer to God for the choices we make.
crossfire: thank you for demonstrating one of the saddest by-products of religion. There are so many marvelous things yet to be discovered, about the universe and about ourselves, and some Christians think that their two thousand year old middle eastern myths are "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." So naturally any discoveries about the universe that show those myths for what they are, like evolution, have to be strenuously resisted, lest your precious "truth" not seem so true any more.
Also. Why would you look for Truth when you've found it?
Why would you look for your car keys if they're in your hand?
Only if you don't have them, do you look for them.
Only if you don't know the Truth, do you search.
Ironic thing is the way to find the Truth is to go to the one who knows the Truth ... which is the very One that athiests would rather not go to.
Athiests will search and search and search and search and search and never find, unless they go to God for the Answer. (Dad has the car keys)
Please let me know when an Athiest discovers THE indisputable Truth.
Just to let you know, though, he who has ... most likely found God. =)
Actually, Citizen, there's nothing to lose because they have the Truth to defend, while RRS only has thoughts and beliefs (that's the ironic part). It's much much harder to defend the argument that God doesn't exist.
It's like an argument between someone who knows water is made of H2O vs someone who doesn't believe science and is still trying to prove that it's not (not the best example, I know, but it was the first to pop in my head). Even though the latter person won't listen to the scientific explanations of the former, it doesn't change what the truth is. Now with God, it's different of course because while He has made it clear to us that He exists through what He's created, the way to really come to know God is by through faith by grace. If you don't have faith, you naturally won't believe in God. Just as if you don't believe in science, you won't believe that water is made up of molecules and such. Again, this is not the best example, but the first that came to mind.
Folks believe what they figure will bring them the grestest reward.
Christians have found the Teasure in the field.
SeanS: People hold each other accountable. Believing in "god" isn't necessary for that. This is not a manor estate in the middle ages, where the landlord controlled every aspect of his serf's lives. Can't you see that your Christianity is medieval?
Most self-respecting apologists would quickly lose their self-respect if they were confronted with people who use science to find truth, rather than using faith to believe whatever makes them feel good. Maybe this ought to happen more often, there might be fewer apologists. Faith is not a virtue, it is an obstruction to a wider and more accurate understanding of the world we live in.
Frankly, Citizen, I think most self-respecting apologists wouldn't bother with Brian Sapient and his RRS lackeys simply because it is a waste of time. Sapient and Co. have such adamant hatred for Chritianity that they have closed their minds to the possibility of anything greater than themselves. It's called self-rightousness and it's plaguing this nation. If you have no one to live for other than yourself, than there is no accountability. Much like a yound child who thinks that the world only extends to that which he can observe, there is no convincing the RRS that there is anything beyond their front door.
crossfire: The real question is: would Lee Strobel and Albert Moehler appear with the RRS? Somehow, i doubt it, because they have too much to lose if RRS runs circles around them. It'd be highly embarassing for them, wouldn't you agree?
It's ironic that you talk about people who would rather believe than look for truth. Ironic, because that's how I'd describe Christianity.
hisone: Personally, I don't see a contradiction between "worldly pleasures" and righteousness, truth, and respectability. I think we can have both. You on the other hand can't recognize morality if it doesn't include your supernatural feudalism. Your religion has narrowed your mind.
It all comes down to a simple irrefutable fact and that is that these people have chosen to live for the flesh and of worldly pleasures than that of truth, respectability, and righteousness. They tell everyone that there is no absolutes, no guarantees yet when their sons die of drug overdoses and their daughters are having abortions, and their marriages begin to crumble they look at everything and everybody else to blame (eg. GOD). They want to remove all notion of just simple morality let alone the sovereignty of our Lord and Savior. These types of people are the same types that could have the rapture and all the tribulation go by with a minute by minute breakdown and will still deny the Lord's existence as well as state " Well if GOD was such a loving GOD...." as to say that they even have an inkling of knowledge of the word of GOD to say that GOD is powerful enough first to do what he desires and that we are subject to his plans and that his Love is infinitely greater than his hate for us.
I agree.R.C. Sproul is another pretty good Christian apologist I wouldn't mind seeing go head to head with some of these atheists.His book "Not A Chance" is a good book regarding science, including Quantum Physics.Also "If There's A God, Why Are There Atheists" is a good read by him.
Sorry, the last sentence in my first paragraph should have read like this:
And they'd much rather live "knowing" that what they BELIEVE to be true than to discover that it is actually false.
(which of course would spell big trouble for them considering their efforts to turn people away from God. But then again, if they one day choose to open their hearts to God and earnestly pray for God to reveal Hiimself to them because they finally realize they themselves - even with their highly intelligent brains - can not know Him ... yeah ... such a person might become the next Apostle Paul)
Seems to me that Rational Response Squad always has to pick on less intelligent, lesser known Christians rather than trying to tackle respected apologists and theologians like Lee Strobel or Albert Mohler. I think it's because deep inside they know they can't win so they'd rather pick on those they can win over. And they'd much rather live "knowing" that what they BELIEVE in is false.
Furthermore, while many Christians may not know the Bible well, at least they have faith in the Truth, versus those who are "so intelligent" that the BELIEVE they can refute the Truth with their own BELIEFS.