Random Thoughts (#611)

Recently their was a debate between the Rational Response (those who run the Blasphemy challenge) team and a couple of true evangelists from the Way of the Master program. It was split up (believer then atheist then believer) and as it played out it consisted of arguments I've had with avid atheists. At the start a choice and reason for belief was given, a response was produced from them with mocking tones and confused sciences/philosophies and I wanted to talk it out a bit.

At the beginning it was said that the debate was about proving God, which can only be done to the extent of "beyond reasonable doubt". (A point that was sorely not made...) The Theist started out talking about proof in three ways, one was creation (one of the most compelling proofs) then came two far less scientific points of moral law or conscience and finally personal proof (as a challenge to the unbeliever). I was not expecting this evangelism in the midst of a debate and I doubted it's effectiveness. It just seemed out of place in the midst of a debate and that worried me slightly. No sooner did I feel the concern did the atheists both blast at the evangelist with the usual arguments and mocking. I thought, "In terms of a debate this is over, but it was an evangelism outreach. How much good will it do when those being reached are seeking intellectual autonomy, not a savior." However, when they were done the second theist stood and instead of attempting to press back the waves of arguments put forth he spoke of his personal conversion and acknowledged that he too new the arguments and agreed with them once, but new better now. He made it know that this is about choice more than intellectual debating. I was very happy at that. Even though it was a debate they set up the atheists, knowing that they would focus on the hundreds of so-called arguments the theists side stepped it successfully concentrating their efforts where it is most important. Stifling the work of Satan and the efforts of the atheists.

I was very impressed to see their approach, but I was sorry to say that near the end of the debate (or the end of what I was able to watch) the atheists clobbered the evangelists with the same argument I had posted on recently and am still talking about over at the philosophy club. That of the universes creation. Now in truth, the evangelists had it locked down as they were able to rebuke the atheists claims had they understood it better, but they didn't. (That is the very reason I don't like live debates, their is just not enough time to seek truth in the opponents words or a defense of something you were unprepared for.)

It is hard to watch a confused group of unbelievers "win" a debate because the theists just don't know better. It's hard to watch them proudly strut around enjoying a false victory. The truth? Their is no rational reasoning that leads to disbelief and so when I see them clap and laugh and deny the Holy Spirit it calms my heart a bit to remember that these people are still given a clear choice and they are simply choosing. On the other hand they are choosing without all understanding, basing their choice on hardened hearts and internal desires instead of reason or logic.

I could write forever it seems, but if you want to see these short clips you can find them at the URL below. I think they just posted the next set of clips so I'm going to watch it now. I'm hopeful, but concerned about the outcome of this. Cheers though...to them who try.

ABC News: Nightline

*Edit: I just finished watching what parts were listed online (at the above link) and I was quite pleased by the end. Their were a few tense moments, but overall it became clearer and clearer as to who believed what and why. One of the most compelling sites in the debate was the demeanor of the evangelist/creationist side compared to the "Rational Response team". Speaks volumes about the foundation and the authority they are servants to.