If you know him ask him if he wants to debate Hitchens at VCU in late 08.  So far we are unable to find anyone willing to show up.

RRS doesn't do debates with Christians, although we will perform an intervention or an expose and show the world how he is a conman if he wants to appear on the show after we get it up and running again.

I do not know Mohler personally; yet, I know a pastor who knows him fairly well. I am sure that if you contacted the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with the offer of debating Hitchens, you would get a response swiftly. Mohler has appeared on Larry King Live and other venues; I don’t see why he would not consider your offer with Hitchens. Yet, once again, I do not know him personally. Here is the seminary website.

www.sbts.edu

The only problem may be that Mohler is having some health issues and may have to face some pretty drastic surgery in the future. If your date is late ’08, then he may have recovered by then.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27405

Sapient, you said you would:

"perform an intervention or an expose and show the world how he is a conman"

….

I am not for sure why you think Mohler is a conman. I don’t believe in Islam; yet, I don’t think a Muslim who believes in his faith can be correctly labled a "conman". To me, a conman is someone who knows his messages or promises are false and yet delivers them anyway. If you think Mohler is wrong and that his religion is false, is "conman" a fair title? Disillusioned maybe, but a "conman"? This is a minute issue though, call him whatever you want.

Natural said:

I just finished watching the first seminar. This guy appears to be the first 'new theist' to counterpoint the 'new atheism' (though I dislike that term). He has a better understanding of 'new atheism' than any theist I've seen so far….I would recommend to all RRS members to check out at least the first lecture. I predict we'll hear a lot more from this guy and more like him will follow. Best to get to know your opponent, IMO.

…

I agree with natural. While many Christians don’t really understand atheism's historic roots, here is a man that does. He disagrees with you; yet, he is very intelligent concerning these issues. I seriously do not think there is a Christian minister out there that could offer you a more worthy debate than this man.

I could try and check and see if he would contact you; yet, I think you would have better luck if you all tried to contact him. If you do get a hold of him, would you let me know? I would love to hear what he had to say to you.

Hey may just be stupid, I think that is a better lable based on what you feel about him . Yet, in his stupidity, I wonder how he has mastered so many languages and why many have claimed he may have a photographic memory, if such a phenomenon actually exists? I guess if you think he is stupid you could always find out by contacting him.

Then again, mastering numerous languages, many of them dead languages of antiquity mastered only as a tool for understanding the history of ancient cultures, having a personal library of literally thousands of books, being accused of having a photographic memory, these may not be traits that you all would use as evidence to elevate a person out of the lable of "stupid". It seems that, according to your view, in order to achieve such a status, those credentials are second only to the ability to abandon theism. I would be so bold as to say Mohler may even be a little bit more inteligent than your very own Rook; though, this may be a stretch, I mean you all did school Kirk Cameron.

Aside from the sarcasm, I am dead serious that I am fascinated by your claims. I don't think their irrational and I am not here to attempt to convert anyone. I really think Mohler would be your best debate against Hitchens. Did you get my other message Sapient? I would really like to chat with you sometime about the God Delusion and other topics. As I mentioned, I could try to contact Southern if you wished, just let me know. Thanks for the replies.

I agree; yet, I do not think that Mohler is stupid. Anyway, this is kicking a dead horse. Theists are "stupid" and you are smart; I get it. Are you going to try to contact Mohler?

Natural,

Thank you for stating the truth, Mohler appears to understand the atheist claims on this board. That is my whole point in bringing Mohler up, he understands the positions you all hold. Many people who I see challange atheists do not even restate what you all believe correctly. Thus, although Mohler is theist, he seems to be able to clearly state your positions and then disagree with them. Some can't even prove they understand your positions and, thus, can not offer any arguement against them. For instance, as you stated, Mohler seems to understand Dawkins concepts rooted in the idea of the selfish gene and he understands Dennet.

That is why I am so curious to see is Sapient will contact Mohler. I asked Sapient if he was going to attempt to contact Mohler and offered to help in any way I could; yet, he has not responded to me. I think he would be an opponent of much more substance than others. For instance, and I mean no disrespect in this, nightline, or whatever show it was, made the debate with Kirk Cameron to be a "clash of titans" if you will. Yet, what are Kirm Cameron's credentials? I am not disrespecting him; yet, I think Mohler and other scholars could offer an interaction that would result in a better understanding of the chief differences between theism and atheism.

I am just writing this to bump up the page. Sapient's response kept getting covered by the bottom advertisements and I could not see them, so I am bumping this post up.

Upton Sinclair once wrote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it.”

He'd be giving up a really nice life, salary, reputation, and lots of friends if he suddenly became an atheist and quit his church.  I don't think many people, smart or not, would rock such a boat.

I think that he basically dismisses the "new Atheism" by saying that it is history repeating itself, with a couple of new ideas.  Would be interesting seeing Hitchens spar with this guy and correct the statistics Mohler claims (near the end of part 1 he claims 95% of the U.S. is theist.)

Definitely a motivator, though still dishonest.

Now that I think about it, yes it probably would be a good debate. And since it appears Hitchens is looking to debate in that area, it could be fortuitous. Hitchens so far hasn't had much of a competition.

It's funny, I almost wish the theists continued to remain ignorant of our actual position, since it would mean the end of theism that much sooner. But, ironically, theism evolves and Mohler's position is an example of the memetic evolution he denigrates. In my mind's eye, I could see the mutated memes transmitting themselves from Mohler's mouth to his audience's ears. My worry is that they'll spread and make our job that much more difficult. But then again, we too have the power of generating our own new memes. Thankfully, I don't think it'll be hard to take apart Mohler's arguments, like a white blood cell takes apart a virus, and generate the necessary anti-memes. I've already got several ideas in mind.