The featured apostate today is someone I'll style "YT Sucker," and he has a rather lengthy anti-testimony we won’t quote in full, though we won’t need to. And I'll also use his comments for a different lesson of sorts:
My experience has more to do with myself seeing atheist videos on Youtube. Being the intelligent and confident in my religion (because isn't it obvious that there's a God? Everyone knows that!) I decided I'd watch and respond to these arrogant fools. That was my first mistake.
Christians are right to avoid religious discussions, because if sense is made, we take a ride on the slippery slope.
As someone who has lately taken to tackling some YouTube atheist stars, and seen the efforts of others, all I can say is: PLEASE!
For a long time I resisted watching or responding to these people precisely because their arguments were so lame. Truthfully, the only thing that makes responding to them now bearable is the fact that I can be creative while doing it – using my art, and engaging the challenging aspects of using film software.
It certainly isn’t their arguments that challenge me; those are never more than sound-bite versions of longer arguments that I rebutted in depth some years ago – when they were written by the likes of Till or McKinsey. So think about that: The typical YT atheist isn’t even producing quality to the level of THOSE two losers. Now that’s pathetic.
This guy poses himself as “a thinker” whose brain was healed by these YT sources, as well as sources like the “Why does God not heal amputees?" website (yes, I hit that one square too – only I took it so un-seriously, the reply is on tektoonics, not Tekton). But if that’s the sort of thing that persuades you, your ability to “reason” clearly came out of a box of Cracker Jack. It wasn't reason that persuaded him; it was a good multimedia show with lots of drama.
One thing this does tell us is that we’ve been too slow to take up opportunities to engage these people on their own media grounds. I’ll admit to being slow on it myself; had I known that film software was so inexpensive and so easy to use, I probably would have been at it about 2 years sooner. But it’s a little more complicated than that, too. Since people like YT Sucker don’t want to hear our arguments (because, mainly, it’s what they don’t want to hear any more), our efforts have to be a little more interesting than a face or words on a screen. To put it bluntly, you need some sort of gimmick. You have to do what I would call Ren and Stimpy Apologetics.
Those who watch some of my vids know that I engage a type of humor in them at times that’s reminiscent of some of the recent cartoon programs like Ren and Stimpy, or SpongeBob, or Ed, Edd and Eddy. I do that for a reason, and it isn’t to be crude or mocking – I do it because it’s what you need to keep a lot of these people interested. Since, again, they definitely don’t want to hear your arguments, they just won’t care about your defense of the authorship of Matthew unless (maybe) you insert a few fart jokes; otherwise they’ll be on their way to someone else’s channel within a few seconds, leaving most of your hard work unseen.
That’s a sad commentary on what the world is like today – but also a true one.