It seems to me that the "Rational Response Squad" has been getting quite a bit of attention for their "Blasphemy Challenge." It has gotten so popular, in fact, that I thought I would comment on a few things...
1.) Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit isn't simply denying His existence. However, dying in that state of denial will assure the same result. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is attributing the miracles of Christ to Satan himself, and it is impossible for an atheist to do this, since they do not believe in either the miracles of Christ or the person of Satan.
2.) I agree wholeheartedly with the RRS that the Christian response to their challenge has done nothing more than make a mockery of Christ and good reason. Just because you "feel Him in your heart" doesn't make Him real. That is an emotional experience. The job of the Spirit isn't to make one feel "warm and fuzzy," it is to convict of sin. This should leave one feeling broken, not happy.
3.) The answer to this problem is not going to be accomplished by arguing Scripture verses. This is a common mistake of Evangelicals. They try to defend the faith by dealing with Bible difficulties. I admit that the Bible has many difficulties for me and all Christians. But this is not the debate. The debate is whether a theistic God exists. Stick to the topic and stop setting up straw-men RRS.
4.) Science has done nothing in the way of disproving theism. First of all, if evolution (between species) were true, it does not prove atheism; it is only a supporting premise for atheism, not a conclusion. Second, using the term "evolution" in a univocal way is dishonest.
5.) The scientific consensus is that the universe began at the Big Bang. There are many lines of evidence to prove this. While we cannot know scientifically what was "previous" to that point, we can philosophically show that it is more plausible that there was something rather than nothing.
6.) The moral outrage that comes from the participants of the "Blasphemy Challenge" and is directed towards the "church" is unfounded. Without a God, there is no justification for making moral claims.
7.) Furthermore, I have noticed that a lot of the atheists say that "I won't believe something unless it is proven by science." There is one major problem. That we should believe that claim cannot be proven by science. It is a philosophical claim, not scientific. The issue at hand is not "Science vs. Religion." It is naturalism vs. theism.
I Challenge anyone from the Rational Response Squad, or any atheist for that matter, to offer a challenge to theism that involves science or philosophy. I am not interested in why you disapprove of Christianity. I am interested in your arguments for the non-existence of God (or the arguments against my arguments for Him found in my Blog "Aquinas' Five Proofs"). Bring it on.