Blasphemy Challenge Dissent (all threads combined)

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Blasphemy Challenge Dissent (all threads combined)

A second attempt to get the Blasphemy Challenge dissent working...

 

edit: It didn't work. Oh well, sucks that all the dissenters couldn't figure out how to follow the board rules and post their concerns in a thread that was already started. The excessive merged topics, broke the thread.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JesusLovesYou
Theist
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
The truth about the blasphemy challenge

zarathustra wrote:
sripley1979 wrote:

Jesus loves has got it right. The preponderance of christian sects stems from people that pick and choose what they want from the bible and ingnore the rest. You have to take the whole thing or not at all. This is why most christians throw scriputure around to prove their points. The fracturing of the Faith is a direct consequence of or fallen state and susceptibility to misdirection by Satan.

 In regard to the bible:  Given the choice between "the whole thing" and "not at all", "not at all" is by far the preferable choice.  If we took "the whole thing", we would still be wandering in the desert, looking for Canaanites to exterminate.  We would still believe in a geocentric universe (a couple of thousand years old), and using 3 as an approximation for .  In other words, no Industrial Revolution, no Nuclear Age, and no Internet for discussing these outdated beliefs.

 

 

Can you back yourself up on that my friend? I feel you are showing a lack of understanding about God here.

 In regards to my previous post, i was simply stating this: "mainstream Christianity, or "the Christian worldview" as many call it, DOES NOT teach/preach what Jesus preached.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1251
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
JesusLovesYou wrote: Can

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Can you back yourself up on that my friend? I feel you are showing a lack of understanding about God here.

extermination: Deut. 7:1-6
misapproximation of pi: 1 Kings 7:23
geocentricity: Joshua 10:12-13

Like sripley1979 said: "take the whole thing, or none at all".
Need more? It gets worse....

What constitutes a "lack of understanding", when discussing a being which doesn't actually exist? I feel you are showing a lack of evidence.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

In regards to my previous post, i was simply stating this: "mainstream Christianity, or "the Christian worldview" as many call it, DOES NOT teach/preach what Jesus preached.

In that case, what exactly what defines a real christian, and how many of them are there? Strange that 2,000 years after the "one, true god" died and rose, we still don't have the true message nailed down (no pun intended).

Peace, my friend.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JesusLovesYou
Theist
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
JesusLovesYou wrote:

Can you back yourself up on that my friend? I feel you are showing a lack of understanding about God here.

extermination: Deut. 7:1-6 misapproximation of pi: 1 Kings 7:23 geocentricity: Joshua 10:12-13 Like sripley1979 said: "take the whole thing, or none at all". Need more? It gets worse.... What constitutes a "lack of understanding", when discussing a being which doesn't actually exist? I feel you are showing a lack of evidence.
JesusLovesYou wrote:

In regards to my previous post, i was simply stating this: "mainstream Christianity, or "the Christian worldview" as many call it, DOES NOT teach/preach what Jesus preached.

In that case, what exactly what defines a real christian, and how many of them are there? Strange that 2,000 years after the "one, true god" died and rose, we still don't have the true message nailed down (no pun intended). Peace, my friend.

 

The "true message" can be found my friend, within the Word of God.  The Bible states, that through the Holy Ghost one can know all things.  Man cannot understand without God giving understanding.  Yes there are errors withing the english translations of the Bible because english cannot accurately reflect the complexity of hebrew and greek BUT through God, a person can be driven the correct direction in scripture.

As far as the "world chrisitian view" not being accurate let me show these:

(1)Mainstream baptism is done at birth, and by sprinkling.  This is not Biblically accurate.  The actual greek word, baptizo, means to completely submerge.  Biblical baptism is also done as a "washing away of sin", while mainstream christianity mearly things it not necessary because they think of it as "an outward sign of an inward change".  Biblical baptism is also ALWAYS done in the name of Jesus Christ, while mainstream christianity uses the paganistically perverted "trinitarian formula"

(2) Hollywood depicts "hell" as a place where satan and his demons torture the bad people, which is reflective of many pagan "underworld keepers".  Bibically "hell" is a place where satan HIMSELF will be bound, unable to do ANYTHING. 

(3) another thing, i think i previously mentioned, is the fact that the Bible states that the only mediator between God and man, is the man Christ Jesus.  So in all things, one can go directly to God, and does not need a priest, or any other religious figure to mediate for them.

(4) In mainstream christianity there is emphasis put on mary, and other "patron saints".  Biblically none of these people have really any significance other than the fact that they were the first christians.  They are not holier than any other.  Biblically there is none holy but 1.  This includes hierarchy too, there is no need for a "pope" and such.

I think what the issue is here is this: People are raised in "eccumenical churches" or all they know is those churches, and are taught as they grow up, as they see errors within the churches, that everything derived from the Catholic church, which was highly influenced in paganism.  They don't think to look back to the very beginning, back to the upper room where the disciples sat on Pentecost.  They don't think to look at how things were for a few hundred years, and how nastily altered they were when Christianity came to Rome. 

trust me my friend(s), All a person need to is call out to God to reveal to them right and wrong.  BUT a person cannot just sit and wait, they need to be studious.  God is not going to move on somebody that has no ambition. God is a gentleman, if you don't want, He wont push.

 

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Phobos wrote: Quote: The

Phobos wrote:
Quote:
The same thing that's bad about believing that the universe is 6 miles wide.  It's delusional.

It's not about being delusional, it's about love, and selflesness.

It might not be about being delusional, but it's still delusional. Why do you think people need a god to be loving and selfless?

Phobos wrote:
They can do what's right through Christ, and why wouldn't this life be meaningful?

Meaningful to whom?

Phobos wrote:
Well they aren't true Christians then are they? God loves everyone! Through what i've seen over my life I have no doubt that God exists.  

I have never met a true christian. None of them come within 20% of the mark. I've never even heard of one. Even the pope doesn't follow the bible explicitly.
I have no doubt that there is no god, and that there never has been a god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Phobos wrote:Quote:The

Board Error double post

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1251
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
First of all, you asked me

First of all, you asked me to "back it up" when addressing  sripley's "all or none" assertion, saying I "lack understanding"?  I provided "back up".  Are you lacking understanding now, or just a response?

 

JesusLovesYou wrote:
The "true message" can be found my friend, within the Word of God.

The plenitude of different, mutually exclusive christian dominations would suggest that this "true message" is terribly elusive.  The fact that "mainstream xianity" (as opposed to, I would guess, fringe xianity) lacks this "true message" makes one wonder if there actually is any word of god to begin with.

 

JesusLovesYou wrote:
... Yes there are errors withing the english translations of the Bible because english cannot accurately reflect the complexity of hebrew and greek BUT through God, a person can be driven the correct direction in scripture.

 

Don't kid yourself about the "complexity of hebrew and greek".  The originals are not nearly as flowery as  the KJV. 

You take much issue with "mainstream xianity".  What exactly are you referring to?  Are you implying that only baptists have it right?  Don't you suppose each one of those thousand odd denominations has a list of reasons why they're right and you're not?  Why don't you go duke it out amongst yourselves before coming over here?

JesusLovesYou wrote:

All a person need to is call out to God to reveal to them right and wrong. BUT a person cannot just sit and wait, they need to be studious. God is not going to move on somebody that has no ambition. God is a gentleman, if you don't want, He wont push.

 

Hey, we've been calling out forever, he just isn't answering.  God's a gentleman, he won't push?  He doesn't have to - he's got a whole legion of sheeple pushing for him, and a decidedly un-gentlemanly manner.

 Take care, my very fine brother.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
So are you assuming that

So are you assuming that the atheists involved in the Blaspheme Challenge are worried about allah since they don't mention him?  I can assure you that this is not the case.  "A"=without "theist"=one who believes in a god or gods.

It is a satire in a sense.  We don't believe in the bible but xtians do.  To state that we deny the holy ghost is, according to the bible, an unforgivable sin.  We are willing and so sure that the xtian god does not exist that we put our "souls" on the line to blaspheme and show we are not afraid of the non-existant hell.  Now do ya get it?


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:
The rationale in saying there is no God and then saying use God's word to deny him is missing. Why not have people say something like 'I am an athiest (non-theist) and disavow any god(s) exist'? This would be more effective, imo, in getting people to realize you are serious. The way the challenge is presented appears to be a piece of satire that will not be taken very seriously.

No, it wouldn't the point is this thing is suppose to be unforgivable. And most take the term as a hard stance on all god ideas anyway so they would probably already assume that idea.

Quote:
Why not prove yourselves as true non-theists (atheists) and disavow all gods in belief on this planet (and beyond for that matter)?

There is a difference between atheist and anti-theist. I'm not going to go around yelling all ideas of god are 100% false. For all I know the person is talking about a chair or they have proof for their supreme being.

Quote:
There is really no effect, other than for the purposes of humor, to only reject one god.

It has a big effect if that god has the largest fan club or it was the god you once believed in.

Quote:
Why not go so far as to offer the challenge to specifically reject the muslim god as well?

The idea is the unforgivable nature of the act. Do you know of something unforgivable in islam?

Quote:
Or are you concerned your life might be truly in danger? I don't know, I can only posit the idea.

Dude, if saying their god doesn't exist was the thing to set them off they would have done something when I say I'm atheist. Like I said most take the term as a hard stance so that isn't the issue at all. In most people's minds me saying I'm atheist is saying I deny all gods.

 

The thing is I lack a belief in all gods and only hold a hard stance on the ideas that cannot exist. Also I can't claim to deny all gods when I do not know about all gods or the aspect which could make them impossible.


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: rr are

Voiderest wrote:

rr are religous bigots wrote:
The rationale in saying there is no God and then saying use God's word to deny him is missing. Why not have people say something like 'I am an athiest (non-theist) and disavow any god(s) exist'? This would be more effective, imo, in getting people to realize you are serious. The way the challenge is presented appears to be a piece of satire that will not be taken very seriously.

No, it wouldn't the point is this thing is suppose to be unforgivable. And most take the term as a hard stance on all god ideas anyway so they would probably already assume that idea.

If the point is to be unforgivable, then who would be the one that could not forgive?  Surely not God, since you deny the Christian God exists.  This is where I see this challenge as satire - to be unforgiven by what one does not believe exists is a contradiction.  Unless of course you do not take the challenge seriously  for your self - only to draw attention to yourself.

Quote:
Why not prove yourselves as true non-theists (atheists) and disavow all gods in belief on this planet (and beyond for that matter)?

There is a difference between atheist and anti-theist. I'm not going to go around yelling all ideas of god are 100% false. For all I know the person is talking about a chair or they have proof for their supreme being.

If you think someone might have proof of a supreme being, then you are an agnostic - sorry but you can't have it both ways.  You think you can but atheism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
There is really no effect, other than for the purposes of humor, to only reject one god.

It has a big effect if that god has the largest fan club or it was the god you once believed in.

I see your point of the intent, although as an outsider looking in, the satire is there.

Quote:
Why not go so far as to offer the challenge to specifically reject the muslim god as well?

The idea is the unforgivable nature of the act. Do you know of something unforgivable in islam?

From the book of Mohammad

  1. [47.34] Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.

I suspect if you avow you disbelieve in Allah and turn away from Allah's way, that will leave you unforgiven.

Quote:
Or are you concerned your life might be truly in danger? I don't know, I can only posit the idea.

Dude, if saying their god doesn't exist was the thing to set them off they would have done something when I say I'm atheist. Like I said most take the term as a hard stance so that isn't the issue at all. In most people's minds me saying I'm atheist is saying I deny all gods. 

Ah, but that is the jib, you say what is in most people's minds, i.e.  what they think when you say you are an atheist, but you might not define your style of atheist as one who might believe in God(given enough proofs).  In a sense people are misled by your claim of being an atheist - tell them you would believe a God exists if given enough proof and most of those people might say you are agnostic.

The thing is I lack a belief in all gods and only hold a hard stance on the ideas that cannot exist. Also I can't claim to deny all gods when I do not know about all gods or the aspect which could make them impossible.

Why would an atheist, by the standard dictionary definition, not rule out that any god(s) exist?  In the back of your mind, it seems you are leaving a place open in case a supreme being (that can be proven in your terms) does exist - if this is so, then it would seem you are leaving it open you might become a theist under those conditions.

I think I am starting to understand moreso what some of folks are saying.  You say you are an atheist (one who is also agnostic).  I understand you are redefining atheist (the standard accepted term).  Why not create a new term then?  Unless you tell people you are both an atheist and agnostic, you mislead them into thinking you will never believe any god exists - which is not entirely true.

Is there some other term other than that some people may be using, to more clearly define an atheistic agnostic (or an agnostic atheist) rather than just saying atheist?   I have heard the terms strong and weak atheist, but neither term clearly defines, to others, what that really means.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Weak Atheist = "I don't

Weak Atheist = "I don't believe any gods exist, but I'm not 100% sure."

Strong Atheist = "I am sure no gods exist."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

Why would an atheist, by the standard dictionary definition, not rule out that any god(s) exist? In the back of your mind, it seems you are leaving a place open in case a supreme being (that can be proven in your terms) does exist - if this is so, then it would seem you are leaving it open you might become a theist under those conditions.

I think I am starting to understand moreso what some of folks are saying. You say you are an atheist (one who is also agnostic). I understand you are redefining atheist (the standard accepted term). Why not create a new term then? Unless you tell people you are both an atheist and agnostic, you mislead them into thinking you will never believe any god exists - which is not entirely true.

Is there some other term other than that some people may be using, to more clearly define an atheistic agnostic (or an agnostic atheist) rather than just saying atheist? I have heard the terms strong and weak atheist, but neither term clearly defines, to others, what that really means.

 

Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncCNwbb5Jc

OR for more in-depth discussion already made on this topic:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/3989

 

I would encourage you to look for the subject titles in the forums because your issues have been addressed in my opinion. As with everything, check it out. It appears to me that the only person looking to redefine anything is you. 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Weak

MattShizzle wrote:

Weak Atheist = "I don't believe any gods exist, but I'm not 100% sure."

Strong Atheist = "I am sure no gods exist."

 Matt,

Why dilute the term atheist with an agnostic stance? 

The definition you give for weak atheist is a contradiction in statements.  My interpretation (and one that I think many outside people would agree with) is -  I believe 'bigfoot' does not exist, but maybe 'bigfoot' does exists (I can't be sure).  

 ' But I'm not 100% sure' is a non sequitur i.e. it does not logically follow along with 'I don't believe any gods exist'.   Then, to associate these statements with atheism makes no sense - they are statements of gnosticism.

Why would agnostics want to have a connection with atheism, other than to be part of what is perceived to be a bigger crowd?

 Maybe there needs to be another term for the joining of agnostics and atheists ideology - maybe a new term.  Agatheist or athostics or some other combination of the two.  I personally like the sound of athostics better. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Try reading. Agnostic vs

Try reading.

Agnostic vs Gnostic = knowledge.

Atheist vs theist = belief.

In a way you could say a weak atheist is an agnostic atheist while a strong atheist is a gnostic atheist.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: rr are

darth_josh wrote:
rr are religous bigots wrote:

Why would an atheist, by the standard dictionary definition, not rule out that any god(s) exist? In the back of your mind, it seems you are leaving a place open in case a supreme being (that can be proven in your terms) does exist - if this is so, then it would seem you are leaving it open you might become a theist under those conditions.

I think I am starting to understand moreso what some of folks are saying. You say you are an atheist (one who is also agnostic). I understand you are redefining atheist (the standard accepted term). Why not create a new term then? Unless you tell people you are both an atheist and agnostic, you mislead them into thinking you will never believe any god exists - which is not entirely true.

Is there some other term other than that some people may be using, to more clearly define an atheistic agnostic (or an agnostic atheist) rather than just saying atheist? I have heard the terms strong and weak atheist, but neither term clearly defines, to others, what that really means.

 

Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncCNwbb5Jc

OR for more in-depth discussion already made on this topic:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/3989

 

I would encourage you to look for the subject titles in the forums because your issues have been addressed in my opinion. As with everything, check it out. It appears to me that the only person looking to redefine anything is you. 

 

 

 

darth,

 I went to the rr link and read what sapient is using as the definition for an atheist (he got the definition from someone's personal website).

 I went to www.askoxford.com (which is an Oxford English dictionary website).  Their definition is

atheism

/aythi-iz’m/

  • noun the belief that God does not exist.

  — DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

  — ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’

 

I point this out because the dictionaries (Websters etc) that I have checked have this as the same definition - the same definition that some members use here.  I am not looking to redefine the meaning of the words atheist or agnostic.  That has already been done by many others on this site.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You really need to read some

You really need to read some other threads here. It's been discussed already how dictionaries give the definitions of the way people use words, not necesarilly their correct meaning. Look at how dictionaries define "theory" for example. They give the colloquial definitions because that's how people use the words.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: You

MattShizzle wrote:
You really need to read some other threads here. It's been discussed already how dictionaries give the definitions of the way people use words, not necesarilly their correct meaning. Look at how dictionaries define "theory" for example. They give the colloquial definitions because that's how people use the words.

matt,

My last post was put in after you gave me clarifications of the terms.   Others on this site seem to have their own interpretations of your definitions.  I guess to each their own, but I still think that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive - well they had been until people on this site decided to change that exclusivity.

 Maybe the powers that be (not gods I hope lol) can put out a list of definitions that the entire website can refer to, and to inform those unfamiliar with the website.  Those definitions might start with what is believed to be literal definitions then what the philisophical definitions are, and so on.  

 Dictionaries have, for the most part, given the meaning of words.  Modern dictionaries include more detailed information  of the way the words are used, including colloquialisms.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

Dictionaries have, for the most part, given the meaning of words. Modern dictionaries include more detailed information of the way the words are used, including colloquialisms.

Dictionaries are largely logs of how words have been used.  Dictionaries are very good guides for what words mean, but language is changing and evolving constantly, and in recent decades the word 'atheist' has come to be used, especially in many atheist communities, as being without theism--being without a belief in God.

Whether dictionaries have caught up with this usage or not is irrelevant.  It is the use that we use here and which is used in most atheist communities I am aware of.

Semantic arguments are ridiculous in this sense.  You have to learn to transwer word-usage from group to group, especially since you are already aware of the difference in use.

So yes, the atheist community is using a different meaning for 'atheist' than has been traditionally used.  In some dictionaries, atheist has been defined as immoral, but that is obviously related to the influence of Christianity on usage. But this use is appropriate becaus ethe actual people who use the term are people who collectively have one and only one thing in common; the lack of belief in aby gods.  Some also believe other things concerning gods and religions, but that is strictly in addition to their being atheists.

Use is the key.  We use the word to mean 'without belief in any gods" because taht's exactly where we stand.  So don't argue with the definition that doesn't apply to us, argue with our actual position, no matter what you call it.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:
If the point is to be unforgivable, then who would be the one that could not forgive? Surely not God, since you deny the Christian God exists. This is where I see this challenge as satire - to be unforgiven by what one does not believe exists is a contradiction. Unless of course you do not take the challenge seriously for your self - only to draw attention to yourself.

...

 

I see your point of the intent, although as an outsider looking in, the satire is there.

Why is it so hard for people to see the reasoning behind this...

If I am doing something that would completely fuck me over according to this system it shows I do not hold it to be true.

What lead you to this forum? (this is very on topic)

Satire would be more like mocking a christian trying to act like one of them or acting like I am on their side. My view of satire has been the kind in "A Modest Proposal." Now lets say for a second you are right about this satire idea. Is there something wrong with satire? Personally I like "A Modest Proposal" it was one of the few times I got to answer, "eating babies" to a real question. Maybe I should make a satire video on christians just to show you what satire would be. Probably could find one if looked for a little bit though.

Quote:
If you think someone might have proof of a supreme being, then you are an agnostic - sorry but you can't have it both ways. You think you can but atheism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive.

Other people have been over this, in this thread and others, but I'll do it anyway. My view of the topic is that you can, for anything, believe or not believe it exists and you can also be sure and unsure.

What it sounds like you want me to do is say, "There is no way for there to be any kind of god." I am not an idiot. I'm well aware of the argument for that kind of statement and know the strawman that has formed around it.

Quote:
From the book of Mohammad

   1. [47.34] Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.

I suspect if you avow you disbelieve in Allah and turn away from Allah's way, that will leave you unforgiven.

Thats nice, but it is a conditional idea so the muslim can say all I need to do is repent (or whatever term they might have) and I'm all set. Being unforgiven is different from doing something unforgivable.

Quote:
Ah, but that is the jib, you say what is in most people's minds, i.e. what they think when you say you are an atheist, but you might not define your style of atheist as one who might believe in God(given enough proofs).

Thats called being open-minded. No, it does not mean "might believe" in god(s), it means I will listen to proofs.

Quote:
In a sense people are misled by your claim of being an atheist - tell them you would believe a God exists if given enough proof and most of those people might say you are agnostic.

And I call those people ignorant.

Quote:
Why would an atheist, by the standard dictionary definition, not rule out that any god(s) exist?

Depends on the dictionary, but simply lacking a belief doesn't mean I rule out the possiblity.

Quote:
In the back of your mind, it seems you are leaving a place open in case a supreme being (that can be proven in your terms) does exist - if this is so, then it would seem you are leaving it open you might become a theist under those conditions.

Yes, given proof I would believe something exists.

Quote:
I think I am starting to understand moreso what some of folks are saying. You say you are an atheist (one who is also agnostic). I understand you are redefining atheist (the standard accepted term).

You just don't know the difference between strong and weak atheism. That is why you think we are redefining something.

Quote:
Why not create a new term then?

Because I don't need to and to do say is implying something is wrong with the old term. That is like a white person feeling white isn't the right word so they make a new word for it. Yeah we do that kind of thing, but I refuse to let a term be demonized then avoid it like something is wrong with it. Words are used to communicate ideas changing the word does nothing when it is the idea the people dislike.

Quote:
Unless you tell people you are both an atheist and agnostic, you mislead them into thinking you will never believe any god exists - which is not entirely true.

They are misleading themselves. This would be like calling a white person from africa misleading because they call themself african american.

Quote:
Is there some other term other than that some people may be using, to more clearly define an atheistic agnostic (or an agnostic atheist) rather than just saying atheist? I have heard the terms strong and weak atheist, but neither term clearly defines, to others, what that really means.

Yeah, well maybe they should look into it. If basic research is too much for a person they can read "Am I agnostic or atheist?" found in the box titled with your user name.

Really though the best way I sum up my position is "I am atheist about all gods and anti-theist about some." That statement should clear up peoples misconceptions. It makes people go, "Wait, what is the difference?" Honestly I think I need a better word to described the strong atheist side, perhaps "anti-god about some" or just "anti about some".


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Arguments from the

Arguments from the dictionary are a bit silly to me, I mean would you believe this RR(Whatever the rest of your name is?)?

 

sin·is·ter

 

1. Suggesting or threatening evil: a sinister smile.2. Presaging trouble; ominous: sinister storm clouds.3. Attended by or causing disaster or inauspicious circumstances.4. On the left side; left.5. Heraldry Situated on or being the side of a shield on the wearer's left and the observer's right. Number 4, would you accept that as the definition of sinister? It's in the dictionary, your HOLY BOOK, of the religion dictionotamus. 

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Ophios, I hate to be the

Ophios, I hate to be the guy who does this...

 sinister means left-handed in Latin (dexter means right-handed, so ambidextrous means two right hands).  I know taht is not how it is used, but the usage is fair.  In other words, it could be used to say something about someone being left-handed and evil, as a kind of double meaning.

This does not change the fact that atheist means how we use it to mean. 

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Yes, true, but...

I know, I know, but I'm going on the fact that people hold up the dictionary as the holy book O' ultimate truths.

I mean I don't use sinister for the left side. But I guess we all should, becuase it says so in the dictionary.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

The home page of this site says:

We are officially live with our blasphemy challenge! Thanks to everyone who has gotten involved! Do you have the cojones to show the world how sure you are that the Christian God doesn't exist?

The challenge page says:


INSTRUCTIONS:

You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."

Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.

The rationale in saying there is no God and then saying use God's word to deny him is missing. Why not have people say something like 'I am an athiest (non-theist) and disavow any god(s) exist'? This would be more effective, imo, in getting people to realize you are serious. The way the challenge is presented appears to be a piece of satire that will not be taken very seriously.

Why not prove yourselves as true non-theists (atheists) and disavow all gods in belief on this planet (and beyond for that matter)? There is really no effect, other than for the purposes of humor, to only reject one god. Why not go so far as to offer the challenge to specifically reject the muslim god as well? Or are you concerned your life might be truly in danger? I don't know, I can only posit the idea.

Of course, how likely is it that there actually is a sky God who has a son who will take you to Heaven if you don't insult a ghost? Isn't it just as likely that there is a sky god who has a son who will take you to Heaven only if you do insult a ghost? Sure, we just made up that scheme, but it is as equally supported by evidence as the first one.

All we're saying is, you're taking chances either way. So why not get a free DVD? -->

 

I think that most people are missing the point when it comes to the blasphemy challenge.  It is in part directed to theists who are questioning the existence of god.  By seeing peers "coming out" so to speak and denouncing the existence of the holy spirit in a sense makes those who may be mor timid come out and realize that they are not alone.  I'm not sure whether you are a theist or not, I would suspect not, but are just skeptical of the ways of the RRS.  But I think that you, along wiht other atheists, who criticize the RRS are not too familiar with the tactics.  By denying the holy spirit, is in a sense showing that we are not afraid of hell. It is meant to be fun and creative.  More importantly, it gets attention to the cause.  Most of us here have absolutely no reason to fear a god because we have absolutely no reason to believe one exists, or hell or satan..etc... 

The Blasphemy Challenge got your attention didn't it? As it got more that 4 million people's attention.  So our cause is being brought to the mainstream.  

There are multi-faceted approaches to bring our message out to the public...and the blasphemy challenge is just a rung on the ladder.  As I said, it got your attention didn't it? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: If

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
If you're going to make a fuss, make sure you atleast use a spellchecker!  You spelled 'believe' wrong once and right twice.  And the worst part is you cap-locked it.  Remember, the proper way to spell believe has a LIE in it.  You can't spell beLIEve without the LIE.
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point? Also remember that the "i" is silent and should never be pronounced like "LIE" right, Rook_Hawkins? Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kelreth wrote: My

Kelreth wrote:

My apologies Sapient. I will straighten up and/or stay out of the killing them with kindness forums.

No biggie man, just watch the forum you're in. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta wrote:Because

Bodhitharta wrote:
Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.

It is spelled like lie, it just isn't pronuonced like lie.

 

I'd hate for you to wander into a french fourm. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Bodhitharta

Ophios wrote:

Bodhitharta wrote:
Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.

It is spelled like lie, it just isn't pronuonced like lie.

I'd hate for you to wander into a french fourm. 

 

That's what I said. I'm glad we agree.

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta wrote: You also

Bodhitharta wrote:
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point?
You can't shit without it. So what's your point?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Bodhitharta

AiiA wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point?
You can't shit without it. So what's your point?

You can't hit without it either.

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


patrickimo
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Why Blasphemy Challenge? Why indeed...

wowsy,

 

First off, it sounds like some of your thoughts have rather bad organization. That doesn't help any of us. Take some time to reflect on what you're going to say before you say it.

Secondly, your assertion, "BTW - I still beleive this is for personal attention and monitary gain and that is just my humble opinion," is rather off the mark. Personal attention, to me, refers to a single person. This is an organized effort, so if anything the organization wants attention. Elsewhere in this conversation Sapient says that lots of money has been lost in this effort. I do believe he can prove that. If "monetary gain" is your charge, ask to see some financial records. That is physical evidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta

Bodhitharta wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
If you're going to make a fuss, make sure you atleast use a spellchecker!  You spelled 'believe' wrong once and right twice.  And the worst part is you cap-locked it.  Remember, the proper way to spell believe has a LIE in it.  You can't spell beLIEve without the LIE.
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point? Also remember that the "i" is silent and should never be pronounced like "LIE" right, Rook_Hawkins? Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.

This is most amusing. You have no concept of reality. Look at the bloody error in the first place. The screwup was in the LIE, not the EVE. Go away.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Bodhitharta

Vastet wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
If you're going to make a fuss, make sure you atleast use a spellchecker!  You spelled 'believe' wrong once and right twice.  And the worst part is you cap-locked it.  Remember, the proper way to spell believe has a LIE in it.  You can't spell beLIEve without the LIE.
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point? Also remember that the "i" is silent and should never be pronounced like "LIE" right, Rook_Hawkins? Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.
This is most amusing. You have no concept of reality. Look at the bloody error in the first place. The screwup was in the LIE, not the EVE. Go away.

 

You are right the mistake was in the "LIE" that the devil told and not in "EVE". That was very good. Thanks!

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta wrote: Vastet

Bodhitharta wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
If you're going to make a fuss, make sure you atleast use a spellchecker!  You spelled 'believe' wrong once and right twice.  And the worst part is you cap-locked it.  Remember, the proper way to spell believe has a LIE in it.  You can't spell beLIEve without the LIE.
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point? Also remember that the "i" is silent and should never be pronounced like "LIE" right, Rook_Hawkins? Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.
This is most amusing. You have no concept of reality. Look at the bloody error in the first place. The screwup was in the LIE, not the EVE. Go away.

 

You are right the mistake was in the "LIE" that the devil told and not in "EVE". That was very good. Thanks!

You don't have a brain do you? Rofl.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Bodhitharta

Vastet wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
If you're going to make a fuss, make sure you atleast use a spellchecker!  You spelled 'believe' wrong once and right twice.  And the worst part is you cap-locked it.  Remember, the proper way to spell believe has a LIE in it.  You can't spell beLIEve without the LIE.
You also cant spell believe without "eve" so what's your point? Also remember that the "i" is silent and should never be pronounced like "LIE" right, Rook_Hawkins? Because if you say it like it is spelled in "LIE" you will be wrong but if you say it like it is spelled in eve you will be right.
This is most amusing. You have no concept of reality. Look at the bloody error in the first place. The screwup was in the LIE, not the EVE. Go away.

You are right the mistake was in the "LIE" that the devil told and not in "EVE". That was very good. Thanks!

You don't have a brain do you? Rofl.

not Rofl ROTF 

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: The

razorphreak wrote:

The passage from the bible does NOT say to renounce the holy spirit but rather the person who calls that which is from God as evil.

We've seen this arguemtn dozens of times already. No matter how many times you theists try it, it won't become any more valid.

The passage CLEARLY says that to BLASPHEME the holy spirit is the unforgivable sin. Just because it is said in response to a particular kind of blasphemy DOES NOT mean that that is the ONLY way to do it. PERIOD.

 The deffinition of "Blaspheme" is as follows:

Quote:

–verb (used with object)
1.    to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things).
2.    to speak evil of; slander; abuse.
–verb (used without object)
3.    to speak irreverently of God or sacred things; utter impieties.

(From dictionary.com) 

I would say that claiming the holy spirit doesn't exist is pretty damn impious.

Denying the Holy Spirit is impious, and therefore blasphemy.

QED! 

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Symok wrote: We've seen

Symok wrote:
We've seen this arguemtn dozens of times already. No matter how many times you theists try it, it won't become any more valid.

First be careful about your judgements.  You shouldn't start by assuming all "theists" are the same.

Symok wrote:
The passage CLEARLY says that to BLASPHEME the holy spirit is the unforgivable sin. Just because it is said in response to a particular kind of blasphemy DOES NOT mean that that is the ONLY way to do it. PERIOD.

 Let me say first that this verse as well as the one from Matthew 12 (same event) is the one and only time Jesus ever said what is unforgivable.  He did not leave you options to pick and choose how a person would be deemed as unforgivable. 

You don't take into context what the passage is about.  That's my question...why are you doing that?  You took one word and ran with it to make your "challenge".  It's like, in an example from football, I told you that the team ran a play with 4th and 20 yards to go and did a turn over on downs.  You'd say what fools...until I told you that it was with 10 seconds to go on in the game.  Without all the details, how would you know exactly what I'm talking about?  The same is true here.  OK you used Mark 3:29.  Why didn't you include what Mark 3:30 says? 

"He said this because they were saying, 'He has an evil spirit.'".

  That tells you WHY there is an unforgivable sin.  Why did the team run it on 4th and 20?  Because there was only 10 seconds left in the game.  That tells you the ONLY blasphemy that is unforgivable.  It did not say, "or if you spoke against me" because that was covered in the previous verse,

Mark 3:28 - I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

You should not take this out of context to justify yourself.  Use it as it was meant to be used and then make your case.  You proved nothing just now... 

Acts 5:1-4 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

 Expanding on what it means to do evil against the holy spirit, not these videos you guys make.  I tell you honestly, I don't care what videos you guys make, but it does have me concerned that you don't fully understand what was written in its full context.  There was a reason that Jesus helped the Roman solider; not because he too was a athesist, but because his heart understood good vs. evil.  I have a feeling you do as well....

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:You

razorphreak wrote:

You don't take into context what the passage is about. That's my question...why are you doing that? You took one word and ran with it to make your "challenge".

There is a context in Mark that seems to demonstrate that blasphemy against the holy spirit requires that you attribute jesus' power to satanic influence. So whether or not blasphemy of any type, or a specific type as stated above is required, is debatable.

 However, how do you deal with Luke chapter 12?

12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. 
12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

 

There is no such proviso here.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:
There is a context in Mark that seems to demonstrate that blasphemy against the holy spirit requires that you attribute jesus' power to satanic influence. So whether or not blasphemy of any type, or a specific type as stated above is required, is debatable.

There is no debate on this because the text does NOT give multiple cases for blasphemy that is unforgivable, only one case. And what's more is the text tells you HOW it is accomplished. Now the holy spirit by what Christianity teaches is not only Jesus but when the spirit speaks though you or on behalf for you to God

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

So it is not just attributing evil to what Jesus' works were but to any person who is doing God's will that you would attribute as being evil. Sounds trivial however it would be like saying that you who help the homeless is a waste of time as an example when it's obvious that you made that your calling in life (believing in God or not).

It seems you are doing what I usually attribute to Christians - take one specific verse and mold it to prove your point instead of what point was intended; the point that God made though the bible.

todangst wrote:
However, how do you deal with Luke chapter 12? ... There is no such proviso here.

Now what I want to know is why did you move away from Mark 3? You used Mark 3 in your challenge and are using it out of context. Luke 12 still says the same thing. The fact that you happened to jump to the one that summarized it is interesting to me. Luke 12 says the same thing but simply summarized it without the how. No contradiction here...just simply makes reference to Matthew and Mark.

This might help just a bit from the amplified bible:

Luke 12: 10 And everyone who makes a statement or speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit [that is, whoever intentionally comes short of the reverence due the Holy Spirit], it will not be forgiven him [for him there is no forgiveness]

Again still referring to what Matthew and Mark teach in a simplified way (most bibles cross reference Matthew and/or Mark for this verse and the gospel of Luke is known for some simplification since he was thought to be an apprentice). However if you wish to use the verse you must use it in the proper context from the bible, not how you wish to use it. That's my point and my question still stands; why was it not used properly in this so called challenge?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
I thought that was pretty

I thought that was pretty clever Bod.  seriously.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
22jesus22 wrote: I thought

22jesus22 wrote:
I thought that was pretty clever Bod.  seriously.

 

Thanks!


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
You're missing the point.

You're missing the point. It's easy enough to say, "leave well enough alone" until you consider the massive push by fundamentalists Christians in America to legislate and control the lives of "non-believers". Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, the drug war, euthanasia, ... are all paramount to many non-Christian Americans. When Christian zealots insist on legislating the fore mentioned (among countless others) based on a fairy tale called The Holy Bible, "non-believers" will indeed stand up. The 1st step is to denounce the asinine, hypocritical, and historically evil doctrine that is Christianity. Thus the "blasphemy challenge".


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Exatctly Edgar, the reason

Exatctly Edgar, the reason for the blasphemy challenge was not to insult christians, it is to bring atheism into the spotlight. In America, people hate us. The country is overwhelmingly christian, with a huge evangelical fundamentalist base. I don't believe in a soul. I am a scientist and a materialist, not a spiritualist. That doesn't mean that I do not respect the astonishing complexity of life.

 

We blaspheme the holy spirit because we want the world to see that atheists will not lie down and take the shit that christian fundamentalists spew. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


gottheflu
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Persuasion vs Denunciation

Thanks for the prompt response, Edger.

It seems like what you're saying, then, is that the Blasphemy Challenge is a loud, provocative way to draw attention to the unwarranted fundamentalist threat?  Well, this so-called threat or "evil" has been around for generations, and, I'm sure you guys know you're not bringing up anything new (just a new medium from which to shout it).

 This social issues you've listed certainly do not have to depend on a fundamentalist Christian worldview directly out of the Bible in order to be opposed; they are among the most profound and difficult problems any society would ever have to face.  And in our society, thank *&!@, we face them through civil debate and by presenting arguments.  (And yes, members from all sides have proponants who've crossed the lines of civility, even to extreme degrees.)

So in America, Christians and atheists and those in between have the freedom to articulate their arguments that can directly or indirectly affect legislation.  If Christians really are infusing a bunch of ignorant zealotry into the debate, they should eventually LOSE the debate. That's another pattern of democracy.  (By the way, surely you don't call everyone who has a strong disagreement with you a "zealot," do you?)  To ignore opposing ideas can lead to self-bloviating arrogance (which fundamentalists have certainly shown).  To attempt to silence opposing ideas, or, in the case of your posting, to raise fear against them without the use of specific arguments, can lead to totalitarianism--or at least something a lot worse than our historically superior brand of democracy.

So, from your examples, explain to me exactly how society is better with legalized abortion, and I'll explain why it is worse.  Tell me why gay marriage makes society better, and I'll tell you why it does not, and so forth.  And when we make arguments, we can cite whatever authorities we like that exist outside the confines of our own weak heads.  That, of course, is called adding weight to one's argument.  You can cite legal precedent, history, philosophy, whatever (Although I fear that you think no Christian ever reads or is impacted by anything outside of the Bible....wrong.)  Even though I'm a theist, I know that citing the Bible would have no impact on my arguments with you, so I would probably search elsewhere.  Anything should be fair game that one thinks could lend support to his IDEAS.  And winning with persuasive IDEAS is what it's all about in our democracy.

 However, my main point is that the Blaspheme Challenge, on the surface, seems to have little to do with arguing ideas, and a lot to do with drawing attention to itself.  And I wonder if the BC founders have truly weighed the cost involved if what they're doing with so many individual souls is wrong.


gottheflu
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Hi DG, I guess I would

Hi DG, I guess I would apply most of what I said to Edger to your reply. Our democratic system is all about people like yourself, tired of one particular crap or another, taking a stand.  But, so far from your reply, I don't see any substantial insight as to the particular crap you're mad about, and your basis for being so mad.  If you really want to bring atheism into the spotlight, continually try to present convincing arguments as to how atheism is true and is worthy of embrace.

Also, could you explain to me how the complexity of life astounds you and commands respect?  After all, our national railroad system is extremely complex, but I would not call it particularly astounding.  Even when I rarely ride a train, I don't think it would conjure up feelings of respect.  Not exactly.

And when I mention the soul, here I am using it to convey the deepest existance, emotions, personality, and psyche, etc. of the human spirit.  The part that gives humans greatest worth.  I'm sure you believe in a tremendous value of each human soul, right?  But if so, how do you justify this value within your own worldview?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The reason life commands my

The reason life commands my respect is because I study molecular biology. I justify this view because I see the most astonishing things daily. Gene transcription, embryogenesis, fertilization. Religious people sometimes say that atheists cannot value to incredible nature of life if they believe it to be meaningless. But does teleological meaningless mean life is meaningless to the individual? If you truly want to respect the awesome power of life, don't look at it through religion, it just oversimplifies it and belittles it. Take up a natural science.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


gottheflu
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
It's just that your

It's just that your worldview does not adequately explain how and why we see things as valuable.  You give no basis for the words you use like "incredible," "awesome."  Of course I believe you see these things, even as an atheist, you just fail to justify the value of things outside of your own subjective response to your findings.  Incredible and awesome as compared to what?  Things that are NOT awesome and incredible?  That solves little.  Unless you were to argue rightly that these attributes require no defense.  We can just let them be what they are, and let them be real to us and just enjoy the experience.  Then again, that's what thoughful theists have said all along. Then, however, you must also allow the idea of "God" (whatever "God" exactly means) in this realm of incorrigible experience.

Excuse me for saying, but your understanding of the Christian view of life is what is narrow.  Apparantly you've never read Jonathan Edward's intricate observation of a spider web, for example.  You nor I could even come close to surpassing how that great theological mind interpreted the grandeur of nature.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Well, I spent 2 hours

Well, I spent 2 hours typing a response, and 0.2 seconds clicking the wrong button and wiping it all out... sigh. Take 2:

gottheflu wrote:

I might be almost there, but I'm not all the way there in understanding why you challenge people to "blaspheme the 'Holy Spirit'?" Do you want people to be absolutely convinced it's the right thing before they do it?

Yes, I would like them to be convinced that the god described in the bible does not exist and threats of hell carry no weight.

The Challenge does two things:

1) Gives people who are confident atheists the opportunity to show their solidarity.

2) Gives people who are atheist but afraid to tell people the impetus to unshackle themselves from that fear.

gottheflu wrote:

Even if I were an atheist, it honestly would seem like an ugly and provincial way to draw attention. You don't believe in God. Do you also not believe in individual "souls" who have worth? And regardless of that, is one's fundamental worldview (religous or not) an extremely important part of his "soul' or inner being? I believe that to be true, whether I agree with someone's particular worlview or not, so I therefore try to confront opposing beliefs with respect and humility.

The theistic notion of a soul is something supernatural provided by a supernatural creature. There is no evidence of this being true.

The very problem of affording everyone's worldviews "respect" is that it stifles actual discourse. If someone makes an argument and says "because my god says so", you then have to go along with that? Some theists claim to be "respecting" the beliefs of others, but if, in their mind, they think "this person is going to hell," what kind of respect is that?

 

(I'm moving your other statement about souls up here for what appears to me to be a logical ordering.)

gottheflu wrote:

And when I mention the soul, here I am using it to convey the deepest existance, emotions, personality, and psyche, etc. of the human spirit. The part that gives humans greatest worth. I'm sure you believe in a tremendous value of each human soul, right? But if so, how do you justify this value within your own worldview?

I wouldn't call those things as what makes up a soul. I'd call those things what makes up an individual.

Here are somethings that I base my worldview on:

1) All human beings are related.

2) We are capable of abstract thought.

3) Using abstract thought, we can empathize with other people and creatures.

4) Through empathy, we can treat others as we'd like to be treated.

I think that these things lead to more respect for individuals than most theistic belief structures which often sacrifice individuals to the "needs" of non-existant gods.

Personalities and emotions arise from the workings of our brains, not from a magic spirit entity. As such, other creatures that we share this planet with are capable of showing emotion and personality.

gottheflu wrote:

To be so confident in one's beliefs as to call others to "blaspheme", and for one to have such an appetite to prove he is right, without considering what he is doing to the souls of others, brings to mind a certain word. Fundamentalism.

I'm confident in my beliefs based on evidence. Religions are based on faith, belief without (and in many cases, in spite of) evidence.

People who participate in the Challenge are making their own choice of what to do. Your statement presumes the existence of an immortal soul which suffers the whims of a non-existant god.

gottheflu wrote:

It seems like what you're saying, then, is that the Blasphemy Challenge is a loud, provocative way to draw attention to the unwarranted fundamentalist threat? Well, this so-called threat or "evil" has been around for generations, and, I'm sure you guys know you're not bringing up anything new (just a new medium from which to shout it).

This threat is very good and threatening and intimidating its rivals. That is one of the prime reasons it has been around. It doesn't make logical arguments. It stifles thought and, failing that, resorts to violence.

Take a look at scientific advancement in Europe from 300 to 1300. You won't find much.

gottheflu wrote:

This social issues you've listed certainly do not have to depend on a fundamentalist Christian worldview directly out of the Bible in order to be opposed; they are among the most profound and difficult problems any society would ever have to face. And in our society, thank *&!@, we face them through civil debate and by presenting arguments. (And yes, members from all sides have proponants who've crossed the lines of civility, even to extreme degrees.)

So in America, Christians and atheists and those in between have the freedom to articulate their arguments that can directly or indirectly affect legislation. If Christians really are infusing a bunch of ignorant zealotry into the debate, they should eventually LOSE the debate. That's another pattern of democracy. (By the way, surely you don't call everyone who has a strong disagreement with you a "zealot," do you?) To ignore opposing ideas can lead to self-bloviating arrogance (which fundamentalists have certainly shown). To attempt to silence opposing ideas, or, in the case of your posting, to raise fear against them without the use of specific arguments, can lead to totalitarianism--or at least something a lot worse than our historically superior brand of democracy.

In a fair, moderated debate, they would loose. However, during public discourse, they resort to logical fallacies and appeals to emotion instead of real debate. For a good list and descriptions of dishonest debate tactics,I'd recommend this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

We aren't advocating silencing opposing ideas through force, but through rational, logical discussion.

gottheflu wrote:

So, from your examples, explain to me exactly how society is better with legalized abortion, and I'll explain why it is worse.

Have you heard of Nicolae Ceauşescu? He was a dictator of Romania starting in 1967. In the 1960's, the communist party of Romania outlawed all abortion and contraception. The population swelled, leading to overfilled orphanages and a massive homeless population. Eventually, he was violently overthrown in 1989, 22 years later. Coincindce? I think that the heavy student presence at demonstrations says otheriwse.

Here are the DoJ's stats for violent crime: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Notice the drop off in violent crime 20 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973?

Fewer unplanned pregnancies -> Fewer neglected children -> Fewer disgruntled citizens -> lower crime rates.

If people really want to stop/reduce abortions, they should push for comprehensive sex education. Instead, the religious right is pushing "abstience-only" "education" which has been shown to increase rates of STDs and unplanned pregnancy. 

gottheflu wrote:

Tell me why gay marriage makes society better, and I'll tell you why it does not, and so forth.

I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. There can be ceremonies for two people to pledge their love for each other and if they want to share property and all that jazz, we already have contract law.

Marriage was originally a property transaction in which women were treated as such. With the stunning realization that women are people too, our laws have changed to protect women's rights within marriage.

gottheflu wrote:

And when we make arguments, we can cite whatever authorities we like that exist outside the confines of our own weak heads. That, of course, is called adding weight to one's argument. You can cite legal precedent, history, philosophy, whatever (Although I fear that you think no Christian ever reads or is impacted by anything outside of the Bible....wrong.) Even though I'm a theist, I know that citing the Bible would have no impact on my arguments with you, so I would probably search elsewhere. Anything should be fair game that one thinks could lend support to his IDEAS. And winning with persuasive IDEAS is what it's all about in our democracy.

Saying "my god says so" should not lend support. If a lunatic approached you and demanded money because their couch told them so, should their viewpoint be given respect?

gottheflu wrote:

However, my main point is that the Blaspheme Challenge, on the surface, seems to have little to do with arguing ideas, and a lot to do with drawing attention to itself. And I wonder if the BC founders have truly weighed the cost involved if what they're doing with so many individual souls is wrong.

Again, you are presupposing the existence of an immortal soul and a hell where it will be sent.

gottheflu wrote:

Hi DG, I guess I would apply most of what I said to Edger to your reply. Our democratic system is all about people like yourself, tired of one particular crap or another, taking a stand. But, so far from your reply, I don't see any substantial insight as to the particular crap you're mad about, and your basis for being so mad. If you really want to bring atheism into the spotlight, continually try to present convincing arguments as to how atheism is true and is worthy of embrace.

It seems like you are looking for a proof that no god exists. Most people here make no such claim. They have no seen sufficient evidence to claim that god exists, so they don't.

In order to present evidence to someone, you must get their attention first.

gottheflu wrote:

Also, could you explain to me how the complexity of life astounds you and commands respect? After all, our national railroad system is extremely complex, but I would not call it particularly astounding. Even when I rarely ride a train, I don't think it would conjure up feelings of respect. Not exactly.

No? That many people working together to build something so large and keep it working? That's not the least bit impressive?

Perhaps you could take some time to consider all the steps involved in getting the computer that you are typing on. The designers, the factories, the delivery trucks, etc.

gottheflu wrote:

It's just that your worldview does not adequately explain how and why we see things as valuable. You give no basis for the words you use like "incredible," "awesome." Of course I believe you see these things, even as an atheist, you just fail to justify the value of things outside of your own subjective response to your findings. Incredible and awesome as compared to what? Things that are NOT awesome and incredible? That solves little. Unless you were to argue rightly that these attributes require no defense. We can just let them be what they are, and let them be real to us and just enjoy the experience. Then again, that's what thoughful theists have said all along. Then, however, you must also allow the idea of "God" (whatever "God" exactly means) in this realm of incorrigible experience.

I see no need to discount emotions. They are products of our physical brains and are often useful.

gottheflu wrote:

Excuse me for saying, but your understanding of the Christian view of life is what is narrow. Apparantly you've never read Jonathan Edward's intricate observation of a spider web, for example. You nor I could even come close to surpassing how that great theological mind interpreted the grandeur of nature.

Are you claiming to speak for all Christians?

Instead of just calling our understanding narrow, why don't you attempt to educate us?

Please provide a link or more information about Jonathan Edwards' works you are referring to.

-Triften

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
gottheflu wrote: Hi RR, I

gottheflu wrote:

Hi RR,

I might be almost there, but I'm not all the way there in understanding why you challenge people to "blaspheme the 'Holy Spirit'?" Do you want people to be absolutely convinced it's the right thing before they do it?

Even if I were an atheist, it honestly would seem like an ugly and provincial way to draw attention. You don't believe in God. Do you also not believe in individual "souls" who have worth? And regardless of that, is one's fundamental worldview (religous or not) an extremely important part of his "soul' or inner being? I believe that to be true, whether I agree with someone's particular worlview or not, so I therefore try to confront opposing beliefs with respect and humility.

To be so confident in one's beliefs as to call others to "blaspheme", and for one to have such an appetite to prove he is right, without considering what he is doing to the souls of others, brings to mind a certain word. Fundamentalism.

I think I can safely answer for them.

How offensive would it be for you to deny pink unicorns or vampires?

The only difference between a "cult" and a "religion" is numbers and history of tradition.

The Christians who would be offended probibly wouldnt talk to us anyway. But atheists do engauge Christians all the time who DONT take this as personal, nor should they.

If a Christian is offended by this then maybe they should be brave insted of insisting on atheist's silence and debate us. We are not afraid of debate nor should they be.

People in general whatever the issue are afraid of things they are unfamilure with. So because they are afraid we should remain silent because it makes them uncomfortable.

Atheists try time after time to ease their fears. We dont barbaque kittens. We dont sacrafice goats or howel at the moon. Atheists simple see no evidence for a god and dont see a need to believe in one.

As "Dangerous Talk" host said last night. There is a war. Not a phyiscal one, nor should either side resort to any forcefull violence. But it IS a war of ideas. Atheists arnt afraid of taking theists and they should not be afraid of debating us. As the host said last night, "May the best idea win".

It is important and both sides would claim that the future of humanity is at stake. So I think not bringing this out in the open and debating it would do a disservice to all of humanity.

If you are worried about people on either side being "thin skinned", then maybe both sides should ask those withing "why"?

Why do they have to be afraid of us, and why should we be afriad of them? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
gottheflu wrote: You give

gottheflu wrote:
You give no basis for the words you use like "incredible," "awesome." Of course I believe you see these things, even as an atheist, you just fail to justify the value of things outside of your own subjective response to your findings. Incredible and awesome as compared to what? Things that are NOT awesome and incredible? That solves little. Unless you were to argue rightly that these attributes require no defense. We can just let them be what they are, and let them be real to us and just enjoy the experience. Then again, that's what thoughful theists have said all along. Then, however, you must also allow the idea of "God" (whatever "God" exactly means) in this realm of incorrigible experience.

How exactly does the God-concept solve these metaphysical "conundrums" you've conjured up? If these are unknowns, all you've really done is invoke another unknown to explain the unknown. This cannot be considered helpful.

Furthermore, every metaphysical answer can be questioned meta-metaphysically. If beauty and a sense of awe cannot be explained without a God, then what about God himself? Where does he get his sense of beauty and awe? From his own God, I'm guessing? This is the same problem you run into everytime you invoke God to explain any metaphysical void. e.g. "Everything needs a creator or first cause."  OK, but then what created or caused God?

This is what thoughtful atheists have been saying all along.

 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Of course I did not mean to

Of course I did not mean to suggest that all Christians have an oversimplified view of life. Many do not. The Fundys tend to though. Things don't have to be beyond our understanding for us to respect them. In fact, they command more respect when we do understand them.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Seems I showed up a little

Seems I showed up a little late. Anyway, I'm having a hard time with your argument, "gottheflu", seeing as how it's instantly evolved (puny hey?) into something brand new. Your original post asks "why?". I answered. Now you want to debate legalized abortion and the democtratic process?  I'm confused. I think my post clearly stated WHY I belive the "blasphemy challenge" is justified. Again, you missed the point. I'll reiterate and clarify. Read slooowly.

No one should be subjected to legislation based on a "holy book" that only a portion of society's people hold as absolute truth. Laws that are not based on tempered reason, but rather a contrived fairy tale, can't possibly serve the general good.

Abortion? Start another post. I've got time. For now, stay on point.

Regarding my references to Christianity's current pushes for legislation: don't play dumb. Of course plenty of non-christians take an opposing stance on all of the issues. That doesn't relate. I'm talking about issues the Christian right has has tried to legislate based on biblical law. Where have you been?

You have an amazing ability to ignore the context of a discussion. Why would you assume I'd call anyone who doesn't agree with me a zealot? Do you know what a zealot is? When I referr to "Christian zealots" am I not being specific (playing dumb again?)? Still confused? Look it up. I don't get paid for this.

You say the challenge is about "drawing attention to itself". Wow, it's an obvious assertion woefuly lacking brilliance (in case you think it's 1 worth using again). So that's your 1 valid observation. Soak it up. In the meantime think about right wing Christians in America drawing attention to themselves by trying to play an active roll in legislating the lives of non-christians, who by most accounts out number Christians 2 to 1. Forget about the Christians that go around pounding on doors. They're not drawing any attention to themselves.

You said something about democracy? Plurality went to the loser in the last election. Something to think about...