Hemant Mehta debunks irrationality of Catholic.org (RE: Blasphemy Challenge)

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Hemant Mehta debunks irrationality of Catholic.org (RE: Blasphemy Challenge)

06.17.07

A Catholic’s Take on the Blasphemy Challenge

Posted in Friendly Atheist at 12:01 pm by FriendlyAtheist

Fr. Robert J. Carr’s article is good for several laughs.

One of the first cases I ever experienced of this phenomenon [people believing they’re outside God’s mercy], and this as a layperson, is the case of a man who several decades earlier used magic to put a curse on a then supervisor. The following day, his boss died of a heart attack. It is mostly likely that this was a coincidence. Those Catholics involved in deliverance ministry who are versed in the aspects of the occult inform me that curses of this type are very hard to complete.

I’m going to go with, “Yes, it was a coincidence.”

Then, Carr goes into another example of people who do something “incredibly stupid” at an early age and then feel doomed forever after.

The Blasphemy Challenge.

This mission, which is based on a misinterpretation of the Mark 3:29, has claimed hundreds of adherents who do this incredibly stupid act in response for a DVD of the video “The God Who Was Not There.”

While I don’t have numbers, I would guess most people who made Blasphemy Challenge videos did not do it for the DVD. In fact, many submitters didn’t even go through the short “paperwork” process to get the DVD. They wanted to make a video because they were proud to be atheists, and they didn’t want to hide it anymore.

The problem is that the process which claims to promote atheism among our youth, actually does not, it promotes the demonic. Further, a true atheist would never condemn his soul to Hell. Why? Because to condemn one’s soul to Hell is to acknowledge that Hell exists and a true atheist would never do that.

Or maybe atheists are trying to make a point that there is no evidence of souls existing, and thus, no point in believing we have them. So you could do whatever you want to “it” and it would make no difference.

You could even try selling it on eBay…

Then Carr takes the issue to a whole other level (emphasis mine).

This brings up a practical question. Would you hire someone who took the Blasphemy Challenge? Here is why I ask.

The key to the Blasphemy Challenge is that someone commits the act and receives a DVD of the movie, “The God Who Was Not There.” Now if you buy the video, it costs less than $25.00. However, buying one gets you condemned as a chicken by the Rational Response Squad. So essentially you are selling your soul and the right to not be called chicken for $25.00. Don’t ask me what is rational about this. It does not make any sense to me. Granted the soul may be worthless in the eyes of the blasphemer, but is not so in the eyes of others. So, would you hire someone whose concept of finances is so bad that they would actually sell their soul for less than $25.00? Now we would say that we would never sell our soul, that means that the value we put on one is priceless. When someone offers something that has a value of priceless for $25.00, is that the kind of person whom you would want working for your company, if you believe in adding value to your product?

Let’s break that last part down for a second.

However, buying one gets you condemned as a chicken by the Rational Response Squad.

I promise you that neither the RRS nor the movie’s director Brian Flemming will call you a chicken if you buy the movie.

So essentially you are selling your soul and the right to not be called chicken for $25.00. Don’t ask me what is rational about this.

No one’s selling a soul. No one’s being called chicken. And I am also wondering what’s rational about this…

Granted the soul may be worthless in the eyes of the blasphemer…

The soul is not “worthless.” The soul is just not there. Putting a price tag on it is a moot point.

When someone offers something that has a value of priceless for $25.00, is that the kind of person whom you would want working for your company, if you believe in adding value to your product?

Not only would that be illegal (at a public company), but it brings up another question: Would you want to hire someone to write articles for your website who does not check his sources, makes up false assertions, and didn’t even bother talking to the RRS or Brian Flemming before writing the article?

What really scares me about this Blasphemy Challenge is the case of the person who decides that if he is going to Hell for all eternity, or will cease to exist, why not go bring that result now and then attempts suicide.

Well, I doubt the Blasphemy Challenge participants believe in Hell. And yes, we will cease to exist, but it doesn’t mean we can’t find meaning in the one life we do have.

And buddy, proofread your article. “Attempts” should not have an “s.”

Ok, that last thing was just me being petty.

So is the next thing.

Carr makes comments at the end about how the movie isn’t even worth $25.00 (he says it’s worthless). I wonder, though, if he’s even bothered to see it. He refers to it in the article as “The God Who Was Not There.”

“Was Not”? It’s “Wasn’t.” Had he seen the movie, maybe he would’ve at least gotten the title right.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Wonder what he'd think of me

Wonder what he'd think of me - I already had the movie and just did it for shits & giggles! Laughing out loud

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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Another blog about the same

Another blog about the same article:

http://www.whydontyou.org.uk/blog/2007/06/17/believing-in-unbelievers/ 

The latest entry from the Department of Missing the Point Completely is by Fr. Robert J. Carr and titled “Making Fool’s For Satan.” (Big hat tip to the Friendly Atheist)

In a nutshell, Father Carr has decided to rant against the Blasphemy Challenge but obviously has not been guided by his invisible friend as he does so. As a result, he not only misses the point about the challenge, but seems to get a bit confused over the whole issue of belief and what the Christian church teaches (or at least did when I went to school). Friendly Atheist has done an excellent job of fisking the (ahem) article so I wont do that here, but there are a couple of points I want to pick up on.

Fr Carr shows his lack of understanding about both logic and atheism with this witty remark:

Further, a true atheist would never condemn his soul to Hell. Why? Because to condemn one’s soul to Hell is to acknowledge that Hell exists and a true atheist would never do that.

Now, after you get over the headache caused by trying to extract some sense from this tortured line of reasoning, you see there is none. I mean, it starts with “a true atheist would never condemn his soul to hell.” What does that even mean. Would a true Christian condemn his banana-essence to Shiva? I true atheist (what does that even mean?) cant condemn his soul to hell, but he can commit acts which a believer of [Insert Imaginary Person of Choice] would think resulted in eternity in [insert punishment of choice]. The father is correct with the last part, but he fails to realise that the “true atheist” is not condemning his soul to hell, he (or she) is simply saying something which is as meaningless as a Catholic priest saying “Banana Jet Fuel.”

What really scares me about this Blasphemy Challenge is the case of the person who decides that if he is going to Hell for all eternity, or will cease to exist, why not go bring that result now and then attempts suicide.

Now this confuses me. First off, this person is certainly not an atheist. Secondly, any one who followed this line of reasoning is probably suicidal at the best of times. If this hypothetical person was an atheist, they would not be worried about going to a place which does not exist. If the person is a Christian then they know that they can be forgive if they repent. Is this an example of the father creating a false conflict?

Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time members of the church (however high their status may be) have had to resort to nonsense, woo and logical fallacies to get their point across. Speaks volumes for the validity of their points though…

Anyway, get over to Friendly Atheist if you want to read a better, more thorough, debunking.

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 

 

- Brian Sapient


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