How can i be sure that denying gods existence is blasphemy?

charonme
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-21
User is offlineOffline
How can i be sure that denying gods existence is blasphemy?

How can i be sure that denying gods existence is blasphemy? Those who study the ancient languages say that it's not enough Sad


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It says blasphemy of the

It says blasphemy of the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin. (Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30, Luke 12:10

blasphemos (blas'-fay-mos)
from a derivative of blapto and pheme; scurrilious, i.e. calumnious (against men), or (specially) impious (against God)

If you want to say otherwise give us a reason to believe you.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
charonme wrote: How can i

charonme wrote:
How can i be sure that denying gods existence is blasphemy? Those who study the ancient languages say that it's not enough Sad

 

That's ironic because I study the ancient languages and I say it's plenty fine.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
charonme wrote:

charonme wrote:
How can i be sure that denying gods existence is blasphemy?

 

To blaspheme is literally to damage the reputation of something.
To deny is to refuse to admit that something is true.

So to deny the holy spirit is to damage it's reputation by claiming it
doesn't exist. You could also however say "The holy spirit is a cancer on society, it never existed, it never will, and if it did exist it would only at dog feces."

There are countless ways to blaspheme the holy spirit. The passage itself is self explanatory. There are people who like to feel better about their god belief so they lie and say that pharisees were the only ones that could blaspheme or you have to attribute the spirits works to Satan or some other nonsense, but none of this is true. Their argument is, that because a specific example is given, that example is the only way to blaspheme the holy spirit. You must suspend all honesty and critical thinking ability and replace it with brainwashed rationalizations in order to come to the conclusion that many Christians have come up with.

 

Quote:
Those who study the ancient languages say that it's not enough Sad

 

No, I think you mean, those who are Christian say it's not enough. And they say so, to make themselves feel better about their delusional lifestyle.

 

- Brian Sapient


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


ChAnMaN
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
Its funny, a mormon girl at

Its funny, a mormon girl at my school also told me i wasn't actually committing the sin. From what i gathered she said that in order to blasphemy the holy spirit i would have to actualy believe in it and still be in denial of it. but if your denying it you cant believe in it so by that logic its impossible.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ChAnMaN wrote:

ChAnMaN wrote:
but if your denying it you cant believe in it so by that logic its impossible.
People often ask whats the danger of god belief, and here it is. People that can be convinced of logical impossibilites (Yahweh) will offer up logical impossibilites to defend that belief. It turns otherwise good people into illogical dishonest fools.

- Brian Sapient


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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
That objection always makes

That objection always makes me chuckle. It's like hearing "You can't prefer Coke, unless you love Pepsi" or "You can't deny Santa and dispel his myth unless you actually believe a jolly fat man climbs down your chimney once a year". "You cannot argue against the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, unless Nessie sank your boat!"

 Sigh.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Encountering circular logic

Encountering circular logic aggravates me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Circular logic aggrevates

Circular logic aggrevates me as well.

Sadly, as I have been trying to point out elsewhere, you have a very superficial understanding of what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Theologians throughout history have generally agreed that this means to be finally unrepentant at death, not to just say that the Holy Spirit does not exist. As I pointed out elsewhere, there would be no difference between this and normal blasphemy (which, nevertheless, remains a mortal sin which kills the soul). If we wanted to construe it as such, any sin would be unforgivable as every sin is, in a manner of speaking, an insult against the Holy Spirit (this of course being absurd).

Lastly, if you want to seem rational in an argument, I don't think the "Blasphemy Challenge" is a particularly rational attempt at anything. It seems to be just an insult or attack upon religion, not an argument. The same goes for remarks such as, "F**k religion," which does not seem to do anyone any good if they want to do more than insult people, and is especially detrimental if you want to seem at all serious about rationally engaging Christians.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

Theologians throughout history have generally agreed that this means to be finally unrepentant at death, not to just say that the Holy Spirit does not exist.

And this is why theologians aren't credible.  You go ahead and point out the surrounding text of the three passages in the bible explaining that blasphemy of HS is an unforgivable sin that explains that to do it properly one must be repentant til death.  

- Brian Sapient


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


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

StMichael wrote:

Circular logic aggrevates me as well.

I don't see why, seeing as you beg the question of the 'existence' of your 'god' in every argument you make. One would think you were in love with that fallacy.

Quote:

Sadly, as I have been trying to point out elsewhere, you have a very superficial understanding of what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I actually agree with what you'll say next, but you're wrong concerning the 'superficial' understanding, seeing as the RR team is well aware of the points you are about to make.

Quote:

 Theologians throughout history have generally agreed that this means to be finally unrepentant at death, not to just say that the Holy Spirit does not exist.

You didn't say which theologians say this. You also imply that there is universal agreement, when there is not.

But I agree, in general, that blasphemy requires that one accept the existence of 'the thing being blasphemed' (leaving aside the ontological problems of the supernatural for a moment). But others seem to feel that not believing in the 'holy spirit' is blasphemy, and therefore, their 'blasphemy' is implied statement that they do not fear the threat, seeing as they do not believe in the spirit in the first place.

I'd rather that the challenge just be an expression of atheism myself....

Quote:

Lastly, if you want to seem rational in an argument, I don't think the "Blasphemy Challenge" is a particularly rational attempt at anything. It seems to be just an insult or attack upon religion, not an argument.

The point of the challenge is for people to battle through their irrationalism by standing up to the supposed threat of hellfire that has been inculcated into us since infancy. In that regard, I find the challenge useful.


Quote:

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Yours in Bart Simspon

- todangst

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

Books on atheism.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Since god doesn't exist, it

Since god doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter, now does it?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Catholic Church

Quote:
The Catholic Church thinks that it's interpretation is correct because they are the ones responsible for deciding what books to put into the collection. The hundreds of years of being in control of the message allows them the license for arrogance in saying that it is the Protestants that get it wrong. The sophistry of the theologians and the sense of authority they give themselves.

 The Church believes it was right more than because it decided the canon of the Bible. It believe it is right because it existed from Christ and had the authority to determine the canon, which is also an authority to teach what the Bible means. This is important, looking at the splintered sects of Protestantism.

Quote:
Our dissent is necessary more to the Church than anyone else. Although the Catholics tend to be less wacky in general, the Church itself is seething in arrogance and obnoxiousness. When Church thinkers have had centuries to frame your message in such a way that makes it sound invincible to them, they don't even realize that they sound like medieval sophists making a mockery out of intellectual progress. A fundamentalist only has to have it shown that the Bible is not literally true to start really seeing their position as irratinal. A theologian steeped in the church doesn't have to realize this, because they have hundreds of years of distinctions, creeds, and philosophical subteties that would take years of study to show as equally irrational.

That statement seems rather irrational to me. Nevertheless, I think that the history has anticipated a great deal of your arguments, but many people here have not looked at what the Church taught. A fundie operates according to blind faith, which the Church basically condemned at the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church has always emphasized faith and reason as being in harmony from its earliest days (and in Scripture). 

Quote:
 I don't see why, seeing as you beg the question of the 'existence' of your 'god' in every argument you make. One would think you were in love with that fallacy.

 I have not made this fallacious assumption.

Quote:
You didn't say which theologians say this. You also imply that there is universal agreement, when there is not.

But I agree, in general, that blasphemy requires that one accept the existence of 'the thing being blasphemed' (leaving aside the ontological problems of the supernatural for a moment). But others seem to feel that not believing in the 'holy spirit' is blasphemy, and therefore, their 'blasphemy' is implied statement that they do not fear the threat, seeing as they do not believe in the spirit in the first place.

There is not a universal positive interpretation of the verse, however, most disagree with your particular interpretation. The view you speak of originated very recently and is held by very few fundamentalists. I refer you to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this issue, which is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm.

Quote:
The point of the challenge is for people to battle through their irrationalism by standing up to the supposed threat of hellfire that has been inculcated into us since infancy. In that regard, I find the challenge useful.

There is nothing useful about blasphemy (it is still a mortal sin that could send you to hell). I would also argue that it makes you look merely insulting, if not irrational, when you do those videos. There are a great deal of more rational ways to persuade people to your viewpoint rather than sinking to insults.

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


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

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
The Catholic Church thinks that it's interpretation is correct because they are the ones responsible for deciding what books to put into the collection. The hundreds of years of being in control of the message allows them the license for arrogance in saying that it is the Protestants that get it wrong. The sophistry of the theologians and the sense of authority they give themselves.

The Church believes it was right more than because it decided the canon of the Bible. It believe it is right because it existed from Christ...

You're begging the question that a 'christ' even existed and then begging the question that the catholic church existed at this time... you beg the question on top of begging the question.

And you call this your justification for your claim?!

Quote:
I don't see why, seeing as you beg the question of the 'existence' of your 'god' in every argument you make. One would think you were in love with that fallacy.

Quote:

I have not made this fallacious assumption.

Yes, you have, you do it even within this post!

And you did it multiple times during your discussion of 'faith'. You assume 'god' exists that that 'faith' provides 'knowledge' from this god. You use this 'god' to defend the necessary special plead concerning how one could have knowledge of the supernatural.

This is question begging.

Quote:
You didn't say which theologians say this. You also imply that there is universal agreement, when there is not.

But I agree, in general, that blasphemy requires that one accept the existence of 'the thing being blasphemed' (leaving aside the ontological problems of the supernatural for a moment). But others seem to feel that not believing in the 'holy spirit' is blasphemy, and therefore, their 'blasphemy' is implied statement that they do not fear the threat, seeing as they do not believe in the spirit in the first place.

 

Quote:

There is not a universal positive interpretation of the verse,

Thank you.

Quote:

however, most disagree with your particular interpretation.

 

But I was just talking about your view.


Quote:
The point of the challenge is for people to battle through their irrationalism by standing up to the supposed threat of hellfire that has been inculcated into us since infancy. In that regard, I find the challenge useful.

 

Quote:

There is nothing useful about blasphemy

Yes there is, but only in an ironic sense. In stating such things, one frees oneself from the irrational belief that there is some 'god' who will have his feelings hurt and lash out at you over it. By 'blaspheming the holy spirit' one is able to recognize how juvenile the concept is...

There's nothing more irrational than the concept of blasphemy. It's an embarrassment to hear any adult speak about the term seriously. The idea that any omnipotent, omniscient being could have his 'feelings hurt' and that this 'god' would need to punish people for it is so juvenile that it just sickens me that anyone over the age of 5 would accept it. You'll look to waste my time, and yours, by saying that this is a strawman of the situation, but please, please save your need to rationalize reality away just this once... for this is precisely what the concept of blasphemy waters down to...

The fact that you invoke it seriously speaks to just how pathetic and puny your concept of a 'god' is.... despite your predicatable denials otherwise.... Concepts like blasphemy are proofs that religion is false... its proof that its nothing more than petty human vanity dressed up as a god..... No 'god' would be so defensive, so weak, so threatened, as to need threats of physical violence and torture.... only a person, asserting gibberish like theology, utterly unable to defend his claims, would need such barbaric means. And only someone driven by emotion (faith) could imagine that something as glorious as an 'intelligent, loving creator' would need or have to threaten people....If you believe in yourself, you don't need to attack people for questioning you. Only a weak person needs to do that. I can think of people who would be above being insulted, above having the need to lash out at critics... yet you can't imagine a god that would be above it?

 Please think. Please. The idea of a god who concerns himself with precisely the same things that concern an emotional child is so self refuting that anyone who thinks it through can see the truth.

 “This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves”

Robert Green Ingersoll

“Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place.”

Robert A. Heinlein

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

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: You're begging

 

Quote:

You're begging the question that a 'christ' even existed and then begging the question that the catholic church existed at this time... you beg the question on top of begging the question.

And you call this your justification for your claim?!

 

 

Quote:

Yes, you have, you do it even within this post!

And you did it multiple times during your discussion of 'faith'. You assume 'god' exists that that 'faith' provides 'knowledge' from this god. You use this 'god' to defend the necessary special plead concerning how one could have knowledge of the supernatural.

This is question begging.

It would be question begging if the argument was whether God existed and I assumed He did. If you ask, "how can God do x," or a like question, you assume His existence. If we want to show how faith can be rational, we can do so, giving the scenario in which it is rational. Assuming [a] God exists, and [b] He reveals something X, fact X cannot be in conflict with fact Y known in by natural reason unaided by God. If X and Y have the same source, no contradiction is possible. If you wanted to ask me whether God existed, that is a different question entirely. I could likewise make accusations that you have been question begging throughout your arguments, assuming God did not exist in your replies, or (as you however did) that faith was defined as "a belief without evidence" or the supernatural as "without ontological character," both of which beg the question as to how you justify these definitions.

 

Quote:

Yes there is, but only in an ironic sense. In stating such things, one frees oneself from the irrational belief that there is some 'god' who will have his feelings hurt and lash out at you over it. By 'blaspheming the holy spirit' one is able to recognize how juvenile the concept is...

Christians do not believe it hurts God's feelings when you blaspheme (except metaphorically).

Quote:

There's nothing more irrational than the concept of blasphemy. It's an embarrassment to hear any adult speak about the term seriously.

The idea that any omnipotent, omniscient being could have his 'feelings hurt' and that this 'god' would need to punish people for it is so juvenile that it just sickens me that anyone over the age of 5 would accept it. You'll look to waste my time, and yours, by saying that this is a strawman of the situation, but please, please save your need to rationalize reality away just this once... for this is precisely what the concept of blasphemy waters down to...

Blasphemy does not amount to 'hurting God's feelings' with a subsequent reprisal. I think you have a mistaken notion of blasphemy. I quote the Catholic position on what blasphemy is:

2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."

The reason blasphemy is a sin is because it infringes on the just debt of respect we owe to God as creator. It is not God who destroys the soul when blasphemy occur, but, as with all sin, sin itself is the death of the soul. Blasphemy does not hurt God, but hurts the human soul who blasphemes.

Quote:

The fact that you invoke it seriously speaks to just how pathetic and puny your concept of a 'god' is.... despite your predicatable denials otherwise.... Concepts like blasphemy are proofs that religion is false... its proof that its nothing more than petty human vanity dressed up as a god..... No 'god' would be so defensive, so weak, so threatened, as to need threats of physical violence and torture.... only a person, asserting gibberish like theology, utterly unable to defend his claims, would need such barbaric means. And only someone driven by emotion (faith) could imagine that something as glorious as an 'intelligent, loving creator' would need or have to threaten people....If you believe in yourself, you don't need to attack people for questioning you. Only a weak person needs to do that. I can think of people who would be above being insulted, above having the need to lash out at critics... yet you can't imagine a god that would be above it?

I can't imagine what inspires such irrational hatred of religion. I point out the things I said earlier about blasphemy.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

 Please think. Please. The idea of a god who concerns himself with precisely the same things that concern an emotional child is so self refuting that anyone who thinks it through can see the truth.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think you're kind of

I think you're kind of missing the point. Whether or not it's an unforgiveable sin is largely irrelevant, since it would only be so against one of the fictional deities. Allah wouldn't give a rats ass if you blasphemed against a rival deity. In fact, you'd probably get 72 virgins for it. The point was to get people to commit to atheism in a short but succint message that could be quickly watched and understood by anyone interested in the subject. The fact is that most if not all of those who joined the challenge would be committing an act destining them to hell. Not because of the video, but because of their lack of belief in fiction throughout their lives.

A proper challenge would involve every religion, and denying them all in a very long and rather boring video that noone would watch.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand why

I don't understand why people purportedly rational would engage in childish insults and post it on the Internet. It is beyond me why you all do it.

I would however agree,

Quote:
The fact is that most if not all of those who joined the challenge would be committing an act destining them to hell. Not because of the video, but because of their lack of belief in fiction throughout their lives.
However, the video adds insult to injury.

Finally,

Quote:
A proper challenge would involve every religion, and denying them all in a very long and rather boring video that noone would watch.
Actually, I would argue that a proper response to Christianity/theism includes none of these things, and rather would be an intellectual response.

If atheism is really the answer, I would find it contradictory, or at least unseemly, that the atheists would become missionary religious zealots of hatred and blasphemy toward religion.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't understand why people purportedly rational would engage in childish insults and post it on the Internet. It is beyond me why you all do it.

 You should ask yourself... Why is it that if I said I deny that I like the taste of cheesburgers you would not think I am making a childish insult, but when I deny the holy spirit all of the sudden it becomes a childish insult.

- Brian Sapient


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


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If atheism is really

Quote:
If atheism is really the answer, I would find it contradictory, or at least unseemly, that the atheists would become missionary religious zealots of hatred and blasphemy toward religion.

 This is rich coming from a Seminarian, but also false.  Organizing atheists and unifying to rid the world of a disease that has caused more deaths then any other reason in existence to me is not being religious - it's being anti-religious.  It isn't being hateful, we don't hate you.  We hate your beleif, and what your belief spurs in people.  And our blasphemy, again - does it hurt your wittle Gods feelings?  If not, stop whining.  Please.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
How can i be sure that

How can i be sure that denying gods existence is blasphemy? 
How can you be sure that not denying god's existence isn't blasphemy? Think about it.
Oh wait. I got another one:How can you be sure that god denying your existence  isn't blasphemy?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't understand why people purportedly rational would engage in childish insults and post it on the Internet. It is beyond me why you all do it.

Perhaps you can explain why your fellow theists do it even more often then?

StMichael wrote:
I would however agree,
Quote:
The fact is that most if not all of those who joined the challenge would be committing an act destining them to hell. Not because of the video, but because of their lack of belief in fiction throughout their lives.
However, the video adds insult to injury.

If you want to call the challenge a bit arrogant, I would have to agree. However it pales in comparison to the arrogance within religion, and the tactics used to spread it.

StMichael wrote:
Finally,
Quote:
A proper challenge would involve every religion, and denying them all in a very long and rather boring video that noone would watch.
Actually, I would argue that a proper response to Christianity/theism includes none of these things, and rather would be an intellectual response.

The point of the video isn't to argue religion. That's what the forum is for. The video is for attention grabbing, and has been quite successful. 

StMichael wrote:
If atheism is really the answer, I would find it contradictory, or at least unseemly, that the atheists would become missionary religious zealots of hatred and blasphemy toward religion.

It wouldn't have happened if we weren't the target of hatred from religious zealots for the last few thousand years, up to and including today. You don't blame the dog for biting someone who always hits it. You people asked for it, now it's time to take it in the face. I think you should be happy we use reasonable words instead of threats and death, like your side did.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


PutBoy
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Is it not good enough that

Is it not good enough that the almighty said so? :S What are you, some kind of non-believer? I'm sure you believe in the _THEORY_ of evolution too...


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, would you like to

I'm sorry, would you like to refute something ot just post worthlessly?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, but I had to go on

Sorry, but I had to go on retreat.

First,

Quote:

You should ask yourself... Why is it that if I said I deny that I like the taste of cheesburgers you would not think I am making a childish insult, but when I deny the holy spirit all of the sudden it becomes a childish insult.

Because blasphemy is not of the same category as denying that you like cheeseburgers. Further, you are not merely denying what I believe in (which is not of itself insulting). Rather, it is insulting that, as purported proponents of reason, you throw insults (such as "F*** religion" or "Does that hurt your little God-feewings?&quotEye-wink I think even yourself would agree that it does nobody any good to merely call other people names.

Quote:

This is rich coming from a Seminarian, but also false.  Organizing atheists and unifying to rid the world of a disease that has caused more deaths then any other reason in existence to me is not being religious - it's being anti-religious.  It isn't being hateful, we don't hate you.  We hate your beleif, and what your belief spurs in people.  And our blasphemy, again - does it hurt your wittle Gods feelings?  If not, stop whining.  Please.

I don't see how this really answers my accusation that being bigots and throwing insults is irrational. A rational person does not throw insults, but rather criticizes a point intelligently. You could say that you were being merely critical of religion, which is not a point in controversy, but that calling us names is not helpful in your cause.

 

Yours In Christ,  Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't see how this really answers my accusation that being bigots and throwing insults is irrational. A rational person does not throw insults, but rather criticizes a point intelligently. You could say that you were being merely critical of religion, which is not a point in controversy, but that calling us names is not helpful in your cause.

Yours In Christ,  Eternal Wisdom

StMichael

Perhaps you are somehow deluding yourself into believing that this site is full of insults towards people? I see a lot of logical conversation, but not a whole lot of insults.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.