Blasphemy Challenge covered by NEWSWEEK!

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Blasphemy Challenge covered by NEWSWEEK!

Mr. Adler refers to Pascals Wager which we refute here and here. Also refuted online here and a particularly helpful debunking of the ridiculously flawed wager is here.

He also quotes a Baptist who says we're not committing an unforgivable sin when committing the unforgivable sin. We refute that very thoroughly here.

Here is the story from Newsweek.

Beliefwatch: Blasphemy

"Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too."

Newsweek

Jan. 8, 2006 issue - With that five-second submission to YouTube, a 24-year-old who uses the name "menotsimple" has either condemned herself to an eternity of punishment in the afterlife or struck a courageous blow against superstition. She's one of more than 400 mostly young people who have joined a campaign by the Web site BlasphemyChallenge.com to stake their souls against the existence of God. That, of course, is the ultimate no-win wager, as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated—it can't be settled until you're dead, and if you lose, you go to hell.

The Blasphemy Challenge is a joint project of filmmaker Brian Flemming, director of the antireligion documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," and Brian Sapient, cofounder of the atheist Web site RationalResponders.com. Their intent was to encourage atheists to come forward and put their souls on the line, showing others that you don't have to be afraid of God. The particular form of the challenge was chosen because, by one interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a part of the Christian Trinity, is the only sin that can never be forgiven. And once something you've said gets posted on YouTube, as any number of celebrities can attest, you never live it down.

For better or worse, though, hell may not be so easy to get into. Despite the seemingly clear language in Mark 3:28-29 ("all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven"), most theologians are reluctant to pronounce anyone beyond repentance and salvation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon. Merely "denying" the Holy Spirit, by this reading, doesn't qualify. "My response," Land says, "would be to pray for these people: 'forgive them, [for] they know not what they do'."

To which another self-described blasphemer, whose real name is Michael Lawson, replies that he knows exactly what he's doing: he's daring God to send him to hell. "We want to show that we really mean it when we say we don't believe a word in this book," he says. He means the Bible.

God could not be reached for comment.

-Jerry Adler

Thanks Newsweek for covering our story!

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


TheSarge
BloggerHigh Level Donor
TheSarge's picture
Posts: 60
Joined: 2006-12-13
User is offlineOffline
"God could not be reached

"God could not be reached for comment."  Awesome.


ChAnMaN
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
great article! im not in

great article!
im not in it
but cool none the less


carpetfeller
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon.

I believe that Jesus and God's miracles are the work of a demon.  Oh, I didn't do that right either.  They must be hanging on to the hopes of possibly someday getting my money.


salyavin
salyavin's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Considering the way this

Considering the way this "God" acts I'd argue he actually is a demon ergo all God's acts are committed by a demon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So did Thomas Paine commit

So did Thomas Paine commit the unforgivable sin when he said the Bible should be called the word of a demon rather than the word of God?

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: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Digg the Newsweek story

Digg the Newsweek story that is gaining steam:

http://digg.com/politics/New_Atheists_storm_YouTube

 

- Brian Sapient


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


LiquidSnake
LiquidSnake's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Well then I attribute the

Well then I attribute the work of "God" to the work of a demon. Now send me to "hell" already!

"I submit to you that God is a cockroach" - Mohinder Suresh


fattychunks
atheist
fattychunks's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
User is offlineOffline
god could not be reached for

god could not be reached for comment?? OH MAN THATS AWESOME!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
Mr. Adler refers to Pascals Wager which we refute here and here. Also refuted online here and a particularly helpful debunking of the ridiculously flawed wager is here. He also quotes a Baptist who says we're not committing an unforgivable sin when committing the unforgivable sin. We refute that very thoroughly here. Here is the story from Newsweek. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy "Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too." Newsweek Jan. 8, 2006 issue - With that five-second submission to YouTube, a 24-year-old who uses the name "menotsimple" has either condemned herself to an eternity of punishment in the afterlife or struck a courageous blow against superstition. She's one of more than 400 mostly young people who have joined a campaign by the Web site BlasphemyChallenge.com to stake their souls against the existence of God. That, of course, is the ultimate no-win wager, as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated—it can't be settled until you're dead, and if you lose, you go to hell. The Blasphemy Challenge is a joint project of filmmaker Brian Flemming, director of the antireligion documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," and Brian Sapient, cofounder of the atheist Web site RationalResponders.com. Their intent was to encourage atheists to come forward and put their souls on the line, showing others that you don't have to be afraid of God. The particular form of the challenge was chosen because, by one interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a part of the Christian Trinity, is the only sin that can never be forgiven. And once something you've said gets posted on YouTube, as any number of celebrities can attest, you never live it down. For better or worse, though, hell may not be so easy to get into. Despite the seemingly clear language in Mark 3:28-29 ("all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven&quotEye-wink, most theologians are reluctant to pronounce anyone beyond repentance and salvation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon. Merely "denying" the Holy Spirit, by this reading, doesn't qualify. "My response," Land says, "would be to pray for these people: 'forgive them, [for] they know not what they do'." To which another self-described blasphemer, whose real name is Michael Lawson, replies that he knows exactly what he's doing: he's daring God to send him to hell. "We want to show that we really mean it when we say we don't believe a word in this book," he says. He means the Bible. God could not be reached for comment. -Jerry Adler Thanks Newsweek for covering our story!

I am not sure I am myself comfortable using anti-religion. I get it and most people here get it. But the theist might not.

I think we are pro thought and pro questioning everything than we are anti-anything.

Theists fear their freedom being taken away when we use that term. As I said before, I think it the process of saying, "You are full of crap, on any given claim" we dont need to come across as Stalin which is not what we are about.

Being tough about demanding proof for magical claims is not anti-freedom. It could cause a backlash that is unessary.

Again. For myself at least and I dont speek for all atheists. I hate polliticall correctness, be it from the left or right or from an atheist or Christian.

Atheists can say they are anti or pro anyway they want. Just as I wouldnt stop a theist from speaking their minds, I wont do that here either other than to advise the best foot foward in being assertive.

I am all for the good cop or bad cop either way. But I warn that if either the atheist or theist wishes to avoid facism of any kind be it a theocracy or Stalin then ALL, BOTH SIDES MUST PROTECT FREEDOM TO SPEAK ONE'S MIND.

Taboo laws that prevent people from saying hurtfull things do nothing but cause fear not foster understanding. If it stands to reason that we like to bitch about theism, then we in turn must allow them to bitch about us and what we do.

I have no fear of what is said about atheists, I have heard it all before. If we stick to challenging their arguments and challenging them to think about what they claim, I think we can do the most good.

But we cannot forget that all humans have an inhearant disire to express emotions and for either side to make blasphemy laws banning offensive things said about the other will not benifit anyone in the long run.

My opinion about using "anti-religion" IS MINE AND MINE ALONE AND DOES NOT REFLECT ALL ATHEISTS.

I think it is great that atheists are now being listened to. But lets not ourselves make needless enimies. I dont expect people to sugar coat things on either side of this very important issue.

But, in the process of duking it out verbaly with theists we must not lend the impression that we want to have them arrrested or jailed for believing. I know I dont want that.

Our goal is simple, THINK ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU CLAIM.

That is not as much anti anything as much as it is pro thought.

THAT IS JUST MY OPINION

 

 

 

 

"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


common sense (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
keep going and God will

keep going and God will start a blog why pain makes people athiest, not science.  Keep "Believing" that your faith is increasing

 


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
common sense wrote:keep

common sense wrote:

keep going and God will start a blog why pain makes people athiest, not science.  Keep "Believing" that your faith is increasing

 

Lack of faith, nimrod.

 

Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.