My comment to Pastor Bill Randles about Blasphemy Challenge

Sapient's picture

I just posted a comment in response to a blog post that discussed new atheists and the Blasphemy Challenge. (I still encourage creating Blasphemy Challenge videos)

 

Here is what I had to say...

Quote:

We are not assaulting children and the naive.  We are trying to help them escape their fear.  You would have people believe there is an eternal torture that awaits them if they don't believe and think certain things.  Those things are not proven or provable in any meaningful sense... yet millions believe due in large part to fear.  You may not think much of the fear of hell today, but as a child it is essential to the brainwashing of almost all Christians.  

 

So sir, for you to use language claiming it is atheists who are "assaulting" others, is highly ironic considering you are using more fear tactics to scare someone back into faith.  We are doing this for you, or anyone who was brainwashed by religion... not because we're into Satan or assaulting people.  Watch some Blasphemy Challenge videos and you'll see just what kind of people took the challenge, the point was to show off how normal atheists are, we're not a group of devil worshipping baby eating child assaulters as you and your ilk would like to scare Christians into thinking.

 

In Reason,

 

Brian Sapient

www.RationalResponders.com

 

I was responding primarily to this portion of his post:

Quote:

Shocking, isn’t it? I am showing you this not to shock you but to alert you to the reality of the assault upon your children and the naive.

 

...

The point is that this movement is spiritual in its essence. This is  Satanic,it is an assault on the faith by the Father of lies, designed to blaspheme God and to damn souls. They have free rein on our campuses and places of higher learning. Unfortunately a good many young people are seeing these New Atheists as rock stars, they are emulating them mimicking their arguments, and renouncing their faith.

 

Here is the original post by Pastor Bill Randles.

 

- Brian Sapient


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

Atheistextremist's picture

Woah

 

 

An assault on children and the naive. Priceless.

I guess he understands his target market.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

BobSpence's picture

"Faith" is a lie you tell

"Faith" is a lie you tell yourself - "believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain.

For these guys to go on about the "father of lies"....

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

That's an interesting

That's an interesting approach they're taking.

"We won't let you assault the children and the naive! That's OUR fucking job!"

(Thanks to Mr. Carlin)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

His comment system is

His comment system is moderated.  I don't know if he has checked the queue but your comment is not showing.

 

Perhaps mine will get through.

 

Gene Simms wrote:
Pastor,

It is unclear to me how you can claim that a single quote from the Gospel of Mark is somehow proof that the movement is spiritual in nature.  At best, that can only speak to the founder of the blasphemy challenge and not really to others.  Ought not one characterize individual people each by their own works?

In any case, I do not see how the quote necessarily establishes the spiritual nature of the founder of the blasphemy challenge.  One could as easily quote from the holy text of other religions that one does not associate with and that will serve as no proof of the assertion of association.

For example, there are a fair number of racist passages in the book of Mormon.  If I were to post one of those passages here, would that mark me as a racist?  Perhaps it marks me as having commented on the nature of a religion to which I clearly do not ascribe.

I could belabor the point with examples from many other religions but to what end?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Sapient's picture

 Wow, he actually didn't

 Wow, he actually didn't allow my post.  

- Brian Sapient


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

harleysportster's picture

Always with the Satanic stuff

Not too surprising how they always have to attach a devil to everything that does not meet their approval. Without the fear and terror that they hope to inspire with the whole "Satanic" word, they would have so little left to try and control people with.  Satan was the best invention that the church could have ever come up with.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

Sapient's picture

 Well he never posted my

 Well he never posted my comment.  I sent it twice just to make sure.  Isn't that something? 

 

- Brian Sapient


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

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

 Yah, that certainly is

 

Yah, that certainly is something. Since he is willing to play with my church lurking, I am going to play with him as long as the game lasts.

 

I certainly do not expect to get him deconverted but if I can get some of his readers thinking that will count as a win.

 

Gene Simms wrote:
Yah, I have to throw in with Pastor Bill on this one.

 

I will never claim to be a strict literalist myself. However, if one wishes to depart from the exact text, then one should be ready to say exactly why on a verse by verse basis.

 

For example, Solomon built the temple. That does not mean that the Israelites were standing around cheering him on as he dragged all of those heavy stones across the desert himself. Rather, he said “we are building the temple here”. His people did the work. Really, that is not too far from the idea that the king of England built Buckingham palace.

 

If that much is not clear, the same part of the bible makes it clear that Solomon outsourced a part of the job to Huram of Tyre. Clearly he did not do the job by himself.

 

Speaking of which, let me mention Huram's greatest work. The Molten Sea. Ten cubits across and thirty cubits around. My forearm and the value of pi say that there are not quite three feet missing there.

 

Now I have seen strict literalists engage in silly season ways to rectify that bit. How about Solomon let Huram do the work and did not worry about the exact details? Can you tell me to the exact eighth of an inch how long your carpenter made your kitchen counter?

 

As far as Joseph Smith goes, he did not engage in that type of logic. He more or less doubled the size of the bible to address his personal agenda. Which involved him being too manly for one wife. Yah, sure, King David had lots of wives. Yet he also killed a bunch of bad people who otherwise would have been married to those same ladies.

 

In the world that we live in, that is just not a good thing. In our world, the deal is one man and one woman. As many kids as are going to happen. Done deal.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

 Hold the phone! My post

 

Hold the phone! My post went right through. A second browser confirms the matter. Pastor Bill has me set to bust through the moderation queue.

 

This is the chance to do a reverse “wedge doctrine”.

 

I will assume that pastor Bill will shut me down eventually but while this lasts, it is party time!

 

The sound track to this party involves huge stacks of Marshall amps.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDI3PZuWgkE&feature=related

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

blasphemy challenge

 Dear Sir -I  just found your response to my article. For some reason it didn't come the usual way responses come to me,(I admit I am technologically awkward  when it comes to these things but learning).I am not afraid to post any response it was an oversight.

The reason I think your "Blasphemy challenge" is Satanic is because you go beyond merely challenging students to renounce their "silly superstitions" as the old "village Atheists" would term it. You found a specific scripture, which is a warning of eternal damnation, and dared them to specifically renounce 'the Holy Ghost".

I realize you probably don't believe in Satan or the personal embodiment of evil, but do you see what I mean when I say you went the "extra mile" in encouraging young people to do evil? If you are just a materialist, why wouldn't it be enough to encourage people to just renounce their (alledgedly) silly meaningless faith? No, you have to give them a scriptural basis for blasphemy.

By the way, even the use of the word Blasphemy presupposes the existence of God, come on admit it you know there is a God, you just don't like he implications of that fact, right? Be assured I will happily pray for you and even dialogue with you- feel free o post this in your letters, it looks like  there are a lot of people writing in who could use it- your friend-Pastor Bill

Wonderist's picture

Welcome, Pastor Bill,Pastor

Welcome, Pastor Bill,

Pastor Bill wrote:

By the way, even the use of the word Blasphemy presupposes the existence of God, come on admit it you know there is a God, you just don't like he implications of that fact, right?

Sorry Bill, blasphemy in the general sense does not presuppose any gods, it only presupposes that humans consider something sacred. See:

Quote:

blas·phe·my

[blas-fuh-mee]

–noun, plural -mies. 1. impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things. 2. Judaism . a. an act of cursing or reviling God. b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai. 3. Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God. 4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
 

We don't believe in any gods, but we certainly are aware that many people consider their ideas of gods sacred, and we think that's silly, so we blaspheme those ideas. But they are just ideas. Do you consider Vishnu or Allah to be gods merely because some people happen to believe in them and consider them sacred? I didn't think so.

See Bill, there are hundreds and thousands of gods you do not believe in, just like us. We just believe in one less god than you do. (Actually three less, if you realize that it makes no sense to say Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are identical but not identical.)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!

butterbattle's picture

Welcome to the forum.Bill

Welcome to the forum, Pastor Bill.

Bill Randles wrote:
By the way, even the use of the word Blasphemy presupposes the existence of God,

No, it doesn't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy

"4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless,"
 
At most, we are presupposing that there are people that hold something sacred.

Bill Randles wrote:
come on admit it you know there is a God,

No, we don't.

Bill Randles wrote:
you just don't like he implications of that fact, right?

It's not a fact. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Jean Chauvin's picture

Hi Brian Sapient

Hi Brian Sapient,

Well actually, you are doing the assaulting. You as an atheistic liberal (they go hand in hand always) as a whole have attacked our Universities. Virtually all public (and private) Universities are Liberal, and hate conservatives. I almost got kicked out of philosophy class for writing a Christian response to be pagan Platonism.

That's why you liberals have been attacking the home schooling movement. The Moores (a couple) introduced it nationwide during the 80s. They were taken to court many times. One homeschooler was put in jail in Ohio, for home schooling his kids. It's a war, and you started it, because you want to pagan and wicked with no accountability.

The Media is taken over. Liberalism is fed to America daily on the news. NBC, CBS, ABC, and even FOX. Look at Bill O'Reilly. He's nuts. He's more liberal then a condom on a teenager.

The issue with the fear thing is a logical fallacy. We are not 'using' fear to gain converts. Biblical Christianity by definition CANNOT gain converts, unless God wants them to be by opening their mind. God purposely sends people like you a false delusion to believe what is false (II Thessalonians 2:11).

So the hell thing, is the truth. And there is a means to be rescued from that truth. Typically speaking, wicked and evil people like you don't fear hell. You don't care, and it doesn't really bother you personally. It bothers the Elect, since they are God's children.

So your argumentum ad hominem abusive is like an antique with rust on it. It's already been dealt with. But you can keep using it via ad hominem abusive.

But in terms of logic, if it doesn't bother the pagans, then how can that be a fear tactic? And nevertheless, if TRUTH is fear, then TRUTH can never be a tactic, since logically truth is. Look, I'm going to go see my Mother-in-Law for Christmas, and I'm scared to death. This woman is crazy. But it's the the truth, she's nuts, and I'm going to see her. I'm bothered by it, and that's why I'm going to wear a cup.

But you're not bothered by it, because your whole being is dark and evil (Romans 1:18-25). So how can that which is non-fear, be fear. That sounds like biochemical reproductions.

You guys like doing the non to the some. It's funny.

So again, no fear tactic, if you have no fear. And a sign that one does have fear and that they are elect, usually involves protection in the groin area such as a cup.

BUT, when you die, and when you hit the White Throne Judgment, then you too will have a cup. However at that point, you'll be so terrified, your cup will be runneth over.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

cj's picture

Jean Chauvin wrote:That's

Jean Chauvin wrote:

That's why you liberals have been attacking the home schooling movement. The Moores (a couple) introduced it nationwide during the 80s. They were taken to court many times. One homeschooler was put in jail in Ohio, for home schooling his kids. It's a war, and you started it, because you want to pagan and wicked with no accountability.

 

Ah, I thought I detected the prejudices of a home schooled adult.  Get a clue - if you have never been there, then you don't know what you are talking about.  That goes for schools and "heaven".  When you have been to "heaven" and have evidence that can be replicated, we'll take you a little more seriously.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Answers in Gene Simmons's picture

Welll, that lasted for about

Welll, that lasted for about a day and a half.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=