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.

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.

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?

Meaningful to whom?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And I call those people ignorant.

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

Yes, given proof I would believe something exists.

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

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.

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

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, 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 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? 

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

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

You can't hit without it either.

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 don't have a brain do you? Rofl.

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:

(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! 

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?

There is no such proviso here.

I thought that was pretty clever Bod.  seriously.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...