Blasphemy Challenge

[Merko]

"I'm a FAN of man!"

For a Swedish-speaking person, that quote is quite funny in writing, as "FAN" means "the Devil" (though it is pronounced differently). But it is perhaps the most common Swedish expletive.

 

[baron]

Some Christians believe that if you deny the Holy Spirit, you have commited an unforgivable sin and are therefore damned to hell for all eternity. They claim that atheists know in their heart of hearts that God exists and will not commit an unforgivable sin. These YouTube videos are supposed to show that atheists are confident in their beliefs.

What it actually shows is that those taking part are small-minded idiots without a life to call their own.

 

[l0rca]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVIDIUKVcyw&mode=related&search=

^ The Jesus challenge on YouTube, if nobody has the ability to make the video, s is still curious about the goods.

 

[Beady]

That atheists are confident in their beliefs and hate Christianity?

I'm an atheist, confident in my belief, and I don't hate Christianity. It's a little hard to hate them when it's Christians, not atheists or skeptics, who stand around in the driving sleet ringing bells and asking for small donations to help the poor.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm. I would stand on the corner if I had time. But who would give the atheist donations to give to the poor?

I challenge any one athiest to stand on a corner with a donation box and a sign saying something like "Secular Humanist Association Donations to the Needy" and see if you don't get your @$$ kicked.

Heck, I've got a World Vision monthly donation to a kid in Thailand, and I give to local charities.

But how do you prove to believers that you are just as moral as they are, even if you don't care if any gods or devils exist?

 

[Beady]

I challenge any one athiest ...

That's kind of my point. Christians have built groups dedicated to charity; atheists/nonbelievers have not. I find it difficult to condemn organizations or their individual members whose hearts are in that particular place.

Consider the paired images. One is of a Salvation Army "soldier" standing knee-deep in the snow, trying to gather tiny donations so a homeless family can have some warm clothing; the other is of an atheist, sitting warm and dry at his computer, blogging about how there's too much religion in the world.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

That's kind of my point. Christians have built groups dedicated to charity; atheists/nonbelievers have not. I find it difficult to condemn organizations or their individual members whose hearts are in that particular place.

You're so sure about that?

In that particular place so they can guarantee their special place in heaven, or to convert others so they further guarantee their own special place in heaven?

I give because I care, not to get something in return, and especially not to look good in some supposed god's eyes.

Consider the paired images. One is of a Salvation Army "soldier" standing knee-deep in the snow, trying to gather tiny donations so a homeless family can have some warm clothing; the other is of an atheist, sitting warm and dry at his computer, blogging about how there's too much religion in the world.

You have the wrong picture. I'm not blogging about religion. I give clothes to the clothing bank to make sure some family has clothes who can't afford to buy any at the moment. Heck, I give to World Vision, a religious organization, so that some mighter can have an education and vaccinations. Can I be guaranteed that World Vision isn't shoving religion down his throat while they teach him to write?

There are other organizations that aren't religious, like Doctors without borders, and the local food bank. They get my attention too.

I don't discriminate since their hearts do seem to be in the right place.

But like I already asked, who is going to give an atheist money, even if they are standing in a foot of snow?

Is my money and intentions not as good since I'm not religious? Or is the Salvation Army guy (who is doing good to get his dues once he dies) simply better than me since he can be guarnteed not to be discriminated against when he is standing out there? FYI, the Salvation Army folks around here SIT around in the warm mall while they wave their bells about.

 

[jjramsey]

That's kind of my point. Christians have built groups dedicated to charity; atheists/nonbelievers have not.

To continue on Eos' point, Christian charities tend to identify themselves as Christian, while nontheistic charities don't make atheism or secularism a part of their identities. The latter tend to identify themselves simply by the work they do, e.g. "Doctors Without Borders."

 

[Dark Jaguar]

The 'main' part is not really geared for us. Did you watch all the extras? That is the gold.

The documentary proper is pretty much all assertion, to keep the duration down to something watchable for a believer. And that stack of assertions is likely to go mostly unnoticed by that audience as well.

The extras are the footnotes, if you will.

ETA: That DVD is a film made by a formerly religious to resonate with the currently religious.

Now you see, that's the main issue I have with a lot of the stuff they do on the show "Bull Feces" (censorblocked the actual title, use your imagination) and videos like this. There's a point to be made, but in these cases, their point stands entirely on the evidence, and indeed the "metapoint" is that evidence is what all conclusions should stand on. How is one supposed to make that clear if they do nothing BUT make assertions? That's what the "other side" does. I know they have to save time, but isn't there SOME way to include at the most devastating evidence for/against the claims here in a concise and entertaining manner? I think perhaps doing an experiment or actually showing a piece of history on screen while describing what's being show and why it's relevant would do a lot more than merely stating that "evolution is so true" or whatever is getting argued at the time. I often come away from these things disappointed because I feel that the weaker arguments were presented or not defended by anything other than rhetoric when there is a LOT of very GOOD things they could be showing to make the point clear.

Then again, maybe I should take a hint and put something together myself? I dunno, I've never been good at actually doing things...

 

[Halden]

Can it be blasphemy if you do not believe in that which you denying?

 

[Beady]

In that particular place so they can guarantee their special place in heaven, or to convert others so they further guarantee their own special place in heaven?

I give because I care, not to get something in return, and especially not to look good in some supposed god's eyes.

You give because you care about others. "They" give because they care about themselves. That's a nice, black-and-white world you live in. Won't your world view admit even the possibility that religions and the religous occasionally act out of something other than self-interest?

 

[Beady]

To continue on Eos' point, Christian charities tend to identify themselves as Christian, while nontheistic charities don't make atheism or secularism a part of their identities. The latter tend to identify themselves simply by the work they do, e.g. "Doctors Without Borders."

I'm confused about the point you're trying to make. What's wrong with Christian charities identifying themselves as Christian charities? That's what they are, after all. Who cares what they call themselves or, for that matter, why they're doing what they're doing? All I care about is whether my donation is going to the people the charity says it's going to.

Speaking of the recipients (remember them?), I don't particularly care about their religious affiliations, either. My old coat can keep a Catholic warm just as easily as it can a nonbeliever. As to which of the two actually get my coat, a human being is a human being, and I am not going to withhold food and shelter because the recipient prays.

 

[scotth]

What it actually shows is that those taking part are small-minded idiots without a life to call their own.

If all you can bring to the thread are insults, we can oblige you.

But, if you want a little history of this.... this challenge originates with a former evangelical/born again christian. A person who lived much of his life with a tremendous fear of even accidentally doubting God. This statement is very much a symbol of escape from that lifelong crushing fear. That is the prototype for this challenge.

ETA: Religion is probably the most destructive phenomena in society today. This is not some idle claim either, but a well supported position. If you haven't seen the supporting arguements, a good place to start is with "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. It is time to begin active irradication of religion. My favorite way is the 'Carl Sagan' method (teach the beauty of the cosmos as seen by science and let them realize that religion is bunk on their own), but many religious persons need more of a slap in the face to get their attention, it seems.

 

[scotth]

Now you see, that's the main issue I have with a lot of the stuff they do on the show "Bull Feces" (censorblocked the actual title, use your imagination) and videos like this. There's a point to be made, but in these cases, their point stands entirely on the evidence, and indeed the "metapoint" is that evidence is what all conclusions should stand on. How is one supposed to make that clear if they do nothing BUT make assertions? That's what the "other side" does. I know they have to save time, but isn't there SOME way to include at the most devastating evidence for/against the claims here in a concise and entertaining manner? I think perhaps doing an experiment or actually showing a piece of history on screen while describing what's being show and why it's relevant would do a lot more than merely stating that "evolution is so true" or whatever is getting argued at the time. I often come away from these things disappointed because I feel that the weaker arguments were presented or not defended by anything other than rhetoric when there is a LOT of very GOOD things they could be showing to make the point clear.

Then again, maybe I should take a hint and put something together myself? I dunno, I've never been good at actually doing things...

But, the goods ARE in there. Watch the extras.

 

[scotth]

Beady....

Several facts mess up your position....

1) The correlation between charitible giving and a socieity's religiocity are inversely proportional. That's right, countries that are the most secular, the most atheist give the highest proportions of the GDP to charity and aid.
2) Secular charities provide aid without the dogma. This is bigger deal than it might appear at first glance. Condom dogma attached to religious food aid in Africa is literally killing people by the hundreds of thousand, for example.
3) Religious charities often consider providing the word of god as important as providing food or blankets or clothing. Often a large fraction of funds dontated to a religious charity are used to spread the word along with the blankets.

 

[baron]

If all you can bring to the thread are insults, we can oblige you.

Have you ever heard of the word "irony"? You promote a sensationalist "challenge" based around unwarranted confrontation and insult and then you whinge when someone replies in kind.

But, if you want a little history of this.... this challenge originates with a former evangelical/born again christian. A person who lived much of his life with a tremendous fear of even accidentally doubting God. This statement is very much a symbol of escape from that lifelong crushing fear. That is the prototype for this challenge.

I can only conclude that your definitions of "justification" and "rationality" are irreconcilably different to mine.

However, I will make one point. There's a lot of talk about how Christians are selfish and interested only in saving themselves. Perhaps some are, but bear in mind that Christianity is based around caring for all humans. It may shock you to realise that the distress a "true" Christian would experience on listening to some of these idiots is based not on self-absorbed affront but a genuine concern that the person was condemning their own eternal soul.

 

[Rasmus]

Have you ever heard of the word "irony"? You promote a sensationalist "challenge" based around unwarranted confrontation and insult and then you whinge when someone replies in kind.

Do Atheists come around knocking on your door a lot, or why do you vew this is overly confrontational?

Also, where is the insult? What part about "I deny the existance of the holy spirit" is an insult to you?

 

[Beady]

1) The correlation between charitible giving and a socieity's religiocity are inversely proportional. That's right, countries that are the most secular, the most atheist give the highest proportions of the GDP to charity and aid.

1st, I'd like to see your numbers and their source. 2nd, I'd like to see some evidence of the causation. Assuming you are correct, there would be some force or effect acting to suppress nonreligious charitable giving in societies where religions are given free reign. Of course, it may be simply be that even nonbelievers prefer to give to religious charities where available, and that believers give to nonreligious charities where religious charities are not so readily available. There are any number of possible explanations, again assuming you're right.

2) Secular charities provide aid without the dogma. This is bigger deal than it might appear at first glance. Condom dogma attached to religious food aid in Africa is literally killing people by the hundreds of thousand, for example.

I'm more concerned with domestic charities than international. Not that "our" need is greater, but I have limited resources and I know the people next door.

3) Religious charities often consider providing the word of god as important as providing food or blankets or clothing. Often a large fraction of funds dontated to a religious charity are used to spread the word along with the blankets.

I distrust words such as "Often" and "Large." Do you and your wife have sex as little as twice a night, or as often as twice a night? And define "Large."

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Won't your world view admit even the possibility that religions and the religous occasionally act out of something other than self-interest?

Yeah sure, if they don't have "strings" attached. Most often there are strings attached though. I personally am free of them, so yeah, I can only mostly speak for myself.

My post was in response to your post though, regarding how there's supposedly no humanists standing in snow to collect money. There are pleny of non-secular charities though, and again, I don't discriminate as long as they do have good attentions and not too many strings attached.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm an atheist, confident in my belief, and I don't hate Christianity. It's a little hard to hate them when it's Christians, not atheists or skeptics, who stand around in the driving sleet ringing bells and asking for small donations to help the poor.

I wasn't suggesting that all atheists hate Christianity. Heck, I don't hate Christianity.

I was just saying that when people are given an opportunity to deny Christianity, a disproportionate number of angry atheists will step forward.