Friday, December 15, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

The Blasphemy Challenge

The Rational Response Squad

BlasphemyChallenge.com : "The Blasphemy Challenge" Rewards Participants for Demonstrating Non- Belief on YouTube

Philadelphia -- December 14, 2006. The Rational Response Squad has launched a $25,000 campaign to entice young people to publicly renounce any belief in the sky God of Christianity.

Called "The Blasphemy Challenge," this campaign encourages participants to commit what Christian doctrine calls the only unforgivable sin -- blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (The "Holy Spirit" is an invisible ghost who Christians believe dwells on Earth as God's representative.)

Participants who videotape their blasphemy and upload it to YouTube will receive a free DVD of the hit documentary THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE, which normally sells for $24.98. Beyond Belief Media, the distributor of THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE, has donated 1001 DVDs to the Rational Response Squad for The Blasphemy Challenge.

More than 160 participants have already blasphemed the Holy Spirit and earned free DVDs during the pre-launch phase of the Blasphemy Challenge. Their videos can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7D6338FA4A19B4C3

While anyone can participate in The Blasphemy Challenge, the Rational Response Squad is focused on reaching a young demographic. To publicize The Blasphemy Challenge to young people, today the Rational Response Squad begins an online advertising campaign focused on 25 sites popular with teens such as Xanga, Friendster, Boy Scout Trail, Tiger Beat, Teen Magazine, YM, CosmoGirl! and Seventeen.

Find out more at: http://www.blasphemychallenge.com

To interview participants in The Blasphemy Challenge or, please contact Zoe Lee via email at publicity@beyondbeliefmedia.com. Brian Sapient co-founder of the Rational Response Squad can be reached at sapient@rationalresponders.com

ABOUT THE RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD

The Rational Response Squad addresses irrational emergencies of all kinds, especially the ongoing emergency created by religious faith. What started in February 2005 as a popular internet radio show has since blossomed into an activist group with 21,000 members, seven regional chapters and a fast-growing youth division organized at FreeThinkingTeens.com. The Squad focuses on debunking false claims, publicizing the work of atheists and skeptics, and directly engaging the faithful with the goal of converting them to reason. The Squad's War on Christmas also includes initiatives to give free THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE DVDs to Christians who request them as well as covertly planting DVDs in Christian churches. Richard Dawkins recorded a show with the Rational Response Squad in November which can be downloaded here: http://www.briansapient.com/media/dawkins/rrsShow38_64_flam.mp3

See: http://www.rationalresponders.com

ABOUT "THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE"

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE did it to the gun culture. SUPER SIZE ME did it to fast food. THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE does it to religion. A #1 bestselling independent documentary at Amazon.com, THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE holds Christianity up to a bright spotlight and asks the questions few dare to ask. Starting off by exploring the case that Jesus never actually existed, the movie goes on to examine other aspects of the Christian religion through interviews with Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris, historian Richard Carrier and many others. Los Angeles Times: "Provocative -- to put it mildly."

See: http://www.thegodmovie.com

Some early press for the campaign:

Nightline covers The Blasphemy Challenge.

Brian Flemming on FOX

Newsweek article on The Blasphemy Challenge

Take The Blasphemy Challenge on your next skydiving jump!

Posted: Friday, December 15, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 242 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #13118 by Skeptic Jim on December 15, 2006 at 4:03 pm

I deny the holy spirit!

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

2. Comment #13120 by TranshumanAtheist on December 15, 2006 at 4:05 pm

I deny the holy spirit!

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

3. Comment #13121 by Kergillian on December 15, 2006 at 4:10 pm

I'm sorry, but this bugs me.

The arguement against religion is an intellectual one, based on reason and evidence. This "contest" turns it into a game.

"Deny the Holy Spirit and win free stuff!"

It is just crass.

You can't blaspheme that wich doesn't exist.

By having a contest like this you perpetuate the notion that atheists are against God, as if God were real and needed to be opposed.

We need to focus on spreading reason, not slandering fictional dieties.

Other Comments by Kergillian

4. Comment #13122 by RichardC on December 15, 2006 at 4:38 pm

I agree with Kergillian and don't think this is really the best 'rational response', being rather childish and needlessly provocative.
It's just going to get religious people's back up and entrench them in their own camp.
Better to charm other's by the strength of your arguments rather than simply mocking other people's religion.

Other Comments by RichardC

5. Comment #13123 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2006 at 4:50 pm

Comment #13122 by RichardC on December 15, 2006 at 4:38 pm

I agree with Kergillian and don't think this is really the best 'rational response', being rather childish and needlessly provocative.
It's just going to get religious people's back up and entrench them in their own camp.

I have to disagree. I frequently find that those that have never had faith, persistently underestimate the pernicious ability of the meme to infiltrate every aspect of ones life. What for you is a silly superstition, was for me at the age of 14 the stuff of nightmares.

Many christians are not even aware this scripture exists, and many of those that are live in perpetual terror of inadvertently blaspheming the holy spirit. Merely making people aware of this doctrine is positive, because it illustrates the fundamental injustice and incoherence of christianity.

As a recent "convert" to atheisim, the power of this scripture to terrorise me is still very real. When you genuinely beleive in an eternal hell, this shit is frightening.

Nope, keep on mocking, the more the merrier, and I mean that in the grim, embittered, ready for the long haul sense.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

6. Comment #13124 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Oh ... and I deny the Holy Spirit. There it's done.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

7. Comment #13125 by sapient on December 15, 2006 at 4:52 pm

You can't blaspheme that which doesn't exist?

Stupid ugly Unicorns are having sex with my dogs, and I deny the Unicorns!

Now, do me a favor, and look around, find me the Unicorns that now exist, and let me know where they are, because I've always wanted to see a Unicorn.

Other Comments by sapient

8. Comment #13126 by RichardC on December 15, 2006 at 5:39 pm

I would like to see the DVD 'The God who wasn't there' but I don't think it's available in the UK yet. I could order it from the states but suspect I wouldn't be able to play it in my British DVD player. Dawkins has reportedly seen it and he's also a Brit - I wonder it if watched it from within his English home or on his travels abroad.
Maybe if I could utter some really terrible blasphemy the Rational Response Squad would even pay for the international postage!

Other Comments by RichardC

9. Comment #13129 by c6c6dog on December 15, 2006 at 5:52 pm

I'm afraid this 'challenge' may have the opposite effect of its intended purpose: to make people think critically of a holy trinity. I surmize that the individuals in the video made their assertions after much consideration and thought. I'm glad they took a carthotic step in publicly renouncing what they found to be true--the emperor is indeed not wearing any clothes.

However, and this a very key objection, some of the renunciations were from mere adolesants. I know there are some people, who's comments I cherish dearly on this forum, that champion youth's rights. But a main contention against the indocrination of children in religious superstition is that some--perhaps many--children lack the mental prowess to treat the subject critically.

Perhaps the adolesants responding are of the more questioning manner and not just expressing teen-age rebellion tendencies. But to those infected with true religious fervor, this contest appears nothing more than a cheap gimmick to dupe the more easily swayed sheep from the flock. Hence, it will be villified before ever being contemplated by those it seeks to reach.

Other Comments by c6c6dog

10. Comment #13130 by Aussie on December 15, 2006 at 6:21 pm

I find this purile and senseless.

Is this being clandestinely organised by the Godsquad to make us all look bigger nut cases than them.

Let's leave the stupidity to the religites.

Other Comments by Aussie

11. Comment #13131 by raptur on December 15, 2006 at 6:41 pm

The point of this is to show that atheists are not all disgruntled professors in ivory towers that are out of touch with reality. It is to overhaul the public image of Atheists until we are perceived as a viable social category. We already have them on the intellectual front. Now we need only remove the social stigma that prompts the ridiculous intellectual contortions that thoughtful theists go through.

On a somewhat related note, what is the demographic make-up of the commentors here? I'm a 20-year old white male majroing in linguistics and philosophy at the Ohio State University.

Other Comments by raptur

12. Comment #13132 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 6:49 pm

The RRS is the group who presented RD with that giant cheque during the 'chat' style video they made.

They're just a bunch of young kids so I don't really blame them for this typically youthful reaction, so unlike most here so far, I'm not going to over-react to this. There are a few here who are strong supporters of the young, let's hear what they say.

Do I see signs of my word meme attempt working? A long time ago I coined the word 'religite' and have slipped it into posts here being careful not to do it too often. Now I see the first ever use of it not made by me. So I'm glad Aussie used it, but I fear he did so to make me feel better because the Aussie's are socking it to England again in the third test!

Be honest now Aussie!

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #13133 by Tomcat on December 15, 2006 at 7:15 pm

Skeptics! All of you! This sort of activity is absolutely necessary, especially in the US. This is about breaking taboos, exactly like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have spoken about extensively. Atheism will not be able to take hold with the common people unless we break these taboos, so come down off your high horses and play with us "children" some!

Other Comments by Tomcat

14. Comment #13136 by Bob Johnson on December 15, 2006 at 7:46 pm

As Dawkins opened with Lalla's quote in the TGD, "But I didn't know I could." If a thousand and one youth realize they can - some may learn from this event. Some may hear of it and tremble in fear some may speak out just for the prize (and hopefully watch it). And a thousand and one DVDs will reach the youth not pushed on them but by effort on their part. All-in-all a noble effort with plenty of potential.

Oh, and needless to say - I deny the existance of a holy sprirt.
(although Oban comes close.)

Other Comments by Bob Johnson

15. Comment #13137 by citizen of earth on December 15, 2006 at 7:54 pm

Re comment #13129 by c6c6dog

I think I should inform you, being one of the "adolescents" that is featured in the promotional video (the one with the bushy hair and the microphone), that I have not been indoctrinated, nor do I lack the mental ability to study the subject at hand.
I have studied in detail the facts of the world's major religions, and I have, as I said in my video, deduced that there is not enough evidence to support what basically are wild claims.
The reason I am doing this challenge and similar activities is because recently religion has been trying to get into the science classroom, science is my subject; I cannot stand by and let personal beliefs get taught as fact to future generations of my fellow students.

So do not stop me because of my age, I am not indoctrinated, I am returning fire.

Other Comments by citizen of earth

16. Comment #13138 by Nazgul on December 15, 2006 at 7:54 pm

Bottom line: If we're nice about, like we've been for many decades now, it'll never go away. This MASS mind virus beleivers (faith-sufferers) have needs to be hit hard. Hitting the youth 'may' be one of the best ways. Adults that turn to athiesm, turn back to their faith a lot. Teach reason when their young. I agree that it's childish, but hay, so is believing in an invisible man.
Oh... I deny the Holy 'Spigit'... hehe.

Other Comments by Nazgul

17. Comment #13139 by Jack Rawlinson on December 15, 2006 at 7:55 pm

Yeah, I'm another one who thinks this is sort of silly. If you're an atheist, it's no big deal to do this. And if you're a Christian, I guess you wouldn't do it and you'd think the atheists who do are going to hell. Well, then we join all the other damned sinners in their blinkered eyes. We knew that already.

The main reason to blaspheme is to demonstrate opposition to the idea that blasphemy is wrong, or should be criminalised. That's a good reason to do it because there's a clear point. And when I blaspheme I do it just a bit more colourfully than "I deny the holy spirit".

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

18. Comment #13140 by citizen of earth on December 15, 2006 at 7:56 pm

Oh and to repeat, I deny the Holy Spirit

Other Comments by citizen of earth

19. Comment #13141 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 7:57 pm

There is a tendency on this site and others, to 'over-intellectualise' the god vs no-god argument. I believe the Einsteinian principle of keeping things as simple possible, is applicable.

It's a simple case, no evidence for god, ergo no need for belief. These RRS guys are keeping it simple, highly desirable for getting a message across, particularly in the US. Yes, they will take some heat for it but they'll expect that, also they're probably depending on the old show business maxim that there's no such thing as bad publicity. In this media besotted world the average person is addicted to, perhaps the show business method is the way to resolve this tired old issue. Best of all it's action, talk is good but never gets anything done.

So I guess I'll hang my faded old hat on their stand, go for it guys.

Other Comments by Yorker

20. Comment #13143 by 42nd on December 15, 2006 at 8:29 pm

It would be great to see Richard Dawkins making a video of himself saying the words. I am trying to picture that right now.

Other Comments by 42nd

21. Comment #13144 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 8:37 pm

If, like me, you're a fan of schoolboy howlers, take a look at the YouTube headers of people taking the challenge, some of the comments and spellings are hilarious! Great fun! There's a guy there who's a dead ringer for Jesus, except he's a blonde, more American-looking Jesus!

My favourite so far: "I wasn't using my soul anyway"

Keep it going guys, quite a few girls there too!

P.S. Had to edit this, things are moving fast - distracting me from the cricket - need more brain RAM to increase multi-tasking performance. New anti-Christmas sites appearing.

Looks like well-timed major atheist offensive underway, good news for sanity, bad news for Industry of Deception.

EndChristmas.com raising money to send No-God DVD's to Christians

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #13146 by EverLastingGodStopper on December 15, 2006 at 9:53 pm

Sapient tried to help me with YouTube on Friday (earlier today), but I was unable to connect or record my clip.

When I can get it to work, I will record a clip in which I deny the holy spirit. I'll make separate videos for my children and my spouse.

I encourage everyone to visit BlasphemyChallenge.com to learn more about openly admitting your atheism in this way.

Also, free DVD of "The God Who Wasn't There" for the first 1001 videos.

Hopefully, I'll join the rest of you tech-savvy atheists in denying the holy spirit and all other magical invisible sky-thingies.

Other Comments by EverLastingGodStopper

23. Comment #13147 by flibble on December 15, 2006 at 10:08 pm

Richard C - the DVD is available from the National Secular Society in a UK-playable version.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/shop.html?eshopid=49438

Other Comments by flibble

24. Comment #13148 by Macho Nachos on December 15, 2006 at 10:29 pm

While I understand concerns about appearing crass and 'cheap', I think this is a useful tool. I'm a teenage male, and while I've already graduated from a Science degree and try to argue from an intellectual standpoint on religious issues, this looks to be a bit of fun.

It raises publicity, it gives out DVDs that might reach a new audience, and it hits a demographic that may not (generally) be exposed to atheism in any meaningful way (South Park really handled the whole affair with 'we don't want to take a stance' hands, IMO).

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

25. Comment #13150 by Munger on December 15, 2006 at 10:40 pm

The problem is that by "denying" the holy spirit, you are announcing that you believe there is something to deny. Either that, or you are simply trying to convert someone to your own "faith".

But science and skepticism isn't faith. It's quite the opposite, and by playing this game, they're playing on religion's terms. Religion cannot hold up against scientific honesty. And science cannot compete against religion's powers of denial.

The argument MUST remain rational. Atheists should not come across as intolerant and "against" religion in general (or one religion specifically) because that's not what this is about.

Dawkins gets unfairly labeled as intolerant, but in this case, the Rational Response Squad, if not technically intolerant, are certainly seeking a head-on conflict where none is needed. People don't need to deny the holy spirit. They need to deny blind faith and ridiculous superstitious reasoning. The atheism movement of Dawkins is not one of anti-Christianity (or anti-Judiasm or anti-Wiccan). It is against all these things. Placing too much emphasis on one form of magical, logic-defying worldview means ignoring all the others.

This is not a battle waged on one front, and it should never be treated like it. And this is not a contest of equals, and science need not lower itself to childish oaths and pledges to get the job done.

Other Comments by Munger

26. Comment #13152 by David A Robertson on December 15, 2006 at 11:05 pm

This makes atheists look childish and stupid. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not to deny the Holy Spirit but rather to attribute the work of the Spirit to the Devil. Given that atheists believe neither that is impossible for you to do. All this does it make atheism look like an emotive, childish and ignorant reaction.

Other Comments by David A Robertson

27. Comment #13153 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2006 at 11:45 pm

And this is not a contest of equals, and science need not lower itself to childish oaths and pledges to get the job done.

You are right about that, but not the way you mean. Something like 80% of people believe in one or another of these myths, a sizeable minority are determined and fanatical. Science and reason is the little guy in this fight. This video is the metaphysical equivalent of a kick in the balls. We should take what we can get.

David, no one is giving credence to this rubbish, just highlighting how nonsensical it is. The truly childish behaviour is to live in terror of punishment for saying words. For good measure, I spurn and reject allah and piss (metaphrocially) on the quran.

Should I be killed for that? Some people think so. Highlighting that kind of lunacy is the point of these kinds of activities, blunting the predictable outrage of the religious, until this kind of thing no longer bothers them, and anyone can say it.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

28. Comment #13154 by flashbaby on December 16, 2006 at 12:23 am

If there is no god then we are all free to say that we deny the holy spirit I have said it and do now say I deny the holy spirit. If I don't believe in god I dont believe in satan either. Mr wee free bigot is free to believe satan is at work as he chooses but who looks more childish those who believe fairy tales or those who deny they are real?

PS mr wee free revisionist
Definition of blasphemy:

disrespect for religion: disrespect for God or sacred things

so denying god is the ulitmate disrespect and is blasphemy.

If Mr wee free Robertson thinks his definition of blasphemy is correct then saying jesus was gay would not have resulted in the prosecuion of Gay News which was the last successful prosecution for blasphemy under our wonderfully archaic laws in the UK.

Na na na na na!!!

Other Comments by flashbaby

29. Comment #13155 by Niels Thorsen on December 16, 2006 at 12:34 am

The important point here is the ground swell. There may be disadvantages to the content, but the movement is positive.

When attempting to affect massive change, it is better to have a force in motion than none.

Niels

Other Comments by Niels Thorsen

30. Comment #13158 by Sam on December 16, 2006 at 1:24 am

I really love the way Sam Harris puts it:

"If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, many close to me, to persist in a state of unbelief. They, too, will languish in "everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41). If the claims of Christianity are true, I will have realized the worst possible outcome of a human life. The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me should suggest to you just how unsatisfactory I think your reasons for being a Christian are."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,139,Reply-to-a-Christian,Sam-Harris

Other Comments by Sam

31. Comment #13159 by He-man Daunted World on December 16, 2006 at 1:31 am

I think the holy spirit is too vague a notion to even deny

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

32. Comment #13160 by GregPreston on December 16, 2006 at 1:46 am

This is silly.

Other Comments by GregPreston

33. Comment #13161 by Tomcat on December 16, 2006 at 1:53 am

Yea, you won't be laughing when we start changing the American zietgiest because of things like this. You will be cheering. The current world situation demands an approach such as this one. I fully support this.

Other Comments by Tomcat

34. Comment #13162 by MaxWeiss on December 16, 2006 at 1:54 am

This seems misguided at best. We should be trying to prove to the world that atheists are good and decent people just like the rest of the world (ok, well, good and decent at least) and a stunt like this will just anger people and also alienate closet-agnostic atheists whom we should be trying to recruit. This is a bad idea. (Although, I might could consider it for the chance to win $25K for doing nothing.)

Other Comments by MaxWeiss

35. Comment #13163 by goddogit on December 16, 2006 at 2:18 am

Being "nice" only goes so far, and only is effective in a limited way with the basically rational and with the fence-sitters. More radical, absurd, and colorful efforts (and BTW I absolutely draw the line at instigating violence against any and all living beings to promote anything) have their place whether you like them or not.
Those who chose to hate and use the tactics of hatred and fear and applied ignorance - bullying, discrimination and lying - have to be confronted in various ways to allow them to SEE WHAT THEY ARE. They preen themselves before rose-colored vanities and like Cinderella's step-sisters are willing to mutilate themselves to pretend they are the dainties deserving of marrying the handsome prince, Jesus or whoever.

This is a wild and creative tactic. I approve.

Other Comments by goddogit

36. Comment #13164 by tatsie on December 16, 2006 at 2:18 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgR-f8i0cmQ
Drunk Santas, love you all.. happy holidays..

Other Comments by tatsie

37. Comment #13165 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 2:19 am

Hmm. I'd heard about this challenge from another blog yesterday, and I'm sort of glad to come here and read some interesting and varied responses to the idea.

I'm in a position where I partially agree with all of you, even David Robertson (who ever thought I'd say THAT?) This is a very strange topic with a lot of facets and I can understand how just about all of you feel.

As to myself, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. I don't think there is anything WRONG in the action of denying the holy spirit in its own right. I do, however, wonder at the utility of doing so. It kind of reminds me of some self-proclaimed Satanists I once knew who used to take a sort of immature pleasure in things like praying with their hands in 'satanic' poses while in church or wearing upside down crosses.

I guess I feel that denial of the spirit, JUST in those words, is a bit silly and vapid. It does misrepresent our cause in that it can be interpreted by others as that same sort of immature act. However, I'm not opposed to denying the spirit as long as it is accompanied by or in the midst of a wider statement of denying all such unproven faith-claims.

Better yet would be to include an affirmation of what we DO think. Atheists are too often presented as merely contrarians, which is so simplistic that it tells no one about what we're really like. So, if I were to make such a video, I would say something like this:

'I deny the holy spirit, just as much as I deny the influence of the stars on my life, the existence of witches, and all other unproven claims. But I AFFIRM the rights of individuals to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. I affirm the sovereignty of choice, freedom from dogmatic browbeating, and the power of science and reason to determine the nearest approximation of the truth that we humans can comprehend.'

But that's just my take. Rant over. :)

Other Comments by Jared

38. Comment #13167 by goddogit on December 16, 2006 at 2:25 am

Hey, I happened to scan over David R's post (unusually brief, I must say, for someone so stupidly long-winded and enchanted by the sound of his own honking) and he DOESN'T APPROVE!!!!!

Hey! Bugs! Bugs Bunny! What's YOUR opinion of David?

"Nyaaah...[crunching-nibble] What a maroon!"

Other Comments by goddogit

39. Comment #13168 by Sam on December 16, 2006 at 2:33 am

I think the whole point of this is to show that there is no more reason to be afraid of cursing Yahweh, Jesus or the Holy Spirit than Osiris, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because there is no more reason to believe in any of them. In a way what these people are doing is turning Pascal's wager on its head.

If there was even the slightest probability that christianity was true, cursing the holy spirit would be a very dangerous act indeed. The real message being sent here is: I am so confident that christianity is bullshit that i am prepared to bet my soul on it.

I would like to join that bet:
I, Sam, hereby curse the holy spirit. If there is a God out there who is listening, i pray of him that i may die a horrible death in the near future (today if at all possible). May my soul be sent to the worst part of Hell for all eternity, and may my loved ones suffer the same gruesome fate. Amen.

Other Comments by Sam

40. Comment #13169 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 2:54 am

I have a confession to make--I am married to a child. Though I thought I married a man, many adults keep insisting on calling him a child and taking him to task on his consistently childish behavior.

When he cuts through political, convoluted nonsense, with his sharp rationality, he is called a child.

When he slices through the French social service bureaucracy with his brilliant grasp of practical simplicity, he is called a child.

When he refuses to give up his privacy under the guise of combatting world terrorism, and fight inroads into his, he is called a child.

Such wonderful activities this 'child' engages in. Since I want to be a child like him, I spend time and energy watching and learning from his childish activities. And you know what? It is not easy to be like that. I got a long way to go in this direction, but the resident child chez nous is a very patient one. So there is hope for me yet.

Yorker said, "They're just a bunch of young kids so I don't really blame them for this typically youthful reaction,..." And just as apparently there is just a bunch of oldsters at this site, so I don't really blame them for their typically 'mature' reaction.

And then Yorker said, "So I guess I'll hang my faded old hat on their stand, go for it guys." And that is why so many here respect the guy. Because when he is faced with something new, he tries it out, and then decides for himself. He has this awful atheistic habit of learning from his mistakes.

Other Comments by Logicel

41. Comment #13170 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 3:07 am

The word 'childish' needs to be countered with a descriptive term for 'un-childish' (to borrow an odd literary expression from Richard Kirk who wrote An Exercise in Contempt which is listed at this site and was duly commented upon by many posters--Kirk labels Dawkins as the un-Whitehead, Whitehead being a fave philosopher of Kirk's).
http://richarddawkins.net/article,405,An-Exercise-in-Contempt,Richard-Kirk

I am still working on this demanding linguistic endeavor, and have only come up with, "petrifiedish", the root being petrified, which conveniently captures both the petrification of older humans in the sense of pertrified wood, and also in the sense of their being consumed by the fear of letting go comfy and well worn attitudes.

I welcome any of the 'childish' posters to contribute to my quest of finding an adequate adjective.

Other Comments by Logicel

42. Comment #13171 by StewE17 on December 16, 2006 at 3:08 am

To RichardC who said (#13126, Dec 15 5:39pm): "I would like to see the DVD 'The God who wasn't there' but I don't think it's available in the UK yet."

This DVD is available from the National Secular Society: www.secularism.org.uk

Other Comments by StewE17

43. Comment #13173 by Yorker on December 16, 2006 at 3:27 am

When I first commented on this I was amused and could see it was a reaction typical of young people fed up with being down-trodden for not being thoughtless sheep. Now I've changed my mind; I'm 100 % behind them.

Yes, it's immature, what do you expect from people who are not yet MATURE?? They are at least doing something; they have managed to raise $25K to get willing people to take a public stance; a completely non-violent act that won't hurt a fly, no-one is being coerced. Most people on this site like to rail against religion, but how many have actually taken some action in support of the cause of non-belief, or offered financial support to those willing to take action? Being immature misguided or reckless does not mean these people are stupid, just young, we were all young once. Incidentally, not one young person on this site has ever insulted me, I'll give you an example of 40 year-old immaturity; over on another thread, a man named Boyce thinks that Richard Dawkins, myself and anyone else over 60, shouldn't be allowed to vote, I think even young people would consider that stupid.

So far, I'm the only one who mentioned that these immature misguided people you criticise made a sizeable financial donation to the RDF personally accepted by Professor Dawkins; does that mean nothing to you naysayers? The vast majority of us here do nothing but talk; I think it's disgraceful that we deign to treat these brave youngsters like this. And brave is the word, did any of you actually look at some of these videos? Several of them have had to hide their faces for obvious reasons.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: we need to UNITE!

In the meantime, we should be fucking ashamed of ourselves!

Other Comments by Yorker

44. Comment #13174 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 3:31 am

c6c6dog said, "However, and this a very key objection, some of the renunciations were from mere adolesants. I know there are some people, who's comments I cherish dearly on this forum, that champion youth's rights. But a main contention against the indocrination of children in religious superstition is that some--perhaps many--children lack the mental prowess to treat the subject critically."
________

The stultifying environment of a Fundamental Christian household, coupled with that household being situated in a Fundamental Christian neighborhood, results in adolescents having no access to do anything except to toe the line or to endure crushing internal conflict, that is, to oppose the status quo within, while pretending to follow the 'norm.' In addition, these adolescents are either home schooled or sent to Fundamental Christian schools. That is what indocrination is, to me, anyway.

On the other hand, the web exposes the adolescent to a collection of varying viewpoints. If they have the access to partake in the Rational Response, The Blasphemy Challenge, they also have access to the opposing views.

Other Comments by Logicel

45. Comment #13175 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 3:50 am

Yorker said, "And brave is the word, did any of you actually look at some of these videos? Several of them have had to hide their faces for obvious reasons."
_______

Yes, the young are brave--they are the ones that courageously fight and die on the 'mature' ones' battlefields.

Other Comments by Logicel

46. Comment #13177 by Laurence Boyce on December 16, 2006 at 4:05 am

There's room for all sorts of approaches in this fight and ridicule is a very potent weapon. I think Brian Flemming and Julia Sweeney are playing a really important role in this respect. By the way, I've got the DVD which I recommend; it works fine in the UK. Here's Sam Harris on the subject:

I think we should not underestimate the power of embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people who were writing "The Adventures of Superman" radio show. Week after week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish; and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate organization with tens of millions of members � many of whom were senators, and even one president � to a world in which there are now something like 5,000 Klansmen. It's basically a defunct organization.

I deny the Holy Spirit!

Other Comments by Laurence Boyce

47. Comment #13178 by Yorker on December 16, 2006 at 4:07 am

Logicel

I can't remember the original quote but I know what you mean, I think it goes:

"Wars are made by old men and young men have to die in them"

Wouldn't it be nice if our leaders had to lead from the front like the old days. Bush leading the marines in Baghdad, Blair leading commandos in Afghanistan. And achievable if the young simply said:

"Yes, we'll go, we'll fight, we'll be right BEHIND you!"

Other Comments by Yorker

48. Comment #13180 by Friend Giskard on December 16, 2006 at 4:18 am

The following article is worth reading. Since there are no comments there at the moment, it looks as though most people here haven't seen it yet.

Link: The Righteousness of Blasphemy.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

49. Comment #13181 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 4:22 am

Laurence Boyce quotes from Sam Harris: "and the real Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at."
________

The young's airwaves can be found on the World Wide Web. The young take to the web like fishes in water.

Posters often mention on this site, that there is a tidal change in the fight against religious superstitions which they have noticed in recent years. Though several authors have written best-selling books on this topic, it is the availability of being able to read (listed articles, comments, blog entries), see (videos, cartoons, cariatures), and hear (audio) so much related material on the Web, therefore pushing the tide of rationality to new and potent heights.

Us 'petrifiedish' folks need to encourage the 'childish' ones in meeting the challenge of religious superstitions to use with what they are familiar--the world wide web.

Other Comments by Logicel

50. Comment #13182 by Kismettena on December 16, 2006 at 4:22 am

To Yorker and others who support said immature adolescents, thank you. I'm planning on sending in a clip of my own.

For some of Us Kids it's a serious matter, a way to let off steam...and for others it's for FUN. I don't see what's wrong with either.

To everyone on here who is against this: LIGHTEN UP!

It's a sign of the times, I think, that even atheists are all a-flutter over atheist youth speaking out against ghosts. Whether or not you realize it, you're condoning a culture of silence on religion when you don't want to allow the non-experts to speak. We tend to be the loudest, after all.

Other Comments by Kismettena

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last