I kind of have to agree. As an atheist I would rather promote the positive aspect of living without god(s), superstition, pseudoscience, etc. rather than aggressively shouting at believers. They should make short positive declarations about atheism without commenting on religion at all, thereby showing religion is, simply, unnecessary to understanding humanity, the world, and the universe. I also wanted to like The God Who Wasn't There more than I did too. It's stuff like that makes me wish Carl Sagan was still around.

Posted by: Will E. | February 7, 2007 2:06 PM

I thought it was funny how it was treated by MSM. They'd interview Christians about what they thought of it, and the most common response was that the blasphemers were reading that part of the scripture too literally, so therefore, they didn't necessarily lose their souls forever.

It just goes to show how people can interpret the Bible in any way they want to.

Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2007 2:25 PM

> rather than aggressively shouting at believers.

*Applause*

As an atheist I would love to join an organization committed to calm and patient explanation of the "rationalist" (for want of a better word) point of view. I'm getting sick of the loud proletyzing coming from "my side" claiming all religious people are ignorant or duplicitous.

Posted by: David Durant | February 7, 2007 2:35 PM

It pisses me off to no end when Christians engage in this kind of smug, condescending crap. It is less attractive to me, when it comes from people who have no religious belief.

I don't object to anyone trying to encourage other's toward their viewpoint. I just object to people being pompous, loudmouthed asshats - regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 7, 2007 2:49 PM

To me, it's the equivalent of those trolls who go into Christian chatrooms and say...

I don't see the equivalence there. When you go into a chat room that has a stated philosophy you should be polite, even if you are there to disagree. The Blasphemy Challenge is just out on you-tube, it's not in a chat room. I wholly agree there are better ways for atheists to make the public aware of themselves. On the other hand a bit of in-your-face has been known to work also. I mean it is not really all that shocking (or shouldn't be) to Christians to hear that atheists don't believe in the divinity of Christ. That's kind of what it means to be an atheist.

Posted by: Don | February 7, 2007 2:58 PM

Raging Bee-- So are you saying that Mark 3:29 is false then? Because that is, indeed, what it says.

Posted by: Gretchen | February 7, 2007 3:05 PM

No, Gretchen, I'm saying you're misinterpreting Mark, and I say that based on what other Christians have said to me over a period of a few decades.

Posted by: Raging Bee | February 7, 2007 3:12 PM

the crazies are pointing to you and saying "See how silly these atheists are? This proves we were right about them all along! They have nothing meaningful to say."

Or the atheists are pointing and saying 'See how silly these theists are? This Hell house/praying to virgins/seeing mary in candles/on and on proves we were right about them all along! They have nothing meaningful to say."

Posted by: GH | February 7, 2007 3:17 PM

but if a single atheist says 'hey your full of crap, prove your case' and they are told they are acting in poor taste.

Precisely. Good point.

Posted by: Will E. | February 7, 2007 3:19 PM

Well, Raging Bee, I am only reading Mark according to what it says. And I'm not sure why the interpretation of "other Christians" should supersede that.

Personally, I don't especially care one way or another-- it certainly doesn't affect my willingness or unwillingness to blaspheme. But those are the words of Jesus according to the author of Mark, and they are an accurate translation as far as I recall according to the professor I had in college who taught the book. I simply hope that you and whatever Christians you have been talking to have not decided that this is a "misinterpretation" simply because its implications are difficult to handle.

Posted by: Gretchen | February 7, 2007 3:24 PM

I belong to ex-christian.net, which functions as a support group for the de-converted. Both members and non-members are encouraged to tell their de-conversion stories and get support and feedback.

Some of these people tell tales that express a lot of trauma from and anger toward Christianity. The blasphemy challenge seems to be a cathartic activity for them, so I believe it probably has (at least) some merit.

Posted by: twincats | February 7, 2007 3:29 PM

"No, Gretchen, I'm saying you're misinterpreting Mark, and I say that based on what other Christians have said to me over a period of a few decades."

Isn't that part of the point - exposing the hypocrisy of the "it's God's Word, just interpreted the way I want it to be" crowd? How can it be a misunderstanding if it is a direct reading? Seems to me the more logical way of looking at it is that those who believe otherwise are just trying to justify their own wishes by reading more into it (or ignoring it completely) because that's what they want to think. If christians say that this literal reading is incorrect, then they need to explain how the literal reading of "third day he rose again" is correct.

That said, yeah, the blasphemy challenge is juvenile, but so are the fruitcakes who came up to my car (when I was shopping) to try to tell me about their invisible friend, or the people who are always on tv telling us how we have to live our lives based on their interpretation of what they believe to be are the words of their invisible friend. Next time someone comes on tv talking about "god" - change "god" to, say, "luke skywalker" and see just how juvenile it sounds. And with that, I think it is also a good idea because it gets more people to be open about their lack of belief, to see that, no, they are not alone, and they shouldn't be afraid to speak out.

Posted by: Badger3k | February 7, 2007 3:32 PM

Badger wrote:

If christians say that this literal reading is incorrect, then they need to explain how the literal reading of "third day he rose again" is correct.

I'd like to point out that only some would say that this reading is incorrect. But this is no different from any other scripture from the Bible... Virtually every single subject has multiple, and often-times conflicting accounts which open the Bible up to interpretation.

This explains why not all Christians are YECs, or why there are homosexual Episcopalian bishops, or even why Pentecostal Christians deny the Trinity (in favor of the "Oneness" doctrine).

In all these cases, different denominations pick and choose which verses they'll use to defend their preconceived notion of Christianity, and ignore the verses they disagree with.

Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2007 3:43 PM

I don't disagree Ed. I agree it is a pointless endeavor and accoplished nothing but some of the critism of the challenge it seems alot of it is 'oh my atheists are speaking out'.

Your very consistent Ed. My comment(s) are not meant to be negative towards your post. It just seems to me that atheists/agnostics/skeptics have a double burden. First they must fight a culture war on many fronts and second when they attempt to speak up they are essentially insulted and told not to do so(not by you so don't take this as such) by people who don't even have any semblence of a decent counter argument.

Atheists do not have churches to go to and this leads to a false feeling of isolation. Events like the above no matter how pointless they seem to you or I may help others who feel differently. I think the simple fact is there are alot of atheists/agnostics/skeptics who are in pews and only seek a community and strength in numbers to be counted. I say this without a value on this either way.

Posted by: GH | February 7, 2007 3:52 PM

Mark 3:28-29 reads thusly:
"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Posted by: Gretchen | February 7, 2007 3:58 PM

David-

In all honesty in your comments here and elsewhere I see you as a modern version of a Pharisee. You are so concerned with this scripture and that making sure that you are correct when in reality it's fools gold. Your version is just that, your version. No more correct than another. The only determining factor is reality.

The people came first with Jesus not laws. Jesus didn't change OT law, he changed how one should view it. Law should never be placed above a person. Rather than stoning a woman for adultery, you accept her failing as a human and forgive her.

That the longer we go from the original message religion becomes about rules and punishments speaks to the hollowness of the men who can't see the bigger picture. The fact that men spend their lives studying what this or that passage means I think is quite the opposite of what Jesus the man would have wanted. It's about people, their failings and successes, and the love and forgiveness required for everyone.

Posted by: GH | February 7, 2007 4:13 PM

GH,

You are so concerned with this scripture and that making sure that you are correct when in reality it's fools gold. Your version is just that, your version. No more correct than another. The only determining factor is reality.

This is manifestly wrong. There is only one correct interpretation of scripture, and in any given example I am either right or wrong, but in no sense is my view "equal" to any other. It's not "whatever works for you." Given a set of conflicting views either only one is correct, or they are all wrong.

Rather than stoning a woman for adultery, you accept her failing as a human and forgive her.

Absolutely--and she is to go and sin no more. And if she demands the right to stay in an adulterous relationship, she is not to be stoned but removed from the church.

What does this have to do with the blasphemy challenge? Do you have your threads mixed up? The blasphemy challenge is based on a couple verses in scripture, and you critcize me (if I understand correctly) for addressing it via scripture.

When this was discussed before there was an interesting theme: those who could care less about scripture would argue with full force and exegetical certainty that these (mostly) kids were, in fact, committing this sin--because the truth, that they are not, kind of ruins the fun.

Posted by: David Heddle | February 7, 2007 4:28 PM

There is only one correct interpretation of scripture, and in any given example I am either right or wrong, but in no sense is my view "equal" to any other.

There are plenty of Christian scholars who would say that you are completely wrong on this topic, and undoubtedly many others. And they, too, would contend that your view isn't equal to theirs, since they know the correct interpretation.

Since the Bible can reasonably be interpretted in conflicting ways on the same topics, these differing views are in fact "equal", in that people can believe in one or the other and still be called a Christian.

Or is it your contention that if one doesn't agree with your particular interpretation of the Bible, then they're hellbound?

Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2007 4:38 PM

There is only one way to interpret the Bible. MY WAY! Anyone who disagrees will go to hell. Only those in my church will get in. How do I know this? God told me so.

If I may.....The only good thing about Christianity is there is so many versions to choose from. So you can do whatever you want a still go to heaven, you just need to choose which you want to go with, and you will get to your heaven. I would not want to spend eternity with 99.999% of Christians I know, so I have petitioned God to make a seperate heaven for each church.

Posted by: Tulle | February 7, 2007 5:17 PM

There is only one correct interpretation of scripture, and in any given example I am either right or wrong, but in no sense is my view "equal" to any other. It's not "whatever works for you." Given a set of conflicting views either only one is correct, or they are all wrong.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Although I see your point it is to some degree 'equal' to another simply because it is very possible that a God could speak to each of us in a different way. I think there is plenty of grey here.

Otherwise what doctorgoo said.

And if she demands the right to stay in an adulterous relationship, she is not to be stoned but removed from the church.

He said nothing about removing her from fellowship. You are adding words to his mouth. I don't think you can remove one from God once he has you.

What does this have to do with the blasphemy challenge? Do you have your threads mixed up?

Nothing. It was just a thought after seeing the body of your posts on this blog today.

By the way, which of Christian scholars you alluded to would claim that what is being done via the "blasphemy challenge" is, in fact, an example of the unpardonable sin?

Good grief David do you think those of us who come here for entertainment between work items have enough time or desire to find every religious nutter/preacher/theologian that agrees or disagrees with this or that doctrine. IT'S A FREAKING RATHOLE! There has never been any doctrine, even salvation, that theologians can agree upon. Everyone has their version. It really is that simple.

Posted by: GH | February 7, 2007 5:25 PM

Tulle,

There is only one way to interpret the Bible. MY WAY! Anyone who disagrees will go to hell. Only those in my church will get in. How do I know this? God told me so.

Doctorgoo, I didn't follow the story on the news, so I would be interested in what scholars believed the participants were committing the unpardonable sin. Not because I don't believe you, but because I'd like to track down their arguments. So if you can supply me with their names, it would be appreciated.

GH,

I did not put words in Doctorgoos mouth. What are you thinking? Did I write "she is not to be stoned but removed from the church" as if I were quoting him? I'll answer for you: no I did not. Good grief.

And so you think it is perfectly fine for someone to say that many Christian scholars disagree, but out of bounds for me to request a reference for that claim?

Geez-Louise.

Posted by: David Heddle | February 7, 2007 5:36 PM

Mr. Heddle, I charge you with nothing. My problem is in my 49 years here on earth I hove only met one family that I would call Christian. A very wonder loving family that did not judge others and give what little they could to help anyone in need, and never asked those that they helped what their religous beliefs were. All the rest are just people that try to tell others what God thinks and if they do not agree thay are going to hell.

So we have the same belief, what God tells one must be right. I know what God tells me, do you know what God tells me?

BTW: I am not a Christian, nor have I ever been Christian, nor will I ever be Christian. Neither of my parents were Christian, at least by the time I was born, becuase they could not stand the hypocrites that ran the churches. They did have me read the Bible when I was in high school so I could see for myself how these so-called Christians totally ignored the teachings of Christ. I love Christ, but I have no respect for any Christian church.

Posted by: Tulle | February 7, 2007 6:14 PM

In the US, atheists are supposedly one of the most distrusted groups around. I think Ed is right: This is not the way to kill that notion.

Having said that, this is nothing new. In the days since the rise of the media (e.g. the great newspaper era of the late 19th century), when a group "comes out", be it the new atheist movement, the suffragette movement, the environmental movement, the slavery abolitionist movement, the anti-abortion movement or the gay rights movement, there is always a bunch of loud people who act up and tarnish the image of the movement for a generation.

When I was seven, I was convinced that homosexuality meant taking your shirt off and dancing down Oxford Street in Sydney. Now I know better; most homosexual people are perfectly normal people who don't necessarily like disco any more than anyone else, who aren't necessarily better interior decorators than anyone else, and who just want to be treated as normal people and life their life in peace. But there are still people around who speak of "the gay lifestyle", as if homosexual people were also homogeneous. How many decades will it take to finally kill that idea?

Every new movement, good or bad, has a lunatic fringe. Unless the movement as a whole is a lunatic fringe, of course.

So if you're tempted to take part in this contest, you should realise that you may well be the lunatic fringe yourself. Atheists are supposed to be rational. Those who take part in this contest are not behaving that way. You, and nobody else, may be responsible for a generation of people thinking that all atheists are obnoxious arseholes.

This is has nothing to do with respect for religion, this is about respect for your atheist friends and the atheists who are to come after you.

Posted by: Pseudonym | February 7, 2007 7:09 PM

On the one hand, I'm certainly not impressed with the issuers of the Blasphemy Challenge. Nothing says "fundamentalist atheist" like referring to theism as a "mind disorder," as the so-called Rational Responders do. On the other hand, not everyone who has taken up the challenge has been as crass as they have. It's been a mixed bag, ranging from "teh thiests are stoopid" to someone pointing out that the various doctrines that would have made the Trinity less mysterious are all heresies. I have a problem with atheists being strident and sloppy, not with them being vocal, and while the people who started this whole challenge are the former, at least some of the blaspheming YouTubers are the latter.

Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | February 7, 2007 7:52 PM

The great thing about this and other science blogs is that dissenting opinions are not erased, as they are on many christian fundie and ID blogs.

This is free speech at its best. Many opinions, some very passionate, but all heard.

The kids taking part in the "Blasphemy Challenge" are well within their rights, and I don't think they reflect poorly on anyone. If you don't like what they do, that's your issue, not theirs.

Posted by: waldteufel | February 7, 2007 8:03 PM

That does not mean that there is not one, possibly never derived, correct interpretation.

Lets grant for a second your assertion that out of that jumbled mess of contradictions this is true. How could you possibly ever know it?

Scripture, however, reflects universal and unchanging truth regardless of whether anyone ever interprets it correctly

And how do you know this?

Only a fool would not concede that Christians differ greatly in their interpretations

Thats all anyone has been saying, that and it's impossible to know which version is correct so hence each has value to the holder and all have equal value since outside of reality it is impossible to know which if any are correct.

I did not put words in Doctorgoos mouth. What are you thinking? Did I write "she is not to be stoned but removed from the church" as if I were quoting him? I'll answer for you: no I did not. Good grief.

I have no idea what your talking about here at all. I simply referenced doctorgoo's comment in that I agreed with his comment above mine.

And so you think it is perfectly fine for someone to say that many Christian scholars disagree, but out of bounds for me to request a reference for that claim?

No it's not out of bounds, it's a waste of time. Anyone can do a quick google search and find conflicting doctrines on any issue or idea.

that while scripture contains absolute truth, all men must admit that their interpretation of scripture could be wrong. But salvation, thankfully, does not demand an inerrant interpretation.

That is borderline absurd. Depending on which church you are attending having the correct view IS seen as being vital.

Posted by: GH | February 7, 2007 8:24 PM

I have no idea what your talking about here at all. I simply referenced doctorgoo's comment in that I agreed with his comment above mine.

I agree GH, I couldn't figure out David's point either.

DH, if you consider this point important, then please clarify...

Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2007 8:35 PM

Doctorgoo,

You say "salvation... does not demand an inerrant interpretation"; this is basically saying that a Christian doesn't need to understand how one must behave to be a Christian and therefore get into heaven.

That is true--proper behavior does not make one a Christian, saving faith does. However, scripture also tells us, in the "golden chain" of Romans 8:30 (And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.) and elsewhere that God will complete his work, so that we expect "Christian living" as an effect, not a cause of salvation--a truth that is taught so bluntly in the book of James--and which again leads us to what was on the other thread, that we are to judge those claiming to be believers by their actions.

It would be more correct to admit that both conflicting interpretations are entirely correct in that, according to your 'logic', both of them are acceptible to God, and that neither lead to eternal damnation.

No, it would defy logic to admit that conflicting views can both be correct. And such sub-logic is not required for accepting the proposition that, while God wants us to study scripture and be prepared to give a defense of our faith, as Peter tells us, no where does it tell us that we must be achieve an inerrant understanding in our reading.

Argystrokes,

I watched the video, and again I thank you. In my opinion, Paul De Vries falls far short of claiming that what they are doing is, in fact, the unpardonable sin. He says, in effect, they are playing with fire. I certainly would not disagree with that. He does not state that all is now lost for those who made the video, which is what the challenge implies that Christianity would claim. So I have as yet not seen any theologian who has argued that what they are doing is unforgivable--for good reason, it clearly is not. This publicity stunt is ultimately based on very faulty exegesis, but those enjoying it will have none of that inconvenient truth.

It was interesting to hear the young woman atheist use exactly the same phrases that Christians who (mistakenly, in my opinion) view themselves as oppressed here in the US. She said things like, (paraphrasing), atheists are the only group it is acceptable to persecute. That is exactly what every group (including Christians) who claim persecution say. Hogwash. Dawkins and Harris have achieved fame and fortune and cult hero status in the US. Threatening emails do not constitute oppression--for crying out loud I get threatening emails. If you want to see real persecution, do not look for it here in the US.

Posted by: David Heddle | February 7, 2007 8:58 PM

Pseudonym,

"On the contrary, the "challenge" was more successful in spreading the message that religion is required to have a civilised conversation."

The history of religion says quite the opposite.

Religion has historically been the source of division, exclusion, tyranny, war, and death.

Religion is the antithesis of reason, accomodation, and cooperation.

Dawkins has is right: religion may not be the root of ALL evil, but it sure is the root of quite a lot of evil.

Posted by: waldteufel | February 7, 2007 9:12 PM

Threatening emails do not constitute oppression--for crying out loud I get threatening emails. If you want to see real persecution, do not look for it here in the US

Perhaps then you should read the story from lastyearof the kindly atheist couple killed by the man they where trying to help because they where atheists. Or perhaps in another thread a southern woman nearly lost her job because of her unbelief.

While I agree we are not lopping of heads don't think for a second everyone feels same out there. Dawkins and Harris achieve what they achieve because they have the courage to say what many think privately.

No, it would defy logic to admit that conflicting views can both be correct. And such sub-logic is not required for accepting the proposition that, while God wants us to study scripture and be prepared to give a defense of our faith, as Peter tells us, no where does it tell us that we must be achieve an inerrant understanding in our reading.

So basically then choose what works best for you because it doens't matter anyway and it's impossible to know anything for certain. The mere fact that so many views conflict either reflects poor authorship or the simple fact that it was never meant to be what some think it is.

so that we expect "Christian living" as an effect,

Which of course is open to wide interpretation and meaning.

Posted by: GH | February 7, 2007 9:16 PM

Okay JJ, I can buy that.

I hadn't researched them at all before today... and for the most part, I agree that there is a bit too much nonsense from them mixed in with their good points.

It's disappointing that they sometimes water down their message to include some easily refutable junk.

Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2007 9:37 PM

I have to think the Blasphemy Challenge actually does serve a valuable purpose -- giving the closeted nonbelievers a forum to proclaim their unbelief. Something like that has to be done -- believers have monopolized the floor for too long. Time for the faithless -- the rank and file, not just the prominent atheists (who many of the faithful just don't trust anyway) -- to grab the spotlight. It puts a human face on it, shows that faithlessness is not solely a product of the ivory tower.

Posted by: Brian X | February 7, 2007 10:04 PM

Pseudonym-

So what should atheists do then?

Posted by: JimC | February 7, 2007 10:38 PM

I see "The Blasphemy Challenge" as just a promotional tool. A way to advertise non-belief if you will. That theists have equally tacky advertising, says something about advertising in general.

Posted by: beepbeepitsme | February 7, 2007 11:46 PM

I think the blasphemy challenge is an excellent means of decrying popular superstitions. If the whole world's gone mad, it seems necessary (and good) to popularize the notion of being sane.

Posted by: Loren Michael | February 8, 2007 12:04 AM

I don't think the idea itself is pointless and juvenile. There are bound to be people who make these videos who don't come across as the best representatives of atheism, but at the same time there are bound to be people who make very eloquent cases for their atheism.

I think that the goal of this project is an admirable one. It is comparable to relatively recent movements for homosexual rights that emphasized "coming out of the closet", and this strategy has worked wonders. Atheism, like homosexuality, is not something that can b