…and this is a 
Brian Flemming interview
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: March 14, 2007 9:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's a good interview with Brian Flemming, the documentarian behind The God Who Wasn't There, who also irritated a lot of prissy reactionaries who have too-tight pants with his blasphemy challenge on youtube.
Simon Owens: Do you think the "blasphemy project" is an effective way for atheists to come out of the closet?
Brian Flemming: The Blasphemy Challenge has certainly encouraged quite a few godless folks to unequivocally state that they aren't afraid of Satan. I think it's hilarious that this is actually a controversial statement to make -- as if Satan were not a purely mythological character. The Blasphemy Challenge is radical compared to how we normally talk about superstitions such as Christianity, but it shouldn't be. It should always be acceptable to declare one's independence from Bronze Age myths. In fact, it shouldn't really be news at all.
I must say I've laughed and laughed at all the shrill indignation those little videos stirred up. He's exactly right — the whole rationale behind the challenge was to highlight the misplaced reverence even liberal, self-professed non-Christians have for the paraphernalia of religion, and it accomplished that goal wonderfully.
Comments
In the interest of passing on some gained knowledge.. My guess is that, in reaction to the Blasphemy Challenge, a lot of Christians will bring up the old saw about how "if you believe, and you're wrong, nothing will happen... but if you don't believe, and you're wrong, you'll go to hell"
I really can't stand this dopey example. In my experience, the best counter to this is to point out that they are reducing their so-called "faith" to little more than a gamble. I think it shows the depth of their commitment.
Posted by: DaveX | March 14, 2007 9:08 AM
Bronze age? We don't need no stinking Bronze Age. Judaism is Iron Age at the earliest. Christianity is from Antiquity. Islam is from the Middle Ages.
Posted by: Hugh | March 14, 2007 9:12 AM
Just a quick comment, you seemed to imply that the Blasphemy Challenge was the brain child of Flemming. Rather it was the brain child of the Rational Response Squad. They did and setup the idea. They got Flemming to agree so they could cheaply give videos to anybody who did the challenge.
Posted by: Tatarize | March 14, 2007 9:15 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 14, 2007 9:22 AM
Hey PZ,
The one issue I had with those You Tube "Deny the Holy Spirit" vids is the same issue I have with "De-Baptism Certificates" and the like: i.e. that they unwittingly grant the ridiculous notions of specific theistic beliefs with undue significance.
I was christened as a kid, I didn't have much say in it, otherwise I'd have refused point blank! I don't feel the need to get "de-baptised", although I have requested that my name be removed from the church records as being a christian (although in the CofE this really isn't a problem). I have no need to get debaptised because baptism is a silly farce in the first place, same with blasphemy, it's a totally made up non-problem.
If I say "I deny the holy spirit" as some sort of irrevokable crime designed only to irritate the funy loons that infest this planet, then I am playing their game. Sure it's funny to poke 'em and watch them squeal, and sure in the US you guys have a far bigger need to poke the overweening religiose nonsense you encounter daily, but really "I deny the holy spirit"? (Oh which I do by the way, to any fundies who think I'm chicken due to some residual belief I never had: Should your holy spirit even exist, and should the punishment for denying it be eternal hellfire, I deny it utterly, now piss off)
A) there isn't a holy spirit to deny, deny orbiting teapots too, b) it really isn't shocking or outre except to the worst kind of religious nutter, c) "blasphemy? What the fuck is that? Show me some Jesus, sonny Jim, and THEN I'll blaspheme, until then I refuse to enter into your tawdry little fantasy world, god boy! At the moment all you have is a poorly cobbled together set of bronze age witterings and wishful thinking. I like to blaspheme against something tangible", and d) by even entertaining these lunatic ideas of blasphemy, baptism, irredeemable sin, hell etc even just for the purposes of annoying the godbots is granting them far greater significance than they deserve.
I feel SORRY for these people. My baptism for example was a nice social occasion for my family, some old geezer got to wash my forehead in poorly sanitised conditions, other than that it is precisely as significant as the thirty second nappy I shat in.
This is why this farce irritates me a bit. Atheists, of which I am assuredly one, have BETTER causes to go after. I saw "The God Who Wasn't There", hell I even bought a copy before you could get it for free, and I was massively disappointed. It was entertaining enough, but it made a half dozen good points and that was it. We have much better ammunition and much better ways of deploying that ammunition than that video. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't that revolutionary. So I suppose I have to get off my arse and do something better!
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 14, 2007 9:28 AM
Funny, Flemming himself seems to think he was involved from the start.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 14, 2007 9:35 AM
I'm sorta with Louis on this one. The god who wasn't there argument isn't all that strong.
I'll deny the holy spirit any day of the week, and often do. Here: The holy spirit is made-up. No big thang. In fact, I'll do you one better, even if God did exist, he'd be the bad guy. and I'd pledge to stand against him or any other force that would eternally torment anyone or anything.
However, I think the Blasphemy challenge is a great chance to get attention, and then use that attention to make some progress. The one message that I think people of faith need to hear is that there are a lot of Atheists, and that we are by and large moral people dedicated to protecting everyone's rights and improving the lives of every person in the world.
I think that most people of faith have this weird idea that you need to have god to be a good person. And they need to see that that is simply untrue.
Posted by: Slacker Ninja | March 14, 2007 9:42 AM
Actually, the Blasphemy Challenge irritated me simply because it was childish, silly, petulant, and caused a lot of otherwise rational people to make complete idiots of themselves in its cause. It was also, apparently, based on an erroneous interpretation of scripture.
Posted by: Orac | March 14, 2007 10:01 AM
I agree. I was sent a review copy of the DVD and was very disappointed in how scattershot it all was, with a lot of cheesy production.
Posted by: Orac | March 14, 2007 10:03 AM
Yep, I agree with Louis too.
I didn't find The God Who Wasn't There very compelling either. It just seemed that Fleming was just blowing off some steam about his fundamentalist upbringing. Don't get me wrong, I would too, but it seems even Sam Harris was a bit uncomfortable doing the interview with Fleming trying to get him to say how religion is just plain bullshit, no matter the argument. His interview was good, though, and unmistakably the highlight of the video.
Posted by: andyo | March 14, 2007 10:11 AM
Once again a bunch of people miss the point.
It's about stating publicly your disbelief in god... and encouraging other to do so too.
For some it's a big deal, and they feel less alone by participating.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 14, 2007 10:45 AM
So what??? Erroneous interpretation of scripture is staple of preachers and clergymen. In fact, according to The God Wasn't There, this interpretation comes not from Flemming himself, but from the Christian school that he attended. It was one of those "hellfire" threats that was used to keep children in line. One of the main points of the blasphemy challenge is to throw it right back at the indoctrinators and show everyone that there's nothing to be afraid of.
Besides, criticizing the blasphemy challenge for erroneous interpretation of scripture is like criticizing Dawkins for not addressing the more "sophisticated" representations of God espoused by top theologians: it completely misses the point!
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 14, 2007 10:54 AM
> a bunch of people miss the point.
I agree. For me, it's a matter of "Look everybody, I can say this out loud and not get struck by lightning". It's like breaking a mirror on purpose, or walking under a ladder, to demonstrate there's really nothing to fear.
I don't think there's anything wrong with ridiculing a superstition as a way of fighting it.
Posted by: O-dot-O | March 14, 2007 10:55 AM
Isn't that part of the point? It's the "is-ought" problem: The Blasphemy Challenge is based on what religion is to many people (a bunch of incontrovertible sayings in the Holy Writ). These theologians try to counter with what they think religion ought to be (some kind of metaphysical enlightenment of which Scripture is just a launching pad).
We've all heard the arguments from theologians that Dawkins and Harris et al aren't understanding Scripture correctly. But the point is, neither are the overwhelming majority of self-identified religious people. Most people do not read their Scripture, or do so in a superficial manner with no regard for historical context or translation issues. I'm reminded of the madrassah scene from the film "Kandahar", where the young boys repeat verses from scripture verbatim (and one tries to cheat by mumbling in rhythm to the text). The majority of religious people worldwide are similar.
The reason a lot of these fundies got worked up over the Blasphemy Challenge is that many of them are anti-intellectual and have no real understanding of theology to speak of. Fred Clark of Slacktivist, himself a Baptist (of liberal inclination), repeatedly castigates the "Left Behind" types for blasphemy, because they went to "bible school" instead of divinity college and thus misrepresent Scripture.
The idol-worship of the mass of believers isn't the same thing as the neo-Platonic philosophy of the theologians, but they depend on each other: the masses give the infrastructure support and the theologians, respectability.
Posted by: False Prophet | March 14, 2007 11:01 AM
--Isn't that part of the point? It's the "is-ought" problem: The Blasphemy Challenge is based on what religion is to many people (a bunch of incontrovertible sayings in the Holy Writ). These theologians try to counter with what they think religion ought to be (some kind of metaphysical enlightenment of which Scripture is just a launching pad).
--
Really--the Challenge, Dawkins, Harris, et. al., are getting at what regular people practice & believe--my dad doesn't sit around reading and discussing Hans Kung or Aquinas or Plantinga or Bonhoeffer, or whoever else the critics of Dawkins, etc. bring up. He's not reading period; it's just a bunch of superstition imposed on him since he was a child, and he reacts as such if I say "Goddammit" or "Jesus fucking Christ!" around him. It's ridiculous for the critics of these outspoken atheists to think that everyday Xians walk around thinking about complex theological issues.
Posted by: Will E. | March 14, 2007 11:10 AM
Why complain about a lack of politicians who have the courage to go on the record about their atheism, then complain about the general public doing it?
Posted by: O-dot-O | March 14, 2007 11:14 AM
Once again a bunch of people miss the point.
Yeah. Quite.
And with all due respect to Orac and to Starling (who wrote the discussion on B&W regarding the 'erroneous interpretation of scripture' Orac cites), I found Starling's quibbles a bit precious (and did I mention I thought they were mere quibbles?)
I mean, let's see: the complaint is (i) the actual context is there's this god-man guy who's allegedly healed the sick and pulled off a few other such parlour tricks, and he's all cranky because a few priests are saying it wasn't the holy spirit but some horned/winged wonder* that helped him do this, so (ii) he tells them if they 'say a word against the holy spirit', they won't be forgiven, and (iii) our contemporary scholar concludes from this that merely saying you don't believe there is any such thing wouldn't quite qualify?
Ummm... I'm not sure how gods think, seeing as I've yet to bump into one. But if I were one, I think I'd count that. Close enough. 'You don't exist, bub', is probably pretty much a word against you, if you're a noncorporeal entity whose principal job of late is flitting around the world, sporadically inspiring big haired evangelicals to babble slightly more incoherently even than they usually do.
Besides which, seriously. An 'erroneous interpretation' of scripture? An atheist is supposed to care? Are there *non* erroneous interpretations? The point here, I gather, was to offend against one of the contemporary superstitions, and I'm guessing this one recommended itself both by (i) sounding conveniently prima facie silly even in its briefest description, and (ii) being rather easy to do. Worrying that a mainstream scholar might not like how the louder fanatics came about that superstition over the meandering course of their religion's development does seem a bit beside the point.
As to 'childish, silly, petulant', I guess it could be. I haven't seen many of the videos. But I thought Pat Condell's was pretty funny. And if it's an opportunity that encouraged people to step out and say 'this is a superstition, and I ain't buyin'', I'm pleased if some of them did. Petulantly or not.
*Actually, a mediavel thing, probably, the horns and wings. I know. But, again, I am paralyzed with not caring.
Posted by: AJ Milne | March 14, 2007 11:19 AM
There needs to be a challenge instigated by the Muslim community to renouce suicide bombing and jihad. People could go on air and say they oppose the use of violence to achieve political ends and that they do not believe in a heaven populated by virgins (or whatever it is they promise the bombers to make them blow themselves and others to smithereens).
That would be well worth the time and effort.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 14, 2007 11:24 AM
Just for the record, I don't fear Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom, either.
Posted by: CJColucci | March 14, 2007 11:30 AM
I don't think people like us complain of a lack of politicians that publicly claim that they're atheists. We'd just like that they were sincere if they're asked. We'd also like for politicians not to mention or acting on religion ever, and if that's so, then there would be not much complaining about not being atheist politicians.
A similar thing can be said about the videos. I don't know exactly what purpose they serve. They're not gonna convince any theist. In fact, in providing no argument whatsoever and insulting (for them, at least) to boot, you're just alienating people. If the videos give reassurance to the ones denying the nonexistent, then they may not be very convinced of their stance, methinks.
Posted by: andyo | March 14, 2007 11:31 AM
There's another problem with this reasoning (which is "Pascal's Wager," if I'm not mistaken), aside from the trivialization issue: it assumes that there is no cost to believing. In fact, there are quite a number of costs, including distortion of the reasoning process, needless restraint from worldly pleasures, inflicting harm on others, etc. Some of these even have "religious" significance; for example, there is a Talmudic claim (probably not the majority opinion) that you will be called to account for all of the permissible pleasures you did not indulge in.
To continue the gambling analogy, though: if atheists have made the wrong bet, they will find out soon enough; if theists have made the wrong bet, they will never know. Wouldn't you rather see those hole cards?
Posted by: mgarelick | March 14, 2007 11:32 AM
Angry people prompt discourse. Unless of course they just stomp away...but with the challenge being brought up in media, the media should indeed try to prevent the stomping (especially in the studio) and try to settle the disagreement. Since this would require actually getting members of the Blasphemy Challenge to give their side on National News (as they now have), I think they have been given tremendous clout. As for the reactions even after Flemming and others have stated their case in front of pissed-off Fox News commentator, I think that is just a clear message to both non-believers and moderate religious people of how purely insane the religious right, evangelicals, and far-right conservatives are in their responses to the Challenge. "Endangering children? Baloney!" is the rational response.
Posted by: daenku32 | March 14, 2007 11:49 AM
Unless, as Homer Simpson observed, they're just making the wrong deity madder.
Posted by: RavenT | March 14, 2007 11:51 AM
If you deny the holy spirit you are denying the existence of magnetic force fields.For Nathan Bradfield told me so.
Posted by: spartanrider | March 14, 2007 12:13 PM
If you show me a particular Blasphemy Challenge video and tell me that it's juvenile, I might well agree with you (I find South Park vapid and tiresome more often than not, if that helps you estimate my humor judgments). If you say it's offensive, well, I'll certainly admit that at least one person — you — and, by inference, plausibly many others find themselves offended by it. Judging offensiveness requires an additional standard, I believe, beyond the judgment of juvenility, just like we can agree that a piece of Philip Glass music is repetitive while disagreeing about how enjoyable it is. (Koy. . . an. . . nis. . . qat. . . si. . .)
More significantly, I think complaints that a portion of the videos are vapid and childish misses a big point. It's like complaining that Martin Luther's pamphlets and broadsides made fart jokes about the Pope: so what? They still fueled the Protestant Reformation! Other people had complained about the Church before — Wyclif and Hus spring to mind — but Luther had the printing press, and lo, soon there was too much heresy afoot to burn. (And really, was his stance on the Eucharist any more petty a dispute than the different interpretations of the "deny the Holy Spirit" verse?)
Does anybody else remember James Burke's show The Day the Universe Changed, and in particular the episode about the printing press, "Matter of Fact"? Watching that show (and reading about the time period elsewhere) suggests to my mind many parallels between the press in 1500 and the Internet today. Both inventions served to democratize knowledge; both sputtered forward, emulating the things which went before (illuminated manuscripts or advertising brochures); both surged when entrepreneurs found ways to turn a profit (Aldus Manutius, Google); the surges of moneymaking with both technologies benefited intellectual activity almost by happy accident. The older communication technology gave us the Protestant Reformation. . . . Completing the exercise is left to the interested reader.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 14, 2007 12:42 PM
Slacker Ninja:
Fortunately, the Rev. Jesse Custer felt the same way, and (spoiler alert) convinced the Saint of Killers to slay God with his Colt revolver, forged from what had once been the Angel of Death's own sword. God's been dead since '97.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 14, 2007 12:59 PM
Orac,
Actually, the Blasphemy Challenge irritated me simply because it was childish, silly, petulant, and caused a lot of otherwise rational people to make complete idiots of themselves in its cause.
You're just missing the point. Do you also consider the burning of the U.S. flag in public to protest U.S. foreign policy to be childish, silly and petulant? How about editorial cartoons that mock politicians using surreal depictions of their physical characteristics? The Blasphemy Challenge is a form of mass public protest, not an intellectual argument. It's intended to express the contempt its participants feel for religion, just as flag-burning and political cartoons express contempt for political policies or figures.
Posted by: Jason | March 14, 2007 1:06 PM
Hey, I could use a few laughs...can you share any links?
Posted by: Amit Joshi | March 14, 2007 1:19 PM
Little comment: the stories in the old testament of the conquest of israel describe bronze wielding hebrews fighting locals, some of whom could smelt iron. Most of the world was using bronze, so I don't think bronze age is really wrong.
Now, one could make the argument that the actual religion of yahvism came later, etc., but it's cool that the stories are so old.
Posted by: chuko | March 14, 2007 1:27 PM
This is called digging a hole deeper, and if anything is funnier than the original pie in their smug divinely-inspired faces.
What better demonstration could we ask for that interpreting "correct theology" is the nailing of the proverbial jello to the wall?
How much more ironic hilarity emerges in the explanation, using three conflicting translations, that it was Teh Jews and not Teh Nonbelievers who God commanded in this particular passage be stoned to death?
How amusing is it that nowhere in this indignant defense is it noted, even in passing, that God also commands unbelievers to be put to death and burn in eternal hell in other places in the same Bible? (Because he loves them, natch!)
By all means, let's have a followup Blasphemy Challenge using the approved(TM) wording, it can only get funnier.
Posted by: melior | March 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Orac, how many Blasphemy Challenge videos did you watch?
I have watched most of them (stitching phtoographs is a boring rote job, and listening to things in the background makes it easier), and I can tell you that in general they are not of the David Mills variety (although, for the life of me, I can't see what the big deal is with his video).
Many of the participants are well spoken and obviously intelligent, and they discuss all sorts of things related to their "blasphemy", so much so that some commenters who identified themselves as Christians were pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Miss the point?
I rather think not!
The point is very clear: entertaining the ludicrous fictions of the perpetually bible blinded is counter productive.
If the level of argument is: "You say that if I deny the holy spirit your vengeful deity will smite me from on high, then nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah I deny the holy spirit. Look no lightning bolt" then this is an argument which plays into the silly fantasy in the first place.
The response to some dribbling god botherer who really thinks that the black spot of the damned will adorn your forehead should you utter this phrase is NOT simply to utter this phrase but to smile politely and walk away, or at least demand some evidence for their fantasies. If I tell you that performing an intimate personal act upon my turgid genitalia will cause my personal invisible chum to summon hordes of ravenous winged beasts to part your hair the wrong way and cause you mild discomfort when you see the word "heliotrope" then you absolutely do not bend down and orally accept my membrum viralis just to prove me wrong. It the height of childish gainsaying nonsense! You laugh at me or, if we are being serious for a brief moment, demand some form of evidence for my claims and point out the gaping holes in my woeful arguments. Choking down a bolt of man fat is not the way forward.
As some have suggested it's an expression of contempt. If this is the method by which you people express contempt then I feel.....well nothing but contempt! Honestly, ask anyone who's done a PhD, a grad school supervisor can express excoriating contempt in a far more effective manner than this. If I were a godder this childish and entirely nugatory expression of contempt wouldn't even scratch my armour of faith and fantasy one jot.
As a exercise in annoying a certain idiotic subsection of the religious believers in this world it is a triumph. As an exercise in contempt, argument, or anything other than childish nonsense, it is utterly laughable and pathetic in the extreme.
THAT boys, girls and others, is contempt.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 14, 2007 2:13 PM
As others have pointed out, particular videos may have been childish, but the Challenge as a whole was not encouraging that kind of thing. It's about voicing the atheist position and not being afraid of threats of Hell (since Hell is just a town in Michigan).
As far as it being based upon an "erroneous interpretation" of Scripture, what exactly is a "correct" interpretation of Scripture? There are over 33,000 denominations of Christianity. You figured if there was one obviously correct interpretation, you'd have just one. In any event, Flemming stated that this denial of the Holy Spirit was based on his own denomination's teachings, so it's "correct" to the extent his denomination is "correct."
Posted by: AL | March 14, 2007 2:13 PM
One of my main issues with the Blasphemy Challenge: it's Christocentric. It contributes to a redefinition of atheist identity as being fixated on Christ and Christianity. It's like those Satanic heavy metal albums from the 80s that were all about Jesus this, inverted cross that. (See Venom's first few albums - musically great, over-milking the blasphemy theme in terms of lyrics.)
This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway.
"Do you also consider the burning of the U.S. flag in public to protest U.S. foreign policy to be childish, silly and petulant?"
Definitely. (Do I think flag-burning should be banned? Absolutely not.)
"How about editorial cartoons that mock politicians using surreal depictions of their physical characteristics?"
That not problematic, within reason. However, some depictions of black politicians, like Jeff Danziger's 'Role of a Lifetime' Condi Rice cartoon, cross the line in exaggerating stereotypical ethnic features and/or dialect. Sean Delonas' depiction of gay New Jersey governor James McGreevey as ridiculously effeminate also goes too far. Actually, Delonas often goes too far.
Posted by: Colguo | March 14, 2007 2:19 PM
Hallelujah I've seen the light. That's it folks my lifelong atheism is at an end.
I have converted to a little known sect of Christianity who believe that the giving of substantial sums of money from tainted sources (that would be atheists, other "not true" christians, and followers of heathen faiths) is an unpardonable sin.
Now obviously as a follower of the one true faith I cannot give anyone any money without being eternally damned, however I doubt how serious you unbelievers really are and I double dog dare you to send me money. Ha ha! I know you'll be damned to hell and this holy post (I am a profi...ooops...prophet of god after all) is all the scriptural proof I need.
My bank account details are....
Ok so I'm joking, but do the supporters of this tawdry exercise in futile childishness now get the point? No? Shocked am I! It's a fucking terrible thing when atheists are as stupid as the religious loons.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 14, 2007 2:25 PM
Unfortunately Raelians have decided to take the challenge too...
they don't believe in God... but alien designers of humanity... apparently yes.
Just go to youtube and search for blasphemy challenge... there's over a thousand.
It's fun to read the comments of fundies spinning thier wheels too.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 14, 2007 2:30 PM
Lets try this again. Besides the rhetorical purpose that you scorn, there is another very real, very un-juvenile purpose to the Blasphemy Challenge: the therapeutic process that comes with defying such silliness. Many people, myself included, grow up in fear of hell and eternal damnation, and when one renounces these ideas, it is extremely liberating. This is why it's "Christocentric" - the contributors have experienced the Christian version of this moral blackmail. It may or may not convince other theists to do the same (how do YOU know what will convince them?), but the personal benefits are probably well worth it.
I haven't contributed yet, but I might if I get my hands on a video camera - and Orac/Louis's disapproval is about as relevant as my parish priest's. It's a fucking terrible thing when atheists are as sanctimonious as the religious loons.
Posted by: Rooney | March 14, 2007 2:59 PM
As a exercise in annoying a certain idiotic subsection of the religious believers in this world it is a triumph. As an exercise in contempt, argument, or anything other than childish nonsense, it is utterly laughable and pathetic in the extreme.
On the contrary, as an exercise in expressing contempt it appears to be extremely effective. You may consider it "childish," but others may make the same claim about flag-burning and political cartoons. That doesn't mean they're ineffective. Mockery, ridicule and satire have always been an important component of American political and social commentary. You just don't like this particular example of it.
Posted by: Jason | March 14, 2007 3:07 PM
There is another angle to this, that those of you not previously intensly religious invariably fail to mention. This scripture is rarely read or mentioned, and it is fucking terrifying. I still vividly recall as a 14 year old almost shitting myself when I came across it by chance.
Unhappily in my case it didn't lead to apostasy, at least not immediatley, but in todays world, who knows? Anything that rocks your cozy religious world is good in my view, and this really does it, if your serious.
So blaspheme away I say!!!
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | March 14, 2007 3:10 PM
Oh and off topic .... funny : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | March 14, 2007 3:15 PM
Colguo, isn't it lovely that Slayer's most recent album, "Christ Illusion," expands the circle o' blasphemy to encompass Islam as well? (From "Jihad": "This is God's war/God's holy f*cking war.") Not, perhaps, overly nuanced... but at least it's subverting the Christocentric paradigm. Hooray for Slayer!
Posted by: RedMolly | March 14, 2007 3:47 PM
"Little comment: the stories in the old testament of the conquest of israel describe bronze wielding hebrews fighting locals, some of whom could smelt iron. Most of the world was using bronze, so I don't think bronze age is really wrong.
Now, one could make the argument that the actual religion of yahvism came later, etc., but it's cool that the stories are so old."
We know from clay tablets found at Tel Mardikh and Ebla that Canaanites were worshiping deities called Ya and El centuries before there were any Israelites!
Posted by: GarColga | March 14, 2007 3:56 PM
I haven't contributed yet, but I might if I get my hands on a video camera...
Y'know, that's just what I was thinking. It had been looking like too much trouble... But thinking about it a bit more now, I'm sure I can do something halfway interesting with that opening line.
Posted by: AJ Milne | March 14, 2007 3:59 PM
I hate to quibble over matters of opinion, but Orac and Louis both fall flat here. The point of a Youtube video isn't usually to have a nice, safe, dry, well reasoned and well seasoned argument presented. That's part of what real life is for. The videos I've watched ranged from reasonable statements of disbelief to zany overacting-so what? I've noticed that the word childish is usually thrown around by people who are simply too boring to listen to.
Many people have spent years of their lives being taunted and tortured with threats of hellfire. Why is it childish for some of them to respond? I don't see it as "playing their game"- sometimes the way to show your rejection of an idea and lack of obedience to a stupid rule, is to actually reject and disobey it instead of just ignoring it. Sometimes rediculous ideas need a rediculous response; but i guess if the person responding has fun doing so it becomes immature.
I guess I've just never had much respect for imaginary "high grounds." If your only tried and true response to bullshit is just to walk away, I suppose you could call that mature. Some people call it being a pussy.
Posted by: Neil | March 14, 2007 3:59 PM
And there we have the evidence of its childishness.
Rooney, you've made my point for me. Because of your religious environment/upbringing you deem it necessary to react in this manner. Fortunately for me I lack/lacked said upbringing/environment. To frame this in the language of therapy betrays the "childish rebellion" behind this. Should I expect your cheque for money in the post (i.e. because of my recent "conversion" {cough splutter}). Explain why the two reactions are different.
Oh and it really isn't sanctimony, it's self respect. I don't need to sink to the level of the god botherers to demonstrate a) their claims are nonsensical gibberish, and b) that I hold their views in contempt.
My disapproval is based in very different ideas than your parish priest by the way, and this links to Jason's comment about people considering flag burning and cartoons childish. It's not that this is simply childish, but that it grants undue significance to the ideas it mocks. This is the single point none of you supporters of this action have dealt with. Why? It's the one point you CANNOT deal with. Your parish priest doesn't like it for myriad reasons, perhaps it cuts to close to his own doubts, perhaps he finds ridicule offensive, whatever it is the reasons are very different from my own, and are far from "taste based" as Jason suggests. I revel in mocking the religious in all fashions, this isn't mockery, it's the aberrant psychology of little children damaged by religion and lashing out at their religious society, and it's transparently pathetic. I'm exceedingly glad all atheists are not like this.
This action, like flag burning, like some political cartoons (some are after all a more erudite example of satire), is great for getting attention and great for annoying the usual nutters, I don't deny that. I also find it pretty funny, but that's really not the point. The point is that it does no actual good except in the bleating pathetic "therapeutic" sense you mention. Aren't you a little old for teenage angst ridden expressions of futile rebellion? Aren't you, as a reasoned and rational human being capable of a standard of thought slightly higher than the infantile wishes of the terminally religious, or is your atheism, like your former religion, merely a social symptom rather than an intellectual accomplishment?
The DVD is a highly publicised (at least on the web) polemic and the YouTube action has garnered some attention also. Of course whenever anyone says ANYTHING about religion at all one gets the usual gibberish from the godders, same shit, different day. Dare I say that the ideal (one I fall short of myself, which is why it's an ideal) is to demonstrate the power of reason by its use. This nonsense is nothing more than a counter productive result of the psychopathology of people rebelling against their religious culture by entering into its fantasies and performing acts that are considered taboo.
If it isn't obvious already I'm British, we simply don't have the degree of fundamentalism you Americans do, perhaps that's partly why the silliness of the enterprise is so obvious, it's an entirely parochial affair. Look for example at the comments regarding "erroneous scriptural interpretations", what the hairy donkey fuck has a scriptural interpretation got to do with anything? I'm an atheist for fuck's sake, not because I wish to rebel but because I simply don't believe these fairy stories which have nothing to support them.
By saying "I deny the holy spirit" you are implicitly acknowledging the "magical power" of these words, you are acting on them as if they were significant. Granted the "magical power" and significance of these words is different for you than the christians it is intended to mock/shock/whatever, but it is STILL an action that by it's very utterance is involved with ascribing the ideas behind those words with a significance they do not deserve. I deny not only the holy spirit but the IPU, FSM and Celestial Teapot...so what! These are fictional nonsenses, noises on the air and collections of electrons on a screen, they aren't representations of reality outside the heads of believers. Perhaps you don't get this. If this action were coupled with a serious analysis of the claims of the believers it seeks to mock/offend then it would have some merit: first the mockery, then the utter destruction of the fantasy by reason. As it is, and yes I have watched a good number of the YouTube vids and own the DVD, it isn't anything like it. It's simply the shock rebellion tactics of petulant children whining about their religious upbringing and culture. Burning a flag, denying the holy spirit, writing a political cartoon are great tools in the armoury of reason but they must be coupled to something greater, of more significance and greater intellectual and rational accomplishment or they stand alone as the acts of minds trapped by the very childishness they seek to rebel against, mock, deride or offend. Try to THINK, not just EMOTE.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | March 14, 2007 4:01 PM
RedMolly:
Slayer deserves credit for that. Stuck Mojo has 'Open Season.' (Does Carnivore's 'USA For USA' count? Probably not.)
Posted by: Colugo | March 14, 2007 4:08 PM
I made this point awhile back on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and people seemed to dig it (he was no fan of the Challenge either): why not express the positive attributes of atheism, rather than going on the attack? Something almost Sagan-esque, I suppose, like the universe only makes sense without an omnipotent creator; that our moral codes derive from millions of years of primate cooperation; that synapses and supernovas are more beautiful and profound than any parlor trick or ghostly apparition. But I don't know; to quote Christopher Moltisanti, "I'm just sayin'."
Posted by: Will E. | March 14, 2007 4:11 PM
I think discussing the positive aspects of atheism is a fine idea. Go ahead.
What I find amusing and a little ironic is that people got irate at the challenge videos -- those who did, didn't have a clue what it was about. The point is to say that religion doesn't deserve respect, and so we got a whole lot of silly videos (David Mills', for instance, which I thought was excellent -- he gets it), and now we've got all these sanctimonious people insisting that the right and proper way to address religion is to be serious and sober and respectful. Wrong! Wooosh, right over their heads!
There is a place for serious discussion of the issue -- a lot of people do invest an awful lot of their lives in that claptrap -- and there is also a place for boldly demonstrating that one thinks religion is absurd. And the blasphemy challenge videos were successful at doing the latter.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 14, 2007 4:22 PM
When people start talking about the 'correct' version of 'scripture' it's time to turn the channel where you will find yet another 'correct' version of 'scripture'.
Posted by: Uber | March 14, 2007 4:23 PM
By this logic, anybody who consults a psychiatrist, or writes a song to express his/her feelings, are childish. People are trying to get things off their chest. Religious ideas DO have significance, because many people grew up rather terrified of them. The "magical power" actually exists: it is the power of children to believe whatever their parents tell them and weave these things into their worldview as they grow older. It can be quite traumatic to have to abandon these things.
Religion is not an American phenomenon. I am Canadian and my parents are Irish. Your prejudices are quite revealing. (parochial?)
Why the hell shouldn't people emote? These are very personal matters...and people need to express their feelings. Let me repeat: the blasphemy challenge is not about reasoning with people - it is about self-expression. Please get this through your head. (Also the rather excessive length of your post betrays a little emotion on your part I think).
Posted by: Rooney | March 14, 2007 4:30 PM
Louis, willingly drinking a substance you believe to be non-poisonous in order to demonstrate it's harmlessness does not "implicitly acknowledge" the potency of the poison.
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 14, 2007 4:44 PM
Yesterday at another forum I had a completely OT conversation with a christian. Others intervened. Their most touted "argument" is that atheism is another religion, as you might know. The videos just perpetuate that fallacy.
I am all for ridiculing beliefs that are thrown at us, but to go out of your way to deny it doesn't help. I applaud Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dennet and all of them, but the way they approach the problem, while it could also be insulting, is smarter. The videos will alienate people without giving a proper answer to silly beliefs.
Posted by: andyo | March 14, 2007 4:44 PM
You don't have to give a "proper" answer to silly beliefs.
It's enough to say the beliefs are silly.
And how does ssaying "I deny the existence of God" equal religion?
Because atheist bothered to speak with a common message?
Please. I don't care if it alienates people. Tough.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 14, 2007 5:04 PM
If Thor worship was the most common religion in America, Orac and Louis would still be here complaining that the Blasphemy Challenge buys into and legitimizes the worship of Thor's big meaty unbreakable hammer Mjolnir.
Go suck a lemon, you dour contrarians.
phbbbt!
Posted by: stogoe | March 14, 2007 5:12 PM
----Funny, Flemming himself seems to think he was involved from the start.
He was. My comment was simply that it isn't Flemming's blasphemy challenge. The Challenge was the baby of RRS. And Flemming is pretty close with them and agreed to provide the videos. He was there from the start, but handing him sole credit for the Rational Response Squad's "Blasphemy Challenge" is a little bit off.
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
Posted by: Tatarize | March 14, 2007 5:31 PM
Steve C, I knew someone would call me out on the use of the word "proper" But I meant it. The next things you said are true, of course.
There are proper ways to deal with silly beliefs. Ridiculing might be one in fact. That's what you seem to think to be proper. I do too, in many situations, mainly in response to someone trying to impose ridiculous ideas on people. But this going-out-of-your-way-to-deny-the-holy-spirit thing is not seen as a response by most people (by you and me it is), it is seen as a plain attack. It will put not only religious, but others who think religion is at least important, on the defensive, needlessly. The latter are the people who we need to be on our side and we can by argument.
In any case, you don't care if it alienates people, but it's not only alienating fundamentalists as I said. It is only giving the impression that atheism is no better than a form of modern satanism. Going out of your way to deny unicorns would be equally "offensive" (to unicorn believers), but of course is different in that not many people believe in unicorns. What we have to do is explain first why the Holy spirit is equivalent to unicorns. Then people will see the ridiculousness of it all.
Posted by: andyo | March 14, 2007 5:53 PM
Their most touted "argument" is that atheism is another religion, as you might know. The videos just perpetuate that fallacy.
No, their own idiocy perpetuates that fallacy.
Posted by: Graculus | March 14, 2007 5:55 PM
---- Bronze age? We don't need no stinking Bronze Age. Judaism is Iron Age at the earliest. Christianity is from Antiquity. Islam is from the Middle Ages.
Actually the region is key in that too some parts of the world see the iron age as early as the 12th century BCE. However, the Ancient Near East entered the Iron Age around 1200 BCE, iron was widely available but it did not supplant bronze until then. However, because that region is where Judaism developed and it started about 2000-1200 BCE. That does put the foundations of Judaism in the bronze age.
It is true that some of the books were written later and in the Iron Age. But, the foundation of Judaism is that of bronze aged myths. There is some kind of irony that that will the rest of the world had been using iron for centuries the middle east region was still using bronze and writing the Bible.
Posted by: Tatarize | March 14, 2007 5:58 PM
andyo,
Many of the Blasphemers do exactly that... they explain why they don't believe in god, as well as the tooth fairy and thor.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 14, 2007 5:58 PM
Well, I would say good for them, but there are many others who don't. The thing is that putting out an argument is not the "spirit" of the video, it's just denying the holy one. In any case, I won't press the matter further. I see your point, I just think we should be dealing more delicately for the irreligious religious apologists out there that might wanna join us. Fundamentalists can go screw themselves.
Let's be fair here. Most people who believe that atheism is dogmatic are just very uninformed. They are not idiots. Many of them aren't fundamentalists, but agnostics and such.
Posted by: andyo | March 14, 2007 6:21 PM
Tatarize,
PZ said "Brian Flemming, the documentarian behind The God Who Wasn't There, who also irritated a lot of prissy reactionaries who have too-tight pants with his blasphemy challenge on youtube."
While he did neglect to mention the RRS, BF was (with the RSS) a co-creator of the blasphemy challenge, so PZ was technically right.
You said "Rather it was the brain child of the Rational Response Squad. They did and setup the idea. They got Flemming to agree so they could cheaply give videos to anybody who did the challenge."
You seem to imply that Flemming had a merely passive role and did nohing more than supply DVD's. However, if you follow the link I provided, you'll see that he had a very active role and was instrumental in the conception of the project. Technically, you are wrong.
andyo,
I get the feeling from reading your posts that you haven't actually watched that many of the videos.
andyo, Louis, Orac:
I get the feeling you folks are saying that there's only one way to confront religion, and you've got it. And that the RRS has it all wrong and they're "hurting the cause." I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. Without campaigns like the blasphemy challenge, atheists like yourselves would be more marginalized by this society. They actually open the platform for you to come out and use your methods. Besides, there's a huge demand for the service that RRS are providing. Just last weekend, I was talking to Brian Sapient, and he told me that several times they considered toning down their rhetoric and getting more intellectual. But the demand out there for them to keep giving Xians the smack-down is just too big.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 14, 2007 6:32 PM
andyo said:
"Let's be fair here. Most people who believe that atheism is dogmatic are just very uninformed."
Most people are uninformed by choice. The information is out there. I'm tired of the idea that it's our job to educate them, to politely cajole them into understanding. It isn't. If people don't even know enough to realize they don't know, that's their own fault. If they want be a part of this debate, it shouldn't fall to us to get them up to speed.
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 14, 2007 6:39 PM
andyo,
But this going-out-of-your-way-to-deny-the-holy-spirit thing is not seen as a response by most people (by you and me it is), it is seen as a plain attack.
Probably, yes.
It will put not only religious, but others who think religion is at least important, on the defensive
Good. Our society has been coddling and appeasing religious nonsense for far too long. They need to be challenged. They need to be shaken up. They need to be confronted with strong and unapologetic expressions of the view that their beliefs are rubbish.
Posted by: Jason | March 14, 2007 6:39 PM
Back when I was 13 and first declared my atheism, all kinds of idiots would try to talk me out of it. One of their favorites was simpler: faith is comforting.
I tried pointing out that such a utilitarian view of faith is rather blashphemous (I said it in different words, of course--I was a brash teenager). I don't think anybody got my point, of course.
But it's a valid point--if you believe in god because it's comforting, or because it's the safest hedge against an eternity spent in hell, then you're already blashpheming! The point is to believe in god because you genuinely believe he exists, not because it's more profitable!
Posted by: Amit Joshi | March 14, 2007 6:41 PM
Read the comments that followed the the various challanges and you will see that for lots of Xians, the challange was a direct hit. It was also a contemporay way for atheists to meet and greet each others as well as great theater.
It also created a strong sense of community. There is some very strong outreach going on out there and some great personal storytelling going on out there. These are the the people who put a personal face on atheism.
Blogs are great, but video reaches a pretty large audience as well.
Posted by: jufulu | March 14, 2007 6:53 PM
H Humbert,
Good analogy, but not good enough. If the drinking of said faux poison were banned, if people grew up in a culture where such poison drinking were used as some sort of "I bet you won't drink the poison" challenge, if the act of drinking the fake poison were almost inconceivable, if the naughtiest thing that could be conceived were the drinking of the poison, then maybe it would work, as such, it doesn't. Also poisons tend to do rather more immediate damage than hellfire, the whole point of these silly dares is that one can argue the wretched toss until well after death! There's not a shred of evidence. The consequences of the action (should there be any) are very far removed from the action itself. Sorry your analogy doesn't work.
Rooney,
It wasn't a simple choice, it was an amendment. Try to not JUST emote, see the key word there? Clue: it isn't the word emote. As I said before, I like and was amused by the DVD and the blasphemy challenge as far as they went, but they don't go far enough. They are shallow, trite, jejune, childish and ultimately (if we leave things as they stand) pointless. I am not saying they shouldn't be done, I am saying they shouldn't ONLY be done. ONLY doing these things is as bad as what the theists do. They ONLY leave things at this unexamined, infantile level, even the "majesty" of theology could be seen as nothing more than a rather infantile attempt to justify ones faith in the absence of evidence. Crikey, the ontological argument alone is pretty much a game of "how big is the biggest thing you can imagine, oh yeah well my thing's bigger than that!". It's truly pathetic.
My complaint is really rather simple: I expect better from us atheists. I'm not satisfied with infantile rebellious warblings. I'm not satisfied with playing the theist's game. I'm not satisfied with the status quo, and I'm really not satisfied with (as Jason puts it) coddling and appeasing their religious nonsense. Guess what? Playing silly bugg