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.
- Log in to post 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.
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.
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.
But it's fair to say that a lot of its mythology was recycled from much older traditions.
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
Funny, Flemming himself seems to think he was involved from the start.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
> 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.
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.
--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.
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?
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.
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.
Just for the record, I don't fear Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom, either.
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.
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?
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.
Unless, as Homer Simpson observed, they're just making the wrong deity madder.
If you deny the holy spirit you are denying the existence of magnetic force fields.For Nathan Bradfield told me so.
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.
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.
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.
Hey, I could use a few laughs...can you share any links?
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
Oh and off topic .... funny : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA
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!
"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!
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.
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.
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
RedMolly:
Slayer deserves credit for that. Stuck Mojo has 'Open Season.' (Does Carnivore's 'USA For USA' count? Probably not.)
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'."
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.
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'.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
----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/
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.
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.
---- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 buggers with interpretations of their faiths and JUST (there's that word again) doing things like the "God Who Wasn't There" DVD and the "I deny..." YouTube thing is not enough, and yeah you better believe I'm emotional about it (your rather asinine strawman not withstanding, do learn to follow what an argument actually says please). I'm fucking furious!
It's not the simple fact of expression that I am challenging (in fact I'm all for it) it's the manner it is expressed in. You want to express your atheist feelings? GREAT! So do I! Is this truly the best, or even a reasonably productive method you can manage? By your "self expression" analogy this is the crayon sketch of the petulant five year old, not the actual attempt to do something meaningful of an adult. Religion is painful to get out of? Awww cry me a river Rooney! I sympathise I truly do, but you're actually proving my point for me: this video thingy is little more than the reactionary efforts of embittered children (perhaps in adult bodies). I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying don't JUST do it, and if you really have to do it (and I think you and I will agree we really do have to do this sort of thing) do it better. For example, think about why I am not berating PZ for his support of it, I'll give you a hint: it's because PZ doesn't just leave it at "waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh look at the mean theists, I'm going to do something they think is naughty and claim it's big boy art".
Oh and Stogoe, way to miss the point. {golf clap}
Like I said earlier, it's a fucking tragedy when atheists start behaving as dumb as the godders. Dudes and Dudettes, I expect BETTER from us, we do after all have reason on our side, shouldn't we use it a bit more thoroughly? Oh what's the point, the truly idiotic cannot see past disagreement and understand an argument. Perhaps the childish obsession with rebelling against their former faith is really just a manifestation of the infantile "thinking" that nourished that faith in the first place.
I really think I will post my bank details so Rooney and Stogoe et al can send me some cash, just to show they don't believe me when I tell them that sending me cash damns them for eternity!
Louis
Well, first of all, don't get me wrong. I am all for ridiculing ridiculous ideas, and I pretty much agree with what Dawkins and Sam Harris had to say in their books.
But this thing is not opening any arguments (at least not between us and people who we want to convince). What if Christians and religious people just started a youtube campaign insulting atheists as immoral and such? It's just the same old back-and-forth insulting that leads to just people being more firm in their beliefs, if only to piss off the others.
I haven't seen many of the videos, as another implied, but there are more than a thousand of them as I reckon. The thing, again, is not that many reasonable people choose to give a short argument on why they're atheists, but the whole point of the enterprise is just to say: I deny the holy spirit. No argument is positively encouraged. It is just blasphemy for blasphemy's sake. I see the point that you guys are talking about, but I just think it's doing more harm than good.
I am talking first hand experience here, because I, like maybe many of you, used to believe in god (brought up catholic) then agnostic, and while there, I was very much put off whenever someone went on a pointless rant about how religion was bad and evil. I had to educate myself a bit in science (mainly cosmology and now a bit of evolutionary theory) to finally see what the fuss is about.
I didn't mean "on the defensive" in the way that they feel intellectually challenged. I meant that it will make them close their minds, as happened to me and many others. People like that could easily be won with just plain cold information.
I know. I don't think that we need to educate people thoroughly, just put out the information out there about why atheism is not dogmatic. You assume many people are willingly uninformed, but the case is that many people just don't care about these "ultimate" questions. They don't even ask them.
They just go about their daily lives without worry. They won't say out loud "atheists are bad, they are dogmatic", but whenever they hear the term, they will just think in the back of their heads "that's just silly as well". And that will be it for them, on to work. Those are people that can be convinced by some cold information. The premise of the videos (though, I admit, many of the videos themselves don't) also put those people wary of the atheist. In my opinion.
Just to make doubly sure you get this people: Take the piss by all means, I am ALL for mocking the religious. But at least do it well. Simply rebelling on one silly made up rule is not good mockery.
L
Also one final thing: if these guys are using this blasphemy challenge as more than just a whiny rebellion over a fictional rule and are using it to actually do more than just deny some fictional ghost and get out there and change hearts and minds, then I support it utterly.
My complaint rests only on the utter triteness of it (and the other issue of engaging theists on "home turf" by playing their silly word games, but I'll forgo that one if the significance issue is gone)
L
WRT the whole 'erroneous interpretation' - it seems the big issue was those naughty Pharisees claiming it was Satan, not the Holy Spirit, wot did all that demon-casting-outiness.
Now, if you deny the Holy Spirit exists then you are implicitly also saying that all the actions ascribed to the Holy Spirit by JC were not, in fact, done by it. Same blasphemy as the Pharisees ... except for one point - Satan. But no atheist worth his salt is going to bring Satan into the matter, as that would be meaningless to them.
So, either the Satan element is vital to the blasphemy - in which case an atheist is actually permenantly excluded from perpetrating such a sin (because, presumably, you have to mean it), or Satan is not a vital element, and you can blashpheme by claiming the Holy Spirit's work was actually Satan, no one, Uncle Oswald or a passing pedophile.
I'd to see you argue that saying "the Holy Spirit's work was really done by a pedophile" isn't blasphemous". Thus we can determine that it's the taking away from the Spirit that is the blasphemy, not the ascription to Satan, so your 'erroneous interpretation' argument falls flat. QED
You're doing a lot of criticizing, but I don't really see you offering any solution. What's your alternative? You bring up PZ, but how does he differ? PZ does pretty much the same thing, except in blog form. You want us to start a guerilla army or what?
Also, you throw around the words "childish" "infantile" etc. but those are pretty substanceless words - its just your visceral impression. You are offering value judgements and not reasoned argument. I can't argue with you regarding its "childishness" - since you're not really giving me an argument.
I'm afraid noone really cares what your expectations are. In fact, you are being a little two-faced here...you're belittling the way other people deal with this, and now you're turning around and demanding people respond to YOUR personal expectations. You can't expect people to care what you think when you don't care about them.
I'm sorry but your analogy does not make any sense to me. (I mean really...I can't even point out the flaws because I don't even see what you're trying to say). Can anyone else interpret? What does sending people money have to do with any of this? Am I being dense (Louis will say yes...)?
last sentence should be, of course, "I'd like to...". Mustn't type while eating sammiches.
Humor, sarcasm, mockery, anger, intelligent debate, and one/off things like the blasphemy challenge are all legitimate - and fun! - ways of expressing one's atheism.
Let's not limit the debate or try to say it can only be conducted in a smiley, polite Waltons kind of way.
Atheism has edges. It has elbows. It shouldn't be put in a straitjacket - so many of us have been in the closet, keeping quiet about it, for years.
That quiet politeness didn't get us anywhere.
Rooney,
1) Yes I have offered alternatives (well additions actually since I'm not saying that the BC is a bad thing, just a bad thing on its own) please read back.
2) Childish and infantile are not my visceral impression, look back, as I've pointed out you've made it pretty clear just how those words apply and in what sense I used them. I also justified that. Try reading what I've written, not what you think I've written. The argument is up there.
3) Two faced? Perhaps you understand that phrase to mean something different from me. Two faced is concealing one's real ideas and expressing others. How have I done that? Not at all is the answer.
As for asking people do better than merely whining about how they deny some fictional character, wow who knew, I have standards! If you want to brand me an intellectual snob for doing so, I'll hold my hands up high and admit it. I AM an intellectual snob.
Well done for coming out of the atheist closet, as I said, as a piece of mockery and as a poke to the fundies I support the BC and TGWWT, but is that it? Is that ALL you are capable of? Rather than expecting you to conform to MY standards I am hoping that YOU have better standards for YOU, not for me. Do you understand the difference? Is the best expression of your atheism that you will utter some meaningless words simply to annoy some theists? Wow, I've pissed tiny puddles that are deeper than that!
4) The money analogy. You don't understand this? Wow. Erm not sure how to make it more obvious for you!
Ok let's play make believe. If in the section of the bible where it says "if you deny the holy spirit it's totally unforgivable and to hell you are bound my lad" it said instead "if you send £100 cash to Louis at this address (insert address) it's totally unforgivable and to hell you are bound my lad" what would you do? You, of course have to imagine that this has been in the bible all along and you grew up with it etc which I know is a stretch but hey, this is religion we're talking about, people think some guy who probably didn't even exist rose from the dead, healed the sick and was a great asset at cheap parties. Would you send me the cash just to prove that the threat of hellfire didn't scare you because you don't believe in it? Of course you wouldn't! There is no difference with the blasphemy challenge, you are performing an act simply because you've been told not to and simply because you've been told there are fictional fairy tale consequences (nicely removed from the act you'll note) that accompany it.
It is PRECISELY playing into the hands of the theists. Mock them, YES! Ridicule their beliefs, YES! Foster a sense of atheist community and join with your atheist brothers and sisters, YES! Express yourself, YES! Argue, YES! Tear their silly ideas to shreds, YES! Whine about how mean they are, NO! Just make really pointless rebellious statements based on the very fairy takes you are rebelling against, NO! See the difference? I doubt it!
Let's put it another way. By JUST doing things like the BC one is framing one's atheism in terms of a specific religious tradition. One is saying "Here is a thing that you think is really naughty, I am going to do this really naughty thing because you think it is really naughty and I am not like you". It's not good mockery, it's not good rebellion, it really isn't effective (other than being annoying to theists etc as I said above, at which it is a triumph), it's just a bit pathetic. IF it were coupled to something with a bit of punch then instead of annoying the hick fundamentalists that litter the planet, you MIGHT just actually do something sufficiently significant that your kids and grandkids and great grandkids generations would no more think about making such statements than they would (to use another poster's misappropriated analogy) think about making statements like "I deny Thor's mighty hammer Mjolnir".
Ask yourself the question why people aren't making that statement right now btw. The answer you'll come out with is going to be to do with cultural prevalence and significance, right? In which case you've missed the point. Ask yourself this question: who are you denying the holy spirit for? Is it you? It can't be, you don't believe in it, so it must be someone else you're trying to impress. Don;t believe me? Then why don't you send me some cash, or deny Thor, or Vishnu. Thus, is that specific phrase the best way to express your atheism? Is it even the best way to achieve your stated goals? What in fact does it actually accomplish? The Blasphemy Challenge is not really much of a challenge is it? After all, you don't believe in its subject, and neither do I. A challenge is something a little harder, something that requires a little more effort than mouthing personally insignificant words on a remote screen simply to annoy others.
5) No Rooney, PZ does VASTLY more on this blog and elsewhere than give credence and succour to the fairy tales of the religious by denying fictional spirits. In fact, what I am advocating is precisely what PZ is doing: take the piss, have the fun, do the expression, BUT ALSO do the hard grind, take them to task, don't buy into their crap etc etc etc
Louis
CalGeorge,
Now THAT I agree with. Atheism should ROAR, not mewl like a crippled kitten. This futile blasphemy challenge is a weak gasp, not a roar.
Louis
This is why I lurk...I hate getting drawn into these things.
No you have not.
No it is not. Merely stating that something is childish is not an argument. And your verbosity merely obscures things.
Oh! Reading what you've written? I NEVER would have thought of that!
You are right - I did not mean that. I apologize. What I meant was hypocritical...but at the time I thought that word too harsh.
...fails. Sending you money hurts me. Making a video benefits me. See the difference? I doubt it!
The Blasphemy Challenge does not "play into the hands of the theists" because:
1. The blasphemers feel pretty good about it.
2. The theists seem pretty upset.
Both of which are unsurprising. What is surprising is that an atheist seems upset (and a non-appeaser no less!).
This is precisely what the blasphemers are doing. Where is the credence and succour in the Blasphemy Challenge?
Hmm...let me see...Brian Flemming, who gets an interview on Fox News and gets under the skin of a good few Godbots, and some commenter on a blog frequented mostly by other atheists. Who is ROARing? See why the word hypocrite comes to mind?
LOL Rooney, reading for comprehension not your strong point is it. Like I said, go back, read and you will find.
As for roaring, since you don't know what it is I do (other of course than what is contained in these posts) allow me to remain amused by your attempts at insult.
Now over here at least it;s late, I have much needed beauty sleep to catch up on and I am through bandying words with a whiny infant.
Louis
I'm really sorry...I'm having difficulty digesting the irony of someone who just spent an entire comment thread insulting people, ending it by impugning the maturity of others. You don't even do it well (hint: repeating an insult over and over again actually diminishes its efficacy).
I'm sure you are a giant among men. Sleep well, brave warrior!
At your peril. Being from Smallville, I can testify to the awesomeness of Lex Luthor.
And the only reason that I didn't participate in the Blasphemy Challenge is that I don't have a working webcam. Crap.
So the way that people get worked up such as in this thread over the proper way to be atheist, it isn't hard to understand how religion is fucked up as bad as it is. People get in the way of ideas and have this need to argue over something like religion, which has no basis in fact.
So, tell the "faithful" that they have built their houses on sand, and remind them that that doesn't give them the right to try to knock down our houses. And if that means being impolite at times, have at it. Kick some ass.
And I like that Flemming gives Morris credit for Thin Blue Line because it had an effect. It set Randall Dale Adams free. It led to Joyce Ann Brown's freedom; her case was re-examined after his. It has also led to a Dallas County Attorney who is more concerned about justice than scoring convictions.
In some ways Louis you are seeing the Challange as a one shot salvo. A quite a few of the Blasphemers put out a lot of other videos. Some folks I can point to are: cdk007(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4), xild (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYw5NRpd6ZY), RabidApe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l489uk7roqg)and RidiOt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ke0JY75z94). Check them out and then say that these people were wasting their time.
(Sorry, not hip to the linking thing)
Well guys, we can't all be super-smart genius Real Atheists like Louis, doncha know. Us "whiny" and "childish" atheists who are still dealing with the very real psychological scars of fundamentalism, and who find it cathartic to actively rebel against the oppressive religious frameworks we were raised in should just shut up and let Louis tell us how we can and can't respond to stifling religious pressure in our society.
After all, he knows best, so let's just sit back and bask in the dull glow of condescension sprinkled with impressively large words and insults regarding our maturity.
Arrogance, much?
Well, things like Louis happen. That's how it is. I have heard this kind of talk before (what with watching video responses to the Blasphemy Challenge videos, and all that) and it is indeed true that some atheists give people the same crap the religious do but with a different name. Let's put a sociologist and an evolutionary psychologist in a cage and watch them fight over the answer to that one!
On another note, if you want to see people talking about the positive aspects of atheism, see the "Atheist, what's you offer video" and the responses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqMmsbhw0xs
Some of the respondents were participants in the Blasphemy Challenge. There was also a lot of talk of this sort of thing in many fo the Challenge Videos, with people explaining how they felt better when they deconverted, and things like that.
1. Rooney, since in the above you have grossly misrepresented what I've said and put your own strawmen up for bashing, I'll leave it there cheers. I'm not really interested in mucking about with dishonest people. Case in point: a post or two ago I merely said that you were ignorant of my real world activism and thus were not in a position to comment, I did not say "I am the new Richard Dawkins, bow before my mightyness". You've read the latter, I said the former. That's pretty dishonest or stupid, or perhaps even both.
2. Jufulu, good point, one I mentioned previously. See comment #69. If more is being done and more comes of this then, instead of just supporting it as far as it goes (annoying idiots etc), I support it totally, i.e. I'm happy to ignore the asinine expression being used and revel in the coming together of atheists etc. I may have made this clear before, but in all the whining people have been doing about the fact that I don't agree with everything that slips from their fingers, this may have got lost.
3. Shigella, not really what I was saying at all. Nothing about being "real" atheists or otherwise, I'm sure everyone who is an atheist is a "real" atheist whatever that means.
I also said NOTHING about shutting up, and several things about SUPPORTING, LIKING and LAUGHING ALONG WITH the YouTube vids etc. My points are really rather simple: 1) as a standalone message, I think (this means it's my opinion. not a hard fact prove by decades of data) it's a bit childish and a bit pathetic, it accomplishes little that couldn't be accomplished many other ways. That doesn't mean the people doing it are necessarily childish or pathetic, after all are you somehow above being wrong or mistaken? If I add 2 and 2 and in my haste/drunken stupor make 5, I've made a mistake. It doesn't make me an unworthy and terrible human being. Like I said above, IF this isn't a standalone effort, if this isn't the sum total of people's effort (i.e. sticking up a YouTube video that says "I deny the holy spirit") then, as I said I support it (so things like "I deny the holy spirit. Why do I do this, well blah blah blah"). If it isn't the sum total then my criticism stands. 2) The nature of the expression being used (i.e. I deny the holy spirit) plays directly into the fantasy that we as atheists don't believe in. Are there not better expressions of your atheism than that? Also what is the point of a "blasphemy challenge" which has no consequences for those blaspheming and requires one to treat the "magic words" of the bible as if they have some significance (not mere social cachet, actual reality based significance. That's a difference Rooney failed to appreciate btw). Like I asked Rooney, who are you doing this for? It can't be for you, you don't believe the gibberish you are "blaspheming" against. None of this denies the very real pain you mention about recovering from fundamentalism. ALL I've been saying is "dudes and dudettes, is this "blasphemy challenge" really the best expression of YOUR atheism". Note not MY atheism, not OUR atheism, but YOUR atheism. Is your atheism merely defined by its rebellion to your childhood religion? I hope not for YOUR sake, not mine.
It's hardly like being an open member of the communist party during the McCarthyist era now is it? Rather than JUST playing about with a dare about some "magic words" why not use that forum to further denegrate or destroy the excesses of theist fantasy? Why not get out on the street (as it were) and do basic activism like lobby for secular laws, challenge the "under god" in your pledge and money, challenge religious protectionism. As Jufulu mentions some are doing this, and I am overjoyed and support them totally.
As for telling people to keep quiet, not once, not ever have I said anything remotely like it (quite the reverse in fact). Sorry, but that is a fiction of your own making. Ironically it is me and Orac and other people who haven't drunk the Kool Aid over this rather pathetic "challenge" (what challenge is there in saying "magic words" you don't believe in and that will have no consequence?) who are being shouted down.
Anyway, since a) I've yet to see a single complaint that actually deals with my argument and b) I've got work to do, I'll leave it there.
Louis
Valhar2000,
No I am expressedly NOT giving anyone the same crap that religious loons do. Try actually reading what I've written rather than the distortions of people like Rooney and Shigella. Yes I know there's rather a lot of it, and for that I apologise, but in my defense I am trying to counter a wealth of rather pernicious misinterpretations of the very simple written word.
Louis
Where to start?
First, let's look at the goals of the project and how well they were accomplished. From Brian Flemmings weblog: (I'm starting to get get tired of posting that link)
Please submit a proposal for a project that achieves above stated goals as effectively as the blasphemy challenge without being childish and pathetic.
Next point:
I've reread all your posts several times now and I still don't see how that is. Perhaps I could understand your arguments better if you were to mail me a sample of whatever it is that you've been smoking.
(pre-emptive apology if that last joke came off as a personal attack)
Bwahahaha, I don't smoke, it's all natural stupidity!
Before we start, ask yourself one question (one I've asked myself) is it possible that you simply don't understand what I've written, not that I've necessarily done something that prevents you understanding it. Why do I ask this? Well firstly it's the first question I asked myself, and still ask myself, with this "Blasphemy challenge" stuff. It's not that I DON'T get it, I DO get it, and there are elements of it I support (and indeed have said so), but it all seems a little trite to me on certain levels (not all levels, have I cleared that up for you enough yet?)
BTW I am reluctant to take you at your word that you have read my posts, because well, you're repeating strawmen to some degree, but hey ho, I'll play anyway and assume that impression is wrong. Your questions in no specific order, let me know if you think they're fair representations:
1) Why is making a video for YouTube the purpose of which is to say "I deny the holy spirit" or similar playing into the theist fantasy?
My answer to this is relatively simple. The denial of the holy spirit is based on one interpretation of one sect of one religion's idea of an unforgivable sin. The one thing this interpretation states as guaranteed to send you to hell is the act of denying the holy spirit. Why even take this idea seriously in any sense of the word? Firstly, hell doesn't exist, not a shred of data to say it does, so why should we expect any act can consign our soul (another thing for which no evidence exists) to this fictional place for eternity. The idea is ridiculous. The "punishment" for committing this "sin" is also remote, unlike for example H Humbert's example of drinking poison, no one is going to be able to confirm that this happens or not, it's just an absurd fiction. Yes, it is a POPULAR fiction, but that doesn't make it any less absurd.
Like my example above, if I tell you that my religion forbids unbelievers to give me cash, and that for the unbeliever this is an unpardonable sin that will cast your soul to hell, are you going to give me cash? I think you won't and not just for the utterly irrelevant reason that it costs you money. The reason you won't is because at no time in your life have you believed this little bit of my hastily faked religious dogma (need I remind people I don't actually have any religious dogma). It's not a common idea, it wasn't part of your past, it isn't prevalent in your society. So you feel no compunction to act in such a way as to demonstrate your contempt for my belief by acting within the behaviours defined by it (i.e. giving me cash damns you, you don't believe in being damned therefore you give me cash). By doing so you are granting my beliefs undue significance. You and I both know there is no hell, so why even bother giving me the cash at all? Why not force me onto the back foot and ask me to justify my claim to some degree before you even consider the cash element. (BTW the reason I'm using this analogy is because it's NOT the one under contention) In fact I would guess that this is what you and many others would do. You'd get me to justify my beliefs before you bothered to entertain them in any sense, the reason: they are not popular or mainstream parts of your personal or social history. This is my point. Acting in this way is so enmeshed in christian tradition, by descending to the level of the theist, even entertaining the idea that what you are doing is an "unforgivable sin" (even if YOU don't believe it is, they do) is granting the idea some scintilla of credence. You are effectively saying "Hey, Godder, you reckon this is a really naughty act, well looky here I'm doing it! Woohoo, look no hell!". It's a reaction to this claim in terms of the claim not a reaction to it that demands it is some sense justified. Not only that but since, even if it were a real claim, which it isn't, the consequences of it are so remote that it's a pointless one to pick to start with.
Now one thing I liked about some of the BC videos is that they made better points. They did the "I deny the holy spirit" stuff and then went onto deny allah, buddha, the IPU, vishnu, thor, the FSM etc etc etc which makes a much better point. The point it makes is that not only do I deny this instance of silly "magic words" and fantastic supernatural ideas without a shred of evidence, but I don't even consider it worth special mention. It's just one in a long stream of supernatural nonsense. THAT Makes a really good point. I think it was Stephen Roberts who said "I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all those other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours.". That is an exceptionally succinct and powerful point. It demonstrates not only that one is an atheist, that one does not take the specific supernatural claim in front of one seriously, but that there are a plethora of other supernatural claims that even the theist in front of one does not take seriously, and perhaps if said theist understood why they would understand more. This is why I said above that I found the BC childish and pathetic for only going so far, it needs MORE oomph, not less. It isn't about treating religious views with respect, it's about respecting them LESS, lifting our eyes above the parochial little claims in front of us and forcing ourselves and the theists to appreciate a bigger picture.
So there are two issues there: a) by entering into the theist's deal "if I do this you say I'll be damned, so ok I'm gonna do it, nyah nyah" you grant the theist's claim a significance it doesn't deserve. Take a step back from it and first demand they actually demonstrate that their claim should be taken seriously at all, and b) it's very parochial and narrow and thus reinforces, albeit unwittingly, that this specific theist's faith claims are worth dealing with specially. I know christianity is the most popular and pernicious theistic expression in the USA, so use that to your advantage, make it clear that this ISN'T special treatment, you treat their god the same way they treat vishnu or odin or zeus, that's an experience you share, it's a real consciousness raiser (to steal Dawkins' phrase).
2) With the stated goals of the Blasphemy Challenge, give us a better way of achieving those goals.
Well quite apart from the fact that I already have given the vague outlines several times, you've missed the bits where I've said I support and recognise those goals, and the achievements made by the BC towards them. First off, I strongly disagree with "seeking positive press is a fool's errand for any atheist", and I am really not talking about being respectful to religion here. Do you think for example Dawkins or Dennett or Harris are being unduly respectful? I certainly don't! Courting popularity isn't my goal (obviously!) nor is seeking to present some faux lovely face to the world to gain such approval. I quite agree that whenever an openly atheist person stand up and demands some evidence, or mentions they don't find the vacuous claims of the theist proven, that the popular press howls with outrage and slanders them left and right. My point is that we should seek to be better than that, not just in terms of conduct, but also in terms of strategy.
The good BC videos and Stephen Roberts quotes I mention above do this in exactly the way I suggested posts ago: demonstrate reason by its use, don't react in terms of the theistic claims, react by questioning the basis of the claims full stop. This isn't the strawman many have mentioned of "not all things are reasoned debate" or "granting religion respect", they are in fact the exact opposite. Points like "all you have is cultural precedent, you have no evidence for this claim, the only reason it is believed at all is because it is locally popular" or the Stephen Roberts quote immediately put the theist on the back foot. One is not dealing with them on their turf, one is taking them out of their comfort zone and demanding that they justify WHY their claims should be granted any significance at all. In fact this a very "USA constitutional" type argument: why should the theist in front of you get special dispensation? Why are his ideas better than the muslim or hindu down the road? To froce them to justify themselves this way is VASTLY less respectful of their claims, vastly less polite, vastly harder hitting than "I deny the holy spirit because you said if I did I'd go to hell and so I don't believe in hell so there I've done it". The "TGWWT" DVD makes this point (albeit implicitly) when questioning the godders about mithras and dionysius etc. Not only hadn't most of them heard of this stuff but they if they had they hadn't considered it.
So I would argue, as I said before, that as a standalone thing the blasphemy challenge does indeed accomplish its stated goals of profile raising and engendering discussion, but as a standalone it doesn't do this enough. Simple additions that I mention above and in previous posts add considerably to the power and subversiveness of the ideas we need to get across. Many people, for example (for I've watched some of the odious response videos from theists) simply miss the point, they see it as a "two religion conflict" or an attempt merely to offend. Obviously there will always be idiots that don't get things, but one of the stated goals of the BC was to engender discussion. Discussion requires some form of thought, if the whole exercise is being dismissed not much thought goes on! Controversy and media attention are not the same thing as productive, thought provoking discussion. This is a flash in the pan, to make it more lasting in needs minor but significant additions. Some of the BC participants have done this, and like I said I support that in toto, some haven't and while I support that too, I can also voice my opinion that they should have gone further because it would be more productive.
3) The issue of childishness. Look back, look at who has mentioned the cathartic benefits of this "therapeutic" rebellion from childhood theism. Look at why and in response to what. I'll go out on a limb and say that anyone who cannot understand why this is childish is fooling themselves. As a standalone this is little more than childish pique (as should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain), with the additions I mention it has the reason of adulthood. It also packs a vastly harder punch. The fact that, as I have said several times now, I support it as far as it goes and wish it went much further should give you a clue as to what I mean. I've come right out and said it enough times if you still don't understand it. I'm not ANTI the BC and I don't think it should never have been done. What I AM anti is leaving it there, what I am anti is the lack of ambition shown in the simple expressions most people have used in it.
Louis
Shite that was overly long. Apologies all. I get occasionally lumbered with correcting the erroneous interpretations of the determinedly uncharitable.
L
You still don't get it. If you had investigated further you would see that beyond people's post of Denying the holy spirit... many have gone on to post responses and further explanations of their Atheism. Many have been attacked in their comments by christians and have done a good job of representing unbelievers in their responses to these attacks.
The BC has created a youtube community of atheists... a wide range of backgrounds and ages are represented. Teenagers have felt empowered to take the challenge because of the boldness of other people, and many have siad how they felt very alone in their atheism and were afraid to talk about it with friends.
You seem to equate the BC as just giving the finger to religion.
I think most participate see it as a sign of defiance and protest.
It has also sparked a conversation between atheists and the religious.
It's not just about the videos, there's response videos and comments
and Christian response Challenges.
There's also a bizarre Muslim Challenge (still image of a juke box) and a
smug voice stating how there's no rational response to the Koran because
you can find no fault in it. He also seems obsessed with the menstruation
cycle of women. It's pretty creepy.
The challenge asks people to make a simple statement. You seem to think the religious and religion deserve more.
Steve,
I know the above is long but I've said exactly that several time in and before it: where they've done more I support it, where they haven't I don't to the same degree. I've also said quite a few times now that I support it as far as it goes but I think it needs to go further.
As for thinking the religious and religion deserve more, dude, if on the several occasions in the above post alone I have said this is not the case you've managed to miss it, there truly is no hope. It's ATHEISM and ATHEISTS I think deserve more.
For fuck's sake what is it with you people and your tiresome strawmen? I've taken great pains to explain at not inconsiderable length that these wholly asinine misrepresentations of my views are just that, misrepresentations. To have people like you ignore all that has been said and repeat the same misrepresentations is truly galling and makes me despair for the state of your intellect. Or rather clear lack thereof.
Louis
Neither. I've observed you repeatedly attacking the efforts of other atheists, and I have pointed out that they are actually more visible than you. I am ignorant of your "real-world activism", because you have not shared with us. You have the capacity to enlighten me if you so wish, but until then, it's just a little unfair to whine about the passion of others. The Blasphemy Challenge may be a "weak gasp", but it's blowing harder than you.
I'll leave it at cheers as well. You are clearly beyond argument.
How can calling the BC childish in it's defiance to religion not be construed as thinking religion deserves more respect? Asking atheists to do more to explain their athiesm is meant for other atheists??
I don't get it. Your criticism, which I must admit I had only the patience to glance over...
Is that not enough is said in the video by athiests.
There's not much more to athiesm other than "I don't believe in god/s".
THAT is what most Christians have a problem with. And it's enough to start discussion.
It is the core of the conflict.
You lost me along the way somewhere... and I don't think it's due to my lack of reading comprehension.
Rooney + Steve C
I really, really, really, really, really, really suggest you read what people actually write. You might not think your lack of reading comprehension is at fault but dudes, I've explained the same thing several times in at least 3 different ways now. Other people get it.
I know it's hard but just try to realise that what I want from things like the BC challenge is more reason, not less passion. One can support something to a given degree and still desire improvement. If, like Steve says, you can only be bothered to skim someone's argument before complaining about it, misrepresenting it and generally playing silly buggers then more fool you. You don't read what's written and it's MY fault you don't get it! Are you five? That's so staggeringly low brow I want to cry!
Rooney, I wasn't whining I was merely saying I found the BC a little limp for several reasons. Why it was done, how it was done I support, as I've said umpteen times. Does this mean there is no room for improvement? Does this mean that with minor alterations more could not be achieved? Like I said to Steve, try reading what's actually written, not snippets you think conform to your prejudices. As for being beyond argument? WHAT FUCKING ARGUMENT? You don't have one other than "Waaaaaah you're a meanie for not liking it without reservation".
Now for the love of my lack of god do you think for ONCE you could either deal with my arguments as they are? Your misrepresentations are totally futile.
Louis
I think we need a new Blasphemy Challenge, if only to drive up Louis's blood pressure a few more points.
Jason,
Good idea. This time how about a little more ambition and reason?
Too much to ask?
Louis
WHAT MORE REASON IS NEEDED THAT "GOD DOES NOT EXIST"?
Geeze. That's what gets the Christians panties in a twist... just that statement.
You can try and reason with them all you want but they won't give up the holy ghost.
Why do other athiests need more reason than that?
I read your arguments and glossed over BECAUSE you seem to fail to recognize that
just saying it IS ENOUGH.
Is this what you want?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?"
Uhg.
Louis,
When I say cheers, I mean cheers. I find you quite unpleasant.
Steve & Rooney:
Why even take Louis seriously in any sense of the word? By doing so you are granting his arguments undue significance. Acting in this way is granting his ideas some scintilla of credence.
I hadn't defined him as a concern troll yet. I'm slow, a bit under the weather.
Wow this is a first. I've never been a concern troll before. Thanks guys!
What have I said that is not worth taking seriously? No one has yet responded to the arguments I've made, just the strawmen. All I want is better from us atheists, that INCLUDES me btw. Like Steve says (and I don't remember disagreeing btw) all atheism is is a lack of belief in a deity or set of deities. I'm bloody annoyed because, like this accusation of concern trolling (do you even know what it means) all the previous is a MASSIVE misrepresentation of my arguments and views.
With regards to the BC all I've said is that as far as it goes it's fine but it needs to go much further for several reasons (it also isn't a statement to the effect of "I don't believe in god or gods" that would be a different matter, it's a statement based on a specific christian doctrinal interpretation). Steve, if the BC was "Hi, my name is X, I don't believe in god" I'd agree with you 100%. It isn't. " Hi, my name is X, I deny the holy spirit" =/= "Hi, my name is X, I do not believe in god".
And because I have the temerity not to 100% in every way agree with you I am now a concern troll and unpleasant? Wow. You guys are representative of American atheists now? I sure hope not.
Louis
Science pundit,
What are my ideas and arguments? I'll bet a dime to a dollar that you cannot state them accurately, and if you could, you wouldn't disagree with a word of them.
Louis
The atheists are going one step further and saying that dogma is silly too.
According to the christian faith (or some interpretations of it) saying you deny the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin. You will go to hell accordingly.
It shows a complete lack of fear, a total shedding of superstition... all of it.
Telling people there is no hell to fear is less productive?
Steve,
Please, I beg you, for the sake of my fingers, sanity, blood pressure, and future avoidance of accusations of concern trolling, unpleasantness and a whole swathe of good stuff, read what I and others have written. Start at the top of the thread if you must. I know it's long winded (mainly my bad, mea culpa) and I know it's nearly always excruciatingly dull, but rather than go through it all again, please read what's already been written.
Perhaps then, instead of repeating what I've said, or repeating misrepresentations of what I've said, you'll understand what I've said. Hardly the request of someone not interested in debate, discussion or argument now is it?
Louis
Ummm...
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)
Am I wrong or did you claim you do the exact thing that the challenge people do?
We're not playing thier game if you're using their dogma against them.
I understand your point. I just don't think it's valid.
Maybe it is a cultural thing. You don't feel the overbearing smugness of the fundies of this country. Thier constant claim of possessing the rights to the country, there's to mete out as they see fit. The attempts to put marble commandments in court houses, prayer in schools and the dismantling of science. Around 50% of americans apparently believe in creation. ALOT of americans believe Satan is running around and that we're in the "end times". They are catered to constantly. And here you want us to what? talk to them in our own terms? Show them rationally what to believe with argument?
Also you seem to think that all we american atheist have managed to do is the BC.
Have you not been hanging out here very long?
Steve,
No of course I don't think the sum total of output by American atheists is the BC, and yes I have been here for a hell of a long time (I've been reading Pharyngula since it started, and I used to play about on T.O. before that). Admittedly I mostly lurk at the moment due to offline commitments. Hell, I've even bought PZ a beer or two!
Anyway, good work on actually quoting me in context. So WHY don't you agree that entering into their little dogmatic bargain is playing on their turf? Saying you don't find it valid is a wonderful, it means we have something to discuss. WHY isn't it valid, Steve? By the way, can I humbly suggest you read what I've written before you answer, because to be blunt I imagine I've probably answered any quries you might have already.
Don't you understand that you can do exactly the same thing as the BC without this "I deny the holy spirit" stuff? As I've said several times now in previous posts there are a wealth of things you can do, and as I've said before several times I am not saying that the BC shouldn't have been done, I am saying that the BC shouldn't have been done in the limited manner it was done. That means that you ADD to it, not REPLACE it. That addition does not have to be onerous, and it doesn't mean we have to sit down and have a sober debate. I fully understand the purpose and medium the BC is aiming for, what I DON'T agree with is that this was the best expression or method one could use to achieve those goals.
As I've also said several times now several of the videos DID go further and do exactly what I am talking about (read back over a couple of the long posts and perhaps you'll understand what I've said), and good on them. However the remit of the BC was limited to that simple phrase precisely because it was an "unforgivable sin" in certain christian dogma, and some videos were limited to just repeating that phrase. As I've said several times, I don't think it goes far enough and I think it grants the ideas behind it too much significance.
So well done on quoting me in context, but if you'd read the rest you'd have found all this out already. I know some people don't take disagreement or criticism well, but I have to say I've found the reaction of the BC faithful hilarious and annoying at the same time. Rather than read the comments and attempt to understand them, it seems to be a kneejerk ingroup expression of fidelity. Now this relates to your comments about how prevalent fundies and fundy views are in the US. Oh by the way, I used to live in the US so I know full well how annoying they are.
Louis
Well, prompted by this article/thread, I got 'round to viewing a dozen or so of the videos over the past few days... Was thinking I'd do a video, as I said, figured I'd get to know the field, see how worth/embarrassing the company might be, etc.
A few notes:
1) I wouldn't say I would characterize any of what I viewed as particularly 'childish' or 'petulant'. Nor did I find myself particularly concerned for anyone's self-respect, so on.
Rather, I'd say the material I saw served as a quite solid refutation of an old libel the religious do rather like to repeat about atheists: that they're just rebellious, angry, so on, not necessarily particularly sensible... I didn't see much of that. Just calm, rational people saying: look, I know and you know this is a superstition, and I'm quite confident enough to say so publically... so where's my DVD?
1a) I'd add to that that I was actually pleasantly surprised by that discovery. Tell you the truth, I suppose maybe I'd internalized that stereotype a bit myself, thought maybe it was generally true: that there are a lot of atheists who merely dump one form of irrationality in exchange for another entirely, pick various rather poor reasons for disbelieving, so on (I'm as much an intellectual snob as anyone, do get awfully picky about poor argumentation even in support of a position I hold... scratch that, *especially* in support of a position I hold)... And from what I could tell from the short videos, I'm came out thinking probably I'd sold people short. Maybe there are such folk around, but I didn't happen to find them in my brief survey, anyway. Most of these folk seemed sensible enough, I'd say, and it was nice to see.
2) Concerns re this being 'Christocentric' (to use the term above) really don't look terribly relevant in retrospect. Lots of folks provided laundry lists of additional gods they didn't happen to believe in. Enough of them, in fact, that I figure if I do get 'round to putting something up myself, I'm going to keep any such ecumenical blasphemy light. Seems it's been done.
(And I also quite liked the Science Pundit's video comment on these: 'Ahah... you forgot Apollo!'. Nice.)
3) Concerns re this being too narrow/unambitious a demonstration, also quite moot, I think. On the contrary, what we got was several videos of people talking about how they came to disbelieve, so on. Kinda a video version of Positive Atheism's 'De-conversion stories' project. I'd expect this is actually quite valuable, having people talk about that, and a tight video shot is an excellent, effective medium for it... ya get to look them in the eyes. One of the powerful things about the de-conversion stories project was always that it provided a 'you're not alone' message to unbelievers feeling isolated in fundieville... I rather expect this project is going to have some of the same effect.
4) There was, of course, lots of back and forth in the fora on the usual empty old apologists' canards... variations on Pascal, so on. Didn't read them much, beyond noting, yeah, it was pretty vapid overall. Mebbe a notch more representation from the barely and weakly literate even than the usual discussion on the net, I'd say... But then, it's probably an artifact of the medium. I guess you don't gotta read particularly well to watch videos.
5) Mockery, light-hearted, generally, did turn up, here and there. I'd say I found the overall effect actually pretty effective, there, too. I have long felt religions' efforts to shroud themselves in (enforced) dignity is one of the defense mechanisms they've evolved to deflect criticism, and several of the videos served effective notice that people aren't much dissuaded by that anymore. I wouldn't call any of the critiques of religion I saw mounted here particularly intricate or brilliant rhetoric, mind you, but then, it's video. Not an easy medium to do that in, to begin with... And hell, as previously noted by other thinkers, it's not like it's really so necessary to talk like an Oxford professor to point out that popular religion is pretty absurd. The videos that worked from mockery came across as heartily blown raspberries... Standard discussion of the relative value of heartily blown raspberries versus forensic dissection of the apologiae of St. Augustine would go here, if I had another hour...
Anyway, so, I'd say, I'm reasonably impressed with the overall impression I got. Props to all who've done this already, and I guess it's time I cleaned up my script...
AJ Milne,
Didn't you write Winnie the Pooh?
Have you heard that before? ;-)
Anyway, you make a lot of the points I do but much, much nicer! You're focussing on the GOOD bits, and there are many as you mention. I guess I'm just being a killjoy and focussing on what I think are the bad bits.
I have to say that there are many videos, and indeed the original remit which don't fulfil the wider, non christocentric (good word) ideals that the good ones you comment on do.
No one has yet answered my question about why THIS statement? That's the bit that I still really don't like. A video saying "Hey, guess what, I don't believe in god, any god and that includes...." encompasses ALL of the good things you and I and others have mentioned with none of the drawbacks. No Donnish language or intellectual argument, just as simple a statement as the original suggestion.
This is the thing that I think people just aren't getting. The same goals could have been accomplished the same way (perhaps even better, although that's a moot point) with an equally simple statement. It is THAT element which I think is unambitious, christocentric and flawed etc. Some of the videos are excellent but they are excellent because they go further than the original remit. I know I know, I'm a big meanie for distinguishing between the most excellent expositions and the original remit of the thing, but hey, sue me!
Louis
I guess I'm just being a killjoy and focusing on what I think are the bad bits.
Louis, it is my observation that among the self-described freethinkers of the world, there is an enormous capacity for second-guessing success of any sort. From the carping about the supposed weaknesses of arguments ventured in Dawkins' latest, through to the various stated anxieties over the alleged triteness of the Blasphemy Challenge project, I find I see them as being of a piece.
Charitably, I might venture that some of it probably comes from the fact that people reject religions and other superstitions and remain vocal in opposing them largely out of a commitment to intellectual honesty, and there's a consistent determination that follows from this to hold everything said in causes we believe our common to our own to an extremely high standard of intellectual rigour... Part of this comes from an honest desire to build an airtight case, shored up against any sort of objection any thoughtful apologist might come back with, which is laudable enough, I suppose.
And, on the other hand, I suspect, there's also an element of tall poppies syndrome about it. A constant tendency to declaim: 'oh c'mon... it's not that brilliant a move... look at all the weaknesses I can spot', a tendency following from nothing more than the subtle irritation that it wasn't quite the way you'd have done it yourself. A tendency, furthermore, significantly to exaggerate those weaknesses, in a subtle or not so subtle effort to highlight your own perceived devastating cleverness at this sort of thing.
I can safely venture the latter tendency exists because I feel that all the time.
Now, I'm not precisely accusing you of this. But you might try running that inspection yourself. I try to. Regularly.
Either way, keep in mind: you're probably overthinking it (as reference: I do quite grasp what you're saying in your notion of giving a sort of credit to the superstition by paying just enough attention to it to break one of its odd old rules, but honestly, I find this a spectacularly anemic rejoinder, and am not terribly worried about it). Bear in mind as well: religion is principally a social phenomenon, spread and held in place by a complex tapestry of social carrots and sticks. People get sucked in and held in by social demands, by a need for belonging, breaking out of that in a community heavily dominated by religion is complicated, expensive. Beyond this, there's the Faustian bargain any victim of a con makes with his self-respect: admitting you've been had after years of buying into something gets really expensive, is really uncomfortable, so you go with the lesser immediate cost, hang onto the delusion, rather than admit to yourself it is one.
Intellectually, on the other hand, religions are paper thin tissues of deception, fragile as a Chinese lantern, easily punctured from any angle. The reason they survive isn't because they really have any coherent intellectual answer to criticism, it's principally because people don't take the shot in the first place, due to the social constraints that prevent their doing so... And when they do take the shot, others will do their level best to ignore it, or to pretend any half-baked and beside the point answer they concoct serves as a sufficient rejoinder, driven to do so by the same constraints. The argument could be a thing of beauty, and they're still thinking: but if I admit this guy has got a point, it's really gonna make a mess of things... like I wanna join the hated minority... Where's my daughter gonna get married... So they say, no thanks. Ain't gonna look that argument in the eyes.
So I think I'd worry a lot less about making airtight arguments, a lot less time worrying about labrynthine and quite beside the point rejoinders that might be levelled, spend a lot less breath policing folk who make arguments slightly different than your own, and spend a lot more just speaking up on your own, in your way. Because that's how you change the culture, getting it through people's head that yes, you can spot the absurdities in religion, you can speak to them, and oh, you're not alone. Something this project has done admirably, in retrospect.
And bear in mind: implying even accidentally that anyone is being 'childish' who's just managed to get their nerve up to step out of just so tight and oppressive a social control structure as exists in certain families and communities to say they don't believe this stuff, implying such a thing as that is beyond counterproductive. I'd go so far as to say it's a really, really spectacularly stupid thing to do.
This is the thing that I think people just aren't getting. The same goals could have been accomplished the same way (perhaps even better, although that's a moot point) with an equally simple statement.
Actually, I find that unlikely.
Louis, I can't pretend to know why the Rational Response Squad used the 'I deny the holy spirit' hook. But I do suspect I know part of why it caught on: as I mentioned previously, it has a number of useful properties that contribute to its ability to spread. Expanding on this:
1. It's sounds prima facie absurd, even in the simplest description.
2. It's an easily violated injunction, so you can do it in a ten second clip, if you feel so inspired.
3. It's memorable.
4. There's a certain whiff of the archaic about it... nice odour of ancient curses. The curse of the mummy or the curse of Yahweh's pissed-off kid, nicely redolent of a certain kind of mouldy superstition.
... I suspect that all that gives it legs, fires the imagination, gives people a place to kick off from. Merely saying: look, just give us a video in which you deny all gods, it's a bit more flat, almost bureaucratic, sounds rather unimaginative, really. I don't think it would have been quite as much fun.
My $2. And now I think I'd better get back to that script.
I think on a basic level by stating "I deny the holy spirit." You're showing how absurd you think the notion of a holy spirit and eternal damnation is. It's not giving the idea any more credence because you're using their own language. We make fun of their language and dogma all the time.
It's supposedly, to some, the one unforgivable act against god. That's why using their language IS important. It's ridiculing the very dogmatic idea that god demands recognition.
It's an exercise. It's saying this unforgiveable sin is a joke. So pointless that I'm doing it to get a free dvd. I think it blows fundies minds. It makes them really ponder how unbelieving people actually are.
WHAAAAAAAAATTTT!!!! I'm exaggerating the weaknesses in order to promote my own cleverness at this sort of this?
You...you...you...might well be right!
My wife has just looked it because I'm roaring with laughter.
Ok, I can honestly say that after large amounts of introspection conducted before, during and after the Blasphemy Challenge thing, I am not at all worried about how clever (or otherwise) I appear to be at this type of thing. I do however hold my hands up completely to the "perfectionist" thing though. An ideal I self-admittedly fall short of regularly. As pretty Tall Poppy myself on occasion I can assure you I am not trying to cut others down to size, I am honestly stating what I see as a shortcoming. As to overthinking it, 100% guilty as charged.
I take your point about a flat out denial being perhaps a bit dull, but that really is a personal taste issue. I find it quite pleasing to simply flat out state my lack of belief, it has a pleasant harshness. I also like pushing the burden of proof back onto the believer. The "I deny the Holy Spirit" thing does leave room for the standard "you'll see in hell" rejoinder. Yes I know it's ALWAYS there no matter what you say, and yes I know it's a crap rejoinder. It's inadvertently buying into the notion of "sin". Yes I understand the mockery element, yes I understand how riled it gets the fundies, and yes as I've said I support it. I am also I think fairly free to say I don't consider it the optimum phrase that could have been used. I can also say that whilst not being entirely sure of what the optimum phrase should be. That is an entirely subjective thing, as I said above. My opinion, not a cold, hard fact.
As for your comments about ex-believers, I've already made them (in perhaps a less charitable mein) up thread. Oh and I didn't start out with the childish thing, that was someone else, although I happily did and do continue it. I also made pretty clear it was the IDEA not the people I considered childish. I still think it's a pretty childish and flawed expression for the reasons I mention above. That doesn't mean the people who utter it are or are not childish. A point I made exceptionally clearly, though it fell on deaf ears. Not all criticism stems from a desire to cut down tall poppies, to insult, to self aggrandise or to make perfect. It can come from a genuine desire to improve and out of genuine concern. Did you think of that I wonder?
Louis
Oh and I think the BC caught on because of a free DVD, good online publicity and it required little effort. I don't think the phrase was a good hook at all. I'll happily admit YMMV.
Louis
So does anybody here think that Louis even knows what, exactly, he is writing?
I understand what you are trying to say-you think many of the videos are immature. Great. That is the whole of your argument. You have not presented much else that needs understanding, so you can stop accusing people of misunderstanding you.
Also, it seems to be your (Louis') reading comprehension that could use some work. Other posters have tried to explain their disagreements with your position, and all you do is question their reading skills and offer the same whiny, petulant, childish complaint wrapped in a fresh ton of steaming verbiage. You don't like some of the videos. They are not intellectually challenging, stuffy, dry or boring enough for you. Message received, o.k?
Lastly, your analogies well and truly suck. They are saying almost the exact opposite of what you are attempting to convey, as has been pointed out. I will not send you money. No matter how much you tell me not to. I will blaspheme. Even though people tell me not to. They mean it when they say hellfire, and it needs to be ridiculed. You do not mean it, but are just baiting (and masturbating) a rhetorical snare; thus also requiring some ridicule. No one is playing into their hands, because they really don't want us to blaspheme. No one is playing into your hands, because it's a stupid, backward analogy. Understand? The religionists who are offended, and the blasphemers who offend are each more intellectually stimulating than you.
You know, I think you've missed the point of what I was saying. But hey, don't let that worry you.
I understand that it's an ingroup identity thing for you. You don't need to actually read what I've actually written, you can focus on a couple of phrases, take them out of context, tell me what you think I mean when I've said pretty clearly that it isn't what you think, and accuse me of a laundry list of crimes.
I think a lot of things are daft/childish/whatever, guess what, I think a lot of things I do are daft/childish/whatever, I don't get to escape being a muppet on occasion. Do you? I don't claim to be perfect, do you?
I also haven't said a thing about not blaspheming, in fact I heartily encourage it. I also haven't said a thing about being dry and stuffy and boring, as I've said I heartily support the BC, and most of the videos I watched were excellent. My point is, and always has been that they were excellent because they went beyond the remit of the BC. The videos that stayed within the original remit were, IMO (subjective, not hard fact) less excellent. I know you don't get this, so hey, why waste my time?
Because instead of being a simple critic of the BC I'm someone who passionately agrees with it, passionately agrees with atheists standing up for ourselves and I passionately and very sincerely care about it. Yes, I know you don't want to believe that, and I know you want to vilify me because I don't 100% unreservedly come out and sooth your ego, but hey, there we go, 'tis the world we live in.
It seems because I have made a PR fuck up (and oh boy have I!) I am doomed to be insulted by the likes of you. Well done me!
Louis
I suppose I can ask this question:
Are we as atheists above question? Are our arguments, actions, claims as individuals or groups beyond reproach?
I'd say "no" to both questions and yes that includes me.
Granted I haven't been excessively polite or diplomatic in my comments on this thread, and yes in hindsight that is indeed a total cock up on my part. Hands up, mea culpa, I screwed the pooch.
AJ Milne did a good thing, he turned the mirror of criticism back onto me. Great idea. But can you (that's AJ Milne, Rooney, Steve_C, Neil, etc etc etc) cope with the focus of that mirror too? I reckon some can, some can't. So despite my total PR fuck up, and the fact that I freely admit that it is a distinct possibility I'm wrong about some things (maybe not the things you think) can you take the criticism as it's intended? Not as a cutting down of "tall poppies", not as a party pooper, not out of some desire to be a pendant or perfectionist, not out of any desire to self aggrandise but out of a genuine desire to see things done better (not perfectly, just better). Just in fact because I actually give a shit.
Can you admit that possibility? Not the possibility that I am right or wrong, just the possibility that your ideas about my motivations are wrong?
I can admit when I'm wrong, and indeed have done, can you?
Louis
AH fuck it, tell you what, I'm wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
I made a mistake (or rather series of mistakes) and stuck with it (them). My bad entirely, I fucked up.
I've re-read the thread and realised how wrong I was. No sarcasm, not innuendo, just re-reading what I've written and realising how poorly I tried to get my point across. Chalk it up to a bad week.
Louis
Umm... you know you can't do that, right?
I mean, this is the net. Saying you're wrong is... ummm... (flips thru rulebook...) well... let's see...
Hmm... Nothing under flame wars, rules of engagement thereof... let's see what we've got in the netiquette sections...
Okay... Technically, I guess it's not forbidden or anything. Still, I'm sure it's just not done...
Seriously. Takes a big man to say that.
And to answer your questions regarding motivations and the direction of the mirror: I absolutely was not merely softening it (or certainly not dishonestly) when I introduced the notion as a 'you might want to consider this...', nor did I mention the dimension regarding anxieties over intellectual honesty just to be nice... Nor was I ever certain about it either way.
And when I wrote that I do that myself, watch myself for that all the time, I quite meant it.
So no, I can't say I much like that mirror much either. But I think I can take it.
Well, you know. Usually, anyway.
Again, tho'. You're a big man.
No harm done Louis. We all come from our own perspectives.
Personally I blame the hallucinogenic drugs. I wasn't taking my required dose. Big man? We prefer the term "husky". ;-)
I'm not saying I lack all the reservations I have about the BC, but I read back over what I'd written, realised I had gone ENTIRELY the wrong way about communicating them (even the good ones, which most of them weren't), wrongly added a couple of things that seemed like a good idea and weren't, and generally fucked up and made an arse of myself. I'm kicking myself!
I know this admitting when you're wrong thing isn't done by the way. Terribly wicked of me, won't let it happen again.
Cheers for your comments
Louis