Blasphemy Challenge

[scotth]

The Rational Response Squad is running a "Blasphemy Challenge" for this holiday season.

You can get a free copy of "The God Who Wan't There" on DVD for contributing.

Details here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3503

[Beady]

You can get a free copy of "The God Who Wan't There" on DVD for contributing.

Got a copy. Rather disappointing, I thought.

[scotth]

Got a copy. Rather disappointing, I thought.

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

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

The extras are the footnotes, if you will.

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

[scotth]

This is starting to get some news coverage.

G08mttoqd0g
68cCXpBGCQ4&eurl=

[Cello Man]

I definitely agree with the cause, but I think that the approach to the Blasphemy Challenge (which seems to me like it's designed to just push peoples' buttons and not start a productive debate) will ultimately produce results similar to this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[AWPrime]

Nice, but is denying the holy spirit worse then making a zombie porn flick called Jesus rises again?

[scotth]

I definitely agree with the cause, but I think that the approach to the Blasphemy Challenge (which seems to me like it's designed to just push peoples' buttons and not start a productive debate) will ultimately produce results similar to this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Yes, I am rather intrested to see how this tact works out.

[Invidious]

I thought this thread was going to be about who could fit the most communion wafers in their mouth...

Hmm. With a little Holy Frosting you could have yourself a Jesus Oreo.

[Cello Man]

We could start our own company selling zero-carb communion wafers. They could be named "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus".

[Eos of the Eons]

http://blasphemychallenge.com/

I'm afraid someone will see my video and use it against me in various ways.

*scurries away in paranoid fashion*

[jjramsey]

I like this blogger's take on it (http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2006/12/defame-and-de-glory.html). He points out that saying the Holy Spirit doesn't exist is blasphemy. This, now, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:

Allow me to help. Say after me:

The Holy Spirit rests on Sunday on Fire Island dressed in a pink bra and panty set, while tastefully decorating heaven the rest of the week.

There. That is real defamation ... at least among the crowd that believes in the Holy Ghost thingie to begin with.

:duck:

[Merko]

I don't think blasphemy is a good way to convert true believers. However, I think it's still important to blaspheme, though it should be done tactfully.

Using blasphemy in the face of believers, just to annoy them, would just be rude.

However, using it as a part of everyday language goes to show that:
a) there is no need to be respectful of mythological concepts, there are no bad consequences arising from disrespecting them
b) well-known mythological concepts can be used metaphorically to express ourselves better and clearer, and we have no obligation to refrain from doing so just because some people would find it improper
c) many people don't find this improper at all

That said, if you're talking to a wide audience, you need to adjust your message to avoid offending some people, or you will not get the message across. So in such a situation I don't think it would make sense to use blasphemy unless you're adressing an issue which absolutely requires it.

[baron]

Why set out to purposely offend people for no reason? I accept that to pander to others' beliefs as if they somehow demand an elevated level of respect is not a good thing, but this kind of idiocy is reprehensible and fit only for morons.

[Beerina]

We could start our own company selling zero-carb communion wafers. They could be named "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus".

I wonder if there are certain hydrocarbon molecules from wheat that must be present before transubstantiation can work. While obviously God could transubstantiate anything into Jesus' body, clearly it must be something that at least can be called "bread". (Must it be leavened? Obviously not unleavened is required since I've partaken in some very intimate masses given my auntie is a nun and they just ripped normal yeasted bread up, after transubstantiation had apparently occured.)

It further occurs to me there's probably an answer to my question on Wikipedia, or somewhere on the 'net.

[Beerina]

I've spent 20 years building up material for a thing like this, but I'm afraid to try lest I win and get fired. Becoming an icon of boycot-likeing hatred for the masses is not a good career move for someone in a corporation.

In my place, I nominate Robert DeNiro's soliloquy from the end of "Devil's Advocate". A true beauty of vitriolic ejaculation.

[KingMerv00]

Why set out to purposely offend people for no reason? I accept that to pander to others' beliefs as if they somehow demand an elevated level of respect is not a good thing, but this kind of idiocy is reprehensible and fit only for morons.

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

[Cello Man]

...I nominate Robert DeNiro's soliloquy from the end of "Devil's Advocate". A true beauty of vitriolic ejaculation.

That was Al Pacino. And yes, it was a good speech.

[KingMerv00]

That was Al Pacino. And yes, it was a good speech.


"I'm a FAN of man!"

[Beady]

These YouTube videos are supposed to show that atheists are confident in their beliefs.

That's what they're supposed to show. What do they show?

[KingMerv00]

That's what they're supposed to show. What do they show?

That atheists are confident in their beliefs and hate Christianity?

[Merko]

"I'm a FAN of man!"

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

[baron]

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

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

[l0rca]

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

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

[Beady]

That atheists are confident in their beliefs and hate Christianity?

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

[Eos of the Eons]

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

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

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

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

[Beady]

I challenge any one athiest ...

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

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

[Eos of the Eons]

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

You're so sure about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jjramsey]

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

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

[Dark Jaguar]

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

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

The extras are the footnotes, if you will.

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

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

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

[Halden]

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

[Beady]

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

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

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

[Beady]

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

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

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

[scotth]

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

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

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

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

[scotth]

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

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

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

[scotth]

Beady....

Several facts mess up your position....

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

[baron]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rasmus]

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

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

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

[Beady]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eos of the Eons]

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

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

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

[KingMerv00]

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

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

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

[baron]

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

No, Atheists don't come knocking on my door. Nor, in 38 years of life, have any Christians or denominations of other faiths. However, I accept that this does occasionally occur and when it does I imagine they are polite and non-threatening and, right or wrong, they believe in their message. It's not a message of negativity spawned by a bunch of self-righteous people who are so frustrated that others decline to benefit from their towering intellect that they invent ever more outrageous ways of proving they are right.

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

No part of that insults me but if you can't see where the problem lies then I'm afraid nothing I can say will make a difference.

[fuelair]

Nice, but is denying the holy spirit worse then making a zombie porn flick called Jesus rises again?

I prefer "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" (a real film).

[Invidious]

I prefer "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" (a real film).
A real EXCELLENT film. I mean, Jesus has to fend off an entire street gang of marauding atheists! You go, Jesus! Defeat those evil Day-walking Lesbian Vampires!

[fuelair]

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

and "det far som fanden" would mean? (I believe it is spelled correctly, less marks my keyboard doesn't make,. but it's remembered from over 20 years ago.):)

[Beady]

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

It's that anger that causes the problem; it's axiomatic that, in a contest, getting your opponent angry is a good tactic because he's not thinking if he's angry.

So, it seems we have an awful lot of non-thinking atheists and skeptics. I'm trying to puzzle out how this is a good thing.

BTW, regardless of how it looks, I am not defending religion. I am, however, arguing against its demonization by the nonbelievers. Near as I can tell, I come from almost exactly the same religious and educational background as whatzizname, who did "The God Who Wasn't There," and I think he went way over the top (especially when he visited his old school). There are some things I take on faith, although I do think an examination of the actual numbers will back me up. One of these is that there are more good people in the world than bad; another is that good and bad have absolutely nothing to do with demographics of any sort. One manifestation of this is that I believe the people who are out there at the Salvation Army pots are not there because they're in it for themselves, but because they figure it's the right thing to do. Likewise, I believe that most Christians are not "into" charity out of fear or because they're jockeying for a better seat at the eternal feast, but because it's in their job description as Christians; they do it because it's what they do. Yes, there are Christians who are charitable in order to stick it to their friends and acquaintances, but that's more of a human failing than exclusively Christian.

[juryjone]

Who gives, who doesn't. Who's angry, who's not.

There is no group of people who has exclusive rights to charity or anger. I find all of this kind of amusing. I laugh at the Christians who are offended by people saying "I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit", I laugh at those who perceive this as a "demonization" of Christianity, and I laugh at the atheists who thinks this makes any kind of difference. Intolerance is present all around us.

The only difference I can see is that intolerance is part of the Christian rulebook, while atheists have no rulebook.

[Tricky]

A real EXCELLENT film. I mean, Jesus has to fend off an entire street gang of marauding atheists! You go, Jesus! Defeat those evil Day-walking Lesbian Vampires!

You got me thinking, guys, and that's always scary. In this case, it lead me to start this extremely tasteless thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2189722#post2189722). And when I say tasteless, I really mean it.

[jjramsey]

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

I'm confused about the point you're trying to make. What's wrong with Christian charities identifying themselves as Christian charities?

Nothing at all. My point was simply that nontheistic charities don't usually seem to think of themselves as nontheistic, so you aren't likely to find an explicitly atheist charity as a counterpart to a Christian charity.

[Darth Rotor]

The only difference I can see is that intolerance is part of the Christian rulebook, while atheists have no rulebook.
While it is handy not to have a rulebook, I am trying to find the intolerance in "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless one is predisposed not to tolerate one's self. :boggled:

DR

[Rasmus]

While it is handy not to have a rulebook, I am trying to find the intolerance in "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless one is predisposed not to tolerate one's self. :boggled:

It's the type of "love" that assumes it is good and just that all those that take this challenge should burn in hell for all eternity.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,425,The-Blasphemy-Challenge,The-Rational-Response-Squad


Let's see if we can get the numbers up more.

All of you post your videos on YOUTUBE and deny the holy spirit.

[Beady]

The only difference I can see is that intolerance is part of the Christian rulebook, while atheists have no rulebook.

But we're not just atheists, here. "We" are supposed to be critical thinkers above and beyond everything else, and critical thinkers do have a rulebook.

The way I interpret those rules is that atheism derived from a reasoned examination of the facts is one thing, while atheism derived and rationalized from a personal dislike of religion is just as anethema to a critical thinker as is religion.

It seems to me that many/most of the atheists on this board do an awful lot of cherrypicking, rejecting offhand anything that might throw the even the least favorable light onto believers, whether as individuals or as a group. That is against the rules.

[Beady]

Let's see if we can get the numbers up more.

All of you post your videos on YOUTUBE and deny the holy spirit.

No. This isn't a football game.

[rebecca]

I'm sure this thread is hosting a very nice debate I don't feel like reading, but I just wanted to post that I have now uploaded my own blasphemy. My reason: blaspheming is fun. As is making videos while I'm home sick all day. As is getting free stuff, and as is making a bit of a statement that it's okay to not believe in a god. Anywho, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEgb90e6mFA

Now I can finally be Time's Person of the Year, 2006. Hooray!

[juryjone]

While it is handy not to have a rulebook, I am trying to find the intolerance in "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless one is predisposed not to tolerate one's self. :boggled:

DR

Well, I've heard the argument that the only thing we should carry from the Bible is "love thy neighbor as thyself", but it seems that there's an awful lot of baggage associated with it. First of all, we can toss out the entire OT and most of the NT. Why have all this extraneous information, couched in directives regarding our behavior, if we can ignore everything except this central point? Do you really think god inspired all these words just so we could toss out something we didn't like? Doesn't sound like any other rulebook I know about.

But we're not just atheists, here. "We" are supposed to be critical thinkers above and beyond everything else, and critical thinkers do have a rulebook.

Really? Where can I purchase this rulebook? If I'd known about this then I wouldn't have needed to struggle all those years on my own shedding my unreasoned belief in religion.

It seems to me that many/most of the atheists on this board do an awful lot of cherrypicking, rejecting offhand anything that might throw the even the least favorable light onto believers, whether as individuals or as a group. That is against the rules.

Once again, I'd have to ask you for your source of rules, even though I agree that painting all believers as witless drones is counter-productive.

[Beady]

Really? Where can I purchase this rulebook? If I'd known about this then I wouldn't have needed to struggle all those years on my own shedding my unreasoned belief in religion.

Right here (https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=b075PB). The rules it contains applies to arguments we make, as well as those made by others.

BTW, you don't even have to buy it; it can be included free with any other purchase.

[juryjone]

Right here (https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=b075PB). The rules it contains applies to arguments we make, as well as those made by others.

BTW, you don't even have to buy it; it can be included free with any other purchase.

Thank you. However, I contend that the "Baloney Detection Kit" is not a rulebook for atheists in the same manner or to the same extent that the Bible is for Christians. One can arrive at atheism without use of the BDK; one cannot arrive at Christianity without the Bible.

This is not to say that the BDK is not useful, or that critical thinking is the automatic gainsaying of religion. I'm just saying that atheists have no need to look to the BDK to guide them through their lives, whereas Christians, by definition, look to the Bible for their guideposts.

[scotth]

While it is handy not to have a rulebook, I am trying to find the intolerance in "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless one is predisposed not to tolerate one's self. :boggled:

DR

Too bad that isn't thing only thing in that book.

[scotth]

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



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



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

Well, I specifically used the word 'correlation' as that is as far as it goes. I am nearly sure I got that info from "The End of Faith". However, it is loaned out at the moment, and I am in the middle of moving. Can anyone with a copy handy help me with that citation?

I think I used large fraction... in my mind that is approaching if not exceeding 1/2.

[scotth]

I'll be scarce for a a few days (at least). We close on our new house on Friday. We have been packing for a while, but the heat is really on now.

[Beady]

Thank you. However, I contend that the "Baloney Detection Kit" is not a rulebook for atheists in the same manner or to the same extent that the Bible is for Christians.

You asked for a rulebook for critical thinking, not a bible, and I gave you one. Personally, I feel the ties of reason that bind me to the rules of critical thinking are stronger than the ties of blind faith that bound me to religion. For one thing, I made a conscious and reasoned choice to adopt the rules of critical thinking as a way to conduct my life. I cannot see how it would be reasonable to even temporarily or partially abandon these rules. It seems to me that to disavow the rules of critical thinking is to eliminate any substantive difference between you and a religious believer. To do so as a matter of convenience is hypocrisy.

The Baloney Detection Kit is a compilation and distillation of these rules. No, it is not divinely inspired, neither is it the final word on the subject, nor is it immune to revision. It is, however, a basic toolkit and framework for anyone attempting to construct a solid and focused argument for either himself or someone else, based on reason and logic.

Yes, it's possible to conduct a reasoned and logical argument without consulting the BDK but, how did you put it...?

If I'd known about this then I wouldn't have needed to struggle all those years on my own shedding my unreasoned belief in religion.

BTW, the thought occurs to me, since you apparently have never even heard of this booklet before, and are also apparently completely unfamiliar with its contents, are you really in a position to make a contention about what it is and is not?

[juryjone]

But we're not just atheists, here. "We" are supposed to be critical thinkers above and beyond everything else, and critical thinkers do have a rulebook.

Did my original quote say anything about "we"? I was comparing Christians to atheists, period.

You asked for a rulebook for critical thinking, not a bible, and I gave you one.

Um, no, I didn't.

BTW, the thought occurs to me, since you apparently have never even heard of this booklet before, and are also apparently completely unfamiliar with its contents, are you really in a position to make a contention about what it is and is not?

BTW, do you realize how confrontional and condescending this sounds? As a matter of fact, I have read The Demon-Haunted World, so I'm well aware of the presence of the Baloney Detection Kit. I have not read it. I really don't think I'm less of a critical thinker for not having read the booklet. Some people can benefit from reading it, I'm sure, while others have no need to consult a booklet, because they arrived at the same conclusions themselves.

I can't say whether I might benefit from reading it, but I can say that I don't need no stinkin' rulebook.

[Eos of the Eons]

While it is handy not to have a rulebook, I am trying to find the intolerance in "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless one is predisposed not to tolerate one's self. :boggled:

DR

Talk about cherry picking. You left out all the parts where you are instructed to follow the rules about how to get your ticket to heaven and who to be intolerant of while you are at it. I suggest reading all the references to non-believers, homosexuals, and the entire bool of Lot.

Happy reading!

[Beady]

Did my original quote say anything about "we"? I was comparing Christians to atheists, period.

I'm an atheist, and I try to follow the rules of reason and logic. Since you presume to speak for me, how do I compare?



"You asked for a rulebook for critical thinking, not a bible, and I gave you one."

"Um, no, I didn't."

#55, above: "Where can I purchase this rulebook?"

...but I can say that I don't need no stinkin' rulebook.

From the same paragraph in #55, above: "If I'd known about this then I wouldn't have needed to struggle all those years on my own shedding my unreasoned belief in religion."

It appears that someone has hacked your account.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why do 99% of the threads in this forum get derailed like this?

[Beerina]

Beady....

Several facts mess up your position....

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

As taxation, I do believe, and not voluntary contributions. The loss of voluntary contributions (and hence private control over the distribution) leads to the typical mass fraud and waste.

In any case, as governments grow in size and take over more and more of cradle-to-grave stuff, "need" for religion evaporates, as is well-documented. And it's not necessarily something to brag about.

[Nancarrow]

Nice, but is denying the holy spirit worse then making a zombie porn flick called Jesus rises again?

Has the latter ever been done?

If not, I finally have a purpose to my life!

[Beady]

Why do 99% of the threads in this forum get derailed like this?

All threads eventually get derailed, in all forums, unless someone steps in and either censors the content or locks the thread (or bans one or more of the participants). This type of drift is called "conversation," and it appears that you, yourself, have probably sent this thread off in the least-related of all the tangents so far.