Blasphemy Challenge

[Telstra]

Is it a good idea ?
I don't see anything wrong with that.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmDNNkSlpT0&feature=related[/ame]

 

[poolerboy]

The Blasphemy Challenge happened in 2006.

It also wouldn't be too much of a challege for me if you know what I mean.

 

[Kennylingus]

That's just really sad.

Almost as sad as people taking their spiritual cues from an arrogant couple hosting a radio show out of their basement.

A couple who don't even have the balls to give their names.

 

[Telstra]

That's just really sad.

Almost as sad as people taking their spiritual cues from an arrogant couple hosting a radio show out of their basement.

A couple who don't even have the balls to give their names.

ummm who want to give their names to the religious lunatics/ potential killers ?????????????

 

[AsianDream]

'Blasphemy'? What an utterly ludicrous concept ....insulting someone else's imaginary friends?

I am not an atheist but there is absolute nothing about the biblical depictions of god/Jesus/holy spirit which resonate with my personal views/experience/imagination/fantasies/etc. re. deity.

I am an Athiest - and feel some of your anger against some religions -

Mostly because of a good firend that had a lot of tension between the teachings of "his" religion and his own sexuality.

However I think of it - the main human virtue is tollerance of others - no matter what ideas they hold dear and no matter how silly you think these are.

 

[Looking4Fun2009]

I'm not Christian, but, it seems certain people just love being portrayed as "controversial" by insulting Christianity and/or Christians.

I'm glad I come from a place (UK), and, specifically, London, and have friends that aren't fundamentalist - my Atheist friends have no problem with Christians or anyone really (well, that's not true, we have problems with those who act like assholes, and we make fun of them, including Atheist idiots).

I maybe gay, but, I seriously think some of those gay people who are rebelling against religion (or, actually, even religious people) need some psychiatric help, I mean, if someone feels the need to insult others, they're clearly pathetic, they just need to get a life, and have sex (although judging by some of the people on Youtube who respond to the "Blasphemy Challenge", I sense people who'll be 60 year old virgins!).

 

[poolerboy]

I'm not Christian, but, it seems certain people just love being portrayed as "controversial" by insulting Christianity and/or Christians.

I'm glad I come from a place (UK), and, specifically, London, and have friends that aren't fundamentalist - my Atheist friends have no problem with Christians or anyone really (well, that's not true, we have problems with those who act like assholes, and we make fun of them, including Atheist idiots).

I maybe gay, but, I seriously think some of those gay people who are rebelling against religion (or, actually, even religious people) need some psychiatric help, I mean, if someone feels the need to insult others, they're clearly pathetic, they just need to get a life, and have sex (although judging by some of the people on Youtube who respond to the "Blasphemy Challenge", I sense people who'll be 60 year old virgins!).

Please. Next you'll be telling us about some soccer-mom mentality that all insults really stem from jealousy.

The truth is that while it may be true that there are people who like to be incendiary and deliberately provocative, there are also people who genuinely believe religions to be both absurd and dangerous (e.g. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.). The believers are quick to respond that these problems derive from people who have 'hijacked' the religion. Such responses have failed to be filtered through the belief system itself of which is riddled with all kinds of unsavory barbarisms and appalling lunacies.

 

[Jeffs0418]

It's kinda nice to see some of us Atheists asserting themselves as the various religions have done for all of recorded history.

 

[FirmaFan]

I find it interesting that the religious people interviewed here describe the blasphemy challenge as "playing with fire" and "gambling with souls" when, in reality, they are taking the very same risks as the atheists. There are literally thousands of different religions. Those people have picked a single one to practice and follow. If atheism and blasphemy against one particular god is "playing with fire' and "gambling with souls", worshiping that god is just as risky...how do they know they aren't committing an atrocious crime against Allah, or are risking eternal damnation for not offering worship to Zeus? They are clearly demonstrating the flawed pinciples of Pascal's wager, which simply states that you should worship the judeo-christian god, because worship costs nothing, so you have no loss if the religion turns out to be false, but you also have everything to gain if it turns out to be true. The biggest flaw in this thinking is what I've just demonstrated: it ignores the existence of every other religion and every other deity ever worshiped.

I am utterly amazed that people can practice one religion and believe it to be the absolute truth, when they know there are all the other religions in existence, each with members just as convinced their religion to be the absolute truth. Add the fact that there is no evidence to support ANY religion, I want to know how people are able to rationalize their beliefs?

Blasphemy...a victimless crime.

 

[AsianDream]

I find it interesting that the religious people interviewed here describe the blasphemy challenge as "playing with fire" and "gambling with souls" when, in reality, they are taking the very same risks as the atheists. There are literally thousands of different religions. Those people have picked a single one to practice and follow. If atheism and blasphemy against one particular god is "playing with fire' and "gambling with souls", worshiping that god is just as risky...how do they know they aren't committing an atrocious crime against Allah, or are risking eternal damnation for not offering worship to Zeus? They are clearly demonstrating the flawed pinciples of Pascal's wager, which simply states that you should worship the judeo-christian god, because worship costs nothing, so you have no loss if the religion turns out to be false, but you also have everything to gain if it turns out to be true. The biggest flaw in this thinking is what I've just demonstrated: it ignores the existence of every other religion and every other deity ever worshiped.

I am utterly amazed that people can practice one religion and believe it to be the absolute truth, when they know there are all the other religions in existence, each with members just as convinced their religion to be the absolute truth. Add the fact that there is no evidence to support ANY religion, I want to know how people are able to rationalize their beliefs?

Blasphemy...a victimless crime.

There is also a counter argument that maybe "Truth" isn't everything.

There is certainly some evidence that people who have a strong faith are often happier and better adjusted than those of us (including me) that have none.

There are benefits to sincerely believing that you are destined to live forever in paradise and that your ideas are completely right.

So sometimes it might be better to ignore the question of if an idea is actually true or not - if it makes you happier?

 

[AsianDream]

Ha ha ha ...my post got edited.

I'm f*****g psychic, me!

Not realy psychic - I don't think the inflamatory statement added anything to the (perfectly reasonable) point you were making - and would only tend to needlessly antagonise others

 

[NotThatCreative]

Okay, I stopped at "Atheists are completely vilified..."

Please. Christians, Catholics, and Jews are vilified far more so. Athiests are the new chic. Hey, believe what you want, that's freewill. But to claim atheists are vilified is just ignorant. She needs to crawl out of the basement and watch some TV. That should me her feel much better.

I agree with you if you take the world as a whole. However, here in America (which, in her basement, may be the only thing that even occurred to her) Christians are not vilified/persecuted. I was raised in the Methodist church, and it seems to be a part of church tradition that Christians are persecuted. In the US, they are not. They make up 75% of the population. Atheists are the most mistrusted religious minority (Scientologists and Muslims are second and third, respectively), and one of the most mistrusted minorities overall, in the country. But it's in many ways because of people like these two assholes. You attack religion, and you can expect a backlash. Many atheists who are known for attacking religion and faith tend to use hyperbole too much (Christopher Hitchens) or don't really understand what they're talking about (Sam Harris) or both (these two likely fall into that category).

If atheists were to simply leave well enough alone and let people have their religions (it really doesn't affect the atheists if people attend church every Sunday) then we'd be less vilified in this country. And, even with vilification, it's not like our rights are denied as atheists. Hated we may be, but unlike racial/ethnic minorities we can't be identified on sight and unlike the LGBT community atheists are actually allowed to marry (which really makes you wonder about the people who are against gay marriage because it's a religious thing) and have no cross on their gravestone and be in the military and vote, etcetera. They have trouble getting into office, but I'll consider that persecution the day we consider the fact that a Republican will never carry Washington, DC in a presidential election (as politics stand right now) discriminatory against them.

 

[AsianDream]

Okay, I stopped at "Atheists are completely vilified..."

Please. Christians, Catholics, and Jews are vilified far more so. Athiests are the new chic. Hey, believe what you want, that's freewill. But to claim atheists are vilified is just ignorant.

If Catholics, and Jews are vilified - this is totally wrong - just it is wrong to do the same against Athiests.

 

[Kulindahr]

However, here in America (which, in her basement, may be the only thing that even occurred to her) Christians are not vilified/persecuted. I was raised in the Methodist church, and it seems to be a part of church tradition that Christians are persecuted. In the US, they are not.

That all depends on where you are. I've had things thrown at me because of being a Christian, and been spit on (literally).

OTOH I was attacked once for being a Christian who goes skinny-dipping, so maybe there's a balance.*



















* I asked what they thought was wrong with the swim gear God issued me at birth

 

[AsianDream]

That all depends on where you are. I've had things thrown at me because of being a Christian, and been spit on (literally).

OTOH I was attacked once for being a Christian who goes skinny-dipping, so maybe there's a balance.*

It is hard to accept that Christians are actually a persecuted minority in Redneck Land, Oregon

















* I asked what they thought was wrong with the swim gear God issued me at birth[/QUOTE]

 

[Kulindahr]

It is hard to accept that Christians are actually a persecuted minority in Redneck Land, Oregon

Well, a lot of redneck types claim to be Christians, but they feel free to screw a different chick every weekend, and sometimes two, get drunk and engage in vandalism, believe in white supremacy, shoot up road signs, beat up people they don't approve of, etc. When they encounter Christians who actually read what the Bible says and take it seriously, they get a little upset.

Especially when they hear things like you can't be a Christian and be racist, or promiscuous, or hold to any other of their degenerate hobbies.


Something there that amazes me is that I've encountered far more open reception from non-believers for exactly the things these so-called believers persecute Christians for -- including a gal who decided she was going to go home and read a book I recommended and dig out her mom's old Bible... because she figured that if a guy hanging out at the river having a beer in his bare skin and not preaching at the kids smoking pot talked to her about being a Christian, maybe it wasn't what she'd thought.

 

[chatolandia]

what bothered me the most was the tone of the reporter

he worked really hard to make these people look like rabid attackers against religions


but they seem to me like they just wanted to show their point of view...

the aggressive, and attacking group was the religious people that sent the e-mails...

none of these atheist said that religious people should be shot, they just said they were wrong...

 

[NotThatCreative]

Well, a lot of redneck types claim to be Christians, but they feel free to screw a different chick every weekend, and sometimes two, get drunk and engage in vandalism, believe in white supremacy, shoot up road signs, beat up people they don't approve of, etc. When they encounter Christians who actually read what the Bible says and take it seriously, they get a little upset.

Especially when they hear things like you can't be a Christian and be racist, or promiscuous, or hold to any other of their degenerate hobbies.

Sounds like you attacked their Christianity. Just like the atheists in the video, you have to expect a backlash when you do that. Moralizing, proselytizing, etcetera to people will make them upset. Them attacking you for doing that is out of line, but not persecution. Just as it isn't persecution for the atheists who attack religion to themselves be attacked. It's persecution if they attacked you minding your own business on the way to church, or if they denied you something simply because of your religion. But if it's in response to something you said/did to them, that's a whole different story. Telling them they're not "real Christians" would qualify.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sounds like you attacked their Christianity. Just like the atheists in the video, you have to expect a backlash when you do that. Moralizing, proselytizing, etcetera to people will make them upset. Them attacking you for doing that is out of line, but not persecution. Just as it isn't persecution for the atheists who attack religion to themselves be attacked. It's persecution if they attacked you minding your own business on the way to church, or if they denied you something simply because of your religion. But if it's in response to something you said/did to them, that's a whole different story. Telling them they're not "real Christians" would qualify.

I didn't attack anything -- unless you want to say that gays attack them by being gay, or environmentalists attack them by caring about the environment, or Mexicans attack them by being legal immigrants.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Especially when they hear things like you can't be a Christian and be racist, or promiscuous, or hold to any other of their degenerate hobbies.

I didn't attack anything

The first sentence I quoted there seemed to me to imply that you actually said something along those lines to them. That's verbally attacking them. If I misunderstood and you merely think they can't be simultaneously Christian and racist or promiscuous and Christian, etcetera but didn't actually say as much to them, I'm sorry.