Blasphemy Challenge Still Going Strong

***Update: If you would like to pose questions to Brian Sapient, Rational Response Squad co-founder (and thus, one of the leaders of the Blasphemy Challenge project), please write them in the comments. An interview with Sapient is forthcoming***

Even Newsweek is getting in on the action.

The Blasphemy Challenge is where people submit videos to YouTube saying the catch phrase “I deny the Holy Spirit” in exchange for a free copy of The God Who Wasn’t There.

For some reason, many people are offended by this.

Which is strange because youth groups at churches everywhere effectively say “I deny atheism” every week without a second thought. Why is it a problem when young atheists proclaim they can live a life without God?

I’m not saying this is effective at getting our atheist message across to religious people. I think this type of “challenge” hurts us in the long run. (As does the same Rational Response Squad’s War on Christmas. And the atheist group at University of Texas – San Antonio’s infamous Smut for Smut campaign.)

But it gets media attention. And I’m convinced that the more we can put the faces of atheists out there, letting people know we exist and we’re good people who lead moral lives without God, the better off we are.

So I’m torn as to whether or not I approve of what the Blasphemy Challenge is doing.

I’m guessing people are not going to like the Rational Response Squad’s next project either: A Bible recycling program.

Then again, my collection of Gideon Bibles is growing by the month… and I’m not sure what to do with them…


[tags]Newsweek, Blasphemy Challenge, atheist, atheism, YouTube, I deny the Holy Spirit, The God Who Wasn’t There, Christianity, Rational Response Squad, War on Christmas, University of Texas, San Antonio, Smut, God, Bible recycling program, Gideon Bible[/tags]

  • drewcosten

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was more along the lines of saying something that the Spirit does is actually of the devil, not simply denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com FriendlyAtheist

    I do believe this is wrong. The point is to say that we don’t believe the Holy Spirit exists. To say that the Spirit is the work of the devil or something… that’d be contradictory as atheists don’t believe in the devil, either.

  • http://www.myspace.com/humanistmama Stephanie

    I have been torn about this too. It would be better if atheists were in the news for doing something positive for people instead of something negative. But, I agree with you that it is good that we are getting in the news and making people aware that atheists are out there. I haven’t decided exactly what to think about it.

  • http://www.anotherstorm.com Rick

    Yeah, the “I deny the Holy Spirit” phrase is from a passage in Matthew where Christ is speaking out against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure just coming out and saying “I deny the Holy Spirit” will get you a one-way ticket to hell, but apparently it will get you a free book if you put it on YouTube.

    And for what it’s worth, you might do well to learn some basic Bible concepts yourself. As I scan through some of the posts in your blog, I sense a fairly serious lack of knowledge in that direction. If you want to be able to effectively make points against religion (and Christianity, specifically) you might want to educate yourself so that you don’t come across as ignorant about this stuff. Just a thought.

  • Pingback: Why Dont You…Blog? » Blog Archive » Weekends are busy

  • MTran

    The Blasphemy Challenge is cutesy and I think it actually works at the level to which it was directed.

    I find it humorous to hear so many Christians complain, first, that the Blasphemy Challenge is a terrible thing, then in the next voice, that the Blasphemy Challenge isn’t really blasphemous or it’s ineffective as a denial of the holy spirit.

    Quite a few people have said that an actual denial of the holy spirit must take a different form. But then they present competing descriptions of what that entails. Which isn’t so surprising given that I’ve heard more than several accounts of what constitutes such a denial from ministers and priests, whom I believe to be better informed than amateur posters.

    Rick: What errors about Christianity have you seen here that you find troublesome? I’m not being facetious, I’m new here and not terribly familiar with most of these discussions.

    My own observation has been that believers, particularly literalist fundamentalists, have a much weaker grasp of their own scriptures than the average atheist who posts on usenet or on the blogs I have visited. But that’s usenet and the blogosphere for you!

  • txatheist

    Stephanie,
    I wish atheists did get good press. It’s rare. Most of the notices I get are that some atheists will be on Hannity & Colmes, O’Reilly or some other Fox program and they get cut off or ridiculed. It’s my opinion that many atheists are that concerned with recognition. Doctors without Borders has a fair % of atheists but that is never noted. I help 3 inner city youth in Houston and I’m sure they don’t go around telling people that an atheist helped them, just some guy near Austin that cares about them.

  • txatheist

    To Brian Sapient,
    Brian Flemming was supposed to release The Beast movie on June 6th. I think it got renamed to Danielle but where is it as far as production and release date? Thanks for the dvd, I’m truly grateful.
    TXatheist

  • Siamang

    My question would be, what’s the most positive response you’ve gotten from a believer?

    I’d like to know where the positives are on this… not in number of respondents, not of amount of press-coverage. Not on the number of people who were already atheists.

    I’d much more be interested in knowing what the positive response has been from people who aren’t atheists.

    I’d also like to propose, for Christians, a “Forgiveness Challenge.”

    What would that be? It’d be loving, accepting Christians publicly explaining why they don’t believe that atheists are going to hell. I know a few wonderful christians who fit this bill, and I think there are enough of them that they could provide some interesting you-tube video that provides a deeper understanding of a broader range of beliefs within christianity. It’s not all Pat Robertson and fire and brimstone.

  • http://nomorehornets.blogspot.com The Exterminator

    In response to Rick:

    Without getting into Hemant’s knowledge of the bible or lack of same…

    Why is it necessary for atheists to be experts on the bible? Do you ask us to be experts in various mythological screeds if we deny the existence of Zeus or Isis or Thor? Do you ask us to be experts in Grimms’ Fairy Tales if we deny the existence of ogres, or in Aesop and La Fontaine if we deny the existence of talking animals?

    Your argument is specious, attractive only to those who BEGIN by accepting the bible’s legitimacy. But the corollary to your position is that everyone must be well-read in every belief system that he or she finds irrational. Obviously, that’s nonsense. We don’t need to know every chapter and verse of that silly book in order to think it’s ridiculous. Get it?

  • drewcosten

    “I do believe this is wrong. The point is to say that we don’t believe the Holy Spirit exists. To say that the Spirit is the work of the devil or something… that’d be contradictory as atheists don’t believe in the devil, either.”

    Which is perfectly valid, I question the existence of the Holy Spirit and the devil myself, but what they’re doing isn’t THE “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,” at least not from a biblical point of view. I don’t care who or what people deny, but wouldn’t it make more sense to perform something that actually is considered blasphemy by the Christians if one is going to call it a “Blasphemy Challenge?”

  • http://austinatheist.blogspot.com AustinAtheist

    I have taken the Blasphemy Challenge (I’m still waiting on that DVD), blogged approvingly of the Smut for Smut campaign, as well as a high school student’s publicity stunt promoting Bong Hits 4 Jesus, among other things. I think taking a purely “positive” approach and shunning all things “negative” would be to deny a certain irreverent sense of humor that some people appear to have lost or simply fail to appreciate or hesitate to endorse.

    My question for Brian Sapient is: Do you ever have second thoughts as to whether or not openly defiant acts such as the Blasphemy Challenge or the Bible Recycling Program are perhaps in poor taste?

  • Mike

    I admit the Holy Spirit!

  • MTran

    I would like to whether Sapient or others in the Rational Response Squad have received credible threats of harm as a result of any of their public statements or activities.

  • Feral

    I agree that it doesn’t take a bible scholar to be an atheist, or a good and moral person. However the point of the post seems to be the centered around the ethics, or perhaps simply the propriety of exercises like the Blasphemy Challenge. Do such irreverent stunts advance the cause of reducing bias against those who profess no belief in spirit or deity? In my opinion it doesn’t much matter anyhow, and why not have some fun? I can’t beeee-leeeeieve the hand-wringing of athiests who care so much about offending those who have to much to offend (and worse) them.

  • Jonathan

    I’d be interested to know what percentage of the kids who respond to this actually have a personal thought out belief that there isn’t any divine/spiritual being in the universe. Which isn’t to say there aren’t kids who get involved with Christian stuff who don’t really have a belief in it. You can talk of young atheists proclaiming they can live without God. And I’m sure there are some among them. But I wonder how many of them are just typical rebellious young people grabbing onto anything that seems “anti-establishment” and is linked with the “coolness” of YouTube. A scan through daytime talk shows will tell you a lot of people will say anything to get a little publicity.

    I have to say, I’ve met very few atheists, even online. There are some, certainly. But there are a far higher proportion of agnostics than there are true atheists, who hold a genuine belief that there IS no god, rather than a uncertainty of whether God exists or not.

    Siamang wrote: It’d be loving, accepting Christians publicly explaining why they don’t believe that atheists are going to hell.

    I’d have to ask, what do they actually believe then? Do they believe it doesn’t matter whether you accept Christ or not, you’re going to heaven anyway? And if so, why do they claim to be Christians? If there’s no hell to be saved from, then why did they get saved? Or did they get saved at all?

    I’d also present you with a challenge for thought. Let’s say that I, as a Christian, believe that not accepting Christ means going to hell (which, whether you believe the Bible or not, you must agree it does teach that. Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenced shows up a lot in quotes of Christ in certain passages of Scripture, after all.). If I believe that by not accepting Christ you are going to hell, is it truly loving of me not to warn you of that? If your mother believes that you’re going to get hit by a car if you run into the street, is it loving of her not to say anything when you run out there? It’s inaccurate to say that if someone is a Christian, Christian love should mean accepting other people’s behavior contrary to the Bible. Loving the person in spite of their behavior, certainly. Accepting that they have the freedom to make that individual choice for themselves, sure. But too many atheists (and other beliefs) want Christians to accept their choice as equally VALID, and that’s logically inconsistent with a Christian viewpoint. Christ clearly is quoted as having stated himself to be the only way to a God whose existence he frequently confirmed, and therefore a viewpoint that He’s unnecessary is inconsistent with a claim to Christian faith.

    I’m not sure quite where the idea that Christianity was supposed to be non-offensive came into play, honestly. You can’t point to Christ as evidence that Christians should be non-offensive. He inspired people to try to throw him off a cliff, to try to stone him, and eventually to crucify him. His early followers who were firsthand witnesses of his teachings were hunted, jailed, beaten, whipped, beheaded, fed to lions for sport….clearly they offended people who disagreed with them.

    In most cases, people who are offended by Christianity are offended only by it daring to say that what they’re doing or want to do is wrong. I fully support the right of an atheist to believe in no god, and to say he believes in no god. That’s his personal freedom as an American citizen and a human being. God grants all human beings the freedom to believe in him or not, because He desires us to choose to believe in, love, and serve Him. But granting that freedom does not obligate Him to APPROVE of their choices. Nor does it obligate me, as a Christian, to approve of an atheist’s choice, to not try to convince him of my viewpoint, or to allow his viewpoint to guide public policy unchallenged.

    Even on the question of teaching evolution or Creation in the classroom, without going into a debate on the scientific evidences for Creationism which might be off topic, I’d challenge any atheist to consider one thing. If I, as a Christian, believe the Bible account of the origin of the universe to be truth, and that which contradicts it to be in error, then should not I as a concerned citizen fight to see truth put in and error removed from what is taught to children? While you may disagree with my viewpoint, and argue the opposite, there’s no difference between me arguing to remove evolution being taught as fact and me arguing if a textbook said that 2+2=5. I’m arguing to remove what I believe to be an error. Just as atheists argue to remove what they believe to be error from the presence of Scripture in society.

    One last thought. Ultimately, we’re both going to find out who was right when we die. The consequences for an atheist being wrong are significantly higher, however.

  • http://austinatheist.blogspot.com AustinAtheist

    I just thought I’d mention that I’ve notified all the Dawkobots over at my place. But alas, as far as I know, none of them have posted any questions yet. I’m so disappointed. Shame on you, Dawkobots!

  • Siamang

    Jonathan,

    Pleased to meet you, I’m an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I don’t know if there is or are not a god or gods. Atheist because I worship zero gods.

    I’d have to ask, what do they actually believe then?

    You’d have to ask them that. Please join in the conversation at http://off-the-map.org/atheist/

    which, whether you believe the Bible or not, you must agree it does teach that.

    I’m not sure that it does. I think, just like anything in the Bible, that it depends on which parts you emphasize and which parts you don’t. It also depends on which church you go to.

    If I believe that by not accepting Christ you are going to hell, is it truly loving of me not to warn you of that?

    I understand your motivation. I think I understand that specific belief, as I used to hold it myself. But I don’t think it’s a loving belief to hold, no.

    In most cases, people who are offended by Christianity are offended only by it daring to say that what they’re doing or want to do is wrong.

    I think that’s over-simplifying. Please visit us at the above link and come to get to know the christians and atheists there.

    One last thought. Ultimately, we’re both going to find out who was right when we die. The consequences for an atheist being wrong are significantly higher, however.

    You assume there’s only two possible options. That’s a false assumption.

    A different possibility is that the radical islamists are right, and we’re both going to hell.

    Another different possibility is that God loves atheists for their intellectual honesty, and so rewards them.

    Another different possibility is that there are multiple Gods, and you chose a lesser one than mine, the God of physics, science, relativity and the creator of the Big Bang.

    Another different possibility is that Satan is the ruler of the universe, and he tortures Christians forever in hell, but he leaves atheists alone since we left him alone during life.

    In fact, there are an infinite number of other possibilities where you get a worse raw deal than I do. I sure hope you’re correct in your pascal’s wager there… you’re running against some pretty long odds.

  • MTran

    First Jonathan says: I have to say, I’ve met very few atheists, even online.

    Then this: In most cases, people who are offended by Christianity are offended only by it daring to say that what they’re doing or want to do is wrong.

    For someone who has admittedly met very few atheists, this latter statement is an incredible leap of, at best, ignorance. But it highlights some of the qualities that atheists can point to as offensive statements made by too many people who call themselves Christian. It is negatively judgmental and ignorant. In my experience (which includes personal interactions with numerous atheists over more than 3 decades) it is also dreadfully false.

    I don’t know where believers get the idea that atheists are simply people who don’t like to be told that their “bad” behavior is “actually bad.”

    First, there is no evidence that atheists are any less “moral” than believers. There is, however, plenty of evidence gathered by the US Bureau of Prisons, the US Department af Justice, and the Barna Group (an Evangelical Christian research organization) that demonstrates that atheists are significantly less likely to commit crimes, especially violent crimes or sex crimes, than any Christian group, and that atheists are less likely to commit child or spousal abuse or to divorce. Further, those US states that have the highest proportion of born-again Christians also have the highest rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, unwed mothers, and abortions.

    So it is the atheists who should be pointing out the moral failings of Christians, rather than indignant Christians pointing at atheists.

    Instead, a few atheists have recently begun to ask believers to use their heads and stop behaving destructively and hatefully. For this, the atheists are labeled “militant” and subjected to public rebuke by the Ted Haggards and other members of Christendom. Unfortunately, Haggard is fairly typical of the Christian commentators, who seem to love to trot out this old chestnut:

    Ultimately, we’re both going to find out who was right when we die. The consequences for an atheist being wrong are significantly higher, however.

    This appeal to fear and threats of eternal torment reveals a mindset that equates obedience coerced by terror with “morality.” But coerced behavior is not “moral” behavior.

    To my way of thinking, and that of most of the atheists I know, it is laughable to claim that an entity or organization that makes such threats is even capable of moral behavior. Even if I thought that the Christian god actually existed, if these threats of damnation are attributedto it, I would consider it to be unworthy of respect, let alone worship.

    Siamang has already mentioned the trap Pascal’s Wager sets even for the believer: what if you have chosen the wrong god to worship? Will you not suffer for failing to worship Odin, or Zeus, or Ahuru Mazda, or any other of the thousands of deities that mankind has recognized through the eons? There is no rational reason to believe that your god is somehow more likely to exist than any number of others.

    As to the study of evolution:

    While you may disagree with my viewpoint, and argue the opposite, there’s no difference between me arguing to remove evolution being taught as fact and me arguing if a textbook said that 2+2=5.

    I understand the point you are trying to make, but there is a real difference here. Math classes are expected to teach math as it is understood and demonstrated through mathematics.

    Science is to be taught as it is understood and demonstrated through science. Biology, including the theory of evolution, is a Science. Science is not religion.

    The Biblical story of Genesis is not science, it is religion. To confuse a religious tale with science is an error of classification.

    To teach a religious tale as science in a US public school is unconstitutional. Doing so is religious indocrination of citizens by the state, into the religious beliefs of a particular sect.

    Biblical math doesn’t quite get the figure for pi correct. Should we therefore expect Christian literalists to demand that mathematical values be changed to reflect biblically given numbers?

    You may decide that I am a “militant” atheist. But I am simply responding to these comments that are so often repeated that it has become rather tiresome to listen to them yet again.

  • txatheist

    Jonathon asked

    If I believe that by not accepting Christ you are going to hell, is it truly loving of me not to warn you of that?

    There is a difference between this question and the one where a mother should be warning her child of an oncoming car. The car is real. We have all witnessed someone getting hit by a car or heard of it happening. There is not one instance of someone burning in hell. I realize you believe it but understand from the atheist perspective you are warning us against something we have researched and find to be unbelievable. We don’t think we are going to heaven either. When I die I will be buried and the neurons in my brain will stop. That is the end of my life.

    Step back for a minute and ask yourself if you are special enough to have the absolute true way to god? To me it’s pure arrogance to think you are correct and all the other religions that have ever existed are not correct. I’d suggest studying xianity compared to Mithraism. You may discover xianity is just a borrowed idea from earlier religions.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » The Prayer Challenge

  • Jane

    Christians are not holier than thou…they serve a flawless, perfect Saviour, who,however, is indeed holier than all. There are many things in life here that cannot be explained or seen with the human eye. One of those things is the Holy Spirit. It matters not how moral, or how good a person is in this temporary life…our righteousness falls infinitely short of earning a place in Heaven. Thankfully, there is a love greater than our comprehension and a truth more solid than any doubts can erase. Just because man cannot prove the existence of the Holy Spirit certainly does not demonstrate that He isn’t real. Man is man. God is God. Face it.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Atheists on Nightline Update

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Atheists on Nightline Video

  • Alabamachik

    i think the blasphemy challenge is completely stupid.
    I am a Christian, for those of you who are reading this, and no kind of challenge like this is even going to test my faith in God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit! God is real. I know he is. He’s revailed to me that he is. I don’t believe what you guys believe… I don’t believe in atheism. I DO NOT AND WILL NEVER DENY THE EXISTANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!

  • MTran

    Geeze, Alabamachick, nobody “believes” in atheism. Atheism is the absence of belief.

    Why do you think the Blasphemy Challenge is stupid? It has served a very healthy purpose by giving people subject to religious intolerance and oppression an opportunity to speak out and to observe others responding to similar oppression. It is an exercise in joyous hope for the future, if nothing else.

    And how do you know that what you think is god speaking to you is really that, rather than evidence of something else, perhaps something unhealthy?

  • Jonathan

    Re: MTran

    > Geeze, Alabamachick, nobody “believes” in atheism. Atheism is the absence of belief.

    No, atheism is the belief in the absence of a divine being. Belief that something is false is still a belief. A belief is simply an individual decision to regard something as true. The absence of belief is indecision, which is agnosticism. And atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic is undecided on whether a god exists or not.

    Re: txatheist

    > There is a difference between this question and the one where a mother should be warning her child of an oncoming car. The car is real. We have all witnessed someone getting hit by a car or heard of it happening. There is not one instance of someone burning in hell.

    How do you know there has not been any instance of someone burning in hell? You can legitimately say (if we exclude near-death experience claims), that you’ve never encountered anyone who went to hell and came back to report on it. But that does not inherently disprove it. Nobody’s ever been to the center of the earth and come back to report on it, exluding Jules Verne. ;) Yet, most people accept that the center of the earth is there, and the general descriptions of it in science textbooks, based on the authority of the scientists who write them. I’ve never been to hell, nor spoken to anyone who has. Yet I accept that it exists, based on the authority of the Bible’s writing about it. And while an atheist wouldn’t accept the divinity of Christ, as someone who does, I consider myself to be basing my beliefs upon the eyewitness account of an omniscient deity. Therefore, it is still my responsibility to warn people of a danger which I accept to be true.

    Can science measure the car? Sure. It can observe it and experiment upon it. Can science measure hell? No. Science is limited to the natural realm and the measurement of things within its reach. The fact that science cannot measure something does not inherently indicate that it doesn’t exist, however. The supernatural by definition exists outside of the realm of nature, and therefore outside the realm of science. You certainly have the right to choose to believe that only what science can measure exists. But that doesn’t inherently make it so. And leaves you with a problem anytime something science has no explanation for occurs.

    > Step back for a minute and ask yourself if you are special enough to have the absolute true way to god? To me it’s pure arrogance to think you are correct and all the other religions that have ever existed are not correct. I’d suggest studying xianity compared to Mithraism. You may discover xianity is just a borrowed idea from earlier religions.

    It’s no more arrogant for me to state that all other religions that have ever existed are not correct than it is for you to state that all religions including mine are not correct, by stating that there is no god. It’s not a matter of me thinking that I’m someone special. I wasn’t the one that originated the idea, any more than you’re the one that originated atheism. I do believe that Jesus Christ was someone special, and He stated not only that God existed, but that He was the only way to God. I choose to believe Him, and everything in my personal experience supports my continuation of that belief. You have various authorities, I am sure, upon which you base your own belief in a lack of any divine being. I’m not obligated to accept those any more than you are to accept mine; but recognize that me calling you wrong and you calling me wrong are both expressions of belief. One of us must be right, and one wrong, since we have opposing positions. The two positions cannot both be right. But the only *scientific* proof of which is which will come after death. At which point it will be too late for either of us to change beliefs.

    As for earlier religions, Christianity was the fulfilment of promises made to the Jews of a blessing to come through the line of Abraham. And, further back than that, the fulfillment of the promise of the seed of Adam from Genesis, which brings the God of Judaism and Christianity back to the root of human existence. This is not a point on which I expect us to reach agreement, however, because your perspective views religion as a man-made creation whose start is whatever point it appeared in human writings/teachings. My perspective views Judaism and later Christianity as God-made creations, details of which were put into written form in the Bible by human hands at later points of history. Therefore, from my perspective all other religions except Judaism are later rather than earlier religions, and such elements as are common between the Judeo-Christian view and other religions are simply bits of known truth that still remain amidst the errors.

  • Jonathan

    Here’s an interesting logical argument:

    One of the known natural laws is that natural processes never create matter. Matter is changed, and moved about, by natural processes. It’s broken down into atomic components and reformed into other substances in many natural processes. But no natural process creates matter where none has existed before.

    Therefore, even if you accept evolutionary theory regarding the origin of life by recombination of inanimate matter into living matter, it logically requires a supernatural force at its beginning. Because if no natural process creates new matter, then some process beyond nature (supernatural) would have to have created the original matter of the universe that evolutionary theory uses as its building blocks. To deny the existence of the supernatural is to leave one with a serious gap…the inability to explain the origin of matter.

    One can argue that there is no scientific proof that God exists. Though I can argue that there are things in nature which logically require a supernatural origin. But the counterpoint to the argument that there is no scientific proof that God exists is this: scientifically prove that God does NOT exist.

  • MTran

    No, atheism is the belief in the absence of a divine being.

    Atheism is an absence of belief in any god. Some atheists make a positive statement that there is no god or that they believe there is no god but that is not essential to atheism.

    Indecision regarding the existence of god is not the same as agnosticism. Indecision is simply indecision, not an assertion or committment to any position or belief.

    Agnosticism is the philosophical term invented by Huxley for the concept that it is not possible to know or determine ultimate truths (especially regarding the existence of god). Some commentators have noted that Huxley desperately wanted to be able to declare his lack of belief but was equally desperate to avoid societal approbation.

    Taken on its own terms, agnosticism is a position that either believers or atheists can hold. One can say that it is impossible to know a thing while still maintaining a belief about it.

    Some have argued rather convincingly that agnosticism is actually a form of atheism because an agnostic does not have a belief in god but, instead, believes he can’t know. One who cannot believe in god therefor does not believ and is, by default, an atheist.

  • MTran

    Because if no natural process creates new matter, then some process beyond nature (supernatural) would have to have created the original matter of the universe that evolutionary theory uses as its building blocks.

    You might want to amend that to “no known process” or “no understood process”. You might want to also consider the weird but natural phenomenon in particle physics whereby particles pop out of nowhere within a vaccuum. Strange but true.

    inability to explain the origin of matter

    Does nothing to support any supernatural explanation. If there is a “god” or something “supernatural” out there, where did it come from. It’s cheating to say, “Well, ya see, this supernatural stuff was just there,” while denying that same logic to those who say, “Well, nature and its products has simply always been.”

    But the counterpoint to the argument that there is no scientific proof that God exists is this: scientifically prove that God does NOT exist.

    Theists like to trot this out but it is not an equivalent argument. In fact, it is not an argument at all, it is mere assertion with no basis in anything other than wishful thinking.

    Will you apply the same “counterpoint” to the argument that “there is no invisible pink unicorn”, “there is no flying spaghetti monster,” “there is no invisible, indetectable, all powerful dragon living in my garage”? They are just as real as any other supernatural being.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Hemant Sapient

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » How Not To Blaspheme

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Brian Flemming, Interviewed

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » Interview with Brian Sapient of The Blasphemy Challenge


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X