I would have to agree.  The cinematic score was bad, the casting director did a poor job of lining up actors and the scenery, I mean like really, New Zeland has been so overused.  Seriously, it's Youtube videos, do you expect some CGI special effects and background music by Yo Yo Ma?  The concept is pretty simple, deny the holy spirit, that's it.

Frankly I think you would have complained about anything since there seems to be that segment of the population who just likes to bitch but never does anything constructive.  The RRS got the message out and got some pretty large media attention so from my perspective it was a great success.  I suppose they could have remained silent or just bitched about people doing something but what would that accomplish?  Freedoms were never gained by remaining silent.

If I could add to that:
1) You seem to assume that atheists are 'God haters'.
We consider fundamentalism to be seriously immoral which can spark up
passionate arguments, but there's no 'hate' as such. Maybe a li'l impatience here and there!  

2) We don't hate Christians either. However, with religion causing controversy in politics we have to put our foot down expose it for what it is - superstition. Not that it's wrong to have superstitions, we all have them, but some people go as far as to make one the center of their life as they believe it to be the truth.

The whole thing is to stimulate discussion, which is obviously working since you're here. 

I watched the first part of the video you posted, Phobos. While building up to this guys argument, I was thinking to myself, "He's going to argue that no one taking the blasphemy challenge is -actually- blaspheming or condemning themselves to hell." (Which he did after his lengthy introduction.) This topic has been covered before on this forum. Surely someone can reference you the link. There was actually a heated exchange between un0 and "lifeofapollos" on this topic that I had the pleasure of seeing in the stickam chatroom. The link Sapient posted is a video that un0 created in response to "lifeofapollos" AKA "togetherforpeace".

This guy is missing the point of the blasphemy challenge. The point is NOT to quibble over theological arguments. Thus, whether or not it is blasphemy is a moot point. So what if it's not? (Although I though un0 did a good job of proving that the basis for the blasphemy challenge IS theologically sound.)

This fellow in your video, Phobos, is an atheist who converted to Christianity after posing numerous "straw men" arguments to Christians. In other words, he's saying that he did not adequately understand the Christian position, and when he did, he realized how rational and correct it was.

Well, I'm waiting... I've struggled very hard to understand EVERY theist argument I can find, and I'm clueless as to any other interpretations that are out there which are not logically contradictory or simply lacking in proving logically necessity.

For the record, there are just as many former Christians gone atheist -- Dan Barker is a good one. He was an evangelist minister before becoming an atheist!!! Search his name and you will find a plethora of resources. He has engaged in a number of debates with theists. I think it would be hard to listen to one of his debates and side with the theist.

Message me if you can't find a link. Some are even on video.

In conclusion, what do I think of that video? Not much.

The purpose of the blasphemy challenge is to remove the irrational fear that disbelief in God carries grave consequences. Futhermore, it encourages atheists to "come out of the closet" and let others know that it is OKAY to be an atheist because they are not alone and there should be no stigma with being an atheist. There are numerous ways to say it. What do you suggest, Phobos?

"I deny the existence of the holy spirit and any consequences of disbelief in the trinity, Yahweh, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, Thor, Kali, Ganesh, Izanagi, Izanami, Gilgamesh, The Great Spirit, Olmec, or Quetzalcoatl. There is no reason to loathe yourself for disbelief, there is no reason why anyone else should, and there is no reason why I can't express my belief in the public square."

Is that better?

Any objection to that description of the purpose of the blasphemy challenge, Sapient? (In addition to stimulating discussion.)

"There's obviously something more behind it. What is it?"

Well, you got that one right.

Judging by your posts, until now, I'd guess you're at least an undecided person, leaning towards Christianity, if not more.

Tell me, since you reminded about Santa Claus... How did you feel when you realized that Santa doesn't exist? Were you so gullible afterwards with other less-than-real things, or with concepts like "magic", "faeries", "knowing ex principio who's "bad" and who's "good" beforehand" ? I suppose not. I hope you got my point here.

Well, I don't know why the others are engaging in discussions and denying the Holy Spirit, but I'll tell you why I'm doing it.

For one, I'm sick of being stopped on the street, asked whether or not I would like to know more about God. I'm also sick of church members coming to our house and asking us for the "monthly contribution", just because my parents made the stupid mistake of baptizing me (at the age of 0.1, and, obviously, without asking me). I'm sick of seeing that a 6 million-euro building called "Catedrala Mantuirii Neamului" (which translates as "The Cathedral of National Salvation&quot is erected OUT OF PUBLIC MONEY (my money, too, and against my will) in the capital city of my country, by destroying a very beautiful park and a historical landmark. I'm sick of watching priests and bishops floating around in their fancy cars and living in their houses the size of blocks of flats, and that out of partly public money (my money too, and against my will), partly the money that the gullible fools of my country are paying, just because they're idiot enough to need faith in a fairy-tale to rule their life properly.

Is that enough reason on my behalf to answer your question? I believe that many of the issues above will be repeated by almost everybody around.

No, for the record, I'm not in any way supporting the christian side. The only reason I'm not questioning them is because I'd hardly expect this a suitable place to find legit christians, if you know what I mean (and if they exist).

So really, it's all about the society's portrayal of christian's that provoked this response from you guys? I mean, common; modern christians really are pathetic. They claim themselves a social class on the social ladder of popularity, make themselves a steriotype through hate and pushing it and fighting with other sects etc. But, by doing this, this clearly proves they aren't christians. So this really isn't a strike at christianity at all, it's a strike at what the false christian's believe; you really aren't denying what they stand for (while you are, you're doing it to 'stimulate discussion' that you'll know you'll win because of their lack of judgement), all it really is is an attempt to quit the political babbling over it, get their heads out of their asses and pay attention to more important things: more important things than some 'almighty' deity because from what you've seen from the christians, if there really is some idea of a God out there he obviously isn't worth worshipping in the least bit.  

Quote:

. They claim themselves a social class on the social ladder of popularity, make themselves a steriotype through hate and pushing it and fighting with other sects etc. But, by doing this, this clearly proves they aren't christians. So this really isn't a strike at christianity at all, it's a strike at what the false christian's believe; you really aren't denying what they stand for

Being a christian doesn't mean following the teachings of jesus. Other people love their enemies and turn the other cheek and that doesn't make them christians (like gandhi). Being a christian means you worship the torture and murder of jesus for your own personal gain. So the people you are talking about are true christians.

Have you heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy? It's the problem of bringing subjective definitions into a rational discussion.

Person A: "No true Christian would kill a relative for converting to a different religion."

Person B: "Well, no 'true' Christian would ignore the laws of the Bible."

Those "modern-day 'Christians'", as you put it, are following what the Bible tells them to and moderates (of all religions) have made it okay to believe something is true without any proof.

Also, when all "they" are saying is unfounded assumptions and 400-year old arguments that were refuted long ago, no, I'm not going to change my mind.

-Triften

Of course they are not following the bible.  No one can.  The bible is full of contradictions. If I take an eye for an eye, I’m not loving my neighbor, but I’m not keeping to the old laws as Jesus said he came to fulfill and not to abolish, but if I do that then I’m not staying true to Jesus core message.  You see where I’m going with this.  If you want to say you are following the bible all you have to do is find a verse that agrees with the opinion that you already have, and ‘voila’ suddenly you are able to use the bible to support your position. Anyone that says they 'follow the bible' is guilty of it.  It’s the oldest trick in the book.  

And to be anal, that's also pretty old. It's pretty well known that you can't say stuff like that being an Atheist; you know the truth. The Bible technically does 'physically' contradict itself, but I find it perfectly believable and understandable, and being as Jesus seemed to write in those stories, parables or whatever, metaphors etc, I think it quite obvious you need read between the lines. So lets quit that there.  

 lol, I hardly give myself the authority to claim a christian is 'true' in the given context, while i find it rather easy to claim a 'bad' one simply by whether or not he follows the general teachings of Christ, and if he lives by his word through his actions. Pretty simple being as most people today are rather undisciplined (sp) and immoral (spx2). 

 I don't attempt to 'justify' my claims, I'm trying to make points, and get away from the whole mind set of having to 'provide proof' or 'explain myself.' I personally have a serious problem with authority, specifically the brass and butter bars (united states army reserve here). I don't take kindly to people i find on the streets doing otherwise considered 'immoral' acts, while at the same time I don't take it personally like other ignorant sons of bitches and I don't beat people up. 

For self esteem, comfort, and popularity. It's all about the commercial Jesus; who can sell him and make the most money?

I guess most of that is IMO. . . 

That being said, given the context of your statement, you state the Bible clear to interpretation according to what you want it to mean, thereby proving that because your on the atheist side of the arguement, you obviously will interpret it the way to your advantage.

Drawing conclusions, I know, but I see it as a rather obvious disregard for logic, from so-called logic lovers, even if you cut that assumption off at the half-way point. 

EDIT: lol, seeing 'christians' lik unixrab, I rest my case. Just reading a few of his posts now. Give me strength lol. Who are christians these days?

You seem (again) to be missing a point. It's not your fault though, you haven't seen the "history on the making".

What you see now on the forum, in the newer posts, has been discussed already at least twice for each topic. Like the guy bringing forth Pascal's Wager, strongly believing none of us has ever heard of it. That's why the apparent disregard for logic... it's been put forth so many times that people are bored to repeat everything all over again just for some new guy who don't know where his marbles are.

OF COURSE everybody can interpret the Bible in their own way, the way that suits them better. A literal interpretation of the Bible gets one to believe that God is just as powerful as a Unicorn, and plants were created before the sun that gives them the means for fotosynthesis, etc. The only true statement about it is that you'll never be able to realize what is the correct interpretation (should there be something like that), and even theists have to agree on this one. Atheists, in order to bash theist arguments, have used their own interpretation, which translates like "Hey theists, what if we're the ones that are right? How cool will that be for you?" (speaking of Pascal's wager above).

And who are Christians these days, you ask? Well, some of them are the people radically low on IQ, but still high enough to comprehend the notion of God, others are traditionalists, others don't bother thinking, others don't want to lose their social status and very few seem to be enlighted philosophers, but using the wrong kind of light (like I consider StMichael to be, for instance).

The same thing that's bad about believing that the universe is 6 miles wide.  It's delusional. 

People hope there is a god who sends tsunamis and creates a hell to torture people for eternity?  This only reinforces my claims of delusions.  We give hope to people by showing them that they can live for themselves, they can do what's right, and this life is meaningful.

The only true Christians I know are the God hates fags people, and even they aren't true Christians, as I don't remember hearing about them stoning their children to death upon disobeying them.

It is about love, absolutly, love of the club love of fellow cheerleaders who want to save the rest of humanity as if they were sick lost puppies. It never occurs to most religious people that those outside that club may apreciate help from a fellow human, but dispise the billboard that comes with it. That is not love, that is selfishness.

"Hey look at me, I feed that homeless person, now convert because I fed you".

Dont give me this crap about it being about love. That love you feel for your fellow human is not magic nor does it require some convoluted ancient fairy tale.

If it religion were truely selfless it wouldnt advertise or use its good deeds as a recrutement tactic.  

 What makes you think some invisable super hero in the sky said that the only way to do good is to be a certain label? If others outside your claims who do not hold your claims can do good, then it is doing the good itself and not the label that is important.

Your god, nor any is required to do good. Religion uses it as a Public relations tactic and an indoctrination tactic. 

Bottem line. Dont try to sell us some crap that your individual claims of a deity are required anymore than any other person's to do good. That is divisive garbage when the world needs to just focus on doing good. The labels shouldnt mean shit if we truely care about our neighbors and fellow humans. 

Did you post it in "Kill 'Em with Kindness"? Did it have any profanity or name calling? 

People are showing that they don't believe in the Christian God by supposedly damning themselves to show how silly they think the idea is. People aren't pledging their souls to the RRS. It's just a "show your solidarity among atheists and get a free DVD with some neat info regarding the supposed historicity of Jesus."

-Triften 

Would the mod who deleted this thread the first time please contact me.  I'm curious the reason, I was actually in the process of writing a post to Kelreth, because he/she was out of line in the "Kill em with kindness" forum.  Please people pay attention to what forum you're in, "kill em with kindness" must remain kind. 

 The only reason I can see that your post was deleted is that you are rudely insinuating that we do this for the money while the truth is we've lost thousands of dollars with this project so far.  While I wouldn't normally call that rude, it certainly is not killing us with kindness.

There lies a major lapse or fallacy in your reasoning here.

Suppose a "Meal A" is 50% poison and 50% the most delectible, nutritious tasty food the world has ever known.

Obviously, eating any bite from "Meal A" is a big risk, considering that even though there's some good and tasty food there, it's laced with a bunch of poison.

Then suppose "Meal B" is not really the tastiest food you've ever had, and it's not the most nutritious, but it's 100% food and 0% poison.

I would take my chances on "Meal B". It might not LOOK as tasty, but at least it doesn't kill you.

Obviously, I posit religious belief as "Meal A" and nonbelief as "Meal B".

So what if teens get some hope from Christianity. It is fallacious to assume that a non-Christian cannot ALSO have hope and lead a wholesome life.

Perhaps rather than focusing on Chrsitianity as a means of instilling "hope" in people by telling them lies based on a wretched, filthy piece of trash known as the Bible; we should get them thinking, reading, and learning on their own without indoctrination.

Forcefed belief is easy to digest. Thinking on your own is a difficult process -- but I think EVERYONE who is a non-believer in religion can find hope, peace, and love in human existence without the bane of religion.

As I said before, there is no reason to believe something false or unsubstantiated because it makes you feel good -- especially if it is laced with poison. If the Bible is true, then the "truth" of Christianity is NOT the namby pamby "love your neighbor" and sing-koombya- around-a-campfire-luvvy-duvvy nonsense. Christianity is BRUTAL and VICIOUS at its core. The luvvy duvvy stuff is a small percentage of the whole, and to get to the dessert, you have to swallow and eat a whole lot of shit.

I'd rather eat some bland food and learn to like it than poison myself with something that looks good.

I really think Phobos is more of a Christian than he admits.  In fact, I think it highly likely that his whole interaction is some kind of ruse to espouse his "Christian" ideas without being labelled a Christian.

NOT AGAIN!!!! Don't they get it?

so what about those of us who were confirmed?  I beleive i was given the holy spirit when i was confirmed.  So I can use it against this god you beleive exists.

Nice try 

correct me if im wrong.  But i was an eccumenical christian (was raised Catholic to be specific) in my youth, but then God touched me and i am now Apostolic, or non-eccumenical.  When one is confirmed the apparent Holy Ghost is given through a bishop, or another hierarchial posistion which makes the bishop, or another hierachial posistion, a mediator, yet the Bible says that Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man, this includes prayers of forgiveness too, there is no "priest" needed to mediate.  So, were you really given the Holy Ghost?  Take a look at the book of Acts, how the first Christians received the Holy Ghost, and what happened when they did. 

there is nothing he said/she said about it.   

Jesus loves has got it right. The preponderance of christian sects stems from people that pick and choose what they want from the bible and ingnore the rest.  You have to take the whole thing or not at all. This is why most christians throw scriputure around to prove their points. The fracturing of the Faith is a direct consequence of or fallen state and susceptibility to misdirection by Satan.

No, the real blasphemy is against reason and logic done by people like you insisting that girls get knocked up by spirits and that 3 day old dead flesh can dance the jig.

We cant blaspheme fiction. We say this time after time but you seem to dense to clean the wax off your eyes. We are doing this to demonstrate the absurdity of theist claims.

"I deny the existance of multiple armed hindu deities"

"I deny Apollo pulling the sun across the sky with a chariot"

"I deny the existance of Allah"

"I deny the Loc Ness Monster"

" I deny the divinity and magic of Jesus" 

It is all the same to us. We are doing this to get people who are skeptics to be unafriad to challeng absurd comic book claims and we are trying to get dense people like you to stop using a cop out excuse "My deity did it".

Reality could give a shit less weither you or I are alive. But since we are I can think of better ways of looking at and mesuring life that using ancient fiction and basing your life on Superman vs Kriptonite claims.

You dont buy Allah simply because someone claims it, so dont try this "You have a chance" crap as if we dont know what we are doing.

We know exactly what we are doing. We are calling a duck a duck and calling fiction fiction. Maybe if you'd stop being a scared child and challenge yourself to think without fear of what someone sold you, you'd understand.

We dont need your deity, or any deity to live a decent moral life. We dont live our lives based on ancient myth. We are positive that humanity can do far better by living their Dr Sues deities behind and focus on using reality to mesure reality insted of making crap up. 

 In regard to the bible:  Given the choice between "the whole thing" and "not at all", "not at all" is by far the preferable choice.  If we took "the whole thing", we would still be wandering in the desert, looking for Canaanites to exterminate.  We would still believe in a geocentric universe (a couple of thousand years old), and using 3 as an approximation for ∏.  In other words, no Industrial Revolution, no Nuclear Age, and no Internet for discussing these outdated beliefs.