Play it again, Sam.

 You have done nothing but disguised an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. Do you not deny the existence of a nearly infinite number of things which you have absilutely zero reason to think might exist? Do you deny the existence of the microscopic mountain goat that periodically lives in your hair? Is it intellectually dishonest to deny such a thing?

 The mountain goat hasn't proven himself to me or you yet either. Still, we are both well within the bounds of intellectual honesty to deny it. What do you require of one to deny the existence of something if a complete and utter lack of evidence for such a thing is not sufficient?

Well, I personally, and most atheists I've really discussed this with, really don't believe that the Christian God makes any sense. I actively disbelieve in that one. I think the Bible is crazy and nonsensical, I think everything I've ever been told about that god somehow contradicts something else about him, and I think I'd have to be labotomized to start believing in him at all. Now, just because I'm fairly certain that that one particular god is fictional, doesn't mean that there couldn't be some being out there that fits one of the definitions of "god." So while I don't firmly disbelieve in all gods, it would make absolute sense, as far as my opinions go, to deny the Christian Holy Spirit. I can't speak for the other atheists out there, but I'm sure there are many more who hold a similar belief.

It totally and completely matters how it's phrased.  To "deny" something is a flat declaration of something's falsehood - it is a knowledge claim.  On the other hand, to "believe" something is to simply hold it to be true, not contingent upon any empirical evidence.  I love how the atheists split hairs with my language but are so carelessly sloppy with their own. 

So if God is an incoherent concept by logical and empirical standards, then it makes sense that any knowledge claim concerning him, be it positive or negative, is in imminent danger of falling into speculation and intellectual dishonesty.   

Monetary donation:  check.

Asinine internet memes:  check.

Do you serve any other purpose around here?  

I think the reason we used the word 'deny' was because that was the wording used in that Bible passage that called it the unforgivable sin. It wasn't so much making a literal statement about belief so much as making a statement of the form "The Bible says that if I do this I get the worst punishment and suffering imaginable, the kind of suffering that I'd be a fool to risk. This is how sure I am that it's a load of nonsense!"

It's stupid not to flat out have a non-belief or a disbelief in something.  It's the most rational position to take when someone presents you with something that you have not only no reason to believe in, but for which there can never be any evidence for or has no evidence.  Like god.  This isn't what you're on about though.  You're problem is with the word 'deny' and as has been suggested, I believe that choice had to do with the way the bible worded the unforgivable sin.  You may wish to debate burden of proof and the rationality of non-belief, but those are tried and tired debates you will not be successful at.  The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim or the extraordinary claim.  Theists make both.  The rational position is always non-belief in something which cannot be proved to exist and in which there is no reason to believe.  If you choose to treat Russell's tea-pot as having a fifty percent chance of existing, that is your choice, but it is not the reality.  That tea-pot actually being there is in the realm of the impossible, not merely the improbable.  Just because someone can imagine something does not mean that it has an equal likihood of existing as not.  Believing otherwise would be 'pretentious and dishonest'.

 You can begin listing proof of your god's existence anytime.

Really? Well I never claimed to be honest. Oh, wait there was that time I was playing poker and said I was honest, I was lying.

I deny the holy spirit, god, allah, zeus and gang. I find it hard to believe you really go through life without denying anything sounds pretty dishonest to me. 

So what. Not all atheists believe the same things. If you read a few threads you would know that. Some of us do hold to the non-existence of certain gods. Obviously, you can't deny something until it is defined. So define a god and we will deny it and provide evidence that he/she/it does not exist.

I don't know, the common denominator in all of those discussions is you.

Because there isn't any proof supporting your beliefs. 

I believe that is called crabs. You should have it checked out and be a little more careful next time.

Hey, if the church worshipped coffee beans I might actually attend.

Exactly which standard?

Which absurd claim have we made? There is no proof of god. My proof of that claim is no one can provide me with convincing evidence of god existing or having existed. Prove me wrong.

Profitable discourse is the 900 number you called that led to the encounter that led to the elves in your pubic hair.

Oh, you mean like arguing over whether or not we are intellecually honest instead of providing evidence to support your absurd beliefs?

By the way, if that picture has become an internet meme, it's news to me. Since it's a picture I took of my cat Miss Callie when she was pissed off and added the words myself. But if it has, that's cool.

See:

Right. As in, a declaration that something is not true. I sort of see your point, but I think you're assuming a different definition, something more along the lines of this:

"to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate" (from dictionary.com)

"Deny" in the Blasphemy Challenge is referring to the untruth of the Holy Spirit. Untruth meaning that it isn't true, meaning that it does not exist. You're arguing about semantics here, and even if you think the wording used in the challenege is ambiguous and unclear, you'd have to be pretty deluded to believe that everyone who made a video of themselves actually believed in the Holy Spirit but just wanted to damn themselves to eternal pain and suffering for a free video.

Well, as expected, this thread has already gotten off topic.  I didn't start this thread with the purpose of offering proofs for God's existence, I simply had a problem with the word "deny" in the blasphemy challenge.  As a matter of fact, I've never to my knowledge tried to offer any proof for God's existence, choosing rather to focus on proving that logic is not the only means of knowledge acquisition - particularly the proposition form.  I'm fully aware that no scientific proof for God exists, and I don't waste my time with that. 

So anyway, in lieu of further plumbing the depths of Russell's teapot, is anyone interested in discussing the use of the word "deny" in the Blasphemy Challenge?  To use the word just to mirror the biblical passage seems a little careless.  I mean, the hair-splitting that goes on between theists and atheists on this site is mind-boggling, so it just surprises me that the RRS would so carelessly throw a word around just for the sake of parody.  

And to those who say that I'm weird for not flat-out denying anything, I didn't say that I gave every conceivable possibility equal consideration, only that I would never fully 100% deny the possibility of something.  I'm considerably and understandably more open to the existence or non-existence of God than I am the existence or non-existence of some silly Russell's teapot ripoff that you pull out of your ass.  The primary reason for this is because I'm very interested in the existence or non-existence of a creator, and no so much with a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster.  Like I said, I'm open to both existence and non-existence concerning God.  Pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and celestial teapots are poorly-constructed parodies, and everyone knows that.  They simply do not prove the points that their originators set out to prove. 

Okay, sorry for the tangent, but I felt as though it was necessary for clarification.  Please, let's focus on the word "deny".   

Just thought I would point out that the flying spaghetti monster is a creator.  He was created to satirize the image of God to be ridiculous, because "what if God is a flying spaghetti monster?"

 It may not seem so, but it is a very deep, spiritual question

Its quite simple.  None of them actually meant it, which is why even they (atheists) did not commit the ultimate sin.  God, being all knowing, wouldn't care what they said.  Only what they meant.  According to Christian theology, they could all still be saved as long as they are alive.

Of course, they did manage to demonstrate a very powerful point.  They are all definately atheists.

I think we see your point, if you have a new idea for the next round of consciousness raisers let everyone know.

I think it'd be awesome to take the "Blasphemy Challenge" to the next level. Turn it into a gameshow of sorts. We can round up theists, ask them questions about their own religious texts and dogmas and find out what people know, or if they're just saying they believe to blend in with their local culture.

Or maybe, we make it a gameshow for unbelievers. Winners get cool prizes, but somehow there's a way to "win" an eternal trip to the lake of fire that no one seems phased by.

jmm, the bottom line as I see it is this.  Nobody goes around saying that people who deny other things are actually affirming them.  The only time I ever hear this argument is when theists are actually trying to backdoor their way into some kind of positive argument for god.

While there may be a smidgen of dictionary approved semantic truth to what you're saying, it really doesn't matter.  Unlike our actual arguments, the blasphemy challenge is a gimmick.  It's not meant to change anybody's mind.  It's meant to garner attention.

Furthermore, when I was a kid, and preachers used to preach about the sin of blasphemy, they used the words, "Denying the holy spirit."  These words have resonance with Christians.  That's why we use them.

Just say to yourself a hundred times:  "It's advertising, not an argument.... It's advertising, not an argument.  It's advertising, not an argument..."

Forgive me for being a prick today, I'm on a decongestant.  They turn me into an animal.  

All my comments to you were focused on the word deny. What does it mean to deny something's existence? It is to say that said thing does not exist. To require people to have reasons for not thinking some unevidenced proposition exists is ridiculous.

This is directly in response to your problem with people using the word deny. Atheists are well within their intellectual rights to deny the existence of this thing which has been proposed which there is no reason to think might exist. That you can not see that what I am saying directly applies to your little problem with the use of the word deny is ridiculous. Surely you can't actually be that dumb. 

That you may consider the existence of a god a more interesting question than that of a celestial teapot is irrelevant. Whether or not atheists should use the word deny when referencing the existence of the 'god' non-concept has nothing to do with what you or anyone else finds interesting. We are discussing whether or not it is intellectually honest for the atheist to use the word deny when speaking to the existence of a/any god/s.

That you think Russell's teapot is a poorly constructed parody shows that you fail to understand what it demonstrates, something one would assume any thinking person could understand. There is absolutely no point of distinction between the teapot question and the god question when considered from the proposed perspective. I don't blame you for finding pink unicorns and the teapot silly. Such things are considered silly for a reason. Do you know what that reason might be? Its the same reason 'a god exists' is a silly proposition. 

Anyway, I have attempted to explain to you several times now why it is not intellectually dishonest for the atheist to deny the existence of a god. You have in return whined about the silliness of a brilliant philosopher's thought experiment, been dishonest by denying that you deny the existence of a myriad of things based solely on lack of evidence for thinking they might exist as everyone does, and been unable to comprehend something as simple as the fact that saying the atheist should not use the word deny because it is intellectually dishonest is shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist. I think I've found the root of problem you have with having intelligent conversations with atheists. Bye. 

I completely disagree with point two. The extent to which something holds the possibility of, at some future time, being knowable, or becoming known (something which in itself is most often unknowable until that future time) is not necessarily important to whether or not someone is within intellectual rights to deny its existence. To claim such a thing is to hold what we consider knowledge, or what it means to know something, to some unattainable criteria of infallibility.

I deny the existence of the microscopic mountain goat which periodically lives in my hair. I am well within the bounds of intellectual honesty in doing so. If at some time in the future I am at the doctor and he is looking in my hair with a microscope and says, "Hey, did you know that there is a mountain goat in here," that would not change the fact that I had been well within my intellectual rights to deny its existence at that previous time. By the nature of knowledge it is always possible to be wrong. Intellectual honesty places no burden of infallibility on the claim. To require such a thing is ridiculous. It requires us to assume a position of knowing nothing.     

I call my cat Mohammed now too, haha.   The prophet commands me to clean out the litter box. 

Just to be safe Christian OP,i consider my blasphemy of the Invisible Spectre to be a living one. I live my life every denying and living without a belief in your "Holy Spirt",its existence,and "his" abilities of raping young Jewish women.

Equal in intellectual dishonesty?

I would accept the claim that the atheist could state "totally ignorant of and therefore reject the notion of" rather than succinctly deny the holy ghost; for the finicky.

But, it is a rank above in foul trickery when a person maintains a belief in the face of overwhelmingly contrary evidence. The stinking lie is alluded to here:

To wit, man has scientific knowledge none of which suggests the reality of the holy ghost.

Hence I pedantically disallow the use of the highlighted 'as' in the opening quote.

The point you miss about the parodies is that the pneumatomachiavellian (devious combators against the spirit) hold that the affirmative of a steaming celestial teapot is as intellectually rotton as the existence of the insubstantial holy spirit.

I like them, too.  I like them much, much, much better than this very old "argument" against the blasphemy challenge.  jmm, I thought surely you'd seen this "argument" addressed, as long as you've been here.  Sometimes it gets tiresome having to address the same thing over and over again.  We try not to get snippy, but often don't succeed.

Now, as for calicos, my mother took care of one I named "Kali" after the Hindu goddess and my favorite way to play Descent over the Internet many years ago.  It adopted her.  My belief is that cats don't belong outside because 1) they're detrimental to native wildlife and 2) it's very dangerous for the cat.  (If you disagree, probably this isn't the place to discuss it.  Maybe another thread?)  Anyway, this was a very cool cat, but a group of coyotes moved into the area and began taking out the cats.  A couple of times people actually saw coyotes with cats in their mouths.  Kali disappeared.

Back when my family first moved into the area, it was mostly wild country and we often heard coyotes howling.  No one hears them anymore, but they're still there.  I think they've learned to shut up.

Now, wasn't that much more interesting than debating this tired old argument against the blasphemy challenge?  It was for me.  

Was it really that big of a problem for me to start a new thread about a specific question that I had?  Sure, I could have dug up an old dead horse of a thread on the blasphemy challenge, but I really wanted to focus on the word deny.  It's obvious to me why you guys don't want a specific thread on this - the inclusion of the word "deny" in the challenge is...irrational.  You can go on about parody all you want, but you know good and well that the whole thing contradicts your own rigid standards concerning the discourse of theists.  That's cool, though.  I'd only split hairs with theists if I were you too.