this question has been answered so many times, it's just not worth posting the answer to anymore, seeing as how in the next 48 hours, someone will ask this AGAIN!!!

And who says there aren't people doing the equivalent of MLK Jr.?

I'm not saying the blasphemy challenge is a bad thing. But it's like when I was a christian, I would ask my parents why we have to go to church to pray, why can't there be prayer at home? My question to the blasphemy challenge is, why make your opinion so public if in the end, no one is changed by it and their beliefs are simply unchanged and if not, hardened

So...

Christians should be able to freely preach and shout and denounce atheists, but we should sit quietly and let them do it because we don't want to look like.... what? Like we care about making the world better?

If Christianity is so great, why aren't you in it any more? Know why I'm not? Because someone was brave and bold enough to challenge me at a crucial time in my life. Had that person not offended me a little, I very well might not have continued questioning, and might still be a Christian.

Why don't you go and start a web site for people who don't want to do anything about the fact that atheists are so hated. I'm sure Rosa Parks would approve of your pacifist tactics.

In my own defense, I am not saying to sit back and watch our own destruction, I am saying defend ourselves without lowering ourselves to their level. We are already on the logical high ground, let us be on the moral high ground as well.

I am an ex christian, by the way, because I questioned the world. I read the bible, then I read the Koran, then I read The book of mormon, then I studied religions feverishly, gathering all the knowledge I could to come to the conclusion that their is no god. These religions teach you to not question, but rather, accept every fact shoved into your head about your faith. Eventually this becomes such a drilled in response, that you are no longer able to question anything.

At the same time though, they believe so much in what they believe that in some ways, it's impossible to gather but a few away from the institution that, in some cases, has become the only thing they have left.

I am pleased to collaborate and share ideas with those few people with enough logic to seperate right and wrong without the fear of religion hanging above their heads.

My conclusion though is, the blasphemy challenge is in no way a bad thing, but more ideas are necessary in order to create a true atheistic society.

Agreed. But most of us DO go after religion as a whole. Most arguments with theists are over christianity due to geography. More English speaking Christians surround us than anyone else. And they're fun to play with. Similarly a point that I often bring up in debate is that for most everyone, everywhere, the world over, one's religion is a product of their environment. I love using that point because you then ask how they can possibly believe their's is the only one true way when they've never been exposed to any others. Since I live where I live, the theists near me are christians.

My question to the blasphemy challenge is, why make your opinion so public if in the end, no one is changed by it and their beliefs are simply unchanged and if not, hardened.

What makes you so sure that this will be the universal reaction? I think we need to employ all sorts of approaches to get the idea out there that belief is NOT the default position, and that there really are a lot of people of all ages and sorts who simply don't buy it, not just some weird demonic nut jobs.

I think we have enough personal testimony that this sort of thing can be the final straw that allows those, who have some honest doubts and difficulties going along with the crowd, to realise they are not insane or evil to consider 'coming out'.

Sure it's going to offend some, but we can leave those to be tackled by other approaches.

Anything we do, no matter how subtle, to bring to people's attention even the mere idea that atheists  exist, is going to offend some.

bob,

I would think more people might be offended by anti-theists than by knowing there are atheists.  For example, an anti-theists' comment like :But most of us DO go after religion as a whole, would offend more than knowing atheists not believing god(s) exist.

I find it fascinating to wonder why so many strong believers in various 'faiths' get super-touchy about 'offensive' words (and cartoons ), especially from non-believers.

One would think that the strength they claim to get from their loyalty to the supreme being would allow to ignore or laugh at mere words coming from un-believers who were already doomed to Hell...

Must be secretly insecure about the whole thing...

I like that the OP want to engage in a more humane “war against religion.” I can at least respect the honesty of the declaration of war, and I genuinely appreciate the sentiment that there is a civil way in which to proceed.

I found my way to this site by watching a Richard Dawkins video clip, but when I got here I was disturbed to find the blasphemy challenge. Especially disturbing are the parts that read:

· Don't simply "deny the holy spirit." Give it your own personal touches. Possibly add extra blasphemy or maybe even a background story as to why you feel the way you do.

· Record your video in a Church or outside of a Church.

It is one thing to talk publicly about one’s beliefs, quite another to taunt and humiliate those who do not see the world the way you do. Atheist in Wonderland writes, “One purpose of the Blasphemy Challenge is to promote dialogue between us and theists.” Well, you picked the right screen name, because you would have to be in Wonderland to think this is a good way to open a dialogue. Allow me to explain (although I suspect that you already know better).

A church is a sacred space. God or no God, it is sacred to those who worship in that space. To utter blasphemy or “extra blasphemy” is a violation of that space. One does not have to believe in God to respect the sacred spaces of others. For many of us (atheists included) home and family are sacred. Suppose, for the sake of argument, someone came over to your house and with camera in-hand yelled, “Your mom is a big fat b—tch and she isn’t even really your mom!” Now, supposing that you were, in fact, adopted, and that your mom in fact was a big fat b—tch, the prankster might think that s/he was doing you a tremendous favor by showing up at dinnertime and revealing this important truth to you. Odds are, however, you would not be in a mood to dialogue.

Not too long ago, I was attempting to make a point to a group and offered the example of the Flat Earth Society in making the hard-fact/soft-fact distinction. I asked (rhetorically) if there was anyone who really believed that the world was flat. To my disbelief, one young woman nervously raised her hand and said yes. I thought she misunderstood my question and so I repeated it. Sure enough, I had found a Flat-Earther. She said that she believed the world was flat, but did not want to talk about it because she was embarrassed. Now, I could have seized upon this moment to educate this person by mocking her belief. Instead, I made the point by another route. I had already effectively revealed that I did not believe in a Flat Earth, but I didn’t feel the need to take the extra step of rubbing her nose in my belief or ridiculing her rationality. I accidentally offended this person, but I did not purposefully seek her out in public to hang her belief system out to dry, and I certainly don’t seek out meetings of the FES just so I can tell them how stupid I think they are. One cannot disprove the existence of God, but I am pretty sure that the flat Earth thing is a done deal. The question, however, is not about whether or not they are right. The question is whether or not they have a right to peacefully coexist with the rest of us.

If you don’t get the idea that it is not cool to harass other people just because they are different, no amount of explanation is going to help. Perhaps there was a nasty theist in your past who made you feel small, different, and unwanted – should also give them a medal for their courage in the name of open discourse?

At best, the challenge is a frat boy level prank. At worst, it reveals a mean streak that runs in all of us – the part that enjoys tormenting, alienating, and suppressing the Other whomever the Other happens to be.

I'm disturbed when I read the bible. What to call it even?

I find nothing wrong with encouraging creativity.

That probably, like the saying "I deny the holy spirit" stems from the God Who Wasn't There. That is how Brain Flemming did it so I guess you could call it tradition.

I don't see how saying, "I don't believe what you believe" is taunting or humiliating someone.

No, it is. I has worked with many people including you as we are talking about it.

I'd hope they would stay off of my property, but that isn't because anything is sacred. In fact churches invite people into them.

Oh, you think we mean dialogue on the spot. No, that’s probably not going to go very while. However I don't expect the dialogue to be on the spot except for maybe a few, "FUCK YOU ATHEISTS" or "...how can someone deny what I believe? :O" The dialogue would most likely happen later when they go find out what this blasphemy is all about. Plus, there weren't a whole lot of people talking to other people in those videos. Most of the dialogue is happening because people see the videos and go, "OH MY GOD THEY ARE SO GODLESS!!!"

I personally don't play nice when dealing with aspects of knowledge. I won't hold the ignorant's hand if they try to argue with me, refuse to look into things, or don't have any proof for their positive claim.

Please explain how, "I don't believe what you believe is 'rubbing [a person's] nose in [our lack of] belief.'"

Is this what you have come down to? Are you really just asking us to be live and let live atheists?

Interesting, you now think we speak opening because of some asshole. Well to a point you are right, but it is a group of assholes and they aren't the playground bullies you seem to allude to.

If the Blashpemy Challenge is "tormenting, alienating, and suppressing" others then debate must be on the same level as war crimes.

The point is that the blasphemy is unforgivable meaning we can't repent afterwards and become christian. It is showing we don't secretly believe or have a fear of their god. If all we had to do to be unforgiven was something silly like throw salt over our shoulder or dunk our head under water that would be the challenge.

The shock value leads another purpose, getting the idea noticed. You can be as calm and respectful as you like, but people won't give a shit. How would you suggest I go about disagreing with someone? "Um, I disagree with theists. All their proofs for god I have seen are flawed and faith doesn't lead to any real knowledge. I see religion as tool for the powerful and a safty blanked for the weak. Of course I mean this all respectively though." I might say I am sorry to not respect their beliefs, but I doubt you would respect the idea that you should be killed and then burn for an eternity just for not believing their story.

I came here because I was curious about the site that sponsored a Richard Dawkins clip  on YouTube. If I had known about the  "challenge" beforehand, I may have skipped this place entirely. Also, for every few offended Christians you do get to post here, how many have you lost? Some forms of getting noticed are better than others. If you fart in an elevator or muder someone, you will get noticed, but it will not necessarily advance your cause. Frankly, if I was an atheist, I would be ashamed that this sort of stuff was on "my side".  

You have every right to voice your cause and to attempt to spread your meme throughout our culture, but there are limits to what is cool. A theater is a public space, but this does not give you the right to shout "FIRE!!" in the crowded theater. The mall is a public space, but this does not give you the legal right to utter "fighting words." A library is a public space, but it is bad form to make disruptive noise there. A church is a private space that invites respectful public participation, but this does not license violating the sacrality of that space.   

I would be more than a little miffed if some theists messed with your own declaration in your own sacred space of nature. I know you don't like Kant, but a little reflexivity does wonders sometimes.  

pwned

YARN has been posting for nearly a week now, so it seems it can't be all that repulsive... 

Please leave, Yarn.

edit>removed a personal attack 

The Blasphemy Challenge has gotten TV coverage on major news networks. That's pretty impressive. And if nothing else it lets people know we're out there. You know what they say - there's no such thing as bad publicity. The internet is a powerful tool that the RRS is using fantastically in bringing this information to the public. All we need is for people to know we exist and our numbers will swell.

Who cares what religious people think now? They'll die. Okay, so will we but at least we'll have done something, like made their children open to atheism. It's going to be a long, long battle before atheists are in the majority. What's important for now is defending our rights as, like you said, MLK Jr. did. He didn't expect people to agree with him straight away. He fought it out with hard facts and charisma.

So on one hand I agree with you - more tactics must be employed but that will all happen naturally as we gain more... notoriety! But don't think that just because we're not changing people's minds we're not getting anywhere. A huge percentage of people just haven't made up their minds yet. Enter rationale.

dude, that's just creepy

Starting out by insulting people isn't 'open discourse'

If you actually wanted open discourse, you'd get it. 

Well, there is also something to be said for being a verbal "Malcom X". I certainly wouldn't advocate personal violence or distruction of property. THAT is a definate no no.

But when an atheist is honest and says, "You are full of it" are we supposed to lie to people and say, "I agree" or "isnt that nice".

The fact is humans dont agree, even atheists have diverse opinions. I see nothing wrong with a down and dirty venting debate. It only means that we vehmatly dissagree with your claims. That doesnt mean we hate all believers all the time.

To me when I say, "That's absurd" to a believer it is no different than a friend saying to me, "Brian, why do you watch the NFL? It is absurd to have that almost worship of the Redskins. You are not the one getting rich".

Should I shout, "YOU HATE ME" because they criticise something I like?

To all the politically correct believers and atheists I warn not to not demand censorship as a means of silencing dissent. Weither or not someone believes or not should not create a "taboo" because either side might not like what they hear.

I take a physicall Martin Luther aproach to the atheist movement, but take a verbal "Malcom X" approach with the Jefferson attitude of being unafraid to "Question with boldness".

Atheists are mainly tired of religion being a war and political tool that divides countries and uses fear through politics to stop people from thinking.

If theism were not a political tool used to motivate violence or motivate "us vs them" between Jews and Muslims, between Christians and Muslims, between Liberal Christians and Conservitive Christians, if it were not used between Sunnis and Shi ites, ......if all the believers of all labels and all the non-believers had to worry about was debate, wouldnt that be fare better than society of fear we live in today?

I promise not to fear any believer that doesnt fear me. Part of that includes letting go of the idea that atheists should not be part of the mainstreem, including high political offices.

It is time for a demand by all labels to end the "alpha male" mentality and realize that all 6 billion people are individuals. It is hardly a call to a one world goverment. Just the knowlege that people ARE different and "just because"  should not be an excuse to fear change or questioning.

Lemmings worship states, political parties, and religious icons. Individuals are not afriad of questioning, even when it comes to their own. 

In no way do I mean to be pacifist, I am saying that the blasphemy challenge isn't doing anything but showing the numbers of atheists, which is a good thing. What we need now is a way to show that christians are wrong, because christians at this point in time think they they are totally 100% right, oblivious to the world around them. The point is, we need to find a way to break that feeling of obliviousness on the part of christians. Whether that means taking a christian and punching him in the nose or tying him down and reading facts to him, or whatever, we are in need of a less radical, but more effective approach.

George Bush Sr. said that Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens or patriots, and it's pretty obvious that his boy George W. agrees.  I'll give you $10,000 if you can convince either one of those knuckle dragging troglodytes that Atheists are not only people, but patriots!  Forget the blasphemy challenge, here's a bigger challenge for ya!!!

BB