An Interesting Argument
Offline I was intrigued by the proposition of the 'Rational Response Squad' that persons 'blaspheme the Holy Spirit' by denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, God, etc. If rationality is the calling card of this organisation, I hope you will take my critique in that spirit (no pun intended).
To be fair, as Merriam-Webster defines it, 'blasphemy' is 'the crime of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or a religion and its doctrines and writings and esp. God as perceived by Christianity and Christian doctrines and writings.' So, yes, technically the bugled call to 'blaspheme' the Holy Spirit by denying His/its existence is a form of blasphemy; you are attacking that which is considered sacrosanct, even if you would roll your eyes at the suggestion that the 'holy spirit' exists.
But surely you, being rational and intelligent men and women, understand the literary significance of *context.* Surely you, setting yourselves as those who would debate theism so surgically, would understand the importance of language and consequent semantics. I'm not mocking you so much as wondering why there is such a disconnect, because I am in fact convinced that there are probably many of you who are intelligent and rational. The Bible verse that is used to support the RRS's 'blaspheming of the Holy Spirit' is found in Mark 3, and careful consideration of the actual chapter -- not just second-hand commentary *about* the chapter -- shows that Jesus is speaking such words about blasphemy in response to a specific situation. The religious leaders in the passage attribute Jesus' acts to Beelzebub, the prince of demons; this is what 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit' truly is.
So, allowing for differences in opinions among free-thinkers, are you at least somewhat collectively positing the existence of a personification of evil to which acts can be attributed? If there is a personification of evil, does evil in fact have an ontos? is this what you are suggesting? This whole language of 'blasphemy' -- in the context of the passage -- suggests an understanding of a personified Good and a personified evil; if you employ such words, you are buying-in to the definitions given to you by theism. While I find the spirit behind the 'blasphemy' challenge to be saddening, I can't help but smile and shake my head at the (forgive me) irrationality and ignorance of the approach.
And I'll leave it at that. Really, I'm letting you off easy anyway, because there is room to press the issue of 'blasphemy' as something that allows for that which is blasphemed to have an ontos, which means that you are in fact acknowledging its existence. Atheism (or anti-theism) truly is as failed of an experiment as industry-based, modernity-steeped 'Christianity,' because both movements are merely reactionary to something previous to them. 'Atheism' in its very etymology suggests the negation of something that has ontos -- Theos.
Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] if you would like to respond. God bless,
-a-
- Login to post comments
This issue has been discussed ad nauseam on the forums. You should do some poking around the old threads and see if you can find them.
At any rate, we do not believe in the Holy Spirit or God or Hell. The purpose of the challenge, you must remember, had nothing to do with theology and everything to do with people, reaction and provocation. The purpose of the challenge was to show that we we are not afraid of the scare-tactics like the notion of hell that religion uses to keep it's death grip on the masses.
We are already fully aware that it is impossible to blaspheme that which we know has no meaningful ontology. Do not insult our intelligence by implying otherwise. We weren't actually "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit, a rather difficult task considering it does not exist. Rather, we were attempting to show in very clear terms that we do not believe in damnation or any other nonsense propogated by religion, and that the best way to do this was to violate one of the "unforgivable sins" in front of the world.
Another example by using a hypothetical scenario is that you are walking down the street with a friend, and when the discussion of lack of belief comes up, he says something nonsensical like "aren't you afraid that God will punish you"? And you reply no. And then to demonstrate this conviction, you curse Gods name repeatedly. Does this imply that you believe in God? No. All it shows is that you are not afraid of the notion.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
*SIGH*
Not this again.
But deludedgod pretty much makes a good point! Thanks for responding to the thread, deludedgod.
Atheist Books
Only as a hypothetical, in order to demonstrate a lack of fear of the supposed consequences. I.e. saying "I dare this god to strike me down" does not actually express belief in said god, in fact, it declares the opposite: I have no fear of this god, because I hold it does not exist.
It's only irrational and ignorant if you haven't progressed from the concrete operations stage of development to hypothetical thinking.
Now, if you want to argue that hypothetical acceptance for the sake of refutation doesn't involve real belief, and that real belief is required for blasphemy, you might have a point....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Ahhhh yes. The 'context' argument concerning the blasphemy challenge.
Little bit behind aren't you considering the blasphemy challenge is over 4 months old. Apparently, you didn't wish to make too much effort to save anyone's 'soul' until now.
Your questions. My answers. You will still be responded to in this thread by me even though discussing this with you might be considered irrational futility:
Yes. The answer is that the 'personification of evil' lies within the walls of churches, mosques, synagogues, and in front of your computer. Not the answer you expected I'm sure.
It isn't solely your fault. However, willfully following a contradictory, controlling, conniving, condescending, conglomeration of crap called christianity certainly bespeaks of your own convictions concerning corrupt corporeal criminality.
My standards of evil are vastly different than yours or anyone elses for that matter. As such, your 'ontus' of evil ought not overwhelm your obligation to own up to the obfuscation of the ontological missteps of orthodoxy.
That's how obnoxious 'language' and 'context' can be.
Here. Does this fix any 'contextual' errors for you:
Luke 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: 12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
When is it going to ever sink the fuck in that not only is your religion ridiculous, it is also psychologically harmful, devoid of reason, and willfully obtuse.
All I can do is shake my head in disgust and revulsion for people willing to espouse these beliefs. People too self-indulgent to see that the world is made up of more than their beliefs could ever imagine. People trapped inside of a book full of excrement so disgusting that it should be hosed off of humanity like elephant dung at a zoo down the drain.
Every last one of you christians should HUG an atheist today and thank them for being rational. Thank them for only using words, message boards, or youtube videos rather than using the tools of science in a mass eugenics experiment.
By the way, a better word than ontos would probably be 'concept' in this conceptual model. Unless you really are trying to be obnoxious.
P.S. I deny the existence of jesus, any god, and the holy ghost. I do not believe because I have not been given sufficient evidence to do so. I will speak out against religion and most often ANY concept of christianity that weak minds will conjure from their imaginations.
Please. Have a nice day. Thank you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Man, this argument has been passed around here like scabies. Don't lash out at us because you missed the point.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
My apologies; I should have looked around more diligently before posting my question. I really dislike it on other forums when trolls drop in for a rise, and I've pretty much done the same thing. I'm sorry.
Concerning the case: yes, I am approaching it more for the hypothetical consideration as an admission of a reality, but I wasn't altogether sure who was making what argument. My argument could go something like the following: those who don't have eyes can't conjecture what light may be like; it isn't conceivable. Then again, you could argue that 'the light' is simply the description of something that does in fact exist but is being mislabelled, and you would also have a bit of a case there. This post was a bit more like a poetry argument than an attempt at prose. I was just having a little fun with the concepts and pointing out what I perceived to be a misunderstanding. However, because I wasn't altogether sure what the intentions were of all those who were making the videos (some seemed to be suggesting different approaches), my response did reveal a bit of ignorance.
As a side note in regard to some wild leaps-to-conclusions in some of the responses, 'lashing out at [you]'? Come on. My post was hardly lashing out at anything. Where are all the jokes about Chrisians (in this case, rationalists) not having a sense of humour? --about not understanding things? This time around, I don't see anyone jumping up and down at his/her computer terminal waiting to point out defenciveness and ridiculous leaps. I do understand that my post was a dud bombshell that has been dropped numerous times by many hateful people (and, again, I apologise for my ignorance in this regard and my clumsiness), but come on.
Well, specifically, they can easily conjecture what light is. You understand what ultraviolet radiation is, don't you? You can't see it, though. Similarly, you know what gamma radiation is. All part of the same spectrum. Maybe you mean to say that a blind person cannot perceive light in the same way that sighted people can. While this is true, it's not a valid analogy to the existence of god being "experienced" since theists and atheists have the same sense organs.
Sorry, kiddo. Back to Analogy 101 for you.
(and yes, I mean that as a joke, but all jokes are rooted in truth, no?)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thanks. We will certainly appreciate your input if it's all in good faith, if you'll pardon the expression.
It's nice to have thoughtful, intelligent theists with which to dialogue.
Welcome to the forums.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
In regard to the analogy:
The argument isn't so much an experiential one -- at least not in the individualistic sense (no pun intended) that we typically mean such things. Again, my point is the very fact we seem to transcend ourselves and are able to not only see the complexity (the eye, the lung, storm types, etc.) of the world but that we also are able to perceive the interconnectedness (and dysfunction) of the world (eco-systemmes, weather patterns, etc.). I also preemptively pointed out, however, that the argument could be made from my analogy that what is being described as 'the light' (excuse me, the spectrum of light that we can see) in our 'darkness' could simply be a misnomer for something else -- and that's an equally possible argument to pursue.
However, I enjoy that you had fun messing around with the analogy.
And I like the quote in your signature. Augustine was really not that helpful of a thinker -- especially when he and Calvin and that particular school of thought ultimately suggested/suggests that we not 'question God's ways.' Hmm, peculiar -- that's not only against common sense, that's against the Bible's portrayed notion of honest lamentation and anger toward God. I'm just hijacking some of Augustines's better concepts.
In regard to Iruka's welcome:
I actually do like the idea of hanging around and getting involved in some of the forums. We'll have to see what my work schedule does to this.
I see you've been a member for a little bit! Sorry for the late welcome. Therefore: WELCOME!
I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't wag a virtual finger at you for not posting on General Conversation, Introductions, and Humor and introducing yourself!
See? There's a little humor from an Atheist for you!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well...I've got to give Anaxionus this much: the posts I've seen here are light-years ahead of some of the stuff that I've seen starting threads in the "You Respond" list. I have to wonder how the moderators take seeing the millionth e-mail filled with atrocious spelling, no capitalization or punctuation, a nearly complete banishment of grammar, copious amounts of profanity, threats and accusations and not even a single half-hearted attempt at genuine argumentation or "evidence."
So...props to you, Anaxionus. In all honesty, I don't really have anything to add to what's already been said; but I did want to complement you on the fact that you actually had something to say that was worth reading.
Conor
___________________________________________________________________________________
"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII
"But it should!"--Me