Posted on 10/28/2009 10:27:28 AM PDT by TopQuark
Did you miss it? Last month the country celebrated national Blasphemy Day!
According to NPR.com, atheists marked Blasphemy Day last month at gatherings around the world, celebrating the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.
Activities included de-baptizing people with hair dryers and an art exhibit in Washington, D.C., which showed, among other titles, Jesus Paints His Nails, in which "an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion [applies] polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross." The atheist group Center for Inquiry hosted the exhibit.
Addressing a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, columnist Christopher Hitchens elicited enthusiastic cheers by commenting, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." He told NPR that religion is "sinister, dangerous and ridiculous," because it can prompt people to fly airplanes into buildings, and it promotes ignorance.
Hitchens defended atheist incivility this way: "If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, 'Hey, at least I respect your belief,' I would be telling a lie."
THE IRRELIGIOUS DIVIDE However, not all atheists should be painted with the same brush. Stuart Jordan, who advises the Center for Inquiry on policy issues, explain to NPR that Blasphemy Day is symptomatic of a debate among traditional atheists and "new atheists" over whether people of faith should be treated with respect or derision.
Paul Kurtz, who founded the Center for Inquiry three decades ago, was ousted in a "palace coup" last year. "I consider them atheist fundamentalists," he says. "Merely to critically attack religious beliefs is not sufficient. It leaves a vacuum. What are you for? We know what you're against, but what do you want to defend?"
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Where was the “Koran in a bucket of urine” exhibit?
Or the “caricatures of Muhammed art gallery”?
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
A true atheist can’t believe in “Blasphemy” since the very definition of “Blasphemy” assumes the existance of a God to Insult!
A true atheist can’t believe in “Blasphemy” since the very definition of “Blasphemy” assumes the existance of a God to Insult!
There are no true atheists. No one can ever convince me otherwise.
I was thinking of attending their gathering in Mecca, but there wasn't one in that city for some reason.
---Robert A. Heinlein, from "Time Enough For Love"
If they were truly secure in their non-belief, they would not have to resort to this ridiculous behavior.
Just as the existence or non-existence of a God (or gods) is not dependent upon whether or not they are believed in, the existence or non-existence of atheists is not dependent upon your belief or non-belief in them.
And now that that's out in the open, I guess they can't whine when the vice-versa is applied.
Atheism is a delusional faith. Honest skepticism is a different subject, but to declare with certainty that God does not exist and that this declaration is not a statement of faith, is delusional.
Or even in the book about the caricatures of the Big Mo.
They not only are delusional, they are gutless.
An atheist secure in his belief that God does not exist would not waste his time with the exhibitionist pranks of the “Blasphemy Day” celebrants.
I suspect that many of these people have little philosophical or theological education, else they would be engaging in serious debate about the question of God instead of sloganeering.
There are no true atheists. No one can ever convince me otherwise.
<><><><><><>
Well, at least you do anyone so inclined a favor, by letting them know up front that discussion on the topic is useless.
I tend to think that there are no true monotheists. We all serve so many masters.
And atheism can prompt dictators to kill one hundred million people.
I do not mean this as a serious polemical hit against my valued atheist friends, who are fairly numerous. But I am disappointed at Hitchens, whose good writing I have enjoyed many a time, for making such a foolish and bigoted argument.
I hear you.
Atheism is always on the attack because it has no defenses.
Seriously. How can someone like Hitchens talk about "religion" "poisoning" everything? That implies that there is an objective right and wrong, and that religion is somehow 'corrupting' things from what 'ought to be'. But as the 'old atheists' know, it is nonsense to talk about 'ought to be' in a godless universe. If there is no God then the universe has no "right" or "wrong" state. It just is.
“The new atheists counter that they believe in reason, science and freedom from religious myth.”
Yeah, I beleive in that, too. What I don’t believe in is insulting people merely because they happen to hold a different world view - something that many on both sides of this issue could stand to consider IMO.
Blasphemy is, or should be, my right however. If I want to go around and say that God is a fairy tale, or insulting (i.e. telling the truth) about Mohammed, or saying that Jesus was just a man, that’s my right. Still doesn’t mean I’m going to go out of my way to insult and offend people, though.
Spoken like a true bigot.
His faith in the no god god takes presendence over all other faiths. Bow mere mortals to the superiority of Atheism. So dictates Christopher Hitchens.
“A true atheist can’t believe in ‘Blasphemy’ since the very definition of ‘Blasphemy’ assumes the existance of a God to Insult!”
True enough, but the object of their insults and hatred is not really God, it is believers in God whom they hate.
“True enough, but the object of their insults and hatred is not really God, it is believers in God whom they hate.”
Yes. And therein is their motivation. Does that mean this whole thing can be classified as “Hate Speech”?
:-)
I know an atheist who was kicked out of a local atheist group for actually defending religion.
He stated that although he was an atheist, he told his local group that he believed organized religion was very good at it’s ability to provide charity to those in need.
This man, left over from the 60’s, had become disillusioned with the atheist movement because they were becoming more and more anti religious rather than the ‘live and let live’ attitude he had been accustomed to.
A "true Atheist" would be someone who had no interest in God, pro or con, just as someone who is "apolitical" would have no interest in politics. What these jerks are is "anti-theists". They are smug, arrogant, mean-spirited wiseguys who, like Liberals, are SO sure they are smarter than we that they enjoy making themselves large by belittling our faith in things unseen. As I often say, they are like the person who, having taking a political opinion against the eating of breakfast, whizzes in your Wheaties just to make their point.
Make no mistake: They don't have to believe in God or blasphemy...they do believe in making fun of others, and like their father the devil, destroying their faith when they can.
Back when Garrion Keilor was funny (before he became an embittered old Lefty IWW-card-carrying Socialist) he summed it up well: "He was the kind of person who struck you wouldn't learn another thing until the day he died, but about fifteen minutes after that, was in for a real education."
“Atheism is a delusional faith. Honest skepticism is a different subject, but to declare with certainty that God does not exist and that this declaration is not a statement of faith, is delusional.”
How can anyone state with certainty that anything that can’t be seen, touched, tasted, measured, etc doesn’t exist? No, I believe the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims, such as the existence of God. Not having seen any irrefutable (or even strong) proof for the existence of God, I default to believing that God does not exist. But, being human and fallible as I am, I concede the possibility that I might be wrong. That’s why I respect the faith of other people, so long as such faith doesn’t move the faithful to deny the right of others to believe what they want.
Silly rabbit! It can't possibly be hate speech! It's against Christians!
I would like to take a political position against this thing you people call "air". I have never seen it, and therefore it doesn't exist. If all of you insist on keeping the delusion alive by moving your chests up and down as if you were taking it into your lungs and it was keeping you alive or something, I am going to have to get a court order from the President to make you stop. Will you just grow up, already!!!!!!!!
Like I said via delusional faith -- and watch your double negs.
Reminds me of an old joke.
This is short but to the point!!
Subject: God is Busy !
If you don’t know GOD, don’t make stupid remarks!!!!!!!
A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was a devout atheist and a member of the ACLU .
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, ‘God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes.’ The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.
Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, ‘Here I am God. I’m still waiting.’ It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked, stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, ‘What the heck is the matter with you? Why did you do that?’ The Marine calmly replied, ‘God was too busy today protecting American soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So, He sent me.’
” As I often say, they are like the person who, having taking a political opinion against the eating of breakfast, whizzes in your Wheaties just to make their point.”
A colorful, but effective analogy! LOL
“Silly rabbit! It can’t possibly be hate speech! It’s against Christians!”
Christians, Jews, and hetero White Males are the new “Fair Game” I guess.
I disagree; there are "professional skeptics" such as those at The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine who have devoted their lives to debunking the existence of such things as UFOs, Bigfoot, ESP, etc. They certainly don't believe in such things, and yet they are quite interested in them (or more precisely, belief in them). In the same manner, a "true atheist", while not believing in God, could be interested in others belief in God.
These guys don’t even bother me anymore. God will not be mocked. That doesn’t mean thunderbolts are going to come out of the sky if you try, it means you can’t do it.
I heard a Pentacostal minister give a good explanation of some athiests. On the outside, they try to put forth an argument that there is no God. On the inside they are shaking their fists toward heawen while screaming “No, God!”.
I'm sorry, but you're objectively wrong. People mock God all the time.
There are innumerable ideas concerning the nature of reality. One school of thought is that the existence of anything DOES depend on whether or not they are believed in. Who knows, maybe even the vast right wing conspiracy actually exists in Hillary’s world.
Atheism is a delusional faith. Honest skepticism is a different subject, but to declare with certainty that God does not exist and that this declaration is not a statement of faith, is delusional.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Very well stated! I have to applaud anyone who can clarify a difficult concept in so few words.
:-)
With respect, no they don’t. They think that they are. That’s my point.
This reminds me of the classic question, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"
The tree falls, thus making a traveling wave (an oscillation of pressure) in the atmosphere. Since this is the definition of a sound, the answer is an unequivocal "yes". When I said as much to my teacher in Philosophy 101 he didn't like my answer, which made me more confident that I was right.
That's actually true. When I first realized my faith in God was a sham, I was very defensive about religion. Now it's 15 years later, and Islam is the only one I still pick on (because I think they're awful.) But I treat Christians and Jews with respect and don't pick fights with them.
Mock: To treat with ridicule or contempt; deride.
If someone derides God, or treats he/she/it with ridicule or contempt, they are mocking God by definition.
No, they’re not, and I’m not going to get into a silly semantics contest. They’re mocking what they imagine God to be. One might as well be a child mocking the dark.
This isn't a "silly semantics contest". Let's see if an analogy helps. During the Cold War Soviet propaganda mocked the USA. It could be argued that the purveyors of such propaganda didn't understand the USA, and were simply mocking what they imagined the USA to be, but they were still mocking it. To say you can't mock the USA is absurd, just as it is to say you can't mock God.
I've just drawn a stick figure on a piece of paper. I'm pretending it's you. I just stuck my tongue out at it. Am I mocking you? Or am I kidding myself?
Are you arguing that one cannot mock something without a full and complete understanding of the subject in question?
Atheism is at root an emotional - and faith-based - belief. They trumpet science and reason while undermining any possible rational underpinning for the same.
Once more, with precision: when one hasn't a clue as to what one is trying to mock, it's toothless.
I do not require "full and complete understanding" - that is your term, which you were applying in order to sway the argument. Now please play these games with someone else, I've stated my argument in perfect clarity. If you want to restate it in other terms, you're arguing with yourself.
I never said you did. In post 45, I pointed out that the Soviet Union mocking the United States during the Cold War without full knowledge of it was analogous to someone mocking God without full knowledge of him/her/it. Your reply to this was that my logic was impeccable, but that my premises were flawed. Needing clarification, I then asked if you were arguing that Soviet propaganda didn't mock the USA.
Clear enough?
Once more, with precision: when one hasn't a clue as to what one is trying to mock, it's toothless.
That fact that it's toothless doesn't mean that the mocking in question never occurred. God obviously can be mocked.
I do not require "full and complete understanding" - that is your term, which you were applying in order to sway the argument. Now please play these games with someone else, I've stated my argument in perfect clarity. If you want to restate it in other terms, you're arguing with yourself.
If you don't want a reply, you really shouldn't ask me a question at the top of the post to which I am currently replying. In any case, it now seems that you're arguing that one can mock God as long as one has more than more than a "clue" about him/her/it. Correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.