Take the Blasphemy Challenge

[TithonusSyndrome]

Does gambling away your eternal, undying soul for a copy of "The God Who Wasn't There" sound like a good deal to you? Or if not, then at least just denying ol' HS for the sake of it? If so, then take The Blasphemy Challenge today by posting an open denial of the Holy Spirit on YouTube along with the other 160+ lost souls. As transient as web movements in general and YouTube ones in particular tend to be, this should at least prove good for getting a quick rise out of theists.

[Pezzoni]

The fox news coverage (linked on the website) was absolutely hilarious

[TithonusSyndrome]

I got a kick out of this dude's denial video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8PCecgW ... ed&search=

[Rye]

I have no means to record myself, but I blaspheme the holy spirit whenever I feel compelled to. That dvd is shit, though.

[Elaro]

I also lack the means to record myself, so here goes: I deny the Holy Spirit.*

*Until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. And until someone threatens to smack me upside the head with a blunt object. If the latter, I retain the right to deny the Holy Spirit at a later time.

[NeoGoomba]

I will use a simple joke to proclaim my faith.

Q: Whats the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?

A: It only takes one nail to hang the picture

ZAM! Comedy Gold!!

PS: "The picture is real" is also an acceptable answer

[Teleros]

Problem is, the whole concept of God is something (at least in my view) science can never fully disprove, so whilst you could say "it's incredibly unlikely that God exists" you can't say for certain that "God doesn't exist". Still, nice to see Fox News getting all riled up about it .

[Rye]

Problem is, the whole concept of God is something (at least in my view) science can never fully disprove, so whilst you could say "it's incredibly unlikely that God exists" you can't say for certain that "God doesn't exist". Still, nice to see Fox News getting all riled up about it .

Point is, God looks exactly like he's not anywhere real and only in people's minds. Guess what the best explanation for that is, going by scientific principles.

[Singular Intellect]

Problem is, the whole concept of God is something (at least in my view) science can never fully disprove, so whilst you could say "it's incredibly unlikely that God exists" you can't say for certain that "God doesn't exist". Still, nice to see Fox News getting all riled up about it .

Classic burden of prove fallacy.

Replace 'God' with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or Darth Vader and your arguement makes just as much sense.

[Teleros]

Well I think there's a little difference between an omnipotent God and Santa - personally I think there's next to no hard evidence (if not none at all) in support of his existence (ie excluding the Bible etc - begging the question fallacy and all that), but given his nature (or supposed nature) I think you have to be careful about saying he definitely does not exist.
Anyway, I can see where this is heading, so if you want to discuss it elsewhere I'd be happy to (just don't want to go completely off-topic here ).

[Singular Intellect]

Well I think there's a little difference between an omnipotent God and Santa - personally I think there's next to no hard evidence (if not none at all) in support of his existence (ie excluding the Bible etc - begging the question fallacy and all that), but given his nature (or supposed nature) I think you have to be careful about saying he definitely does not exist.

Again, replace 'god' with 'the flying spagetti' monster. According to you we 'should be careful about saying it does not exist'.

But you're right, this is straying off topic...

[Rye]

Well I think there's a little difference between an omnipotent God and Santa

One is a cosmic level Santa. That's it. They're both old patriarchs with white beards that see everything and hear everything, reward you if you're good and punish you if you're bad, but seem to have special accommodations in real life for rich kids.

personally I think there's next to no hard evidence (if not none at all) in support of his existence (ie excluding the Bible etc - begging the question fallacy and all that)

It wouldn't be improper per se to use the bible as evidence for the god it describes. It'd just be really poor evidence, since it's obviously mythological in nature and relies on the assertions of a load of ignorant bronze age tribalists. Also, the god it represents is not too believable, what with all the cursing of talking snakes and getting angry over pointless shit though he had total knowledge of everything.

, but given his nature (or supposed nature) I think you have to be careful about saying he definitely does not exist.

"Definately" is pretty misleading there. "Definate" and "certain" claims are usually limited tot the tautological or self-evident. Like, "I exist" is certain to the person saying it, because they must exist in order to recognise their own existence.

Everything else in reality you have to use sensible objectivity about. You look in an empty box. It is logically possible that there is a god in the empty box, and by throwing the box to one side you will be damned for an eternity. Do you give a shit? No? You just throw the box to one side. It is obviously empty and the god is something I made up. It'd be just as made up even if someone else had made it up thousands of years ago and it had gained significant social traction. Likewise with all gods.

The christian god is not special in any regard. It is painfully obviously made up and descended from anthropological sources, "supernatural" is an incoherent term and the whole thing is nonsense.

[Frank Hipper]

Well I think there's a little difference between an omnipotent God and Santa

Yes, there most certainly is; a reasonably compelling argument has been made for Santa's skull existing in a church in Bari, Italy.

There is no such evidence for god.