Blasphemy Challenge: Funny maybe, probably, but no sense anyway.
If you are an atheist you certainly don’t believe you have a soul that will live forever. So, you can’t, shouldn’t, exchange it against a DVD. And you don’t need to be convinced that there is no god around.
If you believe, say as a christian, that you have a soul, you can always give it up, take the DVD, confess your sin (even adding that you done so to obliterate a copy of those devilish instruments) and get your soul back.
Now, if you would like to distribute copies of this work to improve the case of atheists, the target isn’t composed by atheists, but by believers, to whatever deity they chosen. One would like to provide the DVD to them, so they could learn about the quality of their beliefs – mythology.
So the contest should be the other way around: display your religiosity and you will get a free copy of our work to show you on what your belief is based – mythos.
But, this is an interesting meme on atheists coming-out anyway. Some of the reactions triggered are to be studied. Denyse O’Leary’s post at post-darwinist is one of them. Denyse is catholic and pro-ID, a combination somehow difficult to understand; I don’t see how the two beliefs may be compatible and I’m not the only one, a lot of catholics, including at least one former pope, consider that there is incompatibility between the two approaches.
Denyse trace a sequence of events leading to atheism: darwinist, thus materialist, thus atheist. She put it this way:
This isn’t surprising, of course. Given who is behind blasphemy chic, etc., the atheism in question is materialist atheism*, of which Darwinism is the creation story.
Placing Darwin at the root of all evil.
I just followed the reverse path: first rejecting christianism as common religious bullshit, of the same level as islam, or hinduism, etc., then started to develop a materialistic view of the world, rejecting supernatural causations and manifestations as illusionary stuff, and later learning about the evolution theory, which sustains the materialistic view point.
It isn’t ignorance that led me to atheism. It’s the study of the so-called holly texts. Whatever the way you read them, literally or not, they just don’t make sense! Churches and organized religious life do make sense, as social organizers, but they could/should be replaced, as we know better than rely upon lies.
Placing Darwin at the root of all evils, as Denyse do, is probably an easy way to deal with a problem of atheism, that is impossible to attack otherwise than by pseudo-scientific approaches.
Theological discussions end up at the simple argument that as far as there is no way to prove the existence of anything supernatural, including deities, you are either a believer (and then even Santa Klaus could be considered as real) or a no believer. Believers base their beliefs on social training, not real understanding of the world. They are risen muslims, or christians, or jews, or olympists and the rare conversions are mostly based on the social activities of churches, not theological arguments.
When facing an atheist, it’s easy to start a discussion about a scientific theory, which by definition isn’t perfect, and try to undermine it. Hoping that once the theory blown-up (if ever), the case of the atheist would be desperate. Now, if Denyse would like to attack atheism, she should do it discussing theology rather than science. As she already said she isn’t a biologist, and as far as I know she never tried to learn about evodevo. But she proclaim herself a convinced catholic christian. So she clearly place herself on the battle ground of theology, not Science. On the other hand, she consider theological incursions in her blogs as spam, stating that she will discard them! Not really a logical positioning:
To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven’t the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.
Theists attacks against scientific theories are quite interesting and greatly valuable. At length they help improving atheists’ positions as their questions are (or will be) answered. Each time they question a particular point, stating that it proves that atheists are wrong, and effort is made leading to a clear answer, the case of religions is made less and less defendable without the use of logical illusions. They struggle to be beaten to death. I do appreciate their help.