If faith is a "mystery" as that lady minister said, then ABC and Fox (from the earlier clip) have no business criticizing The Blasphemy Challenge for telling people it is irrational to believe in god.

What a right-wing parody of The Daily Show...

This is such a pathetic way to present things. The "journalist" is just a wanabe comedian, with absolutly no sense of humour.

The initiative is not bad, but the way to present it "Here are some poor dumb kids poor misguided" pisses me off.

I suppose I'm more an agnostic, but the counter offensive to the 'indoctrination' since birth is what I am glad to hear about.

By the way, Norm, I have seen 3 different favicons over the past few days...did you finally pick the spyglass? :D

I've been experimenting. I think a magnifying glass is a good choice, clues you see, though I'm not sure this will be the final one. If you see any good pics of magnifying glasses send me a link.

I could not believe some of the questions that were asked.
"Is that because you think Hell's going to be fun if you do go there?" Are you kidding me?

Furthering that, I was disappointed with how "the godless heathens" as presented by ABC answered some of the questions. The interviewed asked questions about their "tactics," such as advertising on teen sites and the like or the "you're with us you're against us attitude," and the worst thing the "godless heathens" said was pretty much, "well yeah."

The best response would be, "Yes, well, Christianity does the same thing. They target teens, they have the 'You're with us or you're against us' attitude, we're doing exactly the same thing they are. So why don't you chastise them too?"

I find interesting that if you're a true believer you should feel pity for the nonbelievers, the interesting thing is that these people are unexpectedly scared. What they are scared about is the end of civilization as they've known to this point. They think that a state without religion can not function so atheist are just like, the communist, the fags, the immigrants... another external threat that should be fought in the name of god and the true spirit of America. Although I think they don't have to worry at all. We have already substituted religion with a sick adoration of celebrities and the world is less violent than it was 1500 years ago so. This may be the right way I don't know for sure, you just have to have a little "faith" in atheism, everything is going to be alright if you pay your bills.

An atheist from Spain.

Thank goodness the Christians aren't going out trying to convince children to become Christians. Otherwise the Christians in the clip might look like hypocrites.

This was a totally biased documentary on the the Blasphemy challenge. The interviewer was almost hostile to these guys and his questions were are all sounding as if they were mocking the atheists. No, what I would really like to see would be someone like Bill Moyers interviewing these guys. His faith and Reason interviews on PBS were awesome and being a religious person himself his questioning of atheists on the show is so beautiful, that he makes you see both sides of a coin. This clip on the other hand was stupid and unwatchable!

There are not two sides of the coin. 90% of the people believe in some kind of supernatural deity or whatever so, for a TV channel that makes money out of their viewers, the more people believe in something the closer they are to the truth (a bigger audience). We ask television to be honest and television can only be profitable. TV is not going to tell you the truth. TV is going to give you what you ask to keep you watching it. Its just a business. There will be two sides of the coin the day atheists represent a decent percentage of the population or if some atheist becomes an opinion leader (which is not to happen tomorrow). This is the only bad thing about free market and democracy, a stupid vote counts as much as a smart one. Reason doesn't really matter, what really matters is how many of us are going to buy something based on our lack of believing.

Biased television? I never saw that one coming.

If I have good reasons for being an atheist, and a theist, who isn't concerned with reasons or evidence, has good "faith" for being a theist, how can it be possible to convince the theist on the grounds of my reason and evidence?

It would be just the same as the theist trying to convince the atheist by proselytizing all day. Not gonna happen, right?

Until theists want to, truthfully, play in the realm of reason and evidence, this debate goes absolutely nowhere.

Furthermore, the sensationalism behind both sides of the coin here serves only to diminish their legitimacy.

I agree with Daniel. These 'guys' are not the best representatives. The very first question in the piece "Why don't you believe in god?" should have been answered more like "The question is not about me not believing, the question is why are you a believer?" You must always put the onus on 'them'. That's why I don't like the term atheist, I prefer to say that I am not a theist, which, again, puts the onus on them, the theist. "a" in Greek is a negative, such as "not." A more accurate translation of "atheist" is "not a theist," and not "godless" as is the common translation.

Props @ ChuckS!

I could not believe some of the questions that were asked. "Is that because you think Hell's going to be fun if you do go there?" Are you kidding me?

I too was taken aback by that particular comment. It would be like if I were to ask the interviewer, "Are you afraid of breaking a mirror?" Assuming the answer is "no" then I would follow up by saying, "Is it because you find seven years of bad luck to be fun?" It's the same bullshit regurgitated back at them.

Until theists want to, truthfully, play in the realm of reason and evidence, this debate goes absolutely nowhere.

This is true to a certain extent. I have heard of people who have been changed purely by discourse alone like Chandler from the Rational Response Squad forums who first came on to defend his faith and later changed his position after a few months of heated debate.

Of course I recognize that this doesn't happen too often on a larger scale. I've observed more people change their minds through personal investigation of their own faith and convictions, though I think it is through popularizing these important topics in the first place (like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have done irrespective of whether you like their style or not) that produce a cognizant environment.

Maybe the power of beliefs have so thoroughly grown roots into the human brain that people can't escape its power to deceive. But then maybe not! Enlightenment thinkers changed the world and allowed reasoned ideas to flourish. Keep in mind, that the birth of freethought occurred during heated political and theological thought. Our very form of secular government (the first in history) came from political freethinkers.

To subtly change Christopher Walken's words from an old SNL sketch, "This country has a fever, and the only prescription is more Enlightenment!"

If you counted up all the groups which have claimed that they are the "last group it's okay to hate" you'd probably get to around half the population thinking that they're singled out for hatred. You can find book titles by Catholics, Jews, atheists, Muslims, now claiming that they're the only targets of legitimized hate. Fact is there is still plenty of ignorance and animosity and it's accepted as legit in many quarters.

"Until theists want to, truthfully, play in the realm of reason and evidence, this debate goes absolutely nowhere."

Seriously--are your opponents really beyond all hope? Perhaps you've really tried to engage in consversation, or perhaps you think that theism itself constitutes an abandonment of all rational argument. And yet most theists give general reasons for things they do and believe all the time--at the very least one would think that you might stand a chance of tricking them into a real debate even if they've decided that for God no reasons are necessary.

"These 'guys' are not the best representatives."

Of what? Atheism? The piece wasn't about atheism in general but about atheist evangelists. I don't see Richard Dawkins going to check out the Yale School of Divinity, nor should he, since he's focusing on the rubber-hits-the-road of religion, not the 'best representative' from an intellectual point of view.

"That's why I don't like the term atheist, I prefer to say that I am not a theist, which, again, puts the onus on them, the theist."

Excellent point. By allowing yourself to be defined by the theist, you are conceding a legitimacy to his superstitions that never has to be earned. As reflected in the Nightline clip, the reality-based person is placed at an extreme disadvantage because the terminology frames the debate within a worldview wherein the superstition is the default position; thus, the Christer is never held to the same standard as someone like the individuals in this clip, because the Christer's position is always accepted as a given. The non-believer is always forced to prove a negative, rather than the believer being forced to prove a positive, which would be the case if the debate took place in a rational world, rather than in Alice’s Wonderland. This is why I too have ceased referring to myself as an "atheist."

^ Best response on this blog.

The Atheists are coming RUN!!!!! lol

I think this was a very fair and respectful piece by Nightline. I thank them. We would all be so much the better if theists and atheists could exist on this planet with such comity.

My problem with the Blasphemy Challenge is it doesn't challenge kids to think. When you are brought up to believe in God and have faith, and then you reject that, there is a hole in how you perceive the world that needs to be filled. What will you turn to when things in life are out of your control?

For example, when you are going to surgery, should you have faith in God? Or faith that your surgeon paid attention in med school and knows what he is doing?

When you are in an airplane, you're life is not in God's hands, but in the hands of those who built and maintain the plane.

Just something to think about...

"well, you can't do any worse than stoning me, can ya? jehova, jehova..."

"My problem with the Blasphemy Challenge is it doesn't challenge kids to think."

I agree completely (though maybe that's the point of it.) While the website founders sound pretty smart, the "challengers" themselves sounded like the atheist answer to self-absorbed Jesus-freaks. Add to that their extreme youth and it just sounds silly.

Still, it pisses off the religious bunch so its not all bad.

I can see it now: One of these teens denouncing god on youtube gets up in front of his born again congregation a few years/months/days from now and says "I denounced jesus and now he has found me and forgiven me, bla bla bla..."

The interview is horrible, alnd loaded with leading and biased question. The interviewer does not even try to be objective. I still have a bit of a problem with this blasphemy challenge. I think it's great that people choose to think for themselves and all of that, but just saying that they dont believe in jesus, etc and posting it online is kind of cheesy...I wonder How many of those people are doing it because they think its "cool" and how many are doing it because they really thought things through.

I personally care very little about the challenge per se, but see it in a bigger picture as the creation of an environment whereby converstation begins on important matters of religiosity--its truth claims and the effects on individuals and society as a whole.

Dyed-in-the-wool faith heads might not change their position, but those sitting on the fence that haven't particularly focused on such matters might be persuaded to look much further into it.

I do, however, think that more sophisticated forms of achieving this would be better and not mere rejections of superstitions. Maybe a challenge in which theists would have to provide valid contemporary evidence of the existance of Jesus and give a sum of $666 for the person that comes up with such evidence might be more appropriate. (By the way, such challenge did take place set forth by the Rational Response Squad but never gained much popularity.)

i was the 12th person to do this challenge.. and i added in a little extra about how the human mind is a characteristic of the brain and how its amazing enough that i exist. etc.

was fun lol ... a little crude, but thats what is needed at this point, just to soften the immunity to logical inquiry that religion seems to have. help them realize that THINKING about something isnt being mean and crude, its healthy.

I don't agree that these kids aren't thinking. I'm sure there are some that do it without thinking. But I think people don't give kids enough credit. I personally began doubting my catholic upbringing at an early age. I asked my catholic school teachers all kinds of annoying questions they refused to answer. By the time I was thirteen, after much searching, I was pretty sure it was all bullshit, but the underlying fear was still there, the "but what if" factor. It took me several more years to become more confident, and only after I found other like minded people with whom I could have real discussions about philosophy and such. I grew up in the bible belt, so there was pretty much no discussion in general about atheism. If there had been I likely would have come around sooner. With that in mind, I really doubt these kids would take such a step unless they had really thought it through.

I dislike the Blasphemy Challenge. I am theistic, though I am not Christian, so I suppose I may be biased.

I think that it is simply one of those things that kids will do because it's cool. I think this because I didn't actually start going to church until I was thirteen because all my friends did (I'm in the South) and it stuck for a good long while. Perhaps I'm wrongly projecting my shortcomings on a generation, but that's my opinion.

I know many young adults that have been "saved" by the church at a much older age and I simply think that it is unethical to target really impressionable kids for something that is (i think in catholic dogma) is an unforgivable sin. If you want to justify it by saying "well the church does it too" then you're being just as bad and you're still using children as a means to an end. Becoming more reasonable or not, I don't see how a form of counter-manipulation is justifiable.

BTW, the interview was horrendously slanted against the two, but they handled it badly anyway, so disappointment all around.

I simply think that it is unethical to target really impressionable kids for something that is (i think in catholic dogma) is an unforgivable sin.

The only one doing the targeting here is the Christian faith. There is no inculcation of any dogma here; only the offer to stand up in protest against child abuse like indoctrination and submitting that stand against it on Youtube. No one is coercing them to do it unlike how religious parents usually coerce their children to follow in their faith. To also submit that they’re doing it to be ‘cool’ is putting it rather superficially don’t you think? I mean, it’s like the cliché argument that people become atheists only to rebel against authority. "And if the Beatles grew long hair to rebel against authority, then they really had no hair -- is that what you're saying?" –iamanatheist.com