Sending a response to one of the blog posts here by the contact form is not the easiest way to go about things, as it makes any ensuing debate a bit harder. That said, it is reasonable and we will try to respond as much as possible.Following a post made here (about why Christians don’t Get It), we had a response sent in over the contact form. Below the fold is the message in full with my return comments. The main reason I want to address these points is that there is the inference I have committed many logical fallacies, so I take it fairly seriously 🙂

Hi thank you for responding to my blog. Let me in turn respond to your’s.

You are welcome. For those who have not read the previous post, the blog is the Blasphemy Challenge. Thank you for getting in touch, but you may find it faster in future to respond to the actual post you are interested in.

You said, “Without going into too much detail as previously mentioned in passing, a group called the “Rational Response Squad'” have created something they call the “Blasphemy Challenge'” in which they encourage people to YouTube themselves saying they do not believe in the Holy Spirit. To an atheist this seems like a trivial way to get a free DVD. To a Christian this seems to be the worst thing on Earth. Strange people, aren’t they?'”

I don’t think it’s the worse thing in the world. Besides, literally saying you deny the Holy Spirit is not the blasphemy of Him mentioned in Mark. If you read my blog you would know that. Look at Chapter 7, where I explain the atheists are not committing the blasphemy.

I did read a goodly portion of your blog. As you obviously read my post, you will see that I never once said you thought it, or that your blog implied it. Your blog is one of many Christian ones, and there are a large proportion of them which treat the act of blasphemy as a mortal sin for which there can be no forgiveness. That you, and your blog do not seem to agree with this was not the issue, nor was it the issue which my post was making.

I find it interesting that you need to explain the Atheists are not committing blasphemy – by definition they aren’t. Only some one who believes in the Holy Spirit, God et al., can blaspheme in any normal way the term is used. While it can be argued that “blasphemy” can be committed by people who do not follow the faith being blasphemed (and the Google Definition implies this, but I remain unconvinced), I suspect this is subject to a reductio ad absurdum (and certainly so if blasphemy is viewed as a “bad thing”).

You said, “It is entertaining that the main accusations thrown against the Rational Response Squad is that they are trying to seduce children into atheism. Does any one really think children are born Christians? If so, why the need to indoctrinate them from as early an age as possible? Hypocrites.'”

No Christian that I know of would say that a baby is born a Christian.

Which kind of supports the point I was making. Most of the accusations against the RRS “challenge” is that it is indoctrinating children. This can only be a valid compliant if the accuser thinks Christianity does not indoctrinate them. If read the other posts on my blog you would see lots of links to places where Christians ARE complaining that the challenge is indoctrinating children.

Surely it is not indoctrination, just allowing them to see both sides of the debate?

Point of logic. Saying “No Christian that I know of…”provides nothing of real value. It is untestable and I very much doubt you know anything but a small percentage of the people who call themselves Christian. As an aside, every Christian that I know of does say it. Where does this leave the debate?

They would say the opposite. In fact, everybody are born sinners. Had you known what Christianity was about you would know this.

What an interesting logical minefield you are in here. I know what “Christianity is about” so an appeal to ridicule is wasted here.

Christianity says everyone is born a sinner (and this can be debated at length, as there are many arguments which say “Christianity” does not make everyone a sinner – just your particular branch of Christianity has that as doctrinal), but this only applies if you are a Christian and carries the assumption that the Christian world view is the correct, basline, one.

This is an argument from a false premise, backed up with some circular reasoning.

But there are plenty of people who are indoctrinating our children with secularism in our school system. For instance, children must assume that evolution is science. They are not allowed to question its authenticity. Dover was an example of this.

Yet another logical fallacy. I notice that while you accuse me of strawmen, you are happy to use them yourself.

Secularism is not “indoctrinated” as it is the default behaviour. Religious beliefs are taught to children, but am I to assume that does not count as indoctrination?

Evolution is science and it follows the scientific method. You are allowed to question its authenticity, and scientist do on a regular basis. The same goes with gravity, electromagentism, quantum mechanics et al. Science is a process in which people learn new things, and old theories evolve (pun intended).

Intelligent design and creationism is not science. That is what Dover was an example of. It was not about religion, unless you think a religious view point should be taught as science?

You said, “Anyway, there is a blog, oddly titled “The Blasphemy Challenge'” (I can only assume it is to lure the unsuspecting) which tries to refute the (real) Blasphemy Challenge.'”

Correct. But we mentioned in the very description that we’re here to expose RRS and the blasphemy challenge. That’s all.

I dont know why the “but” was there.

You said, “It has this as its tagline:

This blog is in response to the Rational Response Squad’s (RRS) Blasphemy Challenge. Here you’ll learn the true nature of this so-called challenge and who RRS are and what they’re all about. We’re also myspacing.'”

Yup.

OK, there was (previously) an implication that we were misrepresenting your site. I am glad we can agree this is not the case.

You said, “Now, as a naive atheist I would have assumed if you were going to counter the arguments put out by the RRS, you would actually counter the arguments.'”

I did. Did you not read my blog? RRS actually put up a youtube video claiming they didn’t take Mark 3:29 out of context. But we showed they did.

I did read your blog and I still find very little which counters the arguments put forward by the RRS. You have focused on Mark 3:29, but that is not the whole issue. Of course, if you blog is simply there to say Mark 3:29 is out of context, then fine.

You said, “It seems that this blog would rather attack the RRS themselves and ridicule even the thought that people could deny the holy spirit.'”

We do attack RRS because they believe that Christians should be put in mental hospitals and shot. Again, had you read my post you’d see that. Checkout “What do RRS believe about Christians?'” and “What would RRS like to do to Christians?'” Also, the way atheists are denying the Holy Spirit in those youtube videos is not the way the Holy Spirit is being blasphemed in Mark 3. More on that later.

You only have to say “had you read my post” once in an argument. It does little to add weight to your points, and simply serves as a weak appeal to ridicule.

Now, if you are soley attacking the RRS/Challenge because of the way they portray Christians – fine. I do the same to Christians who portray Atheists as immoral, evil (etc).

That said, you are not refuting my point that you would rather attack the RRS than their arguments, you are just providing an explaination as to why this is the case.

You said, “For the record, I think of the holy spirit in the same category as I think of Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, goblins, elves, dragons (etc). I find it difficult to “deny'” the existence of something which does not exist as to me “deny'” is a faith based term. The holy spirit is as real as the unicorn on the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon all those years ago.'”

*SHRUGS* ‘¦ Okay.

You said, “Still, I suspect that as theists have no evidence to support their arguments use of ad hominems and arguments from a false premise are pretty much par for the course.'”

That’s an unfair assessment. The purpose of our blogsite is not to prove the existence of God per se. We’re only here to expose RRS and the Blasphemy Challenge. You’re knocking down a straw man.

Incorrect, I am not talking about your site as the only one here. This is what is called a generalisation, and you are focusing on the specific (your site) to counter the generalisation. I am not asking for you to provide evidence of God – it seems you have used a strawman here.

You said, “One part that really got me, and proved the Christians on this blog really do not get it (the point of the blasphemy challenge or what atheism actually is) was this: (emphasis on the original)

Well, it’s quite easy to see now. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is to attribute the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to Satan. That’s all it is, folks. And it’s plain for anybody to see that.

Priceless. There you have it. If you are an atheist, and don’t believe in the holy spirit you are actually saying the holy spirits power belongs to Satan.'”

I didn’t say that was what atheists are doing. I said that’s what the scribes were doing in Mark 3. The atheists who took part of the blasphemy challenge think denying the Holy Spirit in Mark 3 is to merely say, “I deny the Holy Spirit.'” And I said that that was not it. Again, look up “Are the atheists participating in the Blasphemy Challenge committing the unpardonable sin?'” in my blogsite you claimed you visited.

(Appeal to ridicule noted)

The exact quote on your site reads:

Well, it’s quite easy to see now. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is to attribute the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to Satan. That’s all it is, folks. And it’s plain for anybody to see that. Blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is NOT merely saying you deny Him.

Now, in the original I didn’t include the last three sentences because they were not relevant to the point I was making, but as you bring it up now we can debate it.

What do you think blaspheme means? I suspect that is the singly most critical point to the argument. The results of a quick Google come up with:

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of God or the gods, and by extension any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem. In this broader sense the term is used by Sir Francis Bacon in the Advancement of Learning, when he speaks of “blasphemy against learning”. (from Wikipedia)

This, to me, is a broad enough interpretation. I suspect the YouTube video counts as a “display of gross irreverence” towards the Holy Spirit – which could explain why it has incensed so many Christians. It is not a case of merely saying “I deny the holy spirit,” the whole act is blasphemous.

You said, “What unadulterated madness. Adding an argumentum ad populum at the end does not make this resemble any form of logical reasoning.'”

Again, more strawman.

On the contrary, and I suspect you do not know what a strawman argument is. The “And it’s plain for anybody to see that” is certainly an argumentum ad populum. You assert the validity of a statement because every one can see it is true. This is a logical fallacy.

Telling you it is a logical fallacy is not a strawman argument.

You said, “I presume if you blaspheme or deny the existence of Father Christmas you are actually attributing his present giving power to the grinch.'”

False analogy.

Why? At best a false analogy is an informal fallacy but I still fail to see how the analogy is false.

You say blaspheming the holy spirit means you attribute his power to satan, and the analogy is that if you blaspheme X, you attribute his power to nemesis Y. Is the grinch not the best nemesis of Santa?

The problem, I suspect, is that you think the Holy Spirit exists, but deny the existence of Santa.

Thank you for your time and plugging my blogsite. I just hope you would be fair to us.

You are welcome, and I certainly do try to be fair to you.

Always,

Thank you.