Welcome the New Godless Hordes! »« Fashion Friday: Jewelry

Happy Blasphemy Day!

Today is Blasphemy Day International. I feel like I should be saying something spectacularly blasphemous, like, “Fuck God in all sixty of his non-existent assholes.” Or write some blistering rant about the fucked-up shit religion is responsible for, and why religion is, in fact, responsible for it. Or link to my stick figure drawing of Mohammad from “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day,” or to my Blasphemy Challenge video from about eight hundred thousand years ago. (If you want a nice, thorough, thoughtful analysis of why I think blaspheming is important and positive, the “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” piece is a good one.)

Or maybe I should just pass on the new swear Ingrid and I made up: “Jesus Fictional Christ!”

But I don’t have my shit together, and didn’t realize this was happening until late last night. So I’ll just leave it at this:

There is no god.

And people should be able to say so without fearing for their jobs, homes, families, safety, and lives.

I’m just sayin’, is all.

Comments

  1. Michael Swanson says

    It’s fun to get graphically vulgar sometimes, but I just like to think: Jesus, if that guy existed, wasn’t god. He was crazy, you’d probably feel sorry for him if you met him, and he’s dead. Stone cold dead for two thousand years.

    Happy Blasphemy Day!

  2. says

    Or maybe I should just pass on the new swear Ingrid and I made up: “Jesus Fictional Christ!”

    That’s pretty good, though I prefer Professor Farnsworth’s “Sweet Zombie Jesus!”

  3. Nurse Ingrid says

    Of course, you can’t beat the Sam and Max comic for colorful swears.

    “Holy jumping mother of god in a sidecar with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib!” is my particular favorite.

    And remember, blasphemy is a victimless crime.

  4. Thomas Moss says

    I’ve heard “Jesus Fictional Christ” before – mostly on this blog, but a quick google search reveals that other people have been using this swear for at least three years.

    I guess great minds think alike. This is the sort of swear that’s probably been independently invented many times.

  5. Dhorvath, OM says

    Yay Blasphemy. But touch me sincerely.
    Tell me that you want, say that I’m the only one.

    Err, sorry, music blends sometimes.

  6. AYY says

    Greta, I usually like your posts about atheism but this one completely misses the point. Blasphemy of the type you mention is an attack on Mr & Mrs. John Q. Believer. All it does is make them think that atheists are abusive, empty headed and angry. It’s not going to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. The attack should be directed to the religious leaders, the religious doctrines, and religious abuses.

  7. davesmith says

    AYY says:

    The attack should be directed to the religious leaders, the religious doctrines, and religious abuses.

    That’s a good idea, but not blasphemy and it’s not nearly as much fun….

    Like thinking up good names for a porno starring God?

    Cum to Jesus!
    Log Jammin with Long Dong Jehovah!

    This is my favorite day of the year. Way better than Halloween.

  8. Mr Fnortner says

    Do you think a non-believer can commit blasphemy? Isn’t that sort of like a Frenchman being unAmerican, a non-sports fan booing the Yankees, or a pacifist criticizing the military? If blasphemy is insulting the sacred, there is no insult if I don’t hold the object sacred. To acknowledge even a potential for blasphemy in an insult would be to acknowledge that the object might be sacred. That would make me be a believer, albeit a closet believer. Be careful what you thumb your nose at. Complete indifference (rather than blasphemy) would be a much more honest stand.

  9. davesmith says

    Mr Fnortner poses an interesting question. Can a non-believer commit blasphemy? Is the thought crime of blasphemy in the act itself or in the intent of the speaker. If God is not the victim, then is blasphemy a crime? Is it an act worthy of notice.

    If the crime is the intent and the victim God or Gods, then Mr. Fnortner is right.

    …but religion is a real phenomenon, even if Gods aren’t. Gods exists in the same way that fictional characters exist, like Elmer Fudd. A god is something people believe in. Mohammed was a prophet (“a” not “the”) in the same sense that my brothers were a football players: he did what prophets do. The secular definition of prophet is someone who makes claims about communication with God or Gods and/or starts religions.

    …and that paragraph was blasphemous. Comparing God to Elmer Fudd is an act that the religious society recognizes as blasphemy. Blasphemy really does offend some people. If they’re here, reading Greta Christina(blessed :-) be the name)’s Blog, they’re obviously wondering. For people like that, the shock of blasphemy can serve a purpose. It exposes and challenges the religious construct of “sacred.” It might have the same effect as waking someone from a trance.

    So the victim of my thought crime is the religious belief and the notion of “sacred,” not the religious believer. In my world, the religious belief needs to be challenged, and blasphemy benefits religious believers living in the fantasy world where Elmer Fudd is real. I apologize if I’ve offended the Fuddites :-).

    Both sides call it blasphemy, but I don’t think it’s a thought crime.

  10. jbhodges7 says

    Of course nonbelievers can blaspheme. What is it, after all, that believers call blasphemy? What is it that they want to prohibit, whether with the death penalty or just with the rule that “it’s not polite”? Speech that is disrespectful of their religion, and/or central aspects or persons thereof.

    Religion is the oldest organized swindle. “I have spoken with invisible powers, and they want you to do X. Obey what I tell you and give me money, and you’ll be rewarded by these invisible powers; fail to obey and you will be punished by them.”

    The proper reply was offered most politely by the Deists. I summarize their position like this: “If a god wants me to do something, they should tell me, not you.” If a god wanted mass communication, they could write the message on the face of the Moon, and teach humankind to make telescopes.

    As Thomas Paine wrote, in THE AGE OF REASON:

    “Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and
    man, can only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to
    man; but though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication
    is necessarily admitted, because to that power all things are
    possible, yet the thing so revealed (if anything ever was revealed,
    and which, bye the bye, it is impossible to prove), is revelation to
    the person only to whom it is made. His account of it to another
    person is not revelation; and whoever puts faith in that account, puts
    it in the man from whom the account comes; and that man may have been
    deceived, or may have dreamed it, or he may be an impostor and may
    lie. There is no possible criterion whereby to judge of the truth of
    what he tells, for even the morality of it would be no proof of
    revelation. In all such cases the proper answer would be, ‘When it is
    revealed to me, I will believe it to be a revelation; but it is not,
    and cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it to be revelation before;
    neither is it proper that I should take the word of a man as the word
    of God, and put man in the place of God.’”

  11. Mr Fnortner says

    To me it’s clear that only someone who believes can commit blasphemy. While believers may be offended by disparaging remarks or writings of others, 1) only a believer has a faith-based stake in speaking well or ill of their god(s), and therefore only a believer can blaspheme, and 2) there is actually no god to offend.

    Let me reduce the point to these absurdities: if I said that the Tooth Fairy is a child molester, that Betty Crocker eats her young, or that the Man in the Moon causes all the evil in the world, you would be right to say “What are you talking about? Those people are imaginary. Jeez, you’re a nut case.” Or we might have a good laugh over the things folks ascribe to imaginary people. Like Bert and Ernie being gay, just like that Teletubby. What would be clear is that any characterization of an imaginary being, whether good or bad, is rather silly.

    Those who actually believe that imaginary beings exist are delusional. The rest of us don’t care about such things as their personal habits. It’s impossible to slander or libel an imaginary person. As rational people we wouldn’t waste our time wondering or spreading rumors. If you care enough to characterize a verbal offense to a god as blasphemy, then you might be a believer. At its worst, what believers call blasphemy I call rudeness. But mostly I think the gods of believers are fair game for ridicule.

  12. says

    Jesus Fictional Christ is pretty good, but I prefer screaming “Jesus fucking goddamn Christ” while listening to “Fuck Your God” by death metal band Deicide.

  13. tim says

    Finally.A sight that devotes itself to fair critisim of religion.Jesus fictional Christ is a good one.But I would say Jesus fictional fucking christ.

  14. tim says

    I know blasphemy day was September 30th but for me everyday is blasphemy day. So I would like to say my own blasphemy. Jesus fuckin christ god fucking dammit. Fuck all gods fuck jesus and fuck the worthless crapy impotant useless nonexsistant mythical bullshit piece shit fucked up holy fuckin spirit.

Leave a Reply