Smut for Smut

[simulated]

Student group trades pornography for religious texts (http://www.atheistagenda.org/porno-for-bibles/)

Combining what are evidentally everyone on the TMF's favorite two topics - pornography and religion - in a single thread? I expect epic doubleplusgood.

http://www.atheistagenda.org/files/smut_for_smut/table.jpg

[isabeau]

from reading the article, i'm convinced that is exactly what they did it for...a shock value, plus attention...doesn't phase me one bit..i expect almost everything anymore on this planet..

[wendynpeter]

The shock value is an overlay to the real message. Which is (or could be), The Bible is full of sex and violence and causes people to do and believe horrible things. The idea is that you can trade one type of obscenity for another (and be better off for it.)

Of course it's a "causehead" approach to the message. Which is perfect for college campus causehead know-it-all types.

It also occurs to me that it might very well be the Baptist Student Union's attempt at a statement of their own. Who knows?

[NavelTickler75]

Purely for attention. Nonsense if you ask me.

[GodlessTickler]

I think there is a growing trend among the atheist community not only to try and get people to think more openly about religion, and eventually get away from it... but to do something that is so fundamentally against it that they make a big break from it. In this case I think it's something like this, they know a lot of college kids are sitting around, not going to church not being religious, but they still have a bible on there nightstand or whatever. A lot of them certainly CARE a lot more about porn than they do their bible, so this group is trying to get them to take that action, make it official so to speak. It is like a lesser version of the famous Blasphemy challenge. Of course there is also shock value, but I think that for anyone who had ever been significantly religious at all, then the fundamental act of trading their holy text for pornography would be a major action. An action that served to really fundamentally distance themselves from the faith of there childhood. I personally think that is what this is about... and personally I'm not a big fan... not because I have some great reverence for the bible or anything but there are two things, one is that I know the POINT of it, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the books. I like the bible, I like the Quran, I like Mein Kamph, I like Harry Potter books are great things, and I don't think there is any reason to oppose BOOKS. You shouldn't be afraid of them, you shouldn't want to keep them away from people... oppose the ideas certainly, challenge them, but don't try to keep people from hearing the ideas. Also if one wishes to change peoples minds about an issue they need to FUNDAMENTALLY change the way they think... not get them to do something that seems like a point of no return. All that is doing is setting up a situation that might cause a lot of anguish down the road, if they haven't really broken away from their faith. So that is what I think these groups are trying to do.. I understand the why, and I understand that the shock value is good for getting publicity, but to me what is most important is to dialogue, discuss, and try to persuade them. You want to give them porno fine, give them a porno if they come to a few Q&A discussions or something. I'm not really opposed to Smut for Smut or the Blasphemy Challenge, I just think that it isn't the best way to get the message across. That's just my opinion on the whole thing.

[tickledgirl]

Before you get too upset about what kind of changes this represents, realize that this article is over a year old. And they action was a copy of a single event that happened back in 2000.

Whatever else this may be, it isn't new.

[NavelTickler75]

I think there is a growing trend among the atheist community not only to try and get people to think more openly about religion, and eventually get away from it... but to do something that is so fundamentally against it that they make a big break from it. In this case I think it's something like this, they know a lot of college kids are sitting around, not going to church not being religious, but they still have a bible on there nightstand or whatever. A lot of them certainly CARE a lot more about porn than they do their bible, so this group is trying to get them to take that action, make it official so to speak. It is like a lesser version of the famous Blasphemy challenge. Of course there is also shock value, but I think that for anyone who had ever been significantly religious at all, then the fundamental act of trading their holy text for pornography would be a major action. An action that served to really fundamentally distance themselves from the faith of there childhood. I personally think that is what this is about... and personally I'm not a big fan... not because I have some great reverence for the bible or anything but there are two things, one is that I know the POINT of it, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the books. I like the bible, I like the Quran, I like Mein Kamph, I like Harry Potter books are great things, and I don't think there is any reason to oppose BOOKS. You shouldn't be afraid of them, you shouldn't want to keep them away from people... oppose the ideas certainly, challenge them, but don't try to keep people from hearing the ideas. Also if one wishes to change peoples minds about an issue they need to FUNDAMENTALLY change the way they think... not get them to do something that seems like a point of no return. All that is doing is setting up a situation that might cause a lot of anguish down the road, if they haven't really broken away from their faith. So that is what I think these groups are trying to do.. I understand the why, and I understand that the shock value is good for getting publicity, but to me what is most important is to dialogue, discuss, and try to persuade them. You want to give them porno fine, give them a porno if they come to a few Q&A discussions or something. I'm not really opposed to Smut for Smut or the Blasphemy Challenge, I just think that it isn't the best way to get the message across. That's just my opinion on the whole thing.

I do understand and agree with what you are saying about respect for books.
But to be honest... there is not a man nor woman alive who will ever get me to turn away from my faith. The only thing that could, is if I was absolutely shown it was a lie, that those smaller sects and Christian Gnostics were right, in which case, I'd walk, not going with the liars, nor going with the Gnostics and find a new faith.

[GodlessTickler]

I do understand and agree with what you are saying about respect for books.
But to be honest... there is not a man nor woman alive who will ever get me to turn away from my faith. The only thing that could, is if I was absolutely shown it was a lie, that those smaller sects and Christian Gnostics were right, in which case, I'd walk, not going with the liars, nor going with the Gnostics and find a new faith.
Certainly though I am not a great fan of religion I would hope that no ones beliefs are so weak that the Smut for Smut campaign would ACTUALLY change their mind... but if you are talking about rational discourse, I wish to pose one question to you... what do you mean "absolutely shown it was a lie" See I have SOME idea what it means when I say if I saw evidence of god, then I would change my mind (especially since my mind is not closed... I don't KNOW there is no god) I mean if you are right, and the day of judgment comes, and Christ parts the sky, descends from the heavens and stands in front of me with the glory of the entire trinity, which in its presence becomes crystal clear and says "Do you believe in me" I would of course say "Well I do now!" Might not help my case (though I tend to doubt if there is a god he would punish me for using the rational brain he gave me) but in the light of that evidence I would change my opinion. So I am curious, do you know what you mean when you say "absolutely shown it was a lie" Would it require a similar revelation of a DIFFERENT god? Or would you just assume that was the devil. You can't prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. So is that just a fancy way of saying you'll never change your mind no matter what. I mean think about it, if I said, I am going to believe in an all powerful pair of sunglasses that turn me into a god like being... unless it can be absolutely proven they are a lie.. well that's just a way of saying I'm going to believe in my super powered sunglasses no matter what, and throwing in a little something to give the illusion that I am being rational and considering evidence. So I am honestly curious... what could happen before your death that would make you an atheist, or is that just a little red herring to make you look more open than you are?

[wendynpeter]

Certainly though I am not a great fan of religion I would hope that no ones beliefs are so weak that the Smut for Smut campaign would ACTUALLY change their mind... but if you are talking about rational discourse, I wish to pose one question to you... what do you mean "absolutely shown it was a lie" See I have SOME idea what it means when I say if I saw evidence of god, then I would change my mind (especially since my mind is not closed... I don't KNOW there is no god) I mean if you are right, and the day of judgment comes, and Christ parts the sky, descends from the heavens and stands in front of me with the glory of the entire trinity, which in its presence becomes crystal clear and says "Do you believe in me" I would of course say "Well I do now!" Might not help my case (though I tend to doubt if there is a god he would punish me for using the rational brain he gave me) but in the light of that evidence I would change my opinion. So I am curious, do you know what you mean when you say "absolutely shown it was a lie" Would it require a similar revelation of a DIFFERENT god? Or would you just assume that was the devil. You can't prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. So is that just a fancy way of saying you'll never change your mind no matter what. I mean think about it, if I said, I am going to believe in an all powerful pair of sunglasses that turn me into a god like being... unless it can be absolutely proven they are a lie.. well that's just a way of saying I'm going to believe in my super powered sunglasses no matter what, and throwing in a little something to give the illusion that I am being rational and considering evidence. So I am honestly curious... what could happen before your death that would make you an atheist, or is that just a little red herring to make you look more open than you are?

I'm sorry to butt in here, but this is a really misguided conversation. The rational atheist position is very deep. It isn't just "there is no God." For the purposes of this discussion, I would argue that it's enough to say that it doesn't matter whether or not you reject the notion of a God, because even if you grant a God, there's absolutely no reason to believe that God has the attributes that any religion assigns to Him, and there's even less reason to think that any religion has a lock on the Truth.

Step one is definitely to realize that especially if you believe in a just God, one simply cannot reconcile the supreme attributes of God with the portrayal of God in any religious scripture. First jettison dogma and see where that leaves you, then go from there.

[GodlessTickler]

I'm sorry to butt in here, but this is a really misguided conversation. The rational atheist position is very deep. It isn't just "there is no God." For the purposes of this discussion, I would argue that it's enough to say that it doesn't matter whether or not you reject the notion of a God, because even if you grant a God, there's absolutely no reason to believe that God has the attributes that any religion assigns to Him, and there's even less reason to think that any religion has a lock on the Truth.

Step one is definitely to realize that especially if you believe in a just God, one simply cannot reconcile the supreme attributes of God with the portrayal of God in any religious scripture. First jettison dogma and see where that leaves you, then go from there.
I could not agree with you more about your definition of a rational atheist position, but I would be curious what you meant by it being misguided. I mean I agree with what your saying across the board... I was merely trying to make a kind of clear example of one question about something Navel said, about essentially needing absolute proof of a negative... kind of like the argumentum ad ignorantiam, without getting into the whole of the religious debate. Now if there is something I said you find misguided I'd be curious to know what it is since I agree with everything you said... but perhaps I am missing the point or worded something wrong... just let me know.

[NavelTickler75]

Certainly though I am not a great fan of religion I would hope that no ones beliefs are so weak that the Smut for Smut campaign would ACTUALLY change their mind... but if you are talking about rational discourse, I wish to pose one question to you... what do you mean "absolutely shown it was a lie" See I have SOME idea what it means when I say if I saw evidence of god, then I would change my mind (especially since my mind is not closed... I don't KNOW there is no god) I mean if you are right, and the day of judgment comes, and Christ parts the sky, descends from the heavens and stands in front of me with the glory of the entire trinity, which in its presence becomes crystal clear and says "Do you believe in me" I would of course say "Well I do now!" Might not help my case (though I tend to doubt if there is a god he would punish me for using the rational brain he gave me) but in the light of that evidence I would change my opinion. So I am curious, do you know what you mean when you say "absolutely shown it was a lie" Would it require a similar revelation of a DIFFERENT god? Or would you just assume that was the devil. You can't prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. So is that just a fancy way of saying you'll never change your mind no matter what. I mean think about it, if I said, I am going to believe in an all powerful pair of sunglasses that turn me into a god like being... unless it can be absolutely proven they are a lie.. well that's just a way of saying I'm going to believe in my super powered sunglasses no matter what, and throwing in a little something to give the illusion that I am being rational and considering evidence. So I am honestly curious... what could happen before your death that would make you an atheist, or is that just a little red herring to make you look more open than you are?

If someone could show me documentation that showed where Catholicism and everything was absolutely made up, some documentation that proved that the early fathers knew the truth, but hid it for their own egos, then that would be absoultely true for me. And I wouldnt abandone faith, I'd simply look for a faith I held even stronger truth. Also if the world turned upside down, and the leaders of the church came out and said... look folks all of this is a lie, Christianity is really what those smaller groups and Gnostic groups said it was... again I'd look for a different faith.

[drew70]

This program was solely initiated with but one purpose: shock value. Same reason as why this thread was started.

[NavelTickler75]

This program was solely initiated with but one purpose: shock value. Same reason as why this thread was started.

That I can agree with... although I am not too shocked.

[Iggy pop]

This program was solely initiated with but one purpose: shock value. Same reason as why this thread was started.


I disagree. Yes, shock value plays a huge part and it is also a publicity stunt, but they are also making a statement too. They are saying that Bible is no better than porn. You may agree or disagree. While I have nothing against porn, I do find the bible just little more poetic and interesting reading. I am not sure I would want to live my life by it, but then again that's just me.

By the way, I think more than 1/2 the treads here are started for shock value.

[drew70]

I disagree. Yes, shock value plays a huge part and it is also a publicity stunt, but they are also making a statement too. They are saying that Bible is no better than porn. I agree they are making that statement or something equally ridiculous, but they are making it strictly for shock value, to offend as many as possible, which I also believe was why this thread was started.

[wendynpeter]

I agree they are making that statement or something equally ridiculous, but they are making it strictly for shock value, to offend as many as possible, which I also believe was why this thread was started.

I couldn't disagree more. Does the message shock? Sure. The question is "Why?" If you're honest with yourself, it shocks you because you see truth in the message.

[tickledgirl]

I couldn't disagree more. Does the message shock? Sure. The question is "Why?" If you're honest with yourself, it shocks you because you see truth in the message.

I'm not sure Drew's correct that this thread was started solely for its shock value. But why would you assume that the only shocking thing is the truth in the message?

For example, I was shocked when I learned that Fred Phelps and his WBC sickos picket military funerals. But it sure as heck wasn't because I saw even a shred of truth in their message that soldiers deserve to die because God hates fags.

[wendynpeter]

I'm not sure Drew's correct that this thread was started solely for its shock value. But why would you assume that the only shocking thing is the truth in the message?

For example, I was shocked when I learned that Fred Phelps and his WBC sickos picket military funerals. But it sure as heck wasn't because I saw even a shred of truth in their message that soldiers deserve to die because God hates fags.

In order to avoid a long and complicated argument over the semantics of the word "shocked" and how reality does or does not play into it, just allow to concede that most people use the word interchangeably with "surprized," "disgusted," "infuriated," etc., so yes, you're right. Sorry Drew, I take it back.

[MrMacphisto]

LMAO! That's hilarious... I love the creativity of some people.

Referring to themselves as the "Atheist Agenda" is especially amusing. :D

[Robace252]

I propose starting a..........
"TICKLING FOR TEXTBOOKS!!!" Drive..........
come on now..........whos with me!!!

Rob

[GodlessTickler]

I am with you if we are giving the tickles and getting the textbooks... but if the lees want to give the textbooks and get the tickles they are on their own... have you seen prices of textbooks lately?! Wait, maybe this is the perfect way to reduce grad school costs... ROB you GENIUS YOU!

[Robace252]

ROB you GENIUS YOU!
Careful Godless......that just might become part of my siggy quote.
LOL.

But great idea isnt it!!

We could auction off the textbooks later either for me tickles (giving them) or for some cold hard cashola!!!

Rob

[drew70]

I couldn't disagree more. Does the message shock? Sure. The question is "Why?" If you're honest with yourself, it shocks you because you see truth in the message.I never said I personally was shocked. I merely conjectured that was the intent of the perpetrators of the event as well as the starter of this thread, not the degree of their success in achieving that goal.