home
RSS
March 22nd, 2012
06:36 PM ET

Atheist rally billed as 'coming out' moment for nonbelievers

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – A coalition of atheist and secular organizations are coming together on Saturday to hold what is being billed at the largest gathering of atheists in history.

David Silverman, chairman of the event committee and president of the American Atheists, said the rally is aimed at uniting atheist organizations and letting the religious know that there are nonbelievers among them.

“We need to stress to the theists that we are here,” Silverman said. “Atheism is growing in all 50 states. What people don’t seem to understand is all we demand at American Atheists is equality.”

Silverman initially told CNN that the rally would draw anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 people to the National Mall, and the National Park Service has planned for 30,000 people. With thunderstorms forecast for Saturday, however, Silverman told CNN on Thursday that he expects somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people.

The cost of the event is around $300,000, Silverman said, but philanthropist Todd Stiefel, Founder of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, is supplying half the money.

CNN's Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day's top stories

The rally has been a catalyst for protests by the Westboro Baptist Church, a group well known for its picketing of funerals of American servicemen and servicewomen. Westboro Baptist has been granted a permit for the “grassy area between 14th and 15th” streets, according to Carol Johnson, a communications officer for the National Park Service.

Though a press release for the reason rally touts 17 groups planning to protest, only the Westboro Baptist Church has applied and obtained a permit. Johnson said rally organizers have notified the Park Service of other possible protest groups, but none of those have applied for a permit.

The rally's long list of speakers and presenters runs the gamut from intellectuals to celebrities to comedians. The event is headlined by Oxford professor and author Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins, who is widely regarded as the most respected figure in atheism, is lending his voice to this event because he says freedom for atheists is “constantly under threat from people who would like to turn this country into some sort of a theocracy.”

“The Reason Rally is part of an effort to combat the attack of the theocrats,” Dawkins told CNN. “There is in this country at the moment a great revival of atheism, and the number of atheists in the country is much larger than people realize.”

Atheist organizer takes ‘movement’ to nation’s capital

At a press conference for the event, Silverman was adamant that the rally won't be the last. He didn't say whether it will be become an annual tradition, but he intends a higher profile for atheists in the future.

“The next step after the rally is all eyes on the election,” Silverman said. “We want to post hard questions to the candidates.”

Dawkins, too, related the rally to politics.

“The nonbelieving constituency has not been vocal enough, and it therefore has been politic for them to be ignored by their congressmen, by their senators,” Dawkins said.

Directing his comments at Congress, Dawkins said, “You have been neglecting them, overlooking them and riding roughshod over them as though they didn’t exist. Well, they do exist and they outnumber some of the other lobbies that you have been so assiduously sucking up to all these years.”

The America Atheists also are holding their annual convention in Bethesda, Maryland, and the Secular Coalition for America has scheduled its “Lobby Day for Reason” on Friday.

The weekend is part of a larger blitz by a coalition of atheists to “win” equality in American culture, Silverman said.

“We are the last group against whom it is politically correct to be bigoted,” he said. “That is something that needs to change and I am very confident that we will within 20 years.”

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Atheism • Politics

soundoff (3,073 Responses)
  1. truth

    31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?”

    39They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40“But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41“You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45“But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46“Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

    March 23, 2012 at 5:14 am |
    • Primewonk

      Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and ra.pes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

      Isn't this fun? OK, now your turn to post a random meaningless verse.

      March 23, 2012 at 8:18 am |
    • Rob

      Bat Boy Born in Arizona.-Weekly World News..

      See I can quote books too

      March 23, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • Thanks, Truth

      Thank you, Truth, for a most fitting passage. Count it gain to have so many scoffers–Jesus, the truth, had (has) his share, as well.

      March 24, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • tbreeden

      I like the part where he was bitten by a radioactive spider.

      March 25, 2012 at 11:18 am |
  2. NanoTech

    As a 'strong' Atheist, I do not see the point in the rally, especially with American Atheists being there. They barely defend Atheist ideals and help protect our rights. It's mostly padded words with ineffective waste of resources. It would be nice to have an Atheist organization that truly looked out for us in all places within our country. I have yet to see one that actively opens Resource Centers to promote thought or even Colleges aimed at developing future leaders. American Atheist Silverman thinks it is okay to face so much hate over our ideas for 20 more years; in our long history 20 years is a foot note yes. However, it needs to happen sooner.

    March 23, 2012 at 1:29 am |
    • Anon

      The point of the rally is to show fundie believers that we exist, since many of them wouldn't mind at all a theocratic America.

      March 23, 2012 at 2:10 am |
    • Bo

      What do you suppose David Silverman's objective is? Money–maybe?

      March 23, 2012 at 2:12 am |
  3. karen

    Stand up for religious freedom. Friday march 23 from 12-1. Standupforreligiousfreedom.com

    March 23, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • Al

      Part of religious freedom is the freedom not to be religious.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • Primewonk

      How come it's only ignorant fundiot groups in your rally?

      March 23, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  4. Reality

    A money-making scheme by Herb Silverman?? Probably since intennet media networking is doing the same job at no cost and no trip to Washington and $1000 front row seats required.

    ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS–

    The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
    and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (references used are available upon request)

    And then augmented by the following:

    Putting the final kibosh on religion to include Mormonism:

    • There was probably no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • There was probably no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    "The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "

    March 23, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • Mr. Nes

      China recently banned all names referencing God. Communists fear religion because it gives its citizens hope. They would rather have a populace of God-denouncing robots.
      Move to China.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Greg

      Your creed is just your wishful thinking, inconsistent with facts and truth...sorry, I just don't have enough faith to believe that hogwash.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
  5. FattKatt

    I am torn on this topic. I understand religion, but I understand it to be a form of human psychology, a way to help us handle the topics of; death, hope, love, grief, etc... In my eyes your religion is the TRUTH, therefore all others who think differently are wrong. This thought process created wars since the beginning of human consciousness. How can something, which is suppose to be good, cause so much evil? I have decided to put my faith in science at this time.
    CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME???

    March 23, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • WASP

      @Fattkatt: no easy way around it. humans by nature are violent and have two mentalities. we have the more logical singular thought process when we are alone; but humans also have a group mentality which is more emotion driven. that emotional side is what religion plays on. the reason it's so easy to get a group of religious people so rilled up is they have the herd mentality. i watched it in my church as a child. the preacher would start yelling and stomping and jumping up and down and i would watch the whole church get more and more aggressive in their displays. if you truly want to set aside religious indoctrination it's not going to be easy.....you will see religious folks start trying to coax you back into the flock and if you stand your ground they will threaten you with fears of hell and exile from their group. you're not alone however, athesits aren't as vocal as other groups but we are there when you need support. your best defense is to educate yourself on every passage in the bible to defend yourself against religious attacks. study how the world truly works through the laws of science; atheism and ignorance don't go hand and hand. if you don't know something, then admit you don't know and then proceed to find the answers. that's sciences greatest achievement, we can say "we don't know" and try to find the answer. if you had more defined questions i could help more.

      March 23, 2012 at 7:29 am |
    • Eric

      You can't put your "faith" into science, since the definition of science is belief in something without proof, and science deals with exploring and explaining the natural world based on evidence.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Eric

      Correction: the definition of FAITH is belief without proof.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • mattens

      OK...you asked for it...

      Mostly it has to do with fear. Humans fear death. And lonliness...everyone feels alone at times; that is the nature and curse of being human. So...some people deal with it by imagining that gods and goddesses not only look after them and tell them what to do, but will continue to do so after they die, rewarding the believer in a particular religious system with eternal life.

      Yes, on the face of it it seems ridiculous, but people find comfort in it. The PROBLEM comes, and almost always comes (there are exceptions with certain faiths) when the adherants begin to believe that it is their duty to elighten everyone about their gods and goddesses. That naturally devolves into a desire to punish or even kill those who do not or cannot believe in particular magical beings.

      Is there more to the Universe than what is obvious? Maybe there is. I'd be disappointed if what little we see and know is all there is to it. On the other hand, there is not a scrap of objective evidence for the existance of any god or goddess. Not a scrap. Gods and goddesses to not, then, it seems have objective reality. That does not mean, however, that they do not have subjective, psychological reality, which is almost the same thing.

      Me? I take comfort in what Sam Clemens once said: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

      March 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • jon

      i would ask instead,,, do you believe in love. fear, joy, hate, peacem etc. Are they real and can the be proven? Why worship one domain of limited knowledge?

      Those like Richard Dawkins and many others who cliam to be Athiests romantize science. If you objectively study it you will understand how filled with politics, biases and irrational thought.

      for instance study the history of "junk genes" over the past 12 + years, or string theory over the past 40 years. i suggest reading "The Trouble with Physics" or dive in to what DNA testing is really capable of....

      Be sceptical. Ask why scientists want you to believe them and what's in it for them, hint: Tax based Government funding, much easier than raising your own support.

      April 10, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
  6. truth

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    March 22, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Keith

      Nonsense

      March 22, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Truth? Not really. Truth requires proof, and there's not single shred of evidence to support the existence of any god. Therefore, you might as well be quoting Grimm's Fairy Tales or Harry Potter.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
    • truth

      Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil,

      March 23, 2012 at 12:19 am |
    • Reality

      Romans 1: 18-32 reminds me of the following:

      JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")

      Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.

      Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

      Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with John's gospel being mostly fiction.

      Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

      So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man or his PR guy Paul would do or say?

      March 23, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • tallulah13

      Again, truth requires proof. You have none. If you were honest, you'd call yourself "Opinion".

      March 23, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • truth

      19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
      21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

      March 23, 2012 at 4:35 am |
    • truth

      <>
      Aramaic Bible in Plain English

      --------------------------–
      1“Let not your heart be troubled. Believe in God and believe in me.” 2“ him, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Way and The Truth and The Life; no man comes to my Father but by me alone.”
      7“If you had known me, you also would have known my Father, and from this hour you do know him and you have seen him.”

      8Philippus said to him, “Our Lord, show us The Father, and it is sufficient for us.” 9Yeshua said to him, “All this time I am with you and you have not known me Phillip? Whoever has seen me has seen The Father, and how do you say, 'Show us The Father'?” 10“Do you not believe that I am in my Father and my Father in me? The words which I am speaking, I am not speaking from myself, but my Father who dwells within me, he does these works.” 11“Believe that I am in my Father and my Father in me, otherwise believe because of the works.” 12“Timeless truth, I tell you: 'whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.' “ 13“And anything that you will ask in my name I shall do for you, that The Father may be glorified in his Son.” 14“And if you will ask me in my name, I shall do this.”

      15“If you love me, keep my commandments.”

      March 23, 2012 at 4:54 am |
    • Original Sin

      Are we talking about the GOP here?

      March 23, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • NutGrinder

      reported

      March 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • NutGrinder

      This guy still Preaching? Damn that's dedication!

      March 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • mattens

      The Christian god is, I have heard, the god of love. I wonder, then, why so many of you are so obsessed by thoughts of fear, torture and death? Especially when it comes to unbelievers in your gods and goddesses?

      March 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Commenter

      We can tell so much about a person's character by how he envisions that his imaginary god behaves.

      March 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • tbreeden

      Careful @truth. Reading the Bible has made many a person not believe.

      March 25, 2012 at 11:20 am |
  7. mandarax

    Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense. -Voltaire

    March 22, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • truth

      Like other key thinkers during the European Enlightenment, Voltaire considered himself a deist, expressing the idea: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

      March 23, 2012 at 5:04 am |
  8. Ungodly Discipline

    To all believers, ask me why being an atheist makes more sense than your belief system. I will council you. Don’t be afraid I don’t bite.

    March 22, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Bo

      By just the very fact that there are those who do not believe in a creative god they must believe in evolution, but with that belief comes the problem that at some point there must have been “nothing” and then that “nothing” became something without any cause. This is the very reason when as a teenager I rejected evolution.
      Granted, I don't understand all about God and how He came into being, but I'm more willing to chalk that up to the fact that the human intelligence is very limited compared to God's, what ever God is. (God the creator is not human. I have no idea what God is except that Jesus said “...God is Spirit...”, and I'm too finite to understand what that means.) Atheists tend to think that man is very knowable, very intelligent and some day it will all be understood. And this is where, I think, Atheism falls into a pit, they want to limit God to their understanding and by doing so they make themselves equal to God. So, being equal to God they themselves are god, which translates into: “There is no god.” because they know that they are not god. What I just said is gibberish to unbelievers; they cannot wrap their mind around it, and that is why Paul said: to the unbeliever, god is foolishness.
      But, that age old problem will never be learned: How did it begin? How did nothing become something? I believe that even those who do inherit eternal life will, even through eternity, never understand it all. Simply put, it is beyond the comprehension of man. That is why God is God.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Bo? Where did your god come from? He must have come from the same nothing that you think makes no sense. Your rejection of evolution is nothing more than you choosing to believe something that appeals to your emotions. There is nothing logical about believing in a god for which there is no proof.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • bobcat

      Bo, no part of evolution say that something comes from nothing. Changes occur at a level that is almost unnoticed dad to day. As far as its origin we believe that in the conditions of ancient earth amino acids that developed due to the conditions or they were delivered by impacts from comets. We know these are facts because they have been tested and replicated under laboratory conditions.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • Bo

      @ Tallulah13: I anticipated your question and have already answered it?

      March 23, 2012 at 1:57 am |
    • Bo

      @Bobcat: You seemed to have missed the point: Where did the universe come from before the earth? (I'll add right here: Too many people, even Christians, think too small of God; my God is bigger than the universe: not some little magical fairy in the sky.)

      March 23, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • Anon

      ^ How about a multi-verse? Infinite regress makes your so called petty god irrelevant.

      March 23, 2012 at 2:13 am |
    • sam stone

      bo: why do you assume a creator has to be a God? could it not be a creator just snapped his or her fingers and the big bang happened? perhaps the idea of God (as a being that judges human interaction) is just a story told by men....

      March 23, 2012 at 8:02 am |
    • Bo

      Good morning Anon, I have a friend who is a very knowledgeable amateur astronomer. His business is actually building his world renowned JIM unique telescopes (Plus manufacturing other things) anyway, he talks about multi-universes. If God could make one universe He can make as many as He wishes; space is unlimited. I don't believe God just sits around twiddling His thumbs (figuratively speaking). He has been in the business of creating for a long, long time, just the age of of this universe gives evidence to that; other universes could be older. I also believe there is other life out there. I'm not unique in believing that this planet is billions of years old, it just happens that God didn't create life on this planet until about 6,000 years ago in reply to Lucifer’s accusations.

      March 23, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bo wrote, " Where did the universe come from before the earth? "

      Seriously? You have every right to be as ignorant as you want. But wearing that ignorance as a badge of honor is just sad.

      The universe is 9 billion years older than the earth. The earth formed as a result of earlier generations of stars going supernova.

      This is stuff you should have learned by Junior High.

      March 23, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Bo, your story about god making as many universes as he wants, and not sitting around twiddling his thumbs is just that – a just-so story you're making up and not otherwise thinking about. You are just imagining scenarios and then claiming them as truth, without any inclination to actually evaluate or verify them.

      I think religious people don't realize how childish that sounds to people whose thoughts operate outside the faith framework. Children just make up stories as explanations and are then satisfied with them. Evaluating their ideas against the reality around them never occurs to them and isn't necessary for them to believe their story completely. However, evaluating ideas against evidence is the basis of rational thinking, and of science.

      That's why models like the big bang carry so much more weight than "Uh, I think god does this...there, that explains it!" The big bang is in all likelihood an imperfect model, but some things about it are clearly correct because they are supported by a boatload of evidence and observation. The idea of a non-thumb twiddling creator is just a product of childish imagining, not supported by anything and with no basis in anything other than your ability to think it.

      March 23, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • Bo

      @Primework: Did you read Bobcat's comment? “Where did the universe come from?” is a rhetorical question.

      March 23, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • What Now

      Bo...sadly, you did not have a good education in evolution because you base your rejection on misinformation. Then you turn around and say you believe in something (a god) that you really don't understand. I am sorry for you.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • memyself

      @Bo Where did God come from? Another good rhetorical question...

      March 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • mattens

      Well, "Bo"...that's what we call a "non sequitur."

      Many evolutionary biologists believe in god.
      The Roman Catholic church as indicated it supports the idea of Evolution.
      Evolution has nothing to do with how the world began.

      It is not something you "believe" in. That sort of thing is for religion. Evolution is a natural process going on right now. It is observable and quatifiable. Don't believe me? Next time your doctor prescribes an antibiotic, tell him you do not want any of that new-fangled stuff; penicilln is good enough for you... ;-)

      March 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Polycarp

      mattens
      Well, "Bo"...that's what we call a "non sequitur."

      Many evolutionary biologists believe in god.
      The Roman Catholic church as indicated it supports the idea of Evolution.
      Evolution has nothing to do with how the world began.

      It is not something you "believe" in. That sort of thing is for religion. Evolution is a natural process going on right now. It is observable and quatifiable. Don't believe me? Next time your doctor prescribes an antibiotic, tell him you do not want any of that new-fangled stuff; penicilln is good enough for you... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Evolution actually does have a major role WHY the world began, Some angels got kicked out of what Roman Catholic's call heaven. The PRIMARY reason for the existence of the human race is to replace those angels that got kicked out of Heaven.
      Simple as one can explain, we the human race wouldn't exist, their would be no JUSTICE, reason for the human race to exist otherwise.

      February 27, 2013 at 12:09 am |
  9. False Dichotomy

    If Westboro Baptist Church is protesting it, they must be on the right track!

    March 22, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • tbreeden

      Gotta admit one thing, Westboro's theology is Biblically defensible.

      March 25, 2012 at 11:21 am |
  10. Kumar

    So they are all gay?

    March 22, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Yes of course Kumar. 10,000 Gay slider eating athiests.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • Homer J.

      White Castle.........baghlarghlarghalrghalrglghglar

      March 23, 2012 at 7:54 am |
  11. Peter

    @really what do you believe in ?

    March 22, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
  12. Ungodly Discipline

    I will come if we can make it a nude rally. Think about it.

    March 22, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • Proud Atheist

      Ungodly, I am not sure if I want to be in a nude rally with Richard Dawkins! Let's just not run too wild with that idea. Besides, I may run into him again in the future in some free though convention and it will look a little awkward!

      March 23, 2012 at 1:10 am |
  13. J.W

    Atheists can already come out without a party. There is nothing to be afraid of. Atheists do not like to party. They like to sit around and be nerds.

    March 22, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Ummm

      Nerds created the technology for you to write such a comment...guess we are making a difference...without a god.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • tallulah13

      You're just jealous, J.W.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Wish I could be there

      This is just plain funny.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • gaytheist

      Lots of my friends will be there! Although we are celibate we celebrate life and a hope. Atheists have no hope in anything outside of themselves and the brief time animals draw their breath. Great damage is being done simply so they can again embrace the Greek philosophy of the man made gods. My banner will say “gay is ok Gods way trumps no way”

      March 23, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • pervert alert

      Qu eers the people that gave the world aids. We are all dying to see what the maggots will do next. Probably pollute the sancti ty of marriage.

      March 23, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • gaytheist

      Perv
      The actions of married people is what ruined marriage. Marriage was to be sacred and before God at all times. Even atheists fail at the same rate as Christians when it comes to a marriage that is sacred

      March 23, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  14. Rebel4Christ

    No matter what you do atheism sounds silly!! Atheism- The belief there was once absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. And you mock my Beliefs!!

    March 22, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      You're equating atheism and the big bang theory. The two are completely seperate. Also, evolution and the big bang theory are seperate things as well.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • Ra Ra

      Who is Mohammed?

      March 22, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • Really?

      "he belief there was once absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. And you mock my Beliefs!!"

      Substitute nothing for god and you have your religion, but who created your god...man did. When you are so focused on the after life you forget to live in this life – you are one sad person. So what's your next addiction fred....just sayin...chad...herbie....

      March 22, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • blyue

      A few problems with this (other than the massive strawman):

      + Atheism is not a positive stance

      + The theistic "answer" only complicates the situation (and violates the premise of the implicit cosmological argument)

      + The Big Bang is a strongly substantiated and widely accepted scientific theory, which you also don't understand. Instead of stating that the "universe came from nothing," what we know is that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state and that this state expanded at an extremely fast speed, etc. I'd suggest reading the wikipedia article.

      + You also fail to understand abiogenesis, which involves not "magic" but an interaction of natural forces (which is not as random as you seem to believe). As Miller-Urey and others proved, it's not ridiculous, either. We have working models.

      But let's get back to what you're arguing. Your beliefs explain the universe as "God's creation." Now you're trying to develop atheism into something analogous to that, replacing "God" with "nothing"- and that's the fault of your thinking, that you expect atheism to be yet another purported, unwarranted explanation to everything.

      "What," you argue, "other than God could have created this universe? Without God, it must've spontaneously exploded!"

      The problem with that is you're using the self-refuting cosmological argument. You're saying that everything needs a cause (or that the universe does or whatever) but failing to apply your initial logic to your deity. Your deity isn't an explanation. It only takes the question further and creates a tremendous wad of even more complications.

      On the other hand, I don't claim special knowledge. I don't seek answers. I seek the right answers.

      So I don't make claims about the origin of the universe. I'm not even sure if we've ever find out. For you, that might be uncomfortable and lacking, but for me it's a matter of basic honesty.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @Blyue “Atheism is not a positive stance”
      =>Yes it is “”atheism: noun – the doctrine or belief that there is no God.”

      ===========
      @Blyue “The theistic "answer" only complicates the situation (and violates the premise of the implicit cosmological argument)”

      =>LOL what? How do you figure that theism violates the cosmological argument?
      1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
      2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
      Therefore:
      3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
      4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

      ================
      @Blyue “The Big Bang is a strongly substantiated and widely accepted scientific theory, which you also don't understand. Instead of stating that the "universe came from nothing," what we know is that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state and that this state expanded at an extremely fast speed, etc. I'd suggest reading the wikipedia article.”

      =>good advice, if you do so, you’ll see that all of matter and time itself was created. Hence the atheistic belief that “there was nothing, then nothing exploded” seems phenomenally irrational, yes?

      ================
      @Blyue “ You also fail to understand abiogenesis, which involves not "magic" but an interaction of natural forces (which is not as random as you seem to believe). As Miller-Urey and others proved, it's not ridiculous, either. We have working models.”
      =>LOL indeed, some data for you:

      In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

      Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria - one of the simplest life forms in existence today - is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:
      • A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
      • A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
      • An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
      • An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
      • An enzyme that can build cell walls
      • An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
      • An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement

      reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
      • Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes
      Obviously, the E. coli cell itself is the product of billions of years of evolution, so it is complex and intricate - much more complex than the first living cells. Even so, the first living cells had to possess:
      • A cell wall
      • The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
      • The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
      • The ability to split itself to reproduce

      Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive. To try to imagine a primordial cell with these capabilities spontaneously creating itself, it is helpful to consider some simplifying assumptions. For example:
      • Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.
      • Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
      • Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
      • Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.
      These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life. Perhaps the first living cells were completely different from what we see today, and no one has yet imagined what they might have been like. Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible places:
      • Spontaneous creation – Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
      • Supernatural creation – God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.
      -source how stuff works dot com

      March 22, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Alice

      Why is a random chemical process more difficult to believe in than the existence of life creating supernatural beings?

      March 23, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • Proud Atheist

      Oh boy! How stupid are you? Is this really the level of your intelligence? It is completely hopeless to even try to respond to you.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:22 am |
    • Just so you know

      Proud Atheist,

      It's better if you state which poster you are talking about...

      March 23, 2012 at 1:27 am |
    • Primewonk

      To the fundiot nutters on here – you do understand, don't you, that the Big Bang was neither Big, nor a Bang?

      Also, you folks keep posting the creationist lie about everything coming from nothing. That most certainly is not what science says. Time started with the expansion. This is Time (zero). We cannot state what occured before time started. It's like asking what's North of North? It's meaningless.

      And please, for the love of gods (sorry), learn the difference between cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. Confounding the 3 of them only further demonstrates your profound ignorance about science.

      March 23, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • non-believer

      @Chad What I believe blyue was trying to say with "Atheism is not a positive stance" is that atheism is NOT the belief that there is no "God." It's the LACK OF BELIEF in ANY god. "A" being the greek prefix for "without" and "theist" – that's obvious.

      If an atheist were to believe there is no God, they would have to allow for God to exist. As he doesn't, your reply to blyue is a false equivolancy.

      March 23, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Chad

      @non-believer "What I believe blyue was trying to say with "Atheism is not a positive stance" is that atheism is NOT the belief that there is no "God." It's the LACK OF BELIEF in ANY god. "A" being the greek prefix for "without" and "theist" – that's obvious."

      =>apparently there are two types of atheists, "weak" and "strong".

      "Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[52] and in Catholic apologetics.[53] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists."

      Atheists typically want to be known as an "atheist" (as opposed to identifying themselves as "agnostics") I suppose because it makes some kind of statement.. however, they dont want the burden of proof that accompanies that, nor do they want to be known as "weak atheists".

      The dictionary definition of atheism is "The theory or belief that God does not exist." qualifies as "strong atheism".
      Attempting to define atheism as "lack of belief in God" is of course just a transparent attempt to want to hold a position, but not want the burden of defending that position.. it's called a cop out :-)

      March 23, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • JohnK

      We mock your self-righteous ignorance.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Tom Paine

      If you believe that everything needs a cause, but then you make an exception for God, you might as well make an exception for the Universe.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • memyself

      @Chad
      "1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;"

      Not really. You need to consider quantum mechanics.

      "2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;"

      What is your proof for this? Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Isn't this a possibility? Or can only "God" have always existed? The Big Bang theory says nothing about whether the Universe had a beginning.

      "Therefore:
      3. The universe has a cause of its existence."

      Maybe. Maybe not. We will probably never know unless we somehow learn to generate our own universes.

      "4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)"

      ROTFL. Since you can't give a scientific explanation for something, the cause must be your pet agenda? Classical logical fallacy. Like saying that since not all UFO sightings can be explained by science, there must be aliens visiting the earth.

      "Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria – one of the simplest life forms in existence today – is amazingly complex"

      Wow. Your ignorance of basic science is staggering. E.coli is NOT one of the simplest life forms in existence today. Not even close. Try viruses, try phages, try prions. Try crystals (they can reproduce). The rest of your argument immediately FAILS. Incidentally, the entire notion of "complex" vs "simple" life forms is misleading. Life forms are as simple or complex as they need to be in order to survive. Some life forms become more simple over time; others more complex. There are flowers, for instance, that have more genes than human beings.

      March 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;"
      @memyself "Not really. You need to consider quantum mechanics."
      @Chad "Not really, you need to understand that when kraus talks about "A universe from nothing, he ISNT talking about conditions that existed prior to the big bang (a true nothing, the absence of everything). Kraus "nothing" isnt nothing, for one thing time and space and laws exist.. Kraus acknowledge this in his debate with William Lane Craig, see:

      [audio src="http://www.philvaz.com/CraigKraussDebate.mp3" /]

      remember, QM only works on something, not nothing. If there is nothing, there's no QM (and vacuum space isnt "nothing")

      ==============
      @memyself " What is your proof for The universe has a beginning of its existence;? Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Isn't this a possibility?
      @Chad "No it isnt, our universe is not infinite in the past, that's just an accepted fact."

      ==============
      @memyself "Or can only "God" have always existed? "
      @Chad "I suppose other things could always have existed, but our universe isnt one of those things, that's been conclusively demonstrated"

      ==============
      @memyself " Since you can't give a scientific explanation for something, the cause must be your pet agenda? Classical logical fallacy. Like saying that since not all UFO sightings can be explained by science, there must be aliens visiting the earth."
      @Chad "your analogy is pretty flawed obviously, we arent talking about alleged non-falsifiable sightings, we are talking about concrete evidence. Correcting your analogy would look like this:
      "Like saying that since not all UFOs can be explained by science, there must be aliens visiting the earth."
      and that's true, if there really are un-explainable UFOs, then it would be aliens. "sightings" is a completely different matter.

      ==============
      @memyself " Wow. Your ignorance of basic science is staggering. E.coli is NOT one of the simplest life forms in existence today. Not even close. Try viruses, try phages, try prions."
      @Chad "Bad attempt on your part, that was from "howstuffworks" and is obviously accurate. You are falling into the classic fallacy of assuming that everything an opponent says is incorrect. That blurb was straight secular science talking :-)

      Try crystals (they can reproduce). The rest of your argument immediately FAILS. Incidentally, the entire notion of "complex" vs "simple" life forms is misleading. Life forms are as simple or complex as they need to be in order to survive. Some life forms become more simple over time; others more complex. There are flowers, for instance, that have more genes than human beings.

      March 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • memyself

      Chad
      @Chad "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;"
      @memyself "Not really. You need to consider quantum mechanics."
      @Chad "Not really, you need to understand that when kraus talks about "A universe from nothing, he ISNT talking about conditions that existed prior to the big bang (a true nothing, the absence of everything). Kraus "nothing" isnt nothing, for one thing time and space and laws exist.. Kraus acknowledge this in his debate with William Lane Craig, see:

      [audio src="http://www.philvaz.com/CraigKraussDebate.mp3" /]

      remember, QM only works on something, not nothing. If there is nothing, there's no QM (and vacuum space isnt "nothing")

      You are missing the point. Nothing "causes" radioactive decay, yet the particles emitted have a beginning of their existence. The same sequence of quantum events regularly produce different results. There is no cause effect relationship. Only statistical predictability.

      ==============
      @memyself " What is your proof for The universe has a beginning of its existence;? Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Isn't this a possibility?
      @Chad "No it isnt, our universe is not infinite in the past, that's just an accepted fact."

      ***** ROTFL. "Accepted as fact" is your proof? Nothing is known of the universe's very deep past. There are astrophysical *theories* (including the Big Bang) about what happened a very long time ago (pretty close to what some consider zero time in the universe). Speculating about existence or non-existence of the universe "before" zero time is meaningless.

      ==============
      @memyself "Or can only "God" have always existed? "
      @Chad "I suppose other things could always have existed, but our universe isnt one of those things, that's been conclusively demonstrated"

      ***** Again, demonstrated how? where? by whom?

      ==============
      @memyself " Since you can't give a scientific explanation for something, the cause must be your pet agenda? Classical logical fallacy. Like saying that since not all UFO sightings can be explained by science, there must be aliens visiting the earth."
      @Chad "your analogy is pretty flawed obviously, we arent talking about alleged non-falsifiable sightings, we are talking about concrete evidence. Correcting your analogy would look like this:
      "Like saying that since not all UFOs can be explained by science, there must be aliens visiting the earth."
      and that's true, if there really are un-explainable UFOs, then it would be aliens. "sightings" is a completely different matter.

      ***** Nonsense. You are saying that since we don't know how the universe "began", it must have been created by your notion of God. I'm saying 1) the universe doesn't need to have "began" at all; maybe it just always was, or maybe the question is meaningless, and 2) even if the universe had a "beginning" you cannot jump to the conclusion that your notion of God was therefore the cause. Maybe our universe "began" as an experiment conducted by aliens from another dimension. Since we can't know what the "cause" is, the "cause" could be anything. This is all just useless speculation.

      ==============
      @memyself " Wow. Your ignorance of basic science is staggering. E.coli is NOT one of the simplest life forms in existence today. Not even close. Try viruses, try phages, try prions. Try crystals (they can reproduce). The rest of your argument immediately FAILS. Incidentally, the entire notion of "complex" vs "simple" life forms is misleading. Life forms are as simple or complex as they need to be in order to survive. Some life forms become more simple over time; others more complex. There are flowers, for instance, that have more genes than human beings.

      @Chad "Bad attempt on your part, that was from "howstuffworks" and is obviously accurate. You are falling into the classic fallacy of assuming that everything an opponent says is incorrect. That blurb was straight secular science talking

      ***** OMG, this is so funny! Your source is "howsutffworks" ? Which is "obviously accurate" ? Wow. Like quoting Readers Digest when discussing classical literature. You obviously know little about evolution, microbiology, or biochemistry. There are *living* viruses that consist of a piece of protein wrapped around a bit of RNA. They can be crystallized and stored in a jar like a chemical reagent. They have no DNA, no cell membrane, no endoplasmic reticulum, no mitochondria, etc, etc. Throw them in the right environment and they will reproduce and even evolve. And prions are far less complex. Wow. Just wow.

      March 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @Memyself “You are missing the point. Nothing "causes" radioactive decay, yet the particles emitted have a beginning of their existence. The same sequence of quantum events regularly produce different results. There is no cause effect relationship. Only statistical predictability”

      @Chad “obfuscation, thy name is atheism.. lol. Look, you are trying to build some kind of case that the universe can just pop into existence, no cause needed.
      And actually, that’s fine go right ahead. However you cant use QM to build such a case, as that doesnt generate something from nothing (nothing being defined as the absence of everything).

      But, if you want to believe that something can come from a true, nothing, and that’s what your belief system is predicated on, then be my guest :-)

      ==============
      @memyself " What is your proof for The universe has a beginning of its existence. Speculating about existence or non-existence of the universe "before" zero time is meaningless.”

      @Chad “
      1. “According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,[2][3] which is thus considered the age of the Universe. Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model” – Wikipedia

      If you want to believe debunked theories that our universe results from a previous universe you have just pushed the problem of an infinite regression back one further step.

      2. Typical atheist cop out to say that discussion of anything “before” time zero is meaningless. It certainly isn’t meaningless to investigate how our universe came into being, you just feel it’s a desirable thing to avoid since it cant (by definition) be discussed in entirely naturalistic terms.

      ==============
      @memyself " Your source is "howsutffworks" ? Which is "obviously accurate" ?”
      @Chad “as always, I’m happy to get atheists to the point where to support their theory, they need to acknowledge that they are in opposition to accepted secular science in some manner.. I’m sure the web site would love to hear how they have completely gotten it wrong :-)

      March 23, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • mattens

      What's more silly... That life developed through slow natural processes over billions of years OR an invisible god or goddess who no one has ever seen or spoken to and who does not interact with humanity in any observable way created it in seven days (or however long)? AND...decided to make it APPEAR to educated people that natural processes and not him/her/itself had done it...?

      I find that people who do not "believe" (belief is for religion, not science), have trouble wrapping their minds around how long a billion years is. Or even a mere million years. And what nature can and will do over those time spans.

      March 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Chad

      @mattens "I find that people who do not "believe" (belief is for religion, not science), have trouble wrapping their minds around how long a billion years is. Or even a mere million years. And what nature can and will do over those time spans."

      =>you seem to be referring to darwins gradualism, which is of course dead and buried, right?
      Surely you are familiar with punctuated equilibrium? Species remain in stasis for tens/hundreds of millions of years, then in less then 1% of their total species lifetime, they engage in "significant evolutionary change".

      read this: Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism – by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould

      March 24, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
  15. Rebel4Christ

    Really?-

    What historical evidence AT all do you have that Jesus is based on pagan religions? not only that are you kidding me! I have read the Bible countless times! I know exactly what I believe because I know Jesus personally and You need to get to know him personally!!!

    March 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Ra Ra

      What is your belief about Mohammed?

      March 22, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Deco

      He's a good boxer?

      March 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Really?

      Wow are you one stupid Christian – I am a former Christian 30 years, divinity school the whole package – it's lies dude. Sorry to burst your bubble but your religion is a cult, when you wake up to that fact life become absolutely amazing! Since obviously you were to lazy to do your homework...do some research without your brainwashed mind of your cult...and see what happens. Life actually becomes the real blessing it was meant to be without a god that isn't there...your love becomes deeper, richer and more profound.... but you are probably only a scared child who lacks confidence in themselves...thats the affect of your religion – be strong...find reality.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • Deco

      I feel sorry that you walked away.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • Ra Ra

      Mohammed a boxer? who is the one that you call the prophit?

      March 22, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • Deco

      I don't call him a prophet.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • Ra Ra

      The question is for Rebel about Allah and Mohammed.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • Miami Dolphins

      Hey Muneef-How ya been?

      March 22, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • truth

      Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness

      March 23, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Alice

      Start with this video series called "The Pagan Christ."

      March 23, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • Alice

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlBcKlnBzqg&w=640&h=390]

      March 23, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • NanoTech

      @ truth
      Do you have any real opinion? Blindly following words written by long forgotten dead men only belittles your stance further.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:55 am |
    • nyse

      It must be truth in the God of the Bible that has these unbelievers unsettled and very insecure in their own belief.

      March 23, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Al

      nyse
      Who's unsettled and insecure in their belief? No unbelievers here as far as I can read.

      March 23, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Nathan

      Maybe it's believers that are insecure nyse. After all, why else did you come here if not to reassure yourself?

      March 23, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
  16. Chad

    Having read "The God Delusion" I strongly recommend it to any believer, I was frankly astonished at the content, I was expecting rational argument but got irrational ranting.

    The entire book can be captured in one sentence "Religious people have done many bad things", which is true of course, and exactly what the bible says as well.

    That's why we need Jesus Christ.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • OhYeah

      "That's why we need Jesus Christ."

      That's why the stories of Jesus killing another person were never put in your bible,,, you would realize he wasn't the son of a god...

      March 22, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Jerome Haltom

      So I guess you missed the chapters regarding the evolutionary origin of altruism and the chapters going over the traditional arguments for the existence of God?

      March 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @OhYeah "That's why the stories of Jesus killing another person were never put in your bible,,, you would realize he wasn't the son of a god..."

      =>oh my goodness.. the nonsense you do believe.. At least your consistent in your irrationality.. but still, amazing stuff..

      March 22, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • OhYeah

      "oh my goodness.. the nonsense you do believe.. At least your consistent in your irrationality.. but still, amazing stuff.."

      Yeah and all you can come up with is a stupid line without any proof obviously you were to lazy to do research to know the truth about your religion. Christians are so stupid.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @Jerome Haltom "So I guess you missed the chapters regarding the evolutionary origin of altruism and the chapters going over the traditional arguments for the existence of God?"

      =>just one argument really ""The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer"

      extraordinarily weak argument, decimated by Craig repeatedly..

      The universe is not infinite in the past, it has been shown to have a beginning
      Everything that began to exist, must have a cause
      The universe therefore requires a cause
      God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

      God does not have a beginning, and the universe does. Dawkins got it exactly wrong (and then chickened out of debating Craig because he knew he would get destroyed)

      March 22, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • LMAO

      "God does not have a beginning, '

      What a stupid comment you have no proof. LMAO!

      March 22, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • mandarax

      @Chad, if that's all you gathered from the book, you either didn't actually read or you don't read well. Agree or disagree, it is a thorough essay that addresses a wide range of arguments. Somehow, I suspect you read the back cover and called it good.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • Oh Yeah (not OhYeah)

      Chad
      "God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause."
      The Marvel comics character Galactus is actually the only survivor of the universe that came before this one, and he also witnessed the Big Bang. This must be true because I read it in a book. :-)

      March 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • Chad

      I'm told other stuff he has written is better.. Like I said, I read The God Delusion cover to cover, and was shocked at how poorly organized it was, how sloppy the logic was, how so much of it was driven by emotion not intellect..
      Surprised to say the least.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • tallulah13

      No, Chad. Your refusal to man up and take responsibility for your own life is why you need Jesus Christ.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Al

      Oh Yeah
      Chad must come from Bizarro world, where everything is opposite from our reality.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • Anon

      Jesus is for immature adults who can't accept their own finite mortality.

      March 23, 2012 at 2:16 am |
    • robert

      Say hello to binker for me.

      March 23, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Pat F

      Almost every war in human history was started by men. So I think we should abort every male fetus – after about 100 years, all war will be over. Never again will a human start a war.

      This is equally as stupid as claims that "religious people" start wars, or that "religion" starts wars. The only real cause of war that has ever existed is material – land, money, food, etc.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • memyself

      @Pat F. Actually, this is not so far-fetched an idea. Males are far more aggressive than females. Look at military, prison populations. This is almost certainly something that goes back to our distant common ancestor to the chimps, because they have the same tendencies. Reproduction by parthenogenesis may be the answer. Suggest you read James Tiptree's "Houston, Houston, Do Your Read" for entertainment.

      March 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • jon

      Study history and you will soon understand no ethnicity or group had the corner on doing wrong.

      Does Richard Dawkins accept responsibility for the sins of Communism which claims Atheism as the State Religion? hmm i think not. yet untold million have been killed in the Name of Atheism.

      April 11, 2012 at 12:10 am |
  17. Untainted by religious hate.

    Religion needs to be opened to ridicule to expose it's ..ah....ridiculousness?

    March 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Harry Potter

      No, its "Riddikulus!"

      March 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Deco

      Just like Jesus who was ridiculed for his actions.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • Anon

      Jesus is just another mythological farce created by overzealous men for their own benefit.

      March 23, 2012 at 2:19 am |
  18. Sean Bone

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNCDsv42BGQ&w=640&h=390]

    March 22, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
  19. momoya

    Jesus done lef' chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans!! The cajun food 'n all.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
  20. Rebel4Christ

    Man this country needs Jesus!

    March 22, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
    • NoWay

      It's why this country is in the toilet – your cult needs to be destroyed.

      March 22, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • I Have Already Brought Jesus Into My Life!!!!!!!

      Jesus mows my lawns and trims my hedges, and dang if the Immortal Son of God isn't a durn fine gardener! Very reasonable rates, too!

      I'm glad Jesus has returned. Those atheists over at Immigration and Naturalization are just going to burn in the lake of fire for sending Jesus back so many times.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Rebel4Christ

      Hmm destroyed huh? Atheism promises that when you die you will be in a pit in the ground forever, Jesus promises eternal life!!!! SO WHAT HOPE DO YOU HAVE!-NoWay Psalms 14:1 The fool says in his heart there is no God, There ways are vile and corrupt, Not one of them does good.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • Really?

      "Jesus promises eternal life!!!! SO WHAT HOPE DO YOU HAVE!-NoWay Psalms 14:1 The fool says in his heart there is no God, There ways are vile and corrupt, Not one of them does good."

      Religion has killed more people in human history than anything else and you are going to quote from a book that has been proven not to be an historical book. LMAO!

      March 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Wobbly Bob

      Jim Jones and David Koresh promised eternal life too.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Rebel4Christ

      Really

      Religion kills people!! not Jesus!!! I don't want religion I want JESUS! I DONT KNOW RELIGION I KNOW JESUS!!! AND HE does not kill people!

      Wobbly Bob-

      well Jim Jones killed people and he said he was the Messiah! The bible even says that false prophets will come near the end times. I love how atheists act like christians are the fools when the bible says that atheists are the foolish ones!

      I still don't get why you would ever be an atheist? Even if there is no God or no Jesus or no Heaven it sure beats what you believe!!!!-C.S Lewis (former ATHEIST)

      March 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Really?

      "Religion kills people!! not Jesus!!! I don't want religion I want JESUS! I DONT KNOW RELIGION I KNOW JESUS!!! AND HE does not kill people!"

      Wow are you ignorant, religion has killed 480 million people-your Jesus was based on other pagan religions. You were probably to lazy to do any actual research on what you believe and took it on face value, your cult was depending on that.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • OhYeah

      "Religion kills people!! not Jesus!!! I don't want religion I want JESUS! I DONT KNOW RELIGION I KNOW JESUS!!! AND HE does not kill people!"

      You've been brainwashed on what to believe about us, you would be surprised it's not the distorted truth you're trying to spew on this blog.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • Ra Ra

      @really & Rebel-That is a fantastic exchange between your handles.Do you believe in Mohammed?

      March 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really? "Wow are you ignorant, religion has killed 480 million people-your Jesus was based on other pagan religions. You were probably to lazy to do any actual research on what you believe and took it on face value, your cult was depending on that."

      =>sigh
      utter nonsense of course, what's your source?
      According to wikipedia, there have been between 218m and 400m TOTAL killed IN ALL WARS THAT THERE EVER WERE, and only 7% of those are attributed to religious reasons.

      serious question: it never bothers you to know that night after night your posts are demonstrably untrue? Never bothers you? Just throw junk out there, then call the people names that present actual data demonstrating it is complete nonsense?
      That's your existence?

      "In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They doc ument 1763 wars overall, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict." – Charles Phillips, Alan Axelrod (2005). The Encyclopaedia of War.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Really?

      "According to wikipedia, there have been between 218m and 400m TOTAL killed IN ALL WARS THAT THERE EVER WERE, and only 7% of those are attributed to religious reasons."

      The fact you would quote wiki shows your stupidity.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • Really?

      "serious question: it never bothers you to know that night after night your posts are demonstrably untrue? Never bothers you? Just throw junk out there, then call the people names that present actual data demonstrating it is complete nonsense?
      That's your existence?"

      You just did the same thing you are accusing me of that's why you're posts on this blog are such a joke, you don't realize the criticism you make about others is really about who you are,,,, LMAO!

      March 22, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • NanoTech

      @Rebel
      Have you ever truly read both the Old and New Testament? Your prophet did not promise anything. There is enough information on the dates of both books(or at the very least the *rough* date each was penned.), neither of which would even be near your prophet's lifetime. Old Testament was written before him and New Testament long after. Explain then, how a dead individual made any promises within either book? What you believe in so much was in absolutely no way written by your prophet. I'll at least give Muslims that the man they follow as a prophet wrote his own book.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • Jim

      @Nanobrain

      If you have such a hard time reading, maybe you should check out the book "Reading for Dummies"
      It has pictures and pop-up characters. You would have a really fun time. I think you would enjoy that.

      March 23, 2012 at 8:05 am |
    • Chad

      @NanoTech "New Testament long after [Jesus died]"

      =>I wouldnt call 10-30 years "a long time"

      March 23, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • NutGrinder

      Please read your WHOLE bible please, not just the new testament and the psalms. Go all the way to the end... Revalations.
      In that book, Jesus said he is going to come back and TORTURE and KILL everyone that doesn't believe in him.
      Sounds like Hitler.

      March 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Chad

      @NutGrinder "Revalations.In that book, Jesus said he is going to come back and TORTURE and KILL everyone that doesn't believe in him."

      =>People that have made a choice to reject Jesus will unfortunately have to live with that choice.
      How does that bitter ending for non-believers demonstrate in any way shape or form that Jesus isnt real?

      March 23, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.