home
RSS
My Take: What all those Jesus jokes tell us
The authors note that Jesus jokes have become popular just since the 1970s.
November 10th, 2012
10:00 PM ET

My Take: What all those Jesus jokes tell us

Editor’s note: Edward J. Blum is a historian of race and religion at San Diego State University. Paul Harvey is a history professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and runs the blog Religion in AmericanHistory. They co-authored “The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America.”

By Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey, Special to CNN

Did you ever hear the one about Jesus being Mexican? Well, he was bilingual; he was constantly harassed by the government; and his first name was Jesus.

Or, perhaps Jesus was Irish? He loved a good story; he never kept a steady job; and his last request was for a drink.

Or maybe it’s possible that Jesus was Californian? He never cut his hair; he was always walking around barefoot; and he started a new religion.

You may not have heard these Jesus jokes, but you’ve heard others. They represent a comedic trend that has animated the United States since the 1970s. More and more comedy gimmicks hit on Jesus, his ethnicity and his relationship to politics. Laughing with (and at) the Lord is now fodder for major motion pictures, barroom comedy tours, graphic novels, t-shirts and bumper stickers.

How is it that a figure sacred to so many Americans has become the punch line of so many jokes? And why is it acceptable to poke fun at Jesus when other sacred figures are deemed off limits or there is hell to pay for mocking them?

The explanations are as numerous as the laughs.

Immigration shifts from the 1960s changed the ethnic and religious faces of the country so no tradition dominates today. The Christian right made such a moral spectacle of itself that it practically begged to be mocked. The emergence of “spiritual, but not religious” sensibilities left many Americans willing to denounce or laugh about traditional faith. The public rise of agnosticism, atheism, and secularism led to aggressive mockery as a form of persuasion.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

If we pause to consider why we’re laughing, we find that the comic bits delve into some of our thorniest and unresolved problems. The jokes reveal much more about us than they do Jesus. They speak to how our society has changed, how it hasn’t, and what we’re obsessed with.

The first public jokes about Jesus were heard in the 1970s. There had been religious jokes before this, but none about Jesus had become widely popular because organized Christianity held such authority. As the economic recession and problems of urban decay collided with civil rights exhaustion and new immigration, however, some Jesus jokes emerged.

Archie Bunker on “All in the Family” was the white racist and misogynist you loved to hate and hated to love. On one occasion, his son-in-law challenged Bunker’s rampant anti-Semitism with the claim, "Jesus was Jewish." Archie shot back immediately: "Only on his mother's side."

The “All in the Family” spin off “Good Times” featured a black family that lives in an inner-city housing project, probably Chicago's infamous Cabrini Green. On the show's second episode, the oldest son J. J. astounded everyone by painting Jesus as black. The younger son loves it, and says he learned all about Christ’s blackness from the local Nation of Islam.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

As the family debates whether this black Jesus should be hung on the wall in place of their white Jesus, they “miraculously” receive $140 from the Internal Revenue Service. Feeling blessed, the family placed the painting on its living room wall, and the elated J. J. shouted his tagline, "Dyno-mite!”

From the 1980s to the present, the number of prominent Jesus jokes has multiplied like loaves and fishes:

• In “Talladega Nights,” Ricky Bobby and his family debated which Jesus to pray to (“baby Jesus in golden fleece diapers,” “grown-up Jesus,” “ninja Jesus”). Their overall hope is that Jesus will help them continue their extravagant lifestyle.

• “South Park” featured Jesus as a weak-kneed host of a local talk show who boxes the devil.

• “Family Guy” had Jesus perform magic tricks that wowed his ancient audience.

• “The Colbert Report” placed a gun in Christ’s hand and had him defend conservatives against the liberal “War on Easter.”

• “Saturday Night Live” let Jesus chastise Tim Tebow for using the Lord’s name in vain and ended the bit by declaring that the Mormons have it right.

One unforgettable scene in the rather forgettable recent film “21 Jump Street” may explain why Jesus has become such a joke.

Before Jonah Hill’s character returns to high school as an undercover cop, he prays to a small, crucified “Korean Jesus.” Down on his knees, he says: “Hey Korean Jesus, I don’t know if you only cater to Korean Christians or if you even exist, no offense. I’m just really freaked out about going back to high school. It was just so f***ing hard the first time. … I just really don’t want to f*** this up. Sorry for swearing so much. The end? I don’t really know how to end the prayer.”

The hilarity of the moment only makes sense in our time. Hill's character is unchurched and agnostic, but wants spiritual power to guide him. We can laugh at how agnosticism and being “spiritual, but not religious,” leave him uncertain of what to say, how to say it, and even how to end.

We can also laugh at how ethnic factors color his approach. By wondering if Korean Jesus cares only about Korean problems, Hill pokes fun at the issue which was made a media spectacle in 2008, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could be heard preaching that “Jesus was a poor black man” as part of his support for Barack Obama. What good is a God who only cares for those who look like him?

The Jesus jokes not only reveal how tangled our religious, racial, economic and political positions have become, but also how many outlets there are for the jokes. In these tense times, when presidential hopefuls point fingers at one another and families unfriend one another over political and cultural differences, laughing may be one way to talk about the problems without killing one another.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Entertainment • Jesus • Opinion

soundoff (5,750 Responses)
  1. Stella

    So much hate in this blog. So much hate in this world. The end is near, especially with the new turmoil In Israel. Repent NOW!!!

    November 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Men have been predicting the end of days since roughly 40 A.D. They have all been wrong. So are you.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Stella

      12 21 2012

      November 14, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Delusional nonsense. Stop watching "Ancient Aliens".

      November 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • Doomed

      @Stella

      I don't want to be rude but i was reading some of your post and i noticed that you are floating on a cloud, i don't know if you're smoking mothballs or what but you should come back to earth and look around you. This world is full o non believers or people admiring Satanism and atheism and all kind of non-sense. Cults like atheism is not good at all. It will only bring this world into a system were everybody have no more boundaries and people will find excuses for their behaviors by saying it's ok and if you're not in accordance with them you will called anti this or anti that.There is no bright future with atheism, it's a dangerous cult. And please don't come telling me that it's not a cult because it is period. They're not any better than what catholic did in the past, or Hitler or Napoleon and every psychopath that ever walked this planet. Most of them hid behind the curtain of religion to do their dirty work. But none of them were firm believers. you can't believe in God and kill millions of people, it just don't match up.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Atheism is a cult in the same way that non stamp collecting is a hobby. Not stamp collecting is not a unifying activity just like atheism is not a unifying activity. "Off" is not a t.v. channel.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • Doomed

      @Moby Schtick

      Your Stamp Collecting comparison that you atheists keep repeating is just childish. Atheism is a Cult, most of you become atheists just because you think atheism is cool and a good thing to be a part of. Or simply because your friends in school were and you just want to be accepted and not being rejected by other kids at school. But in reality most of you don't even know what you got yourselves into. It is a Cult and you should wake up and look at what really atheism is.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      First of all, Brophy, you bonehead, the word "cult" isn't a proper noun. It's not capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. As for your claim that atheism is a cult, why don't you look up the definition of a cult and post it?

      November 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      <bDefinition of CULT

      1
      : formal religious veneration : worship
      2
      : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
      3
      : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
      4
      : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
      5
      a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
      b : the object of such devotion
      c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

      November 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      And @Doomed is on a roll using both number one AND number eight on my top thirteen list of the most irritatingly stupid 'arguments' religionists make here:

      1. Equating atheism with a belief in the non-existence of God:
      eg: “Atheism is a religion” Ummm, no, really, it’s not!
      Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby,
      Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color,
      Atheism is a religion like off is a television channel
      Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex act

      8. Absurd attempts to conflate atheism with despotic dictators
      eg: ”Atheists have tortured and murdered more people in the last 100 years than were killed in all previous centuries” or slightly less inaccurately: “Atheists killed more than 100,000,000 people in the 20th century”
      The syllogism:
      - Communist despots ordered or failed to prevent the deaths of millions in the 20th century
      - Not believing in God is a tenet of communism
      - Therefore, atheists killed millions in the 20th century
      deliberately misrepresents atheism. It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • kok

      coo coo

      November 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      cult   [kuhlt] Show IPA
      noun
      1.
      a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
      2.
      an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
      3.
      the object of such devotion.
      4.
      a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
      5.
      Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Now, Brophy, think. It will only hurt a little. In what "rites" do atheists engage? What "ceremonies" do they have? What person, ideal, or thing do they venerate? What ideals do they all share? What "sacred symbols" do they use?

      November 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, well, looks like Brophy/Doomed ran off in terror yet again. Good riddance.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Doomed

      You level a ssertions without any reasoning to show WHY your a ssertions are correct--even if only to your own sense of logic. Anybody can do what you do. You might as well be saying that the moon is made of green cheese; you're offering just as much reasoning for that idea.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • Henry

      Sir Thomas Scott Last Words before Death:
      "Up until this time, I thought that there was no God neither Hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am delivered to perdition by the righteous judgment of the Almighty."

      M.F. Rich: "Terrible horrors hang over my soul! I have given my immortality for gold; and its weight sinks me into a hopeless, helpless Hell!"

      Thomas Paine
      "I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! . . No, don't leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of Hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one."

      DAVID HUME, the atheist, cried: "I am in the flames!" His despair was an awful scene.

      Sir Francis Newport, the head of an English infidel clubsaid, "You need not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in His presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell!"

      November 14, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      spend a lot of time on your knees, do you stella?

      November 15, 2012 at 4:42 am |
    • Simran

      While you kneel repeatedly Stella, you may be putting yourself at high risk of prepatellar bursitis. A knee-pad would be helpful, and if you need, I can give you a list of useful orthopedicians!

      November 15, 2012 at 6:03 am |
    • Henry

      If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect, if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.

      “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

      “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

      “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth; this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

      “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. Matthew 24: 22-41

      November 15, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Val

      Stella
      12 21 2012?

      So, you believe in the Mayan gods and creation myth now? It is truly funny how most of the Christians I know still believe in things like voodoo, unlucky black cats, astrology, UFO and birth certificate conspiracies, and a bunch of other stuff that would have gotten them burned a few hundred years ago. Scratch a typical Christian and you get a pagan, ... a very gullible pagan.

      November 15, 2012 at 9:58 am |
  2. Doomed

    I can't believe these atheists idiots are still siting behind their computers more than 14 hours a day and spending all that precious time arguing about something they don't believe in. Do you atheists really believe you will end up convincing believers to follow you, that will never happen. You'd be better of spending more time trying to find a job and let others do what they want to do and what they want to believe in. Just drop it, you'll never win.

    November 14, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      It's not all we do, but yes... I've been quite successful helping people let go of their god addiction. In the past year, 2 of my friends have awakened to the truth of reality. It's a pretty thankless job most of the time, but seeing someone's eyes open for the first time is rewarding enough to make the effort worth it.

      Remember, no matter how long you become in your fantasies, there's always a way out. Freedom is available in the minds of all, no matter the level of intelligence or how brainwashed they may be.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Stella

      doomed–you are sorry

      November 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Doomed

      If you call freedom when men goes with men and women with women then you're wrong, i call that brain washed. It's not a natural thing and it's nothing else other than a short circuit in the brain, or perhaps they are people which are at lost and disconnected with the what natural conceptions were meant to be. It's like saying well if animals kills other animals it's ok then for us human to kill when we feel like it. You will come back saying bla bla bla about same s-e-x relation is a normal thing and bla bla bla this and that. No matter how hard you and your atheism system are do to rid the planet of religions is a lost battle, you will never succeed i can promise you that.As long as i will live and others like me does to, we will fight you until the end, you won't win this so easily. None of us want your disgusting way of life.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Doomed

      Seriously, are you a poe, or just plain stupid?

      November 14, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Doomed

      @ Stella, no i'm not sorry and i'm not a sorry person either, i just don't like you atheists people, not one bit. By the way, i will never like you anyway.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • OTOH

      Doomed,

      There are many who read these blogs who have not made up their minds yet, you know.

      You are doing just as good of a job of refuting that the kind of god you propose exists as any atheist can.

      Rock on...

      November 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Doomed

      @Otho

      Your comments are not in line with what i've said. We're not on the same frequency you and i.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Val

      Doomed
      We're arguing against something we not only don't believe in, but think is often quite harmful. You can call us AADD, Atheists Against Dumb Devotion.

      November 15, 2012 at 8:09 am |
  3. Richard Harrow

    How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem. As Socates stated, "one must folow the arguements, wherever they lead".

    November 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • ME II

      The origin of life is still being investigated. Just as the origin of lightening and the origin of the sun and origin of disease were once being investigated.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • Richard Harrow

      ME II – that is appreciated, and I agree.

      Its a little disconcerting how angry people get in this discussion, no? Such a desperate urgency to be right, in some of this, rather than spirited curiosity. Take care, and good luck in your search!

      November 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Great questions. When god believers ask them, I always give the same reply: We don't know. It's an honest answer unlike the dishonest answer: Invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz. As an atheist, I don't rule out some sort of higher intelligent being, but I think those who claim that their "god" did it in some demonstrably false way are being arrogant and dishonest. Not very attractive qualities.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • ME II

      @Richard Harrow,
      Agreed and appreciated.

      Peace.

      November 15, 2012 at 10:14 am |
  4. Pedro

    1.5 million Cambodians died in the Khmer Rouge effort to establish a godless Marxist state. Think of how many tens of millions of deaths resulted under the officially atheistic USSR. Atheist will continue to grow and force their faith on people but this world will continue to get more violent, sick and corrupt. You have a cult like faith that its followers feel that they are intellectually smarter then the next guy. Evolution is a myth and those who believe it feel that life is a product of purposeless blind chance. The irreligious are just as corrupt as the religious

    November 14, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Flippy

      Wow, so all of those crazy biologists, paleontologists etc. etc are all wrong? So, you are admitting that you need the threat of some omnipotent being in the sky in order to behave?

      November 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Dov Vestibule

      “Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...”
      – Karl Marx

      Don't forget that Pol Pot spent 8 years in a Catholic school in Phnom Penh.
      Historians have noted that his speaking and writing styles ape those of the Church in being "declamatory and repeti.tive, with liturgical overtones."
      He tried to eliminate traditional religion from his kingdom in order to divert the common man's fervour to his own cult of personality. He put himself into the Godhead position, effectively becoming an auto-theist.
      Like a religious leader, he demanded blind obedience and obsequious submission from his followers. He tolerated no free-thinkers and enforced dogmatism – just like his Catholic teachers did of him.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Flippy

      Also, you do realize you're an atheist as well...the only difference between you and the "atheist of today" is one god.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Dov Vestibule

      Furthermore, atheism and evolutionary biology are two separate things.
      The prefix "A" = lack of.
      "Theism" = belief in gods.
      A + Theism = lack of belief in gods.
      It does not imply belief in anything else, like scientific theories.
      That being said, Dr. Greg Graffin's PHD thesis found that the overwhelming majority of the world's evolutionary biologists see no conflict between science and religion – so long as religion is recognized as a sociological adaptation.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Huebert

      Evolution is not a myth. You are a loon.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • JamesK

      Pedro
      And how many millions died when Hitler tried to establish his new Reich, with God on his side? Not many people complained when Stalin's forces killed millions of German Christians. How many people died in the Civil War when it was almost entirely Christian vs Christian? Before that there was the numerous European wars pitting Christians of every stripe against each other, sometimes just because they were different kinds of Christians. Even before that how many Christian European despots ordered the persecution of the Jews? Then there were the Crusades which sometimes saw one group of Christians attack another rather than the Muslims. In the question of which ideology is responsible for more death and misery I wouldn't be so quick to point any fingers.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Fortunately some of us are not blind. We are quite capable of looking back over time and assessing things. Atheists are more able to look outside the box than you are...you see things from the perspective of one book. A book that numerous studies have shown to be full of holes. We know evolution is a fact due to the overwhelming peer reviewed evidence. You denying this, doesn't make it less true. Not all Atheists believe in the same thing...you can say the same about religion.
      Now if you want to talk atrocities and death due to theism/atheism:
      -Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all “sinners” and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudnese mystic, ‘Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes.

      -When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.

      -The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
      Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of mdieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.
      The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.

      -The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killig of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack.
      The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.

      All of this in the name of belief. Now, tell us again how bad we are...

      November 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Pedro,
      Evolution is not atheism.
      Atheism is not evolution.

      Science is science, not religion.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Pedro", but your assertions regarding atheism, communism, Marxism, evolution, and religion are unfounded.

      Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".

      November 14, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "1.5 million Cambodians died in the Khmer Rouge effort to establish a godless Marxist state.

      Let's not forget the ~70,000 Cambodians carpet bombed by the USAF under (the peace-loving Quaker) Nixon's administration.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
  5. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    November 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Flippy

      What are you afraid of?

      November 14, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • TrollAlert

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "Salvatore" degenerates to:
      "Douglas" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Thinker23" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert" is the degenerate.

      This troll is not a christian. ,

      November 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
  6. Andy

    Moses and Jesus were golfing when Moses had an errant shot into a large water hazard. Jesus asked him if he still believed he could part the water and get to his ball without taking the stroke. Moses replied well it was certainty worth a a try, strolls to the hazard raises his wedge to the sky and slams it down into the water. Immediately the water parts and he is able to chip his ball onto the green. When returning to Jesus, Moses asks if he can still walk on water. Should be able to and he walks directly into the pond and sinks into his knees. Moses shouts try getting a running start. But the same thing occurs. Coming out of water Jesus pouts This was so much easier with out the holes in my feet.

    November 14, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • ThatOneGuy

      Ok, that was pretty funny.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  7. Nice Jewish Boy

    Half an answer is better than none, though I may disagree. The hypocrisy I would like you to address is the crimes committed by the Christian faith that the religious choose to ignore. I will not restate those in my previous post that you did not address. The Catholic church , money laundering, child abuse, cover up of crimes, fraud and corruption; s*ex abuse, fraud and continuing discrimination among the Evangelicals and general haras*ment of the public in an effort to gain converts. These are facts of life that still go on today, does your faith approve? Intresting that you are so offended by humor, I am offended by the activities done in the name of Jesus/God.

    November 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Meant as a reply to the Chad post, missed the reply button again, sigh. I really did not expect an honest answer anyway.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Rob Willis

      The problem with putting the crimes of Christianity in the same thought are numerous. Sadly, based on the way presented this, it seems you have made up your mind, but, the flaws should be exposed for others. All religions have the same flaw, imperfect human beings, for we have ALL sinned. Funny how you do not mention the sins of the those who claim to be Muslims who love peace yet kill or want to kill many; in the name of their faith. yet there are more Muslims who disavow this idea. Many Christians distance themselves from the crimes committed by their "faith." The Christian faith has a tool within the faith to distance itself from those who commit these egregious acts you mention.
      To criticize that which you have already shown disdain for with these assertions is weakness in a position. You are free to believe as you wish, but simply state it without grasping at straws.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Rob
      This is a misplaced post and if you look at the Chad thread below you will see how it was developed. I was not trying to compare one evil to another, but trying to get the Chad to admit the hypocrisy of his positon. He will not respond.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  8. Land ownership

    No private ownership of land? Isn't that what this is really about?

    November 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
  9. Richard Harrow

    Just because you dont believe in something, doesnt mean that it isnt true.

    November 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @Richard Harrow

      " Just because you dont believe in something, doesnt mean that it isnt true. "

      That's 'basically' a truism... but... it depends on what you are talking about, yes ?

      Also, just because you 'do' believe in something doesn't mean that it 'is' true, as well, yes ?

      Ultimately, it depends on what you are speaking of.

      Peace...

      November 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • The Truth

      One of these things is not like the others,
      One of these things is just not the same...

      Can you guess which doesn't fit?

      Santa Claus
      Unicorns
      God
      Easter Bunny
      Everlasting Soul
      Leprechauns
      Tazmanian Tigers
      Jack-a-lopes

      Any guesses?

      November 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It's Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) but we needn't quibble over the spelling.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • JamesK

      Richard Harrow
      No, but if you don't believe in something because there is zero evidence to support it's being true, then aren't you justified in doing so? Thousands and thousands of gods throughout our history, but not a single one was "proven" to be false. People just wised up, and that's what's happening with God.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  10. Vic

    My take on a previous comment:

    SLAVERY IS FLAT OUT WRONG!

    Throughout history, slavery took several shapes and forms! The predominant one was socioeconomic!

    The Mosaic (Old Testament) Law regulated socioeconomic slavery (Rights and Responsibilities) with a limit and path to freedom, either by end of debt, obligation, sin punishment, or the next year of Jubilee! The Old Testament Law prohibited "Capturing and Enslaving" and punished it by death! The Old Testament Law never regulated nor condoned "Racially-based Slavery nor did the New Testament!

    In the New Testament, Jesus Christ did not contend it! In His teachings, He referred to the believer as servant/slave to God.

    Apostle Paul obviously did not contend slavery, socioeconomic, however! In the meantime, he constantly regarded slaves as equal brothers in Christ and commended freeing them! Obviously, Apostle Paul was careful not to create a conflict and peacefully end slavery!

    The Muslims traded African slaves more than Great Britain did! South America imported slaves almost twelve times that of North America, and the list goes on and on!

    Now, to justify slavery through scripture and by God is FLAT OUT DECEPTION!

    Slavery in America was not racially-based, it was socioeconomic! It included white and black indentured servants! It was not until the 1680s that slavery became racially-based and dominated the Southern United States Plantation Industry.

    Opposition to slavery in the United States started as early as 1688 by the Quakers and Methodists took the Christian lead in Abolition!

    There were complex economic and power reasons that led to the Civil War that were socioeconomic slavery based! I believe bad politics made it happen, good politics could have prevented it especially that Slavery was being abolished globally! The North and the South were both Christians when they fought each other, however, the North Justification of the Abolition of Slavery was right morally, and the South Justification of the Slavery was morally and Biblically wrong!

    November 14, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Vic

      ...correction

      "In the New Testament, Jesus Christ did not contend it but in His teachings, He was referring to the believer as servant/slave to God and NOT condoning slavery!"

      November 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Vic
      You may want to review your scripture.
      The Old Testament's rules regarding indentured servitude were only for fellow Jews.
      Gentile slaves were sub-human chattel.

      "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom."
      (Exodus 21:2 NLT)

      "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
      (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

      November 14, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Vic
      IN the New Testament, Christ may not directly condone slavery, but He does give His tacit approval – and not of some metaphorical, spiritual slavery.

      "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."
      (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

      November 14, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • ME II

      @Doc Vestibule,
      Well said.

      November 14, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Christianity is a mental disease- FACT

      Jesus was born as a bas tard, delusional and most likely insane. No surprise he is an % hole as well.

      November 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Vic,

      you said: "The Old Testament Law never regulated nor condoned "Racially-based Slavery nor did the New Testament!"

      Of course it did. Leviticus 25 is very clear.

      42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.

      Only Gentiles can be enslaved.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Vic

      Still, people are referring to "Socioeconomic Slavery" even if it was involving non-Israelites! The regulation of it laid out "Rights & Responsibilities" for slaves as well as their masters!

      The "Old Testament Law" still prohibited "Capturing and Enslaving" and punished it by death!

      Exodus 21:16
      "16 He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

      As for "Continued/Permanent Slavery," that ONLY applied on voluntary basis!

      Exodus 21:5,6
      "5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."

      Deuteronomy 15:16-17
      "16 It shall come about if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you; 17 then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also you shall do likewise to your maidservant."

      I maintain that Jesus Christ never condoned slavery even though he did not contend it! Jesus Christ always spoke in "Parables!" He referred to believers as servants/slaves to God using master-slave analogy!

      Also, as I mentioned, Apostle Paul constantly regarded slaves as equal brothers in Christ and commended freeing them! Obviously, Apostle Paul was careful not to create a conflict and peacefully end slavery!

      Ephesians 6:5-9.
      "5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
      9 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."

      Apostle Paul regarded Onesimus as a brother to his master Philemon, and encouraged Philemon to free Onesimus! See Philemon.

      Apostle Paul encouraged slaves to free themselves whenever they could!

      1 Corinthians 7:21
      "21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that."

      Apostle Paul put forward that all Christians are the same!

      Galatians 3:28
      "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [a]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

      Plus, since the "Dispensation of Grace," Christians are no longer under the "Law of the Old Testament!" See Galatians 3 Ephesians 1:7, 2:8,9 & Romans 10:4

      All Scripture from New American Standard Bible (NASB)

      November 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Vic

      Talk about disingenuous.
      1) How do you think slaves became slaves in the first place? Wasn't it that when god said to destroy a city, if the surrender without a fight, then the entire city shall be taken as slaves?

      2) The non-permanent slavery thing was ONLY applied to other Israelites. Non Israelite slaves were permanent from the beginning.

      As for Paul, if he thought slaves were equal, then why were they still slaves? Those are two completely mutually exclusive concepts. Are you really unable to actually see that?
      Tell me, someone who has a servant that they don't need to pay, and is treated as property, why would that person create a situation where a slave can go free without just running away? That's just plain stupid.
      Are you talking about the same Paul who was a homophobic, mysoginistic fucktard? Oh well, this just goes to show that the bible can mean whatever you want it to mean.
      It's the Big Book of Multiple Choice.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Dov Vestibule

      @Vic

      Exodus 21 and Deut15 deal with hebrew indentured servants, not with gentile slaves.

      "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
      Deuteronomy 20:14

      November 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • ME II

      Galatians 3:28
      "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [a]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
      ... but in this world you're still a slave.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • ME II

      @Vic,
      "Still, people are referring to 'Socioeconomic Slavery'..."
      It is still slavery, correct?
      Is "Socioeconomic Slavery", whatever that is, any less wrong?

      Is it right or wrong to own another human being?

      November 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  11. Pedro

    Mutations cannot cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature. If highly trained scientist are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, an unintelligent process would not do it (impossible)

    November 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Huebert

      Provide evidence for your statement or be dismissed.

      November 14, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Pedro
      Scientists are unable to induce speciation in more advanced life forms becuase of the time frames involved.
      Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of generations are required for the subtle changes involved in gradualism to result in a new species.
      That being said – Peter and Rosemary grant directly observed speciation in a group of Finches in the Galapagos islands over a few decades.

      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

      November 14, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
  12. ME II

    @Chad,
    "'Christians deserve mockery'
    =>doesnt make sense in any way shape or form. Why not just deal with the claim? Why all the ad hominem?"

    I'm not sure what you were quoting there, seems that string of words is not found on this page, other than in your post and this one.

    As for myself, I said, "Christian hypocrisy deserves mockery."

    November 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • ME II

      mispost... see below

      November 14, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
  13. Here's an idea

    Instead of indulging in religions or scolding the religious why dont we all work hard together to find a way to solve that pesky little problem of death that's been plaguing humanity for the last hundred thousand years? Sound good?

    November 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • ME II

      Your idea is to solve the death problem? Really?

      November 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Huebert

      Death is not a problem, it is an inevitability. Life cannot sustain its self indefinitely.

      November 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Acording to the Bible, as little as 5000 years ago, people routinely lived to the ripe old age of 900+.

      November 14, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Dissident Fairy

      Doc: That was Prior to the great flood, before the flood you are right men lived to 900+. Adam lived to 930. Methuselah to 969. So why would it change after the Flood? If you go back to the book of Genesis it speaks about a water canopy that was covering the entire earth. Mist was rising from the ground to nourish the vegetation. Man was being protected from the ultra violet rays that we get today. Before the flood it had never rained on the earth before. So of course people thought Noah was a Nut building the ark. When it started to rain people stopped laughing I'm sure, and like the flood of Noah, according to the Bible, so it will be when the Son of Man arrives, all the mockers will disappear. Anyway, getting back to why our lifespan has decreased, after the flood, the water canopy of protection was removed, and you will notice right after that happened there was a dramatic reduction in the life span of man.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Oldster

      Diss,

      No rain anywhere on Earth before the "Flood" - get outta here.

      " and you will notice right after that happened there was a dramatic reduction in the life span of man."

      Nowhere does it say that *everyone* lived to those phenomenal ages - only the 'heroes' (and some of their wives).

      Noah supposedly lived another 350 years after he 'landed', during which time he acted like a complete idiot and azzhole.

      November 15, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  14. Pedro

    Mutation can not produce new species

    November 14, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Huebert

      One mutation can't. Millions of them can.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Pedro

      Your wrong

      November 14, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • ME II

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

      November 14, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Huebert

      No actually you are. It has been demonstrated experimentally. I believe ME II has the link.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • tallulah13

      Wow. Pedro is an Ignorance All-Star. Either that or a troll.

      Before you try to refute something, Pedro, it really helps to understand (or even have the slightest idea) of what you are talking about.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Ken

      Where's your research Pedro that completely overturns a hundred years of evolution science? Was it the basis for your doctorate thesis in biology? What qualifies you to dismiss evolution science?

      November 14, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Pedro
      Darwin's 4th law:
      Gradualism
      This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.

      Please understand that these 5 laws have been confirmed by countless researchers in thousands of experiments and observations for 150 years.
      You reap the benefits of the practical applications of these laws every day.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Pedro
      Are you a Young Earth Creationist who believes the planet is only 6,000 years old?
      If so, I can understand how you're incapable of considering the time frames involved in gradualism.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • ME II

      @Doc Vestibule,
      I agree with most of your point, although I would hesitate to call gradualism a "law". It will muddy the issue, I think.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • The Truth

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

      A religious theory is Joseph Smith saying "I was divinely inspired! I know the mind of God and now you must all do what I say!"

      November 14, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Pedro,

      I have bad news for you. Even if you were able to discredit the well established fact of evolution.....that does not prove your god is real.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Pedro, you're an idiot. Just because you dont understand science doesnt mean that you have to be afraid of it.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Greg

      Since when does anyone really perfer the opinions of someone who stopped actually doing something in high school over that of the professionals? The only people who criticize evolution are home-schooled hicks.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • /o\

      of course he's ignorant... his name is Pedro, a fvcking catholic dummy

      November 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  15. Pedro

    So what is the orgin of life? If its evolution then that would make the "big bang" a miracle that all happened by BLIND CHANCE and that's not a very good explanation.

    November 14, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Huebert

      Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, that is another theory called abiogenesis. The the theory of evolution only explains the diversification of life on earth. The Big Bang theory describes the universe in it's earliest moments, it does not address what caused it to come into being. Before you start critiquing a theory you might want to learn what the theory actually says.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • ME II

      First, the scientific Theory Of Evolution does not cover the origin of life, just how it has developed since it started.
      Second, the TOE is not "blind chance". Mutation may happen randomly, but nature 'selects' the best adapted to reproduce more successfully.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Pedro

      Ok good, you refered to it as a theory not a fact

      November 14, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      But abracadabra...poof...God did it makes so much more sense... right? You don't have answers any more than we do...but we haven't stopped looking for the truth...you've just accepted whatever baloney some bronze age shepards came up with.
      Abiogenesis or the beginning of life from non-life has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang. Science doesn't currently know how life began but there are clues and ideas that are being researched. As for the origins of the universe we may never know but so what? That still doesn't point to a god being the cause. Using a mystery to explain an unknown isn't explaining anything....just moving the goalpost.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • ME II

      @Pedro,
      Evolution is both a scientific theory (not the everyday 'theory', like a guess) and a fact, in the sense that it has been observed and docu.mented.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Yes Pedro....a scientific theory. A theory is the highest level that a scientific model can acribe to. Gravity is a theory...care to test it by jumping off a cliff? Before something is called a theory it must first pass rigorous testing and confirmation. Until then it is just a hypothesis. Seriously.. your lack of understanding is just highlighting your ignorance.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Beyond your ignorance to what the theory of evolution actually IS (and I suspect your understanding of the word theory is flawed as well), I find everyone's hang up with HOW it all began somewhat...well...odd.

      However the universe began, assuming it did begin at some point and isn't simply existent (which is an entirely different meta-physical conversation), it was so long ago and so far removed from our life as it is today as to mean next to nothing beyond helping to inform our understanding of existence...and even then, anything we "learn" about a that beginning is only inferred from observing what IS existent now, and therefore can never be truly "known".

      Therefore, I posit that it doesn't matter. How we came into existence is not as important as what we do with our existence.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Huebert

      A scientific theory is an explanation for a set of observed phenomena. Hence the germ theory of disease, or gravitational theory. The theory of evolution is absolutely an accurate explanation for the diversification of life on earth.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Pedro
      Here's a quick primer in evolutionary theory to help and try dispel some of your misconceptions, starting with what a "theory" means in the scientific world.
      A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
      There are 5 laws in the Theory of Evolution.
      1) Evolution as such.
      This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change.
      2) Common descent
      This is the understanding that every group of living enti.ties that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
      3) Multiplication of species
      This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
      4) Gradualism
      This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
      5) Natural selection
      This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • tallulah13

      It has been pointed out many times, Pedro, but it bears repeating: Ignorance is not proof of god.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "all happened by BLIND CHANCE and that's not a very good explanation."

      Neither is "Goddidit."

      November 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
  16. ME II

    Odd that the Christians seem to overlook the following:
    "The Christian right made such a moral spectacle of itself that it practically begged to be mocked. "

    November 14, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  17. Chad

    If we pause to consider why we’re laughing, we find that the comic bits delve into some of our thorniest and unresolved problems. The jokes reveal much more about us than they do Jesus. They speak to how our society has changed, how it hasn’t, and what we’re obsessed with.

    Seems fairly simple to understand what people are obsessed with if they are continually making fun of, or mocking Jesus/Christians.

    1. what is the nature of the mockery?
    2. why is this particular target selected?
    3. why has mockery of this particular target become largely socially acceptable?

    #1 Shows a surprising amount of venom and ad hominem . This would indicate that a fear is present.
    #2 Is very telling, the same person that views hari krishna's with bemused indifference will rabidly and personally attack the Christian. This would indicate that a fear is present.
    #3 Christians dont kill people for mocking Jesus.

    Atheists exhibit a great deal of fear with respect to Christianity. Fear is always the emotion underlying anger.

    November 14, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Huebert

      Troll harder chad.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • TrollAlert

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "Salvatore" degenerates to:
      "Douglas" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Thinker23" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert" is the degenerate.

      This troll is not a christian.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • .

      How's that log doing in your eye Chad, your anger is showing because you fear Atheists and know they are right.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Damocles

      @chad

      For the millionth time it seems.....

      I do not fear a particular belief. A belief is merely a thought and if we were to be afraid of thoughts, we would all be Truly Terrified.

      There is a difference between mockery and comedy. I do not think you would have an issue with a person who defines himself as a believer being able to poke fun at his or her belief. This is a good thing because a person who can't poke fun at their own beliefs is a half-step away from being a fanatic.

      What I get angry at is what people try to do with their belief. A hare krishna that was in my face telling me I'm going to their version of a hell because I don't believe arouses my anger like any other believer.

      If a joke puts your faith in danger, I would examine the faith.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • sam stone

      Chad: Evangelism draws this type of humor. Stop trying to deny others their civil rights and then get back to me.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      @chad

      1. It's amusing because it's absurd.
      2. The subject keeps rearing it's ugly head.
      3. More and more are seeing through the bullshit.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Pray and God wil answer yoru prayers. If you cant hear God then you need to repent.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Chad

      well, it's certainly interesting..

      I think in any other aspect of a persons life, if there were one particular person that "pushed your buttons" you could fairly easily find a psychological link to a past problem. If getting criticized enrages you, you lived with a domineering parent, and so on..
      You would see that your reaction to that situation is disproportionate due to an underlying issue.

      So, with respect to Christianity, what is your underlying issue? Fear that it is correct is the only logical answer..

      November 14, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Jesus

      "Pray and God wil answer yoru prayers."

      You have NO proof. A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Consuelo

      I fear the Inquisitions

      November 14, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Bonnie

      "So, with respect to Christianity, what is your underlying issue? Fear that it is correct is the only logical answer.."

      Chad that's why you continue to try and fight with Atheists on a daily basis and try to "push their buttons" because you fear them and know they are right. The faults you see in other people are actually the faults you have with in yourself. Grow up dear and address your fear.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • Chad

      @Damocles "What I get angry at is what people try to do with their belief. A hare krishna that was in my face telling me I'm going to their version of a hell because I don't believe arouses my anger like any other believer."

      =>that is just demonstrably untrue
      The Dalai Lami thinks you're going to be reincarnated as an earth worm because you havent done whatever.
      Every single religion on the face of this earth has bad things in store for you since you havent listened to them.
      why then is your hatred reserved virtually exclusively for Christianity?

      November 14, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • sam stone

      robert: you need to get off your knees and (try to) be a man

      November 14, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Damocles

      @rob

      That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen and I say that in the middle of a chad post.

      @chad

      For the 1,000,001 time....

      No, that isn't the logical reason. Stop being dense.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • sam stone

      Chad: Christians bring this upon themselves with the evangelizing and the trying to codify their religious beliefs into our secular law. Grow up

      November 14, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • JamesK

      Chad
      Christians use to kill people for much less blasphemous things than mocking Jesus. Fortunately, we live in a secular society with secular laws that regard matters of religion as matters of personal opinion. The law of the United States (with some exceptions to Bible Belt states) would not sympathize with anyone attacking someone else merely because they failed to properly "respect" another's beliefs. Other places, typically in the Mid East, do not have these laws. If you remove the law that would prosecute anyone for attacking a critic of your religious beliefs then do you doubt that calls for holy jihad would not be forthcoming from many American pulpits? Pat Robertson already called for the a$$a$$ination of Hugo Chávez, so murder is not beyond the conscience of the Religious Right.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • JamesK

      A crazy bunch of guys running around in the hills with AK47s and calling for religious rule to replace democratic government.

      Now, can you tell if I'm talking about Afghanistan or the Bible Belt?

      November 14, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      You miss to possibility that
      1) it is just simple amusement/entertainment and with a majority being Christian it makes sense that most of the jokes would be about Christians. It's simply numbers.
      2) Christian hypocrisy deserves mockery,
      3) The antagonism you sense is partially a) paranoia/persecution complex and b) reactions to over bearing, holier-than-thou, self-righteous, Christians that pass laws when most minority religions aren't trying to run our lives.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Everyday in every way.

      The Chad has to prove he is the most astute of the christian apologists, no matter the topic of an article. Well Monty Python must have been scared silly of christians, is that your point, Chad.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Hi chad,

      You said:


      I think in any other aspect of a persons life, if there were one particular person that "pushed your buttons" you could fairly easily find a psychological link to a past problem. If getting criticized enrages you, you lived with a domineering parent, and so on...You would see that your reaction to that situation is disproportionate due to an underlying issue.

      This may well be true, but I do not think it is the issue that you think it is. There is a lot at play there psychologically, and many, many different factors/situations come into play, including the psychological make up of the individual involved. Otherwise, two siblings raised in the same abusive home would emerge with the same psychological damage, but examination of the evidence proves this isn't always true.

      So, with respect to Christianity, what is your underlying issue? Fear that it is correct is the only logical answer.

      It is one possible answer. Not even necessarily the most logical one.

      I can not speak to the experience of others, but drawing upon my own: I have no fear that Christianity is true. My beliefs are complex and based on 44 years of experience, more than half of those as a Christian of one variety or another. I am very secure in my beliefs, I examine them daily based on the day's experience. I will admit that I have trouble finding the humor in a lot of jokes about hard right Christianity (though no problem with Jesus/God jokes...if they're actually funny), mostly because I find the belief system–or more properly, the execution of that belief system, to be spiritually abusive.

      My vehement stand against that abuse and my love for my fellow man is what brings me to defend against any enshrining of that doctrine into law. It has nothing to do with fear that you are right. It has everything to do with not allowing you to abuse me, or anyone else with what you believe.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Chad

      @Bonnie "that's why you continue to try and fight with Atheists on a daily basis "

      =>but, I never attack people, I attack the information they are presenting. There is just a massive difference in the tone and intent of the posts Christians vs atheists. Right?

      my fear, is that people get tricked into believing a lie just because they havent been exposed to the truth.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • Damocles

      @chad

      Tone is hard to feel by mere words, so any anger you perceive is only what you want it to be because it's easier for you if you think everyone is angry at you. Makes you feel all righteous, in other words, plus you can fall back on the whole 'woe is me, look at all these attacks against me'. It's a copout.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • mama k

      Lol. I see lonely Chad is still posing things, asking questions and then drawing his own conclusions – to the satisfaction, of course, of his own very narrowly-defined world.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "my fear, is that people get tricked into believing a lie just because they havent been exposed to the truth."
      I'd be interested to hear how exactly you distinguish lies from the truth?

      November 14, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      What a Putz you are Chad. The article even states that Jesus was Jewish on his mothers side and people have been mocking and joking about Jews before your christian lot came along. Logic and yourself do not seem to be compatible except in your own mind.
      PS: Not a lot of humor in the bible never saw the lines, did you hear the one about or three guys walk into a bar.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • tallulah13

      Not really, Chad. Okay, I confess that those christians in Africa that are accusing children of witchcraft, then torturing and/or killing them are kind of terrifying.

      But christians in America are a deeply divided demographic, as this last election has shown. It appears that many are trying to reconcile their faith to their ever increasing knowledge of reality. The most common response of these "rational" christians seems to be changing their church to reflect current, fact-based societal standards.

      Then there's christians like you, who are content to wallow in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable. You are not frightening. Neither is your god.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • Ken

      Chad
      The "information" that Christians present is usually completely ridiculous.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Damocles

      @ME II

      I would say it's scarily easy for chad to know what the truth is. What he believes in is true and everyone else is wrong.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • The Truth

      " I never attack people, I attack the information they are presenting. There is just a massive difference in the tone and intent of the posts Christians vs atheists. Right?"

      Gun's don't kill people, people do...

      Christianity has never killed anyone, but Christians have been killing in defense of their faith for centuries. Only in the last hundred years have they claimed a higher road to redemption. And the only Christians you will hear getting verbally attacked by atheists on these boards is one who is swinging their beliefs around like a gun looking to put down an atheist with their religious rhetoric. Only problem is that when they pull the trigger, they find out it's empty, just like their faith.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      #1 Shows a surprising amount of venom and ad hominem .

      An ad hominem has to be directed at a real person, the Jesus of the bible does not fit that condition.

      November 14, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Chad

      "Christians deserve mockery"
      =>doesnt make sense in any way shape or form. Why not just deal with the claim? Why all the ad hominem?

      "information" that Christians present is usually completely ridiculous"
      =>if that was true, there would be no need to resort to ad hominem, you could just present a refutation based on evidence and that would be that.

      "people have been mocking and joking about Jews before your christian lot came along."
      =>excellent confirmation of my point that the an underlying knowledge of the reality of the God of Israel (as well as His Son) is at the root of the hatred. Why are Jews the most persecuted and hated group of people in the world? What drives that hatred?

      "Tone is hard to feel by mere words, so any anger you perceive is only what you want it to be because it's easier for you if you think everyone is angry at you. Makes you feel all righteous, in other words, plus you can fall back on the whole 'woe is me, look at all these attacks against me'. It's a copout."
      =>apparently you only read my posts.. please scroll up and read all the responses from your brother atheists then try and make that case..

      "Otherwise, two siblings raised in the same abusive home would emerge with the same psychological damage, but examination of the evidence proves this isn't always true"
      =>damage manifests in many different forms, depending on the underlying temperament of the individual. That can, and has been, clearly demonstrated.

      November 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      ""Tone is hard to feel by mere words, so any anger you perceive is only what you want it to be because it's easier for you if you think everyone is angry at you. Makes you feel all righteous, in other words, plus you can fall back on the whole 'woe is me, look at all these attacks against me'. It's a copout."
      =>apparently you only read my posts.. please scroll up and read all the responses from your brother atheists then try and make that case.."

      LOL! Poor Chad didn't get it....again. LOL!

      November 14, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Chad

      you think I am inventing this notion that atheistic exhibit a great deal of anger and personal attacks against Christians in their posts???

      really??

      well, one of us is clearly divorced from reality..

      November 14, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "'Christians deserve mockery'
      =>doesnt make sense in any way shape or form. Why not just deal with the claim? Why all the ad hominem?"

      I'm not sure what you were quoting there, seems that string of words is not found on this page, other than in your post and this one.

      As for myself, I said, "Christian hypocrisy deserves mockery."

      November 14, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      "you think I am inventing this notion that atheistic exhibit a great deal of anger and personal attacks against Christians in their posts???

      really??

      well, one of us is clearly divorced from reality.."

      Thanks for proving you're still not "getting it." ;-)

      November 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II : "Christian hypocrisy deserves mockery."

      =>I didnt attribute "Christians deserve mockery" to you, it is a very common refrain.

      =>to your statement in particular:
      A. where exactly do you see Christians as being hypocritical?
      B. explain how belief in the authenticity of the bible, the belief in God, and the belief in Jesus is hypocritical, (since you are asserting that you mock only for hypocrisy, and those beliefs are the ones getting mocked.)

      November 14, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Chad

      @lionlylamb "any anger you perceive is only what you want it to be because it's easier for you if you think everyone is angry at you. Makes you feel all righteous, in other words, plus you can fall back on the whole 'woe is me, look at all these attacks against me'. It's a copout"

      @Chad "you think I am inventing this notion that atheistic exhibit a great deal of anger and personal attacks against Christians in their posts???"

      @lionlylamb ""Thanks for proving you're still not "getting it."

      @Chad "I think the above exchange explains itself "

      November 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Veritas

      One example would be the "gospel of prosperity" versus "care for the poor and less fortunate". Another would be the "right to life" (for the majority of christians at least) only applying to the unborn with little regard for the fate of the living.

      November 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      "@lionlylamb ""Thanks for proving you're still not "getting it."

      @Chad "I think the above exchange explains itself ""

      Wow really you don't see how you've been doing ad hominem attacks? Your ego is making you blind.

      November 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Oy Vey!
      First, I didn't claim it was a quote of me.
      Second, however, that was a quote, and mine seemed closest. If not a misquote of me, then from where was the quote?

      "A. where exactly do you see Christians as being hypocritical?"
      I didn't say that all Christians are hypocritical. This article was about humor and where Christians are hypocritical, e.g. Falwell, Bishop Long, Ted Haggart, Kent Hovind, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians
      ... they deserve ridicule/mockery. Not just Christians, though, all hypocrisy. But Christian's invite scrutiny because of their evangelical nature.
      Tell the world that hom.ose.xuality is evil while engaging in it yourself and you have no one to blame, but yourself, for the ridicule you receive.

      "B. explain how belief in the authenticity of the bible, the belief in God, and the belief in Jesus is hypocritical,"
      I never said that it was, but let me think it over. "Christian hypocrisy" also means "The hypocrisy, that is shown by some Christians,"
      Seek [persecution] and ye shall find [persecution, whether it exists or not?]

      "since you are asserting that you mock only for hypocrisy"
      I made no such assertion. Show/tell me exactly where I made such and assertion?

      November 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @lionlylamb "Wow really you don't see how you've been doing ad hominem attacks? "

      =>you lost me, do you understand what an ad hominem attack is?
      ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument

      November 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Chad
      Why don't you tell me, Chad? Why are the Jews the most hated and persecuted group of people on earth and which group of people did the most hating and persecuting?

      November 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      "ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument"

      "well, one of us is clearly divorced from reality.."

      So you were talking about yourself when you made this comment right?

      November 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Here's a tip. Pointing out that you're a dishonest prick is not necessarily mockery. Especially when it has been shown many times. Get over your persecution complex and your righteous indignation that people will not accept your blind ass assertions without even questioning you.

      November 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Chad

      @lionlylamb "So you were talking about yourself when you made this comment right?"
      =>A. that isnt ad homiem
      B. I made that statement AFTER you initially said "I wasnt getting it", so IF that was an ad hominem, what were you referring to before that?

      November 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Chad
      No answer, Islam would be one group, and Christians would not be far behind in the persecution of the Jews, that is a part of history that even you can't change. I am old enough to remember seeing Jewish kids being bullied and mocked by Christian kids calling them "Christ killers", at about the same time as good Christians were burning Black churches and hoisting up strange fruit in the trees in the oh so Christian bible belt of the deep south. These are not ancient crimes against humanity but in recent memory. The hypocrisy of Christians is that they ignore their own history when it suits them to do so. Your God approves, perhaps?

      November 14, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Chad

      The answer for who persecutes Jews is: everyone (which includes Christians who have indeed persecuted Jews).

      The why answer is simple: because the Jews are Gods chosen people, and the God of Israel is real.

      Which begs the question, why would Christians persecute Jews, when they are both recipients of Gods grace? Doesnt that break my premise that you persecute those that hold belief systems that are in opposition to yours, which you fear may be true?

      Although noting that Christians are the most vocal group on earth in their support for Israel and Jews in general, it cant be argued that Christian persecution of the Jews has been, and although greatly reducing in recent years, is still a shameful reality today.

      I dont really know why some Christians are anti-semitic. Bad theology? Ignorance? The influence of the rest of the world on them? Immaturity? all of the above probably.

      November 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Chad – "Atheists exhibit a great deal of fear with respect to Christianity. Fear is always the emotion underlying anger."

      When flat earthers or moon landing conspiracy theorists make an ignorant claim based on nothing other than their "gut" and they argue their beliefs, no one refuting them is doing so out of fear. And when those refuting the insane ideas and moronic beliefs at times get angry it is only because of the futility they feel when dealing with someone who's only response to reason or facts is "Nuh Uh" or "but the bible says". It has ZERO to do with fear and everything to do with the frustration of not being able to communicate with people who do not speak the language of reality.

      November 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • The Truth

      "The answer for who persecutes Jews is: everyone (which includes Christians who have indeed persecuted Jews). The why answer is simple: because the Jews are Gods chosen people, and the God of Israel is real."

      The answer for who persecutes Lebron James is: everyone (which includes Heat fans who have indeed persecuted Lebron). The why answer is simple: because Lebron is the best basketball player to ever play the game, ever, gifted by God himself, and the God of Lebron is real....

      Um, no, people persecuted him for taking on airs and elevating himself above everyone else in the leage with his "decision" much like the Jews who anointed themselves God's chosen people and then Christians who have appointed themselves the heirs to that legacy, lording it over everyone else on the planet. Here's a quarter Chad, go buy a clue...

      November 14, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      "Otherwise, two siblings raised in the same abusive home would emerge with the same psychological damage, but examination of the evidence proves this isn't always true"
      =>damage manifests in many different forms, depending on the underlying temperament of the individual. That can, and has been, clearly demonstrated.

      Out of everything I said, this is the only bit you respond to? And all you're really doing here is agreeing with me.

      My brother and I both came out of the same abusive form of Christianity, as did my mother. Not a one of us believes the same thing today. My mother is still at least marginally Christian. My brother is an atheist with Buddhist leanings. I am Pagan. Of the three of us, not one of us responds well to anyone attempting to enshrine doctrine into law. I'm the most likely to take action. My brother is the most likely to get angry (he was the youngest and the betrayal of the church body we belonged to really tore him up).

      And yet, when we all get together, we have a great time, we get along very well, and we even have deep, sometimes heated conversations regarding faith, religion and politics.

      It can be done. Unfortunately, our society would rather just jump to calling each other names.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Chad
      I hope you take the time to reply to my post at the top of this page, thank you. I do wish you would answer the question of why the Christian faiths never give an adequet response to the crimes committed by their followers? That is the hypocrisy that I see, hiding behind a holier than thou front.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @The Truth "When flat earthers or moon landing conspiracy theorists make an ignorant claim based on nothing other than their "gut" and they argue their beliefs, no one refuting them is doing so out of fear. And when those refuting the insane ideas and moronic beliefs at times get angry it is only because of the futility they feel when dealing with someone who's only response to reason or facts is "Nuh Uh" or "but the bible says".
      @Chad "that's a good example, you refute them, but attack Christians.
      Why?

      ====
      @Truth "Um, no, people persecuted him for taking on airs and elevating himself above everyone else in the leage with his "decision" much like the Jews who anointed themselves God's chosen people and then Christians who have appointed themselves the heirs to that legacy, lording it over everyone else on the planet"
      @Chad "every religion claims to have the exclusive truth, why focus your hatred against just one (Judeo/Christian)

      November 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Trying to legislate their religion to force everyone to adhere to it would be a good reason. Oh wait, that's something you like to completely ignore I forgot.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Princess

      We have to stop and think as a society where are these Jesus jokes coming from and why did they even start? The question is, why has the mockery become centered around Jesus? Why is it in the movie The Hangover the police man yells “not you fat Jesus!” and causes the audience to burst into laughter? It’s not that they’re mocking the specific beliefs of a religion, but rather a very sacred part of the Christian belief. It’s not saying whether or not anything is true or false regarding the belief, but intentionally mocking it in order to receive laughs from the audience. It’s interesting to see the pathway our televised media has taken in the direction towards mockery of one’s religious beliefs to seek attention and laughter. Perhaps these mockeries aren’t offensive to the audience who isn’t very religious, but to those who are religious the slandering remarks and Jesus jokes are often offensive. The article states that the fact that people have become spiritual and not religious is the main cause for the Jesus jokes. This movement of American culture towards becoming less religious seems to let Hollywood and other mainstream media believe the mockery of the sacred framework of Christianity is okay.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "Trying to legislate their religion to force everyone to adhere to it would be a good reason"
      =>A. No one is trying to "legislate religion" (making Christianity the state religion)
      B. Christians have broadly diverse views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage (being ~85% of the population, if we held a unified conservative view, there wouldnt be much of a debate going on with respect to them would there)
      C. Every citizen of the US gets to lobby for legislation in line with their belief system. This is the US after all :-)

      November 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      I'm not talking about a state religion and you know that. Starting with the dishonesty a little early aren't you?

      November 14, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Christianity is a mental disease- FACT

      Chad,

      And people are starting to stand up and vote against others imposing their morals on The People. Gods Own Party got a wake up call. free people donthave to tolerate your b s morals and God views. Jesus and God are being put in their proper place....peoples imagination and their churches...that is it nothing more.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • Christianity is a mental disease- FACT

      Simply put, jesus has no more bearing in our government than Santa or the Toothfairy. You get your fantasy days off. ..enjoy yoru delusion and dont impose it on others.

      November 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Just another passover. Hey Chad, by not responding to my last few posts you again confirm my low opinion of you. You are a coward and when you can not formulate an answer, you ignore the questioner. Sad pathetic little man.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Chad

      @Nice Jewish Boy:"Why are the Jews the most hated and persecuted group of people on earth and which group of people did the most hating and persecuting?
      why the Christian faiths never give an adequet response to the crimes committed by their followers? "

      =>I guess you missed it, here it is again:
      The answer for who persecutes Jews is: everyone (which includes Christians who have indeed persecuted Jews).

      The why answer is simple: because the Jews are Gods chosen people, and the God of Israel is real.

      Which begs the question, why would Christians persecute Jews, when they are both recipients of Gods grace? Doesnt that break my premise that you persecute those that hold belief systems that are in opposition to yours, which you fear may be true?

      Although noting that Christians are the most vocal group on earth in their support for Israel and Jews in general, it cant be argued that Christian persecution of the Jews has been, and although greatly reducing in recent years, is still a shameful reality today.

      I dont really know why some Christians are anti-semitic. Bad theology? Ignorance? The influence of the rest of the world on them? Immaturity? all of the above probably.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @Christianity is a mental disease- FACT,

      =>first, thanks for dramatically illustrating my point about atheist anger and ad hominem..

      second: just out of curiosity, how would you change the existing legislative process (of allowing all citizens to lobby the government for legislation in line with their beliefs) to achieve your goals?

      November 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Chad
      You refuse to answer the hypocrisy of the Christian faiths not addressing the crimes of their faithful, I maintain you are a coward for ducking the question. I have heard of fundies, in this era, blocking the path to a family planning clinic and harassing those that wish to use their LEGAL services and of course their has been incidents of violence to those that provide those services. If you can provide just one example of this type of anti-freedom action done by the atheists.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "Atheists exhibit a great deal of fear with respect to Christianity. Fear is always the emotion underlying anger."

      Hmmm... how do I feel about Christianity?

      Time for self examination – 5 minutes . . . . .

      No, I'm just appalled with some shades of dismay and some overtones of incredulity.

      Don't Christians have more to fear? They believe in more failure modes than atheists do (and eternal consequences too).

      November 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Awww nothing to say Chad? Lobbying is irrelevant. The fact remains that our constitution does not allow for laws based solely on a sect or specific religion. You consistently ignore this. Continue to show how much of a dishonest fucktard you are Chad. All you're doing is hurting your own cause more than the religious nut jobs currently in government trying to legislate their religious doctrines.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It's off topic, but with regard to Creation, Chad once tried to move from creation by inanimate causes to creation by a Creator. Kind of artless, I thought. Don't know why that keeps coming back to me.

      November 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • JamesK

      The only groups that seem to have it in for the Jews are members of the other two Abrahamic religions, the "daughter" faiths. It's a classic case of Oedipal Complex.

      November 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • The Truth

      "@Chad "that's a good example, you refute them, but attack Christians. Why?"

      I have never punched a Christian. I have told many that their God does not exist. If you consider that an "attack" then so be it, I will continue to do so.

      "every religion claims to have the exclusive truth, why focus your hatred against just one (Judeo/Christian)"

      I am an equal opportunity deity denier. None of your Gods are real. Allah does not exist, Muhammad was no more inspired by God than Joseph Smith was, and that is not an endorsement of Joseph Smith. It is not hate to stare you in the face and say emphaticly "YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST" and there is no hate or vitriol contained therein. It is a simple statement of reality and is we raise our voices when we say it that does not mean we are angry, it's more like someone trying to give directions to a tourist who doesn't speak the language... "No.. LEFT, LEFTO, um, UP, That way!" as we point excitedly... You just don't happen to be fluent in reality, but you speak Fantasy as if you were born to it... oh wait, you probably were...

      November 14, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • Chad

      @TTTOO "It's off topic, but with regard to Creation, Chad once tried to move from creation by inanimate causes to creation by a Creator. Kind of artless, I thought. Don't know why that keeps coming back to me."

      =>liar, liar pants on fire :-)

      dont suppose this will be the time that you provide evidence of where I said that?
      ;-)

      November 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Chad

      @Nice Jewish Boy "You refuse to answer the hypocrisy of the Christian faiths not addressing the crimes of their faithful, I maintain you are a coward for ducking the question"

      =>how do you figure that??
      I acknowledge that Christians have persecuted Jews, I said that above
      I said it was a shamefull, terrible thing for them to have done, I said that above
      I dont have an explanation for why some do, I said that above

      what exactly are you looking for?

      November 14, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @The Truth:
      "refute" as I used it refers to presenting information that contradicts the premise being asserted by the opposing group.
      "attack" as I used it refers to using ad hominem (personal insults) instead of an information/evidence/data based refutation

      why do the vast majority of atheists attack Christians?

      November 14, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      I guess the only logical way to handle the Chad is to build a strawman or go as far off topic as devinely possible. The most dishonest of all posters, you win Chad.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      The other crimes mentioned in all my posts, you moron, what you choose not to address you ignore, or does you ego allow you to not even bother to read the posts of your critics. I am tending to agree with TTO that you are a useless pri*ck, are you a Catholic priest that is one of their atributes?

      November 14, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @Nice Jewish Boy, what exactly were you looking for?

      November 14, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Chad

      "burning Black churches and hoisting up strange fruit in the trees in the oh so Christian bible belt of the deep south."
      =>dont know what "strange fruit" you are referring to, but obviously I condemn and deplore any racism by Christians..

      "money laundering, child abuse, cover up of crimes, fraud and corruption; s*ex abuse, fraud and continuing discrimination among the Evangelicals and general haras*ment of the public in an effort to gain converts"
      =>this was actually in a different thread, not this one...
      in any case:
      - dont agree that the general public is harassed
      - as to the other crimes, they are terrible, responsible people should face criminal prosecution.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Chad
      Let us face the fact that your ablility goes far beyond cherry picking, you can pick the fly shi*t out of the pepper. A coward and a liar, I should have not expected any thing else.

      November 14, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Chad

      would it be asking to much for you to provide an example of your accusation?

      November 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Examples of your dishonesty? Do you really need more than what has been given to you and you ran away from in other articles?

      November 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Jesus Chad, try reading the thread over again, you seem to comprehend only what you want to see and believe your critics are what to you? Have you ever seen that you are wrong? Ever? Go back sometime and see the contradictions in your own posts/gospel as reported by the chad.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "Examples of your dishonesty? Do you really need more than what has been given to you and you ran away from in other articles?"

      =>can you please explain "what has already been given to me" (using a specific example)
      and if you could also provide a link to another thread that I "ran away from"

      that would be great!
      thanks in advance.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @Nice Jewish Boy "try reading the thread over again, you seem to comprehend only what you want to see and believe your critics are what to you? Have you ever seen that you are wrong? Ever? Go back sometime and see the contradictions in your own posts/gospel as reported by the chad."

      =>example please? :-)

      it's easy..
      1. highlight the text of my post you feel is dishonest
      2. right click, select "copy"
      3. scroll down, select "paste"
      4. provide a brief explanation showing how what I said was dishonest.

      pretty simple..

      November 14, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Just so you know, Strange Fruit, refers to a Billie Holiday song, the reference being to black people that were lynched by your christian brethern that never got over that the blacks were not worthy to be called humans, not in ancient times, but less than a hunderd years ago. You will be able to defend anything as a christian apologist, won't you, you have the textbook.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @Nice Jewish Boy,
      you seem to still be running into difficulty actually providing an example of what you so rabidly accused me of.. Here are the instructions again, let me know where you are running into trouble.

      1. highlight the text of my post you feel is dishonest
      2. right click, select "copy"
      3. scroll down, select "paste"
      4. provide a brief explanation showing how what I said was dishonest.

      November 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      This looks so familiar.

      Someone genuinely trying to have a conversation with Chad and earnestly trying to get him to hold a mirror to his own behavior.

      @Nice Jewish Boy,

      Unless this is a new handle, I've not met you but I understand you what you are feeling right now, more than you might imagine.

      Feel free to give it the old college try, but Chad does not and will not concede his intellectual dishonesty. Any of his regular interlocutors will agree.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Try
      religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/07/election-results-raise-questions-about-christian-rights-influence/comment-page-48/#comments
      In this, you completely refuse to back up why original intent and not proper and fair application is the only relevant thing, and merely to continue to state your opinion that it does, not to mention trying to build a staw man of my posts.

      I am currently trying to find the other posts. Although I'm sure you'll come up with a rationalization, or just continue to assert the same crap in those threads.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer,
      lol

      here's an amazing thought.. one you've never had before..

      you could

      provide an example!!!

      seems simple, but in practice it proves to be devastatingly difficult for you.. why?

      yah, i know "cant be bothered to look it up" ... blah blah..

      November 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      as I told you before, I'm not playing silly games with you. I'm not spending any of my time looking for and then combing though tracts of your nonsense so you can then try to tell me I misinterpreted you when we both know full well I didn't.

      My post was entirely for the benefit of @Nice Jewish Boy for whom I have not inconsiderable empathy right now.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      Chad you are kidding.
      Start at the begining of any of your arguements, actually read and comprehend what others reply to you, the posts speak for themselves. You only see what you want to see and disregard the rest of the comments made by all your critics, why would I bother refuting your views when so many have been doing so for so long? "For the most part, the exchange of proof and rebuttal is for the already committed who won't change their minds, but crave intellectual credibility for their views." That is what you are all about.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Nice Jewish Boy

      @Not a GOP
      Sorry. I have posted under other handles but I promise to maintain this one when dealing with the Chad. I actually miss mama k her comments would be useful. I have made a brief start at compilying some of the Chads really ridiculous as*ertions date, topic and page number, lets hope we can prove that this guy is an .....(add your ownn).

      November 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Crap I lost the other articles that I exposed Chad on.

      November 14, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Here's another
      religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/29/my-take-god-not-in-whirlwinds-of-sandy-presidential-race/comment-page-21/#comments

      November 14, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "as I told you before, I'm not playing silly games with you..."
      @Chad "right ;-)
      you'll make the accusation, but you sure wont provide any evidence backing it up.
      Does, "bush league" spring to mind?

      =======
      @Nice Jewish Boy, still cant figure out how to cut/paste and explain?

      look, here's an example. Feel free to copy the format:

      ============
      @Chad "Importantly, the ONLY question to ask is what the original text in Hebrew meant, NOT what various translations into English have done"

      @GOPer "so your argument devolves to "sometimes the inerrant word of God is in error"?
      Seems like there's a fundamental problem with bible literalism, or perhaps more accurately a fundamentalist problem."

      The claim: GOPer's statement above is purposefully misleading/disingenuous.
      Why is his statement misleading/dishonest::
      1. Chad specifically said that the issue was what the original Hebrew text said, noting that there are several different translations of that Hebrew, some of which were incorrect.
      2. GOPer attempted to twist that into an assertion by Chad that the biblical text contains errors. Knowing full well that different translations have no bearing at all on the inerrancy of the biblical text in the original language.

      Because GOPer knows full well that when we speak of inerrancy, we are speaking of the text in the original language, and that was explicitly stated by Chad, GOPer is being demonstrably dishonest.

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/05/my-take-counting-the-bibles-words-doesnt-yield-a-republican-jesus/comment-page-9/#comment-1918642

      November 14, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "Here's another
      religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/29/my-take-god-not-in-whirlwinds-of-sandy-presidential-race/comment-page-21/#comments

      I presume you mean this post from you?
      Oh I've done so before, and so have other people. But as far as right here, how about that you are not addressing actual points in your rambling non-answers to people, and merely reasserting your original fallacious 5 point idiocy that has been addressed many times already. Or how about that you have that little habit, when you quote others, to not quote when they want evidence of your god? The fact that you're continuing to your little 5 point stupidity and closing off certain avenues arbitrarily because you don't like it?
      There's also the fact that whenever asked for evidence of your assertions, you merely fall back and make claims like "cosmologists say this", for which I have asked for cited sources of that before, and you've never given it. Or how about your completely blind ass assertions of what was going on "before" the big bang, when there is absolutely no way to test and confirm those things.

      It seems like your fundamental problem with my posts is that I dont recognize the error of the case that I am making, and convert to atheism? Is that fundamentally it?

      November 14, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • Chad

      you also asked for a citation demonstrating that the universe had a beginning (I have provided many.. ), here's another

      It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning Alexander Vilenkin, (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

      November 15, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • The Truth

      Well Trolled Chad.

      But might I ask you, when you say "refute" as I used it refers to presenting information that contradicts the premise being asserted by the opposing group" how does one present information to contradict the existence of Unicorns? As far as I can tell, the only way to "refute" that claim, or yours, if to say "There are no unicorns, there is no God." To argue anything else on the matter without a single shred of actual evidence is beyond moronic, it's just a waste of time and effort. That is why you imagine that you are being attacked, because we tire of arguing with a fool and when we say so you say "Ah Ha! Call me a fool will you, well that's just attacking me! Try refuting my ideology of a divine creator magically creating everything! Ha Ha, you can't so you have to attack the messenger!!" There is nothing to refute, you are talking to an empty chair.

      November 15, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • Damocles

      @chad

      So I was looking back through all these posts....

      Yes, I do see some name calling from various people. I also see that they engage you in conversation and present strong arguments against you. I see that for the most part you tend to ignore those arguments and go with the same old 'why are you attacking me' routine.

      I, myself, have argued against your supposed truths of why there is a creator. If you choose not to answer people, that's on you. I can't make you do what you refuse or are unable to do.

      I can't promise anything, but I will try to curb my enthusiasm for calling you out in colorful ways but let's be honest, you do make it tempting.

      November 15, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Chad

      @Damocles " I also see that they engage you in conversation and present strong arguments against you. I see that for the most part you tend to ignore those arguments and"

      =>I dont believe that for a second. The challenge I have is sifting thru all the ad hominem to actually find something that can be responded to with evidence. That is exactly what I try and do.

      Give me one example of a strong argument that someone made that I ignored. Unless I somehow just didnt see it amongst all the posts, it just doesnt exist. I always look for arguments being presented, that's the only reason I'm here.

      November 15, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Chad

      @The Truth " Try refuting my ideology of a divine creator magically creating everything! Ha Ha, you can't so you have to attack the messenger!!" "

      =>like I said, ad hominem starts when you run out of actual data, thanks for confirming that!

      try this:
      1. refute the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for the empty tomb using historical methodology, not just "that's all nonsense"
      2. show that the concept of the God of Israel is logically incoherent

      The statement "I saw a unicorn" is not a falsifiable statement, so why try? who cares?
      The statements "the God of Israel is real" and "Jesus is the divine Son of God" are both falsifiable statements, so give it try!

      November 15, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Damocles

      @chad

      As always, you will believe whatever you want to believe.

      Fine, let's start with something you brought up.... I don't have the exact copy and paste post, but you mentioned something about the perfection of the earth for life as a deific truism, correct?

      Now.... the partial definition of perfect, there was more, but most of it was unnecessary for this:

      per·fect

      adj [púrfikt]
      1. without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults
      in perfect condition

      2. complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential
      3. excellent or ideal: excellent or ideal in every way
      That's the perfect word to describe him.

      4. especially suitable: having all the necessary or typical characteristics required for a given situation
      the perfect candidate for the job

      Now, 1,2 and 3 give lie to your claim simply because you, as a human, can not live at the bottom of the ocean, nor can a squid survive long out of the water. The earth, in places, is extremely hostile to certain lifeforms, it is not perfect. Small fluctuations, be they man-made or naturally occuring, can wipe out entire species. Again, not perfect.

      This same argument can be used against your statement that the universe is 'perfect'. It is not.

      The whole idea of 'perfection' is an extremely hard sell. For something to be 'perfect' it requires a consensus, which I have mentioned before. If you hold up an object or ideal as 'perfect', it is rendered imperfect simply by one person saying 'that's not perfect'. This is an issue for me when people toss around words like 'perfect', it is a more fragile concept than they are willing to believe.

      November 15, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • Chad

      @Damocles "Fine, let's start with something you brought up.... I don't have the exact copy and paste post, but you mentioned something about the perfection of the earth for life as a deific truism, correct?"

      =>no
      the fine tuning claim is precisely this: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." Paul Davies

      It has two components:
      1. the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of the building blocks of life, the emergence of intelligent agents.
      2. this fine tuning indicates teleology, a designer.

      I'll hold off addressing your argument so that you can modify it to address the actual fine tuning argument.
      As your argument is currently constructed, it doesnt address either 1 or 2, it merely says (essentially) "if God is going to create an environment for humans, He could have been done "better" in my opinion"

      November 15, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,

      If you read further down on the wikipedia page, where one can find your quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe) , you will see a "Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning" section and a "Possible naturalistic explanations" section.

      Including items such as:

      "Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly 'fine-tuned' parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. "

      "The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants."

      "Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned Universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[14]"

      "One [naturalistic explanation hypothesized] is an oscillatory universe or a multiverse, where fundamental physical constants are postulated to resolve themselves to random values in different iterations of reality."

      November 15, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      So you ignore the first article I link to, and take ONE SINGLE POST from the second, and proceed to not even address any of the points? Thank you for showing, once again, how much of a dishonest fuck you are.
      BTW, I asked for a cited source that the thought that an external agent was necessary was a concensus among the scientific community. A single quote doesn't show that, as I've said many times before as well.
      You have done exactly what I thought you would Chad. Dishonest bullshit is the only thing you can do. How pathetic you are.

      November 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II, fine tuning is not an undisputed issue, few things are. If you research those areas you'll find that there is broad consensus that the universe is fine tuned for the building blocks of life.
      HOW that came into being (necessity, chance or design) is the real question on the table.

      @Hawaii, why dont you just post an example of my alleged dishonesty? Just copy and paste what I said that was dishonest. simple, right? Why bother with the whole "I've already told you many times" or "everyone says so", or "here's a link" then complain about what I grab.

      just present an example, what's the problem?

      November 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Because letting you cherry pick shows your dishonesty as well. Not to mention you asked for a link above, and there's also the fact that, as this thread shows, you will not admit to anything if you can help it, and a single post is not sufficient to show the depths of your dishonest stupidity.

      November 15, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Chad

      either that, or you tried to do it, and it just doesnt make any sense when you start trying to cut and paste, so you fall back to just lobbing unsubstantiated accusations..

      Guess people will just have to decide for themselves which one is more likely :-)

      November 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Ah the emoticon. Your fallback when you know you have no valid point, but you still want to continue your stupidity.

      November 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I think you may be conflating "fine tuning" in a measurement sense with "fine tuning" supposedly done by an intelligent agent. Like the "Goldilocks" zone of habitable orbits, there are narrow ranges of certain properties in the universe that are necessary for life as we know it. There may be "broad consensus" for that, but that does not include consensus that there is meaning behind the fact that we are in such a narrow range.

      However, this:
      "HOW that came into being (necessity, chance or design) is the real question on the table."
      does not imply this:
      "2. this fine tuning indicates teleology, a designer."

      November 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Out of curiosity, other than Paul Davies' assertion, where are you finding a broad consensus on "fine tuning"?

      November 15, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • The Truth

      1. refute the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for the empty tomb using historical methodology, not just "that's all nonsense" – What tomb? I was not aware anyone had verified that Christs tomb had been found, and am curious to even know what evidence anyone could have to make that claim.

      2. show that the concept of the God of Israel is logically incoherent – The concept of the God of Israel is no more incoherent than any other God or Gods. It is no more or less likely to exist as they all step out into the realm of faith instead of standing firmly on the ground of fact.

      November 15, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
  18. lionlylamb

    Are individual rights based on societal righteousness within the parameters of cultural soundness being the line drawn and distanced by religious austerities? How far away from religious agendaships will the leveraging hierarchies be twained and marked as being mere factors of the mythological? Have the vesper pottages of humanism become complacently illiterate nowadays? Where then does the root-commodities of religious socialisms truly matter and 'riotizingly' materialize upon spatterings' causations? I do shudder in the crowds' laments, for of crowded sarcasms does lay the tutors of indemnifications' coverings leaving no more the generosities of the lividness' trees of multi-faceted generalisms.

    Love Lettuce
    Love Let Us
    Let Us Love
    Lettuce Love

    G.O.D.

    November 14, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Blah.....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah

      November 14, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Blah.....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah .....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah .....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah. ....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah .....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah... .Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah....Blah.....Blah

      November 14, 2012 at 9:46 am |
  19. Pedro

    Atheist are the most obnoxious people I know. They believe in the myth of evolution. They are just as corrupt and crazy as the religious. I'm sick and tired of atheist trying to force their faith on me (life is a product of blind chance). The leader of their cult is Dawkins who is obnoxious and is sitting back laughing at all the idiots giving him a lot of money for his stupid books.

    November 14, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Oh the irony....Well someone has to set the bar for ignorance. Kid's... this is your brain on religion...stay away....very far away.

      November 14, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • .

      Pedro pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. What a hypocrite.

      November 14, 2012 at 9:16 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Translation: I don't understand therefore it must be a myth!! Poor little Pedro must have failed science!!

      November 14, 2012 at 9:32 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      If religion was subjected to the same scrutiny as evolution, it would have been relegated to the same scrap heap that astrology sits on.

      November 14, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Pedro

      Well a least when an atheist dies that's it, they are gone forever. Their obnoxious thoughts go back to the dirt never to come back again. And that's in agreement with their own dogmatic faith.

      November 14, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • Huebert

      I've never understood people who insist that evolution is a myth, and then refuse to offer an alternative. It is like walking around yelling "Gravity is not real"

      November 14, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      That's funny Pedro. The kicker is that when a believer dies they end up in the same state. Oblivion....no afterlife...no eternity in heaven. Only they wasted thier life chasing rainbows and magic wishes instead of learning anything about reality.

      November 14, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • JamesK

      Huebert
      Their "alternative" is the particular creation myth of the ancient Israelites, as though it is any more credible than any of the hundreds of other creation myths of ancient peoples. It's more like saying that Twilight is THE actual way that vampires are without any consideration that all vampires might actually be fiction.

      November 14, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • Huebert

      @James

      I don't want to live on this planet anymore. :(

      November 14, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • Damocles

      @huebert

      I'm starting to feel the same way. Sad.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:00 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Pedro: When you die you go to the same place we do....the ground or the furnace...nothing further. Heaven doesn't exist nor does a soul...time to grow up and look outside of the buybull for answers (science and it's vast amount of evidence is rather interesting).

      November 14, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • JamesK

      I know, things are looking bleak boys, but the Religious Right is waning, and I see the promised land just over the horizon, where most people will let reason instead of ancient superst ition guide them.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • sam stone

      Gee, pen-de-jo, you truly are an imbecile

      November 14, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • JamesK

      Pedro
      Given the alternative, of either being tortured or strung out like on a bad LSD trip for eternity, I much prefer just dying naturally. I honestly don't see the attraction of believing in some afterlife, unless you just can't stand the idea of "You" coming to an end, which betrays a rather inflated ego, I think.

      November 14, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • /o\

      hey Pedro. Stay on your kness, god is comming.

      November 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
  20. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    November 14, 2012 at 8:13 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Yup...it turns your brain into mush.

      November 14, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • TrollAlert

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "Salvatore" degenerates to:
      "Douglas" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Thinker23" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert" is the degenerate.

      This troll is not a christian.

      November 14, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs.~

      November 14, 2012 at 8:33 am |
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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
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.