home
RSS
Justice won't block Obamacare's required emergency contraception coverage
December 27th, 2012
07:52 AM ET

Justice won't block Obamacare's required emergency contraception coverage

By the CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday turned down a request that she block part of Obamacare that would require companies' health plans to provide for coverage of certain contraceptives, such as the morning-after pill.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Mardel, Inc. and five family members involved in ownership and control of the corporations had protested the requirement, which is to kick in January 1.

They said they would be required "to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants believe can cause abortions," which would be against their religious beliefs, Sotomayor wrote in her opinion.

The applicants said they would face irreparable harm if forced to choose between paying fines and complying with the requirement.

But Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit, said the applicants failed to meet "the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief," and that they could continue to pursue their challenge in lower courts and return to the higher court, if necessary, following a final judgment.

Hobby Lobby is a chain of arts and crafts stores with more than 13,000 employees; Mardel is a chain of Christian-themed bookstores with 372 full-time employees. Both are based in Oklahoma City. Neither company responded to e-mails.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Christianity • Courts

soundoff (379 Responses)
  1. Cal

    Chad logic

    1. the universe had a beginning (borde guth vilenkin theorem)
    2. a beginning requires an external cause (Kalam cosmological argument)
    3. Therefore that external cause is God, and not just any God, MY God.

    December 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Russell's Teapot

      Convenient that your god doesn't need an external cause... Oh btw there are 1000+ creation stories, all of which claimed to be correct at one time or another. Arrogance doesn't suit you.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      what kind of people spend time talking creation of Universe? my guess is storytellers

      December 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • O'Noonan

      @ Mohammad....

      EXACTLY!...we've become such an iliterate nation...and most Evangelicals officially won't read anything else than God's word and Christian self-help and Christian fiction...that they've lost touch with the long established fact (and dying art) that humans are, if anything, storytellers.

      December 27, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Cal,

      That is #4 in Chad logic ....'Empty Tomb'.

      December 27, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
  2. William Demuth

    Religion and Medicine, Dangerous bedfellows indeed.

    Letting the two forces knock against each other would be fascinating.

    Issues like abortion, reproduction, intimacy, eugenics, genetics, cloning, and organ manufacturing would result in a witches brew of madness.

    Let’s face it, Religion and Medicine are exact opposites, and rightfully so.

    Like opposite charges, when put in contention they will annihilate each other.

    Wait until we can reanimate the dead, the Fundies will FREAK!!! Soon enough the last of the great attributes of Christ’s power will be as common as rain.

    Like some aged superhero, we will either have to upgrade JC’s skills, or retire him.

    We no longer fear Thor because we control the lightening.

    That’s why Christians fear medicine, because it disempowers their imaginary savior

    December 27, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • niknak

      Xtians fear medicine UNTIL they get sick.
      Then it is to the doctor they go so science can heal them.
      Once healed, they all thank god for their extra time science bought them.
      Bunch of hypocrites the lot of them.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • William Demuth

      HypoChrists!

      Keep that one for beating the fundies with!

      December 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • niknak

      I dig it, and will.

      But for most instances it should be HIPPOchrists as fundies are some of the most obese people I have ever been around.

      Went to a furneral in Miss, and saw some of the fattest people ever.
      Some of them were so fat they didn't look human anymore.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • O'Noonan

      Careful...being labelled a "hypocrite" is, of late, a badge of honor among Christians...

      December 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      speaking o witches wasn't medicine invented by witches,... also according to the Bibles old text my followers gave medicine to humans. meaning medicine is of the devil... they should not take any medicine at all

      December 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • On the contrary

      I think some of them fear science and medicine because it proves them to be schizophrenic beyond a doubt and they don't want to get caught or stopped in their sociopathic insanity.

      December 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  3. Sam Yaza

    my belief says. no drugs at all. no Excedrin, no Caffeine, and no Pink stuff. as an employ it violates my religion to give health insurance to my employes, that coves any medication a child dying of intestinal cancer, suck it up kiddo no pain meds....

    this is why your religion should not be pushed on others what works for you may not work for others

    December 27, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
  4. John Stefanyszyn

    Freedom of rights first for all....Christ is second as a "religious right".

    But it is Only Christ that will rule!

    December 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Yes, the rights of your religion do not overrule the rights of another person if they don't follow your religion. How sad. Your imaginary friend isn't sufficient to force others to adhere to whatever you want.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Christ will rule?

      The simpleton couldn't keep himself from being strung up, but he is going to rule?

      If he is omnipotent, why didn't the clown get it right the first time he showed up?

      What's dippy gonna do, show up for a little while and disapear again?

      Your God is a deadbeat Dad, who was already sentenced to death.

      If he returns, we shall once again kill him, and shall continue to do so until he remains dead.

      I think a fourth nail should do the trick. Right in his zombie forhead.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • niknak

      The funny part Will is that it will be the religious fundies that would kill him if he came back.
      Because is he was real, and what he is alledged to have said for his followers to do is true, then that would make him a commie socialist long haired anti gun "bleeding heart liburul" hippie. All the qualities the lilly white xtian fundies can't stand and say what is wrong with "Amurika."
      As they say, jesus, save me from your followers......

      December 27, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • O'Noonan

      @niknak...

      A very important observation...that those who so obsessively "follow" him, would, in fact, crucify if he came back under the same conditions of his purported first incarnation.

      I always smile at the Christian comments that demonize atheists on this blog when most of Jesus' negative comments were toward those religious leaders of his day...(and since Protestants claim, per 1 Peter 2:9, that they are members of a royal priesthood, the analogy fits.

      Years ago, when I was an Evangelical, I used to listen to a Catholic monk named John Michael Talbot. In a line of one of his songs he sung of this subject and said/sung of the Vatican: "I think they'd crucify Him."

      So, along with the conservative Evangelicals, Jesus would most certainly be crucified by the Catholic Church.

      My guess is that "the Father" would send Jesus back as a black Lesbian college Ivy league professor...she wouldn't last three years "about the Father's business"...

      December 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • niknak

      So true Nooner.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Christ predicted his own return would happen 1900 years ago....still waiting...

      December 27, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Rollin' with Sisyphus

      Well..the angry atheists are out with guns blazing tonight. How dare a person express their beliefs. The opposition could simply disagree and say why. But nah, better to add insults and snide comments.

      December 27, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Rollin with the Syphilis,

      The insults go both ways, quit your cryin.

      December 27, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  5. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    December 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • HeavenSense

      Hi Prayerbot.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • niknak

      What if I don't want things changed?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  6. Really

    More Chadism's
    6. He will make his point by citing authorities rather rely on his own reason and logic.
    7. He may provide a long list of "experts" and demand you provide your "experts" in response.
    8. Should you provide an "expert opinion or quote, he will invariably attempt to debunk your "expert" as a fraud.
    9. He will cherry pick information that agrees with his arguement and ignore any contrary statement.
    And last, he will resort to lines like
    You misunderstand my point
    Did you read my post
    I am confused
    Your logic is muddled
    I do not understand
    Pay attention...as if his words were pearls of wisdom
    And the best for last...I am not dishonest....really!!!

    December 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      So your beef is that when you ask for supporting evidence of his claims that he provides them and then challenges yours while asking for clarification of your points? Man how unfair.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Hey Deacon

      Are you Chad as well as the Prayer Troll, or just the Prayer Troll?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Really

      Bill Deacon
      Did you not read my post, did you fail to understand, your logic seems muddled, now I am confused and if you think my list is unfair, you haven't been watching Chad's rantings. You really are a classic sheepie Bill, kneel, stand up , kneel........

      December 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • niknak

      Hey, it's Deacon Blues, back to enlighten us on his sky fairy myth.
      Have you been able to find any of that proof stuff for the existence of your imaginary friend yet?
      We have been waiting like forever for it.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Really

      Bill Deacon
      Where exactly in my list does it say anything about asking Chad for supporting evidence? The Chad spits his cr*ap out with no need to be asked, it is when he is asked that he goes into turtle mode. You see how you twisted the meaning of my words, I expected better of you Bill.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • niknak

      @ Deacon Blues.

      Are you really the prayer bot?
      William thinks you are.
      That is pretty creepy if you have different screen names and post stuff.
      Plus, that "prayer changes things" is really boring.
      If you are the same person, please try to come up with something different once in a while.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • William Demuth

      niknak

      Yes he is. I did some testing and probability stuff, and at a minimum they cooperate.

      Its like the Clark Kent – Superman thing. But I suspect Bill wont deny it (It would be equal to admitting lying, which is a sin, and makes his little brain get all tied up!!)

      December 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • niknak

      Won't matter, as neither ever respond to any questions anyway.
      Just post and run.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      hilarious

      December 27, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  7. Atheism is healthy for children and other living things

    My "religion" requires me to spend 4 hours from 8-12 praying (to nobody ;-). Will the supreme court protect my religious rigt ;-)

    December 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Bob

      What about my freedom of religion?

      December 27, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  8. Really

    Chadism's...remember the only conclusion for Chad is the God of Isreal is real...points to watch for....
    1. He will ignore your proposition.
    2. He will try and change the meaning of your words.
    3. He will not answer questions put to him but demand you answer his questions.
    4. or he will answer a question with a question, avoiding having to provide an answer.
    5. On the rare occasion he does reply and you point out that his answer does not make sense, he will advance a subtle distinction.
    more to come.

    December 27, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Many of the fundies in here are one and the same person

      Deacon is the prayer troll, so who knows what Chads alter ego is.

      They are a dying breed, and as such become desperate.

      Like Oracles from the ancient past, most are finally seeing the madness in what they spout.

      And just as the Oracles were overthrown, so shall todays religious madmen.

      They will be trampled under the boots of reason, and relegated to the realm of fables, just as every other liar, mad man, and charlatan from histories forgotten faiths have been.

      I say good riddance, let them be taken by the tides of time, to lay in their watery tombs

      December 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • niknak

      Unfortunately Will, they won't go without a fight.
      The fundies are all armed up with weapons caches that the National Guard would envy.
      I work with many fundies, and all of them have multiple high powered weapons and would just love to use them to kill another human being.
      Especially if that other human being was black, or an atheist.
      Because nothing shows just how much you love jeebus then using your gun to kill something living.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • William Demuth

      niknak

      Bio engineered genome specific pathogens.

      Find what makes them them, and design a disease to target that trait.

      An Anti-Christ virus.

      It dosen't even need to kill them, just render them sterile.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • niknak

      That would be a pretty good idea for a scary movie where the the zombies are the fundies.
      Us normal people are in a rush against time to try find the anit christ antidote which will change them from crazed gun toting zombies back into rational human beings.

      If we can't find the antidote in time, they will make us live out in gated communities in the sticks, attend church everyday, and then listen to really bad country music/AM talk radio, after making us read the babble from front to cover.

      Now THAT would be a scary movie!

      December 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • O'Noonan

      @niknak...once again, you hit the nail...

      In the '70s we were talking about abortion setting off the next U.S. civil war...

      Now, outside of the flock, I have to laugh at how prepared they are with their weapons, food storage, (some with) bunkers, etc....

      In my view, it confirms they do not even believe the God they claim to follow exists...

      A few years ago, when such a high percentage of Christians in the US were supporting torture, particularly clinging to the need to torture a terrorist to get the info on a planted nuke before it goes off (the most argued scenario), I wasn't at all surprised. Apparently, it didn't occur to them that "prayer changes things..." (a nod to prayerbot).

      In other words, ttheir God wasn't/isn't powerful enough to prevent the slaughter of a US city where so many of His chosen would presumably be at risk (not to mention innocent children).

      But, as is quite clear, history has confirmed His impotence. So, maybe they should place their faith in Bushmaster and extraordinary rendition....in other words, "Man's" power.

      December 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
  9. craniumthedumb

    @OG-No

    I have never seen any verifiable evidence that God does not exist. Please provide such proof.

    December 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Really??

      To prove a negative is rediculous. I cannot be done. But it is not we who calim god exists, you do. Prove your claim. Since it is not a negative, you should have no problem.
      If I make the claim that the wind is actually invisible flying dragons, you would require me to prove it, I couldn't make you prove they don't exist....see the logic fail?

      December 27, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Eric G

      Ok. If we really need to race to the intellectual bottom so that you will understand.......

      You know all the evidence we have that the tooth fairy doesnt exist? It looks just like that.

      Please stay in the shallow end of the pool while the adults swim.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      Sorry, this was misplaced. OG was insinuating he had evidence that proves a no-God theory and I was asking for that evidence.

      Besides, you are insinuating what my stance is on if God does or does not exist. The only valid argument that can be made is that we have no empirical evidence proving or disproving His existence.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Russell's Teapot

      Impetus is on the claimant of God to prove existence, not for one to disprove.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      I agree, but we must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is a third choice.

      December 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      craniumthedumb

      @OG-No

      I have never seen any verifiable evidence that Fairies do not exist. Please provide such proof.

      .
      BINGO!

      December 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      craniumtheempty, I never said I had any proof that god does not exist – that would be completely illogical and impossible. I personally have concluded that given the length of time that god claimants have been making their claims, and their complete inability to provide any evidence or proof that supports their claims, that the probability of any god actually existing is virtually zero. I have said that there is evidence for theories and events that do not require a god. One only needs to read anything by Krauss, Hawking or Dawkins, or several other serious, peer-reviewed scientists, to learn about said theories, however given the (lack of) reading-for-comprehension skills demonstrated by you to date, you will not be able to follow the science, so will fall back to a "god did it" stance.

      December 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Nothing like the lovely sound of crickets. . .

      December 27, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  10. Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

    Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc...I stopped using them when they close on Sundays for religious reasons..... I gladly give Jo Anns and Michaels my business.

    December 27, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Then you should go there to get a job that offers contraception coverage and leave Hobby Lobby alone.

      December 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Really??

      Dill Beacon
      Good idea...lets all leave these morons alone and never shop there.

      December 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      Bill, already employed and if I need the coverage I will use it. Thanks though.

      December 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  11. William Demuth

    Yahveh demands this in Corinthians

    "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

    Be they preachers or buisnessmen? One cannot by the Lords own words be both

    December 27, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • Chad

      I dont actually know what point you are trying to make, but that scripture in context is simply Pauls justifying getting paid to preach

      in context:
      Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its gra pes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

      But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

      13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 1 Corinthians

      December 27, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Exactly Chad

      Capitalists are NOT in the service of the Lord, nor his represenatives here on Earth.

      If they aspire to preach, then preach. If it is their desire to sell over priced arts and crafts supplies, then they must by law be held to the same standard as those who do the same.

      If the right wants to live by the sword of capitalisim, they must also die by it.

      Now if these blow hards had closed their buisness rather than comply I might respect them, but as it stands now, they worship the dollar, and not the words of the Lord, as so many Fundies do.

      Let them put their money where thier Lords mouth is, and close. Then we shalll buy their chachkis from Walmart and be a far better society for it.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Chad

      Your logic is muddled..

      1. 1 Corinthians 9 demonstrates that people who preach can get paid for it. I have no idea how you think it applies here..
      2. Businesses have the right to protest when legislation forces them to endorse activities that they disagree with. The left and the right do it all the time.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      Chad, they protested, and the SC struck it down.
      Next...

      December 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • William Demuth

      It does NOT say they can.

      It says they should.

      One can not be both. Either a temple preacher, or a capitalist that rejects Christs dogma

      Only Fundies believe they can accept whatever they want.

      The Left does NOT claim divine law.

      If one claims it, then one must be bound by it.

      The divine law is a madmans paradise. If they want Biblical law, we can beat them to death with it in less than a week.

      If Christ and his minnions face one rational man in a neutral church, your religion would be branded madness.

      If you actually read one thenth of it, and claim the Old Testament is rational, then you sir are quite mad.

      In fact, mad in a demonstrable and legally binding way.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Yet that directly contradicts the gospels.

      Matthew 7: 19-34 (Part of the sermon on the mount)

      December 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Really

      Chad
      Well thanks for equating religions to business, for the religions are probably the best cash cow buniesses in the world. That is more than Bill Deacon would ever admit.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I'm getting a lot of press today! I would say the best cash cow business on the planet is called fractional reserve banking.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Correction. It is Matthew 6: 19-34

      December 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • Chad

      I have no clue what William Demuth, Hawaii or Really are talking about..,,

      Williams root post made no sense, it made less sense after he explained it. Gospel contradiction? Equating religion with business?

      I am not understanding your point, if there is one.. What does Matthew 6:19 have to do with preachers having a right to their wages (Williams root post), or how does it say that you shouldnt work for a living (if that is what you are trying to say Hawaii.. I really have no idea).

      “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

      22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,[c] your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy,[d] your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

      24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

      Do Not Worry

      25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?

      28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Matthew 6

      December 27, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      All this time and the only cop-out you could come up with is "DURRR I don't get it".

      December 27, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
  12. William Demuth

    They always have, they always will.

    It is simple really. They want to demand you live your life as they see fit, yet they rarely if ever want to be forced to change the way THEY live.

    How many more lying degenerate con men must be exposed before they are totally discredited?

    I mean their leaders have been caught smoking crack with gay escorts , they have been caught defrauding little old ladies, and they have been caught murdering children.

    At what point do the opinions of madmen become irrelevant? We can NOT permit the cult of the month to determine law.

    That’s why the scream about Sharia, because they don't want any other imaginary masters other than the one THEY made up.

    December 27, 2012 at 11:19 am |
  13. William Demuth

    The solution remains the same.

    Step One: Molest their wives and daughters
    Step Two: Check their positions
    Step Three: Repeat

    Once a dose of reality is entered into the equation, all the Fundies roll over

    December 27, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • On the contrary

      WD, you've got me scratching my head over this one. Care to explain?

      December 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  14. Happy

    Here is fact IT (ID/creationism) can't be taught in public schools in the US.

    December 27, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      And why should it? Which version of creationism do you want taught and why? What do you base you decision on? Everyone's supersti tion is equally valid so are you going to teach them all?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Happy

      @batcm Happy they can't teach it. My wife and I are tracking are tree with DNA and Nation Geogpahic see post below
      Also found cheese from 7,500 years ago

      December 27, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Happy

      @happy should be our and National

      December 27, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Sorry Happy, I misunderstood your message.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Happy

      @batcm Not a problem I have fun with my oldest sister with our tree trying to get her to swing one way need sample..

      December 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Chad

      the thing I dont understand is why they dont teach:
      1. the universe had a beginning (borde guth vilenkin theorem)
      2. a beginning requires an external cause (Kalam cosmological argument)
      3. There is simply no way life could have originated by random chance, all efforts to induce this using laboratory experiments have failed miserably.
      4. The fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change, there is no naturalistic mechanism that can produce that.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Happy

      @ chad ask the 26 states that devoloped the new sceince standards.for 2013.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Topher

      Good points, Chad.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Chad, if you are the same Chad I have spoken with before, common name and all, you consistently state that God guided evolution, but that He does not interfere with natural law. So exactly how did he guide evolution if He could not physically manipulate it?

      December 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Because, Chad, science deals with what it knows by measurement. Why should it teach things that it does not know and cannot measure?

      1. We don't know if the universe had a beginning, we only know we can't look past a certain point in time to find out.
      2. See point above and the cosmological argument is just philosophy, not science.
      3. Nobody says that life originated by random chance so we don't teach how life originated. Again, science does not teach that which it does not know.
      4. We teach the fossil record AND the genetic record which conclusively proves the theory of evolution. As soon as you or any other person can demonstrate how that theory can be updated to be more accurate, science will include your findings in the teaching of the theory.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      Happy

      Here is fact IT (ID/creationism) can't be taught in public schools in the US.
      .
      Actually I think they should teach it....teach it under mythology.

      December 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      Chad

      the thing I dont understand is why they dont teach:
      1. the universe had a beginning (borde guth vilenkin theorem)
      2. a beginning requires an external cause (Kalam cosmological argument)
      3. There is simply no way life could have originated by random chance, all efforts to induce this using laboratory experiments have failed miserably.
      4. The fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change, there is no naturalistic mechanism that can produce that.
      ----

      So there is a chance that we might have been created by something alien, more intelligent and powerful than us. there is no proof or evidence that aliens did not create us.

      December 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • O'Noonan

      @..a form of mental illness...

      and in the spirit of "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a Creator," I find the alien explanation far superior...

      December 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  15. donner

    Do you get the feeling that this right wing filth has gotten a playbook from somebody? That there really is a group of rich religious kooks that are determined to f-ck this country up beyond belief? They seem to be using their positions as employers to blackmail everybody into sharing their beliefs. Are they getting a morning fax from Karl Rove or Glen Beck? The last time the rich tried to interfere in the lives of the masses like this they got hauled away in carts to the guillotine. I get the feeling that this is where this is headed. I'm building a cart now. Let's get the party started.

    December 27, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  16. Topher

    Good morning, everyone!

    December 27, 2012 at 10:40 am |
  17. Believer

    Glad to see the atheists are out in force today defending their rabid belief in nothing. Oh, I mean their strident belief in REASON. So if Hobby Lobby closes and 13,000 people lose their full-time jobs, I guess it's a great victory for the cause.

    December 27, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Eric G

      I have an idea! Hobby Lobby can stay open! We can fully fund health care for everyone without the burden placed on corporations!

      Tax All Churches!!!!!!!!!! Put all the money toward health care!!!!!

      Done..... Next problem please.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Poor Hobby Lobby

      December 27, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • JohnQuest

      Believer, You think it's okay for them to close simply because they don't want to provide health care for their employees?

      December 27, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      If you think every one of those employees are Christians at Hobby Lobby, you would be mistaken.
      You *might* have had a point if they were.
      No, you still don't.
      I agree with Eric G.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • tallulah13

      Hobby Lobby is a business and must abide by the laws that pertain to all businesses. If they close because they think they are too special to obey the law, then the owners are to blame, not the law.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      And if it is a viable business, most likely they will sell it for every penny they can get for it, or in the worst case a compet!tor will grow (and hire the workers put on the street by ignorant owners) or a new company (hopefully with more enlightened owners) will be created.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • William Demuth

      Actually, I do hope they get sued and forced into bankrupcy.

      Are you actually ignorant enought to believe an employer can force his culture on his employees?

      Lets see where you stand when Buddists or Muslims buy up YOUR employer?

      Perhaps your Mother should be expected to wear a burka?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Russell's Teapot

      If Hobby Lobby closes because they cannot afford to cover EMERGENCY contraceptives then they didn't belong in business in the first place

      December 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
  18. Eric G

    I have a simple solution for religions and believers everywhere. Please provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists. Once you have established existence, you can then make claims about your gods demands.

    Of course, if you cannot establish existence, any claim you make in the name of your religion or belief is invalid.

    Please present your evidence for verification.

    December 27, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Eric G

      ............Crickets............

      Yep, that's what I thought. No evidence. No argument.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Robert Brown

      There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the as.sumption of the regularity, the laws, of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experiences, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories. Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David and Bertrand Russel, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for as.suming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, "Well the future has always been like the past," Hume and Russell reply that you are as.suming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it by faith. There have been many scholars in that last decades who argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in a all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. I can always say, "We don't know why things are as they are." As a clue for God, however, it is helpful. I can surely say, "We don't know why nature is regular, it just is. That doesn't prove God." If I don't believe in God, not only is this profoundly inexplicable, but I have no basis for believing that nature will go on regularly, but I continue to use inductive reasoning and language. Of course this clue actually doesn't prove God. It is rationally avoidable. However, the cu.mulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God. -McKenzie

      December 27, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • craniumthedumb

      Your statement hinges on the belief that there is no evidence therefore God doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its a logical fallacy. The best that can be hoped for in this is to take the third option, there is not enough evidence to prove that He does or does not exist.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Eric G

      Hello Robert. Thank you for your response.

      I make no as-sumption in my post. Believers have made a claim that a god exists. That claim has a inherent burden of proof responsibility that is not satisfied by your post. You have presented no verifiable evidence supporting your hypothesis that a god exists. Without this support, your general claim that "it could have been god" is irrelevant. You must first satisfy your burden of proof.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Robert Brown

      As for asking for the evidence for God, this really amuses me when people say this. You are standing on a massive planet of 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. The size of it is beyond imagining. It’s spinning through the freezing blackness of space at 1,000 mph, and tumbling around the sun at nearer 6,000 mph (I think). It’s part of a solar system moving, as a whole, in a completely unknown direction and speed. Now place a cup of water on your desk: you will notice that there is not even the slightest, not even the tiniest wobble. It is completely still. The planet moves a colossal distance with stupendous accuracy and consistancy, meaning that the order in this system is incredible.
      In the vacuum of space, amidst deadly radiation, you look up, and what do you see? A hail of rocks? No, a protective layer of beautiful blue air. So beautiful it makes people want to paint it in all different colours. Children instinctively put a smiling face on the sun when they draw. And why? This source of heat is radiating energy in every direction, creating a sphere of warmth with a diameter of perhaps 300 million miles. Even here, 93m miles away, we feel its warmth. We cannot even bear to look directly at it.
      Further up from the air we have the ozone layer: a protective layer saving us from the more harmful rays of the sun. To find this beautifully coloured landscape in the middle of an empty, deadly, hostile place is a remarkable thing. Life itself convinces me of God. Science, to me, offers convincing mathematical and detailed reasons to bolster that conclusion and make the whole affair more wonderful still.
      – Carstairs

      December 27, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • JohnQuest

      craniumthedumb, that is true every God or anything anyone ever dreamed up. You believe that the Tooth Fairy is real (there is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence)?

      December 27, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • JohnQuest

      Robert Brown, You are correct, we live in an amazing, wondrous universe. The core of your argument "God Must exist because We exist" doesn't really make sense.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Eric G,
      Your welcome.
      Not being a scientist myself I have seen the calls for evidence on here before and thought well if that is what they need I will go and look for some. I haven’t found any. What I have found is some scientists don’t think it is possible for our universe or life to be here without an intelligent creator. Their thoughts and points are very compelling to me, but I had faith before I went looking. Peace.

      December 27, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Eric G

      @craniumthedumb

      Your statement hinges on the belief that there is no evidence therefore God doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its a logical fallacy. The best that can be hoped for in this is to take the third option, there is not enough evidence to prove that He does or does not exist.

      My statement makes no claims of non existence of evidence, just that those making claims of existence have presented no evidence supporting their claim. For example, I could claim that the FSM created the Universe. This claim would be in direct opposition to yours but equally valid using your example of logic. The difference is that I do not make an as-sumption of authority or knowledge beyond my claim.

      "What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence."
      -Christopher Hitchens

      December 27, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • craniumthedumb

      Its a logical fallacy in that is assumes there are only two choices in the argument, He does or He does not exist. There is another choice, that we do not have the information available to prove either argument true. I hate it that some people make me go find links to prove my point, but here you go.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence#Absence_of_evidence

      December 27, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Topher

      "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance." – Dr. Richard Dawkins

      December 27, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • tallulah13

      Topher, evolution is not "chance".

      December 27, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Lawrence Krauss in "Atom" has a better explanation of how the universe formed than Iain Carstairs' "some god did it." And exactly what are Carstairs' scientific credentials – could they be none?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Topher

      Hey, Tellulah. How are you?

      It's not? How so?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • tallulah13

      Topher, if you must quote Dawkins, use the whole quote, not just the one that sets up the explanation.

      "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial enti.ties sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance.[4]"

      December 27, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Eric G

      @Robert Brown: ?

      I appologize. I was under the as-sumption that you had, at least a 5th grade understanding of science. Your lack of ability or desire to do the math does not change the fact that what you have observed requires no creator to explain.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Topher, if you stick to your normal brain dead christian script, there's nothing you (or fred or chad or any of the usual god/jesus apologists) can add to this conversation so you may as well fuck off now.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • tallulah13

      I'm fine Topher. Hope you are well.

      Evolution rewards successful life forms and mutations. Things that do not contribute to species survival tend not to be passed on, or if they are passed on, are a regressive trait.

      I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got to get to work. Have a good day, all.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Topher

      OK ... so then it IS by chance (if I'm reading your quote correctly.) That's how the atheist/evolutionary world view works. EVERYTHING happened by chance ... the beginning of the universe, beginning of life and all of today's processes.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • craniumthedumb

      @Eric

      Actually, the only pathway forward is to accept that either possiblity might be valid until the individual finds enough evidence or lack of evidence within to prove or disprove either belief. In other words, it is a question that can only be answered in the silent chambers of the heart.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Eric G

      @craniumthedumb

      "Its a logical fallacy in that is assumes there are only two choices in the argument, He does or He does not exist."

      I will state it again for the reading impaired. I make no claim of existence. I state that those making a claim have not satisfied their burden of proof. I make the point that their claim is invalid unless they present supporting evidence.

      You seem to be a fan of logic, just not a student of logic.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • Topher

      Hi, Eric G

      Your claim of ... "I state that those making a claim have not satisfied their burden of proof. I make the point that their claim is invalid unless they present supporting evidence" is kind of subjective, isn't it? I mean, proof enough for whom? I, for instance, grew up an atheist. Upon studying the subject I found that there was enough proof and thusly became a born again Christian. Same with millions around the world. They find there enough evidence. Now, maybe you don't think the evidence is compelling enough, but that's something that is up to you.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Eric G

      @craniumthedumb

      "Actually, the only pathway forward is to accept that either possiblity might be valid until the individual finds enough evidence or lack of evidence within to prove or disprove either belief. In other words, it is a question that can only be answered in the silent chambers of the heart."

      Can only be answered in the silent chambers of the heart? That is a logical argument?

      You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized

      ...so you get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good DAY sir!

      December 27, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      cranium, they are not equally valid. There is no evidence of any kind for any god while there are heaps of independent, objective, verified and factual evidence for no-god-required theories and events. In any other domain, silly and unfounded claims such as made by mentally ill believers would have been discarded hundreds of years ago, but religion continues to get a free pass. Your beliefs about god are equally valid with those of astrologists though.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Topher,

      Rain does not occur by chance, there are varibles that happen and it is inevitable that it will rain somewhere. That does not mean an intelligence is required for it to rain or that it is completely random either. If rain was completely randon every place on Earth would have an equal chance of rain, but that isn't the case.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Topher

      Hey, Blessed

      Obviously I agree it doesn't happen by chance. It seems to happen just as it should. In other words ... ordered. So what you have, though, is something highly efficient in an atmosphere that happened by chance on a planet that happened by chance, in a universe that happened by chance created by an explosion that happened by chance ... see the problem?

      Of course we could also get into how an explosion created order ....

      December 27, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Ok, Topher, let's do it again, remembering that in about 10 responses, you will admit that you have no evidence or proof. . .

      Please itemize your proof for the existence of your god and the truth of your god/jesus myth.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Eric G

      @Topher: "It seems to happen just as it should."

      Hmmm. That sounds like an as-sumption to me. Are you saying that it seems to YOU that it happens just as it should?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Topher,

      There is a difference between "ordered" and "directed by intelligence". There is no evidence that this planet, or universe was directed by intelligence....that is not the same as "happened by chance".

      See your problem?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Topher

      Eric

      Yes, that's fair.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Topher

      Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "There is a difference between "ordered" and "directed by intelligence"

      But where did the order come from?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Topher, read "Atom" by Lawrence Krauss.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Topher

      Did an explosion create order?

      December 27, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Really??

      Topher
      I've told you this before. The order comes from the natural forces that act on matter. The natural attraction for one atom to be drawn to ( and in some cases away from) another. Gravity is the main reason that order appears to come from apparent chaos.
      Really dude, take some science classes.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      The order comes from the way forces of nature interact. If you are going to claim they are directed by intelligence you have to support that position and you have never done that. There is no reason not to think our universe was as inevitable as rain, no intelligence needed.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • WASP

      @chris TOPHER: did your god create order?
      free will is CHAOS. it's the ability of an individual to choose their own destiny.
      order would be if your god had a plan.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @Eric

      You state:Once you have established existence, you can then make claims about your gods demands.

      Your assertion is here. Your assertion is If you can establish existence of God then you can make claims about the demands of God.

      Your IF is not a black/white proposition as you assume it is. There is a third case, where one can not prove the existence of God. In which case someone can still make claims about the demands of their God with full belief and intent that they are acting correctly. This is because of the argument from ignorance to frame.

      Interestingly enough you commit another faux pas when no one answers you... you state: "Yep, that's what I thought. No evidence. No argument."

      Which is the Argument from silence, your conclusion is based on lack of evidence which is a logical fallacy as well.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @OG-No

      I have never seen any verifiable evidence that God does not exist. Please provide evidence of your "independent, objective, verified and factual evidence for no-god-required theories and events." Please make certain it is validly linked to God's existence.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Topher

      Blessed

      "The order comes from the way forces of nature interact."

      Totally agree. There are certain laws of nature. They are consistant. Uniform. Not sure how you explain, then, how if we are all a cosmic accident how this works. If everything is an accident we wouldn't see the order.

      The Christian position, however, complements science. God, the Lord of all Creation, sustains the universe in a constant and logical way; and sice God doesn't change, He upholds the universe in a consistant and uniform way throughout time. Jeremiah 33:25.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      cranium. Yes there is no proof either way, but science explains what religion was invented to explain. It answers post-Big Bang aty least. The answer to "we don't know" is not "a god did it". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. God is an extraordinary claim without the slightest evidence.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Eric G

      @craniumthedumb: "There is a third case, where one can not prove the existence of God. In which case someone can still make claims about the demands of their God with full belief and intent that they are acting correctly."

      I am sorry, but your "third case" is based in an as-sumption. Belief and intent are irrelevant because they are not based in verifiable fact. Because they are irrelevant, they cannot be used to satisfy burden of proof.

      Keep trying........

      December 27, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • WASP

      @cranium: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
      if your father leaves your life at a young age and is ABSENT your whole life..........then that is evidence of absence; thus without any evidence that the guy wakes up in the mourning, shaves, has a cup of coffee and leaves before you get up then the guy is absent due to there being no evidence he was ever around.

      if you have a zero in an equation, then anything you multiply that zero by will amount to ZERO. however you wish to add it if soemthing isn't there then it ISN'T THERE regardless how much you wish it not to be so.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @Eric

      Wow, you actually make no sense now. There are only three possibillitie, God exists, God doesn't exist or there isn't enough proof to verify either conclusion. Denying that makes you a simple objectionist.

      @WASP

      That is exactly my point, there is only opinion on if God exists or not.

      @In Santa

      Your logic assumes that God does not exist. The only reason to "make up religion" is if God does not, which is not consistent with the rest of your statements as there is no way to prove. Therefore you can not draw any conclusions based on the assumption he does not exist.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Eric G

      @craniumthedumb: Actually, there are only two. "God exists" or "no evidence has been presented to confirm existence".

      To claim that your god exists is a claim that has a burden of proof. Without evidencial support, the second option is the only one available.

      You are attempting to shift your burden of proof.

      Please admit that you have no verifiable support for your belief in a god, or provide verifiable evidence that your god exists.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      What WASP and EricG said. And if your god is so invisible and undetectable as to not provide any way to measure his existence, then it's irrelevant whether he exists or not. It really doesn't matter if I have an alien space ship in my garage if it's completely invisible and there's no way for anybody to detect if it's sitting there or not.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Eric G,
      I did make it past 5th grade, just barely. Although I am not a mathematician either, here is some math for you to consider.

      “…..14bn years is a very short time in biological terms. It’s only 4 times 10 to the power 17 seconds. But the number of variations in even the simplest protein –would be a number multiplied by 10 to the power 100. And if you take a single protein such as ti.tin, assembling the components randomly even tens of thousands of times per second and discarding each incorrect version would, in that time, completely fill the universe with the debris – a sphere of 14bn light years diameter, because you have a number so inconceivably vast it would have more than 29,000 zeroes (compared to a number with only 17 zeros for all the seconds so far since the universe began). Try a billion variations per second and you’d still not have one successful attempt, by the law of averages. Or, try a billion billion billion billion per billionth of a second, for every atom in the universe (a number with 80 zeroes) for 14 billion years, and you’d still be nowhere near succeeding…..” -Carstairs

      December 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      "assembling components randomly" isn't what happens, Robert. Besides, "the problem is really really big" does not equate to "big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz.'

      December 27, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Robert Brown: I am sorry, but you lost me. What are you going on about? Are you now discussing abiogenesis theory?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @Eric and Moby

      I have never stated my opinion on whether God does or does not exist. I am very aware that there is no empirical evidence of His existence. The argument I have made (the stance I have taken) is that there is no empirical evidence proving or disproving. Essentially, by logic, "I don't know" is the only answer that one can come up with. More to my point, whenever you make an argument that assumes God does not exist you commit the fallacy I listed above (appeal to ignorance).

      December 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      It is logical to assume that something doesn't exist if there's no evidence for it. There's no evidence that I am currently sitting on the lap of an invisible dragon who with one breath can destroy the solar system. Should I really act as if it might exist? Don't be silly.

      If it's irrelevant whether or not god exists, because of his invisibility and undetectability, (as with the dragon in my example) why shouldn't I act and say that god does not exist?

      December 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Rundvelt

      Topher, I think you have a bit of a perspective issue here. The universe did not become fine tuned for us. We're fine tuned for our environment.

      Think of it this way, you're walking down the street and you see a pothole. Suddenly, it starts to rain and the pothole becomes filled. You say "That pothole was designed to fit that water perfectly." When in reality, the water has no option but to form to the hole exactly.

      So too life, if it was going to exist, needed to form to the natural laws of the universe.

      The reality is that life is fine tuned for the universe.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Eric G

      @cranium: "More to my point, whenever you make an argument that assumes God does not exist you commit the fallacy I listed above (appeal to ignorance)."

      You are incorrect. I have made no such claim on non-existence and thus have made no appeal. I have only asked for verifiable supporting evidence to the claim that a god does exist.

      You really need to do some reading on logic. I would be happy to provide references if you require them.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Moby Schtick,

      True, there is no conclusive evidence of God. When you look at the science of life, you have some really big problems coming up with a plausible explanation of how. You see it as somehow a copout to consider God as possibility, while some scientist have come to the point where they believe the preponderance of the evidence indicates that not only is God a possibility but the only remaining explanation.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Eric G,

      Yes, I suppose that does refer to abiogenesis. I don’t have conclusive scientific evidence of God to provide to you. Instead I have read posts by several scientist who don’t believe the universe or life is possible without a God.
      In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes: In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more that fifty years of DNA research have provided the materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

      December 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert

      Congrats, you have latched on to people who probably don't believe all the same things you do, and just happen to agree on "god exists". Does this provide anything resembling evidence? Nope. Does it make you feel more justified in your belief? Probably.
      Why are you so stuck on the "some scientists think" vein of thought? It doesn't prove or give evidence to anything whatsoever, and bringing it up is fairly useless.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @Moby

      If you can't provide evidence of the tooth fairy or of your dragons then I would say they are a logical possiblity but unproven. Third choice. Can you prove to me you have feelings? No, but I would venture to guess that you would argue you do. Many people claim to have evidence enough for them and them alone, based on feelings and experiences that go outside of logic. They claim God exists. Can you validate that logically? No. But I can't validate that you feel true love for someone, or that you feel derision towards me either. But I bet you do feel love towards someone out there. Logic fails when it comes to God.

      @Eric

      Your statements assume God does not exist which is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Robert Brown: "I don’t have conclusive scientific evidence of God to provide to you."

      Thank you for your honesty. Please do not think that I wish to deny you the opportunity to believe what you will. I will only deny any claim to authority or fact based on unsubstantiated belief.

      You have been a good sport. Thank you for your reasonable responses.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @cranium

      Nowhere have I seen anything from Eric G that would hinge on the assumption that god doesn't exist.
      And by the way, we can confirm emotions through brain scans and chemical levels.
      If logic fails when it comes to god, then by your own admittance there is no reason to believe in god.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @craniumthedumb

      You raise a fair point about feelings, and it's one tackled to some degree by philosophy in both "theory of mind" and "zombie theory" (not zombies as most people think of them, but people without feelings but act normally). The difference is in what you ask others to accept. I don't care if people believe I don't have feelings; I'm not asking them to act any certain way towards me. God believers want to pass laws and make me do certain acts based on their personal belief. And that's when the arguments come out that there's no reason to believe in god since he's so invisible and undetectable.

      And we can assume that a person has emotional feelings by certain brain scans and evidence of particular brain states, so there are many more evidences of personal feelings than god.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Eric G

      @craniumthedumb:

      "Your statements assume God does not exist which is an argument of ignorance fallacy."

      Oh boy, you just keep digging......
      A statement of fact, by definition, cannot include an assumption.

      An argument from ignorance fallacy would be your assumption that your god is responsible for thing that can be explained through the application of the scientific method.

      The only assumptions being made are by you. You read my post stating that the burden of proof inherent to the claim that a god exists has not been satisfied, and you assume that I am saying that no god exists. You need to remove your own bias.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hawaiiguest,

      Thank you, however, I wasn’t seeking justification for mine own beliefs by searching for scientific evidence of God. I was searching for the scientific evidence for the benefit of you and others who are interested in scientific evidence. While I didn’t find conclusive scientific evidence of God, I have found plenty of scientific evidence that makes a lot of the prevalent theories seem much more unlikely than mine own beliefs. The hope is that by sharing these, if you are not already aware of them, it would at least give you something scientific to consider.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Robert Brown

      If you believe in magic, everything else becomes less likely, because magic has that nifty ability to explain everything without explaning anything. Not to mention the entire basis of saying yours is apparently more likely is you saying "it seems more likely to me", which is still completely unscientific, and completely useless.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      I respect the opinion that "there must have been some force of design" involved. What I don't respect is the willingness to attribute that design to a specific deity or to hijack that hypothesis for your own belief that has no evidence.

      If someone wants to say, "Wow, this universe seems designed" then that's cool with me, but when someone wants to say, "Wow, this universe seems designed therefore the laws should look like this, and everyone should act the way I say is right, and only that way, and nobody should believe in some way I don't, blah, blah, blah" that's just stupid.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      What I say below is not based in logic and fact, but opinion.

      @Moby

      I am aware that it has been addressed to a degree in philosophical circles. I might point out that there is evidence, using brain scans as well, that intense prayer or meditation also changes brain functioning.

      The same argument must be used for God because there are millions who have stated personal experience teaches them that He is there. There is enough reason to accept that He might exist (logically) based not in logic, but by the simple statements of what they claim to have felt. I might point out that this could be interpreted as logic being ill suited to prove His existence as well. I am not asking you to accept my view of who God is or even if he exists, but I find it terribly bad logic to use He doesn't exist as a valid assumtion. There is enough evidence by the word of millions who have experienced something (like feelings) to at least say, "we don't know". As such, it is an argument from ignorance.

      @Eric

      I am not being biased, I am presenting a logical position I have thought out extensively. Please see above. I don't see any way that we can make the claim God doesn't exist with the evidence at hand. In my opinion, there is enough evidence available to provide a basis for saying, at best, we don't have evidence to prove. It has to be the third option.

      December 27, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @cranium

      You can't pick up and drop logic at the best convenience for you. And assuming validity based on the heresay of millions of others is called argumentum ad populum. (Wait, let me guess, that's when it becomes outside logic right?)

      December 27, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @craniumthedumb

      Yes, prayer/meditation changes brain states/functions. And that is exactly where and how god resides: as a brain state. "Love" or "fear" don't actually exist; they're brain states. So is god. We know that love, fear, and god-ideology is a brain state; we also know that love and fear don't actually exist anywhere. If we follow the logic, then god probably doesn't exist either.

      As I have stated and continue to state is that the belief is what is important and what we are dealing with because god is too invisible and undetectable to deal with. My personal opinion on the matter is that god either does not exist or he doesn't want to be treated as actually existing. Because if god did want to be treated as an actual being then he would be as obvious and knowable as math or chemistry--which you have to get right in order for to make them work. Shoddy math won't get you a valid answer, but anybody can believe anything about god and they all get about the same thing: peace or joy or justified hate against another group of people or whatever. That's why we don't know and why the "we don't know" answer is the ONLY valid answer. Just because a lot of people believe in a similar concept is no reason to think that the concept is actually valid as anything other than a common brain state.

      December 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      It would seem that craniumnobrain's goal is to carve out or preserve the possibility that some god exists. If so, and without meaning to speak for anyone but myself, he is too blind or stupid to realize that we agree! To be clear, yes there is some non-zero probability that some god exists somewhere. Now, and I don't expect craniumisempty to follow this, what is the probability of said god actually existing? Given how long believers have been pushing their silly beliefs and how they have not been able to provide any evidence for their god(s), the probability is very low, virtually zero in my estimation. Again, in any other domain, such claims would have been discarded but unfortunately the myth cults have a strong hold, largely due to parental and societal indoctrination from birth.

      December 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Why should anyone care about claims concerning god's desires if god can't be demonstrated to exist?

      December 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • What IF

      craniumthedumb,

      When an hypothesis has not/cannot be proved nor disproved, the default stance is to WITHHOLD BELIEF until either of these is accomplished. Feel free to continue investigating, however.

      December 27, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • On the contrary

      Eric G, we have massive amounts of scientific data as well as solid scientific theories that prove beyond a doubt that NO GOD EXISTS.
      We have moved beyond the point where the deluded believers need to be constantly asked for proof. We have proof that there is no god and no gods of any sort in the sum total of human scientific knowledge as APPLIED to the question of any god's existence.

      Applied science, old bean. We've got it and it shows there to be no gods anywhere.
      Brush off the cobwebs and think about it.

      December 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  19. tommariner

    The "War on Women" was fiction and helped win an election. The "War on Religion" is not, but does fairly represent the present Administration agenda.

    December 27, 2012 at 8:30 am |
    • therealpeace2all

      @tommariner

      "War on Religion"...?

      Peace...

      December 27, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • JohnQuest

      I'm not certain what you are talking about, what war on religion please provide an example of what you mean.

      December 27, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      How about fines in excess of $1 million per day for not violating your religious beliefs while you case is pending in lower courts and you can't get an emergency hearing because one opposing, liberal judge doesn't think your case rises to the standard?

      December 27, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • JohnQuest

      Bill Deacon, the fine is not about religious freedom, it's for not providing health insurance for your employees. For fines of a million bucks you'd have to have 1,000s of employees with revenue of 10s of millions a year. Not Churches, or small business. And the law should be applied fairly to all employers, or do you think some employers are more equal than others?

      December 27, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Which God?

      @tommarinara. You can practice your religion all you want. No one will bother you. You try to put it into the scholos and legislate it, you will be bothered, big time. Your religion has no place in anyone elses life but yours. Keep it to yourself and you will have no problems. Simple to understand, yes?

      December 27, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • surprise

      JohnQ
      Bill has always thought that religious law of the RCC is above civil law. It is much better for the public image if they can keep the crimes of the flock in house. Bad publicity hurts cash flow.

      December 27, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • Which God?

      Surprise. Bill D has nothing to say but snide remarks. He cannot back up anything he says about his religion. He is totally brain-dead. The RCC is is a cult, pure and simple. All religions are.

      December 27, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Bill,

      Should the Jahovahs Witness' be able to refuse to cover blood transfusions and related costs?

      December 27, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      A war of stupidity, errr, religion aided by the Supreme Court which is made up 100% of god fearing believers. Poor persecuted christians – fuck 'em!

      December 27, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      I have never said the Catholic Church was above civil law but nice straw man. Secondly the owners of Hobby Lobby operate a privately held company employing 13,000 people and have revenues in the range you suggest. The fines they are facing are, in fact, actual. They are not Catholics but believe, with some scientific support, that artificial birth control is harmful to women and that contravenes their religious belief and their rights as American citizens would be violated if they are forced to provide insurance coverage for those chemicals. It will be interesting to see how they will respond now that Her Highness Sotomayor has denied them their day in court on the cusp of these extreme fines kicking in. You can say it's not a war on religion or gloat that your side seems to be winning and use ad hominems against people who present reasoned arguments you disagree with but you cannot make the case that the Federal government isn't coercing private individuals to violate their beliefs.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Bill,

      Answer the question I posed. Until you do I have no respect for your position.

      December 27, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • surprise

      Bill Deacon
      Of course you would never say that the RCC is above the civil law despite the actions of the hierarchy, that would be admitting too much. But from your statements and thought on this blog it is not hard to determine that you will gladly kiss the Cardinals ring and do as you are bloody well told. The RCC is not a democracy, the laity must obey the church or get the hell out, is that not your position. It begs the question, just how far would someone like you go to obey?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      RB:
      It doesn't matter what the owners believe...don't you get it?
      They don't get to make the call on what women may take as medicine for problems not related to birth control..they don't get to make that call based on their
      beliefs.
      And if they are forcing their beliefs down the employee's throats as a term of employment, they are violating the employee's civil rights as well.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      Oh...sorry, I was talking about all bc and not the one they're specifically targeting: the morning after pill.
      Even so, their beliefs, more than ever, are not to be a part of secular law, which is why the very VERY Christian Justice won't entertain their motion.

      December 27, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Cheesy – Since I'm not Jehovah's Witness, I don't know what their doctrine indicates nor do I propose how inviolate they hold it. I can tell you that for Catholics, the sanctiity of life is foundational.

      Ms Pots, Can you explain to me why the employees beliefs trump the owner's just by virtue of the labor/management relationship? In other words, aren't people permitted to engage in labor contracts with each other based on mutually acceptable terms or does the state get to set compensation?

      December 27, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      RB, you are getting into an entirely different area.
      The owners may believe anything they want to.
      They may not, however, infringe on the rights of others by insisting that those employees believe as they do.
      If they do, as a condition of employment, they are violating civil rights.
      The owners can do what they want, but if it vioates civil law, they will be held accountable.
      Sorry if you do not approve, but inserting the owners beliefs into the employee's va g is against the law, as it is a business, and not a church.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • surprise

      Bill Deacon
      No answer. would you do what a bishop/cardinal tells you to do to protect the RCC? The laity must obey has been your position to date, am I wrong?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Ms Pots, I appreciate your comments but no one is forcing any employees to accept the beliefs of the owners. The owners are simply denying that they should be responsible to provide funding for those beliefs. If people want to take birth control, Hobby Lobby is not trying to stop that. They simply decline to pay for it, based on well founded religious beliefs. Your argument holds no water because, using your own logic, the government is forcing the owners to accept a secular belief system. So you have not answered my question. Why do the belief's of one group trump the beliefs of the other? Secondly, does the government have the right to set compensation for private labor negotiations?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      surprise, To date, no religious leader in my communion has asked anyone to do anything in violation of U.S. civil law, nor do I have any reason to believe they will. Outside of that, your question is hypothetical. Are you asking me would I interfere if U.S. soldiers began herding innocent people into cattle cars for work camps based on religious conviction?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • surprise

      Well I am happy that in your congregation that no parents have been paid off to not report a crime of the clergy, that you know about, but the whole idea is to hush up the scandal, so you may have been the least likely to find out. Answering a question with a question, very Chad like. I would hope you would take whatever action you could, but it is passing strange that very few, like Bonhoeffer, stood up to the nazi's when it happened in Germany. I do recall the Pope at the time did manage to shield some Jews in Rome at the time, but the RCC in Germany were earily silent.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Jen

      The government does interfere with labor negotiations – it's called minimum wage (as well as other laws regarding vacation pay, standard hours, maternity leave, etc).

      Jehovah witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. If you believe the rcc can deny birth control (which is used for health reasons by many of my friends), then you must believe the jws can deny transfusions as well. Simple as that.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well again, listen closely, no one is trying to prevent anyone from taking birth control. The teachings of the Catholic Church and others are voluntary. What is under protest is the idea, if you do accept the belief of the sanctiity of life that government can force you to pay for someone else s' desire to take it against your religious beliefs. Are you people deliberately that obfuscating or just that dense? What if the situation were reversed and the government decided that you should be forced to proved Bibles for all you employees? Does that make it any clearer? The fact that you are for or against the social policy in question does not eliminate the rights of those who have legitimate reasons to oppose it. Nor does it give you the right to prevent anyone from the free exercise and use of the thing you oppose. It doesn't matter if it is Bibles or birth control or guns or SUVs. You cannot be made to pay for someone else's choices. It's extremely simple.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Bill, are you claiming that a company offering insurance for X forces that person to choose to get X? Because the argument works both ways. Religious choice is personal, not that of a company. The company must provide insurance as the law sets forth. The person can use that insurance according to their personal and religious choices. Religious choice is personal choice; a company doesn't get to decide religious choice for the individual. Now do you get it?

      December 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Jen

      The church doesn't get to decide what labor laws they have to comply with – what part of that do you not understand? Companies of a certain size have to provide maternity leave, even though it was the employee's choice to have a baby. Why should companies have to comply with that? It wasn't their choice. Because it is the law – that's why. The rcc wants to be an employer? They have to comply with laws.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      "You cannot be made to pay for someone else's choices. It's extremely simple"
      .
      Actually it can and does and it has nothing to do with "religious choice" That is why the christards will lose. Where are the christards regarding auto insurance premiums...you pay for people's bad decisions every day. Because a christard or worshipers of the fairies takes issue with a part of insurance requirements, the courts are not going to consider it.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      Jen

      The church doesn't get to decide what labor laws they have to comply with – what part of that do you not understand?
      .
      That is a very stupid question to ask the christards.

      December 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Moby, I like to travel. We'll take your car and you pay for the gas. Now do you get it?

      December 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • On the contrary

      Bill, it's about civil rights. All Americans have rights. But you hate that. Yes, we can see that you hate other people having rights.
      You want to be the only one with rights and that makes you a sociopath. Can I get you a gun?

      December 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Bill,

      It makes no difference how much or how little the JW's believe blood transfusions are wrong. The question is should an owner of a business be able to dictate what the insurance will cover based on their person religious belief. If you allow one to dictate coverage you allow them all to.

      December 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Bill will never get it. He doesn't want to. It ruins the rhetoric of "Oh look at us we're soooooo persecuted boo hoo hoo".

      December 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
  20. Happy

    Health and welfare beat God Aye ... can't teach it either in public schools in US. (creationisn/ID)

    December 27, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Good... why should should supersti tion be taught in science class?

      December 27, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • Which God?

      @ happy. Which god are you referring to? They are all products of mans imagination.

      December 27, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Happy

      @WG M-y wife and I recently signed up for 23.anadem, which analyzes a sample of ones DNA. It is useful for identifying potential health risks, and tracing an.cestry. My own ancestry, through the genes, was mun.dane My wife had a remarkable ge.netic make up, which includes 3percent gen.etic material which is N-eanderthal. She is Ja-panese, with Sp-anish, French, Sl-avic, and South American na-tive (think Inca) background. But several thousand years ago (note this; it must have occurred well before 8000 years ago which creationists believe was about the time that g-od created man), a very distant ancestor of hers m-ated with a N-eanderthal. I know this is hard to believe, it is hard for me to believe, but this is true, and should cause some of you to think, as it has caused me to do. For those who wonder what this cross looks like – she is beautiful

      December 27, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      While I am glad your wife is gorgeous, what does that have to do with your OP?

      December 27, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • Apple Bush

      My wife is gorgeous and she is also a whore with an IQ of 60.

      December 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
1 2 3

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.