home
RSS
January 29th, 2013
04:52 AM ET

Case fuels debate over when life begins

A Catholic Church-affiliated hospital used a surprising argument to defend itself in a lawsuit.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Catholic Church

soundoff (354 Responses)
  1. Thoth

    Oh the irony. Just proves that when push comes to shove, the almighty dollar trumps faith.

    January 29, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • sam stone

      the almighty dollar is god to some

      particularly those who pass the collection plate

      January 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
  2. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    Sperm is living being and growth of sperm, a living being begins with inception, PROVEN BY QUANTUM PHYSICS, and denied by hindus murderers to justify hinduism, murder of helpless to please their hindu soul, filthy desire by hindu Judaism, filthy self center ism, secular ism, in defiance of truth absolute GOD, foundation of American consti tution.

    By quantum physics, everything is dependent on dark matter or program, otherwise known as Spirit, truth of human to be in physical form. Spirit, programs appear in male body after reaching age of puberty by will of Allah, certain matter from blood of man is attracted to spirit on 125 volts. produced by function of human body, after attachment of matter to spirit, matter takes form of sperm, a living being, transferred to woman's body to grow into human form according to spirit, program, otherwise known as seeded, not physically but spiritually, programmed.
    Woman has no other function in human life but to mother a child, a greatest service, man cannot do without, reason for a children to carry their fathers name. Heritage of person is physically attached to man's linage, not woman.

    January 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Oskar

      “Love your neighbour as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law” – Romans 13:9-10

      February 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
  3. Live4Him

    @Observer : Yes, but she supports the Bible that discriminates against women and constantly treats them as inferior.

    Every woman wants to be treated as special. The Bible stipulates that men are 'servants' of women – Just like Christ was the servant to others, a man needs to be a servant to their wife. Only by distorting the message can one claim that the Bible wants women to be treated inferior to men. Eve was made from a rib, to walk alongside of Adam, not from the head to rule over him and not from the foot to be under him, but to be equal to him.

    January 29, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Observer

      Live4Him

      Get serious. Read the Bible sometime. Woman aren't to talk in church. Women aren't to instruct men.

      When a virgin gets r@ped, the rapist gets his choice of a wife who can't refuse him. The father gets LOTS of money. The poor r@pe victim gets NOTHING. Not ONE WORD of sympathy in the Bible. She just gets further punished by having to spend the rest of her life with the lowlife that r@ped her. But the men do fine.

      WAKE UP!!

      January 29, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Book of hindu Mithra ism, savior ism bible is nothing more than hinduism absurdity of pot head hindu sanatans, crook goons, one has to be a hindu ignorant to make hindu corrupt bible a book to be of truth absolute. One has to be a hindu, brain less to consider it more than, what it is, hinduism, absurdity to hind, fool humanity in to gentile ism, slavery of few crook human to be their gods, way of hindu Pundits crook tricksters to spread hinduism racism as a hindu filth faith in hinduism. racism.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:19
      As I Timothy 2:11-14 reminds us, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

      Calvin described women as
      "... more guilty than the man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading all to perdition. It is necessary that woman recognize this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. This is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame."

      January 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • The Truth

      You just like being dominated, you have gotten used to it and it makes you feel safe. This is not true for most women.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : Read the Bible sometime. Woman aren't to talk in church. Women aren't to instruct men.

      I listen through the Bible every year, so I'm very familiar with it.

      @Observer : When a virgin gets r@ped, the rapist gets his choice of a wife who can't refuse him.

      If she is betrothed, he is put to death. If she is not, then he pay a large sum of money to her father and must support her for the rest of her life. IF he cannot pay, he becomes a slave to her father for seven years – and the father could treat him as he deemed fit. If he COULD pay, there is no need to rape her – just pay the bride-price (less than 1/7th of the fine).

      As far as abusing her further, I think her brothers would handle that issue very well.

      @Observer : She just gets further punished by having to spend the rest of her life with the lowlife that r@ped her.

      In today's culture, a raped women is blamed for the act. The woman has the stigma and shame. IF she is lucky, she will get a conviction. In that case, the man is usually placed on probation. The woman – well tough luck.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I am a woman. I have no desire to be treated special. I only desire to be treated equally. Period. Nothing special about that.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      Your pathetic attempts to support the fact that the Bible NEVER ONCE offers one word of sympathy for a r@pe victim are beyond disgusting.

      Your main "justification" is that FATHER who wasn't involved at all gets a lot of money. The WOMAN gets NOTHING but being r@ped and a lifetime with the pervert.

      You should be ashamed.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      In today's culture, a raped women is blamed for the act. The woman has the stigma and shame. IF she is lucky, she will get a conviction. In that case, the man is usually placed on probation. The woman – well tough luck.

      In today's culture a man who rapes is a rapist and is SOLELY to blame for the act. ANYONE who blames the woman should have their tongue removed as well as their dick removed (if male) .

      January 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • The Truth

      " If he COULD pay, there is no need to r a p e her – just pay the bride-price (less than 1/7th of the fine)."

      Ahh, I see. So you have no right to refuse me if I have enough money? You sound more like a prostltute than a Christian...

      January 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
  4. Observer

    Akira,

    Live4Him has already stated on a blog that she is a "she" and has a son.

    Sometimes she is so busy cutting-and-pasting that she doesn't read what she posted.

    January 29, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : Live4Him has already stated on a blog that she is a "she" and has a son.

      If you review that post, I responded that "the copy-cats have come out" (or something similar). So, copy cat advanced that claim.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Live4Him

      Rather than being coy, why don't you just tell us one way or the other? Does it matter whether you're male or female? It doesn't matter to me one way or another.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
  5. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    IN ISLAM, IT IS LEAST IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHERE LIFE BEGINS, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT TO WHERE OR HOW IT SHOULD END, FIGHTING KAFERS NON-MUSLIMS.

    January 29, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Post under your own ID, hindu, idiot.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
  6. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Didn't the same story run yesterday as a "US News" story.

    ... only now there's a video instead.

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/28/lawyers-for-catholic-hospital-argue-that-a-fetus-is-not-a-person/

    January 29, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      The story has been getting bumped for at least 4 days now.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
  7. FSM

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster settles this question pretty quickly. According to His Noodly Word, life begins at the formation of sperm. Therefore, we should all be concerned about all the billions of sperm that are murdered daily by hot-tubs and tight underwear, or by being spilled into body cavities besides v.ag.inas, or into Kleenex. Also, spare a thought for all the billions of sperm that do make it the womb, but never get to fertilize the egg.

    January 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I commit genocide on a daily basis.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • The Truth

      ...talk about the Clone Wars...

      January 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
  8. Live4Him

    @Eric G : Please provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists.

    Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.

    Is God Necessary?
    __ a) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create matter, energy and time (which we know exists),
    __ b) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create life (which we know exists),
    Therefore, this implies some supernatural being (i.e. God) is necessary.

    Which God Did It?
    __ a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time ,
    __ b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
    Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration.

    Did the Judaism God Do It?
    __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
    __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.

    Did the Islamic God Do It?
    __ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
    __ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
    __ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
    Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

    Did the Christian God Do It?
    __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
    __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for the answer to how we got here. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the better answer.

    January 29, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      Nonsense.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Observer

      Yep. Not one statement that PROVES God exists.

      His book says so. Yoda's books prove he exists too.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • The Truth

      "Given the lack of a natural explanation" I must assume that Live4Him contains all of his brains somewhere in the lower bowel region.

      " Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
      Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration." Really? You are that dumb?

      "In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began. As with the Nile, each year the inundation no doubt caused chaos to all creatures living on the land, so this represents Nu. eventually the floods would recede and out of the chaos of water would emerge a hill of dry land, one at first, then more. On this first dry hilltop, on the first day came the first sunrise. So that is how the Egyptians explain the beginning of all things." Egyptian creation myth

      "Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible. Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender." So a book that makes a prophetic claim then later says that claim is fulfilled is proof? lol

      Thank you for spending so much time on your post to show us your level of intellect. If that were a placement test you would be sent to remedial logic classes immediately.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • Reasonably

      So, you also agree with the Q'ran, Dianetics and The Lord of the Rings since they are all books?!

      January 29, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      @ The Truth

      Live4Him doesn't spend any time writing it. He/she just copy-and-pastes this same nonsense over and over again, and it gets refuted over and again.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time"

      I'll let that stand as a testament to your self-inflicted ignorance.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Eric G

      I am sorry, but you have not presented verifiable evidence, only assumption and speculation.

      You must first establish the existence of your god with verifiable supporting evidence before you can make claims as to your gods abilities, actions or desires. To help explain my point, if you remove the word "god" and insert the word "bigfoot" in your post, they are both equally logical.

      To deny the burden of proof inherent in your claim that a god exists by attributing actions as proof is intellectually dishonest.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Lie4Him
      You are posting your lies again.

      The first assumption says, we do not have an explaination for things so god did it.
      how can you continue after that first ridiculous assumption?

      January 29, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Akira

      Live4Him is female. Just thought y'all would want to know.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Observer

      Akira,

      Yes, but she supports the Bible that discriminates against women and constantly treats them as inferior.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Eric G : I am sorry, but you have not presented verifiable evidence, only assumption and speculation.

      Just because you claim NOT to see matter, energy and time doesn't make your rebuttal valid.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @

      January 29th, 2013
      04:52 AM ET
      Case fuels debate over when life begins
      A Catholic Church-affiliated hospital used a surprising argument to defend itself in a lawsuit.

      Arielle Hawkins – A. Hawkins

      Filed under: Catholic Church
      87Comments »

      0

      inShare

      More sharing
      We recommend

      Obama ends oath with 'So help me God' Religion
      Michael J. Fox on the idea of his son dating Swift The Marquee Blog
      Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute Religion
      Hobby Lobby finds way around $1.3-million-a-day Obamacare hit – for now Religion
      iReport: Why I Raise My Children Without God Religion
      Hall of Fame track coach resigns after admitting affair with athlete CNN Sports
      From around the web

      Engine Oil Changes: Every 3,000 Miles or Not? DexKnows
      PwC: Canadian tax system breaks into Top 10 global ranking Big4.com
      10 Reasons To Eat Pineapple Lifescript.com
      Why Women Love One-Night Stands MyDailyMoment
      2013 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE Motor Trend Magazine
      Katie Holmes' 'Secret' Boyfriend Is Someone We All Know & Love CafeMom
      [what's this]
      Next entry »
      Belief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Tuesday, January 29, 2013
      « Previous entry
      Woman escapes with kids from Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
      soundoff (87 Responses)
      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
      Didn't the same story run yesterday as a "US News" story.

      ... only now there's a video instead.

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/28/lawyers-for-catholic-hospital-argue-that-a-fetus-is-not-a-person/

      January 29, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      FSM
      The Flying Spaghetti Monster settles this question pretty quickly. According to His Noodly Word, life begins at the formation of sperm. Therefore, we should all be concerned about all the billions of sperm that are murdered daily by hot-tubs and tight underwear, or by being spilled into body cavities besides v.ag.inas, or into Kleenex. Also, spare a thought for all the billions of sperm that do make it the womb, but never get to fertilize the egg.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      Rational Libertarian
      I commit genocide on a daily basis.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm | Report abuse |
      The Truth
      ...talk about the Clone Wars...

      January 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
      Live4Him
      "Is God Necessary?
      __ a) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create matter, energy and time (which we know exists),
      __ b) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create life (which we know exists),
      Therefore, this implies some supernatural being (i.e. God) is necessary"

      Again, a "lack" of explanation does not mean there is no explanation. You exclude:
      – the possibility of an explanation that is yet to be discovered.
      – the possibility of a non-intelligent supernatural cause.
      – the possibility that no creation is needed.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Akira : Live4Him is female. Just thought y'all would want to know.

      How do you know?

      January 29, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      We see EVIDENCE of energy, matter, and time. There's no evidence of god.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • ME II

      Oops sorry for spam above, here's what I meant to post

      @Live4Him
      "Is God Necessary?
      __ a) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create matter, energy and time (which we know exists),
      __ b) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create life (which we know exists),
      Therefore, this implies some supernatural being (i.e. God) is necessary"

      Again, a "lack" of explanation does not mean there is no explanation. You exclude:
      – the possibility of an explanation that is yet to be discovered.
      – the possibility of a non-intelligent supernatural cause.
      – the possibility that no creation is needed.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Is God Necessary?
      __ a) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create matter, energy and time (which we know exists),
      __ b) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create life (which we know exists),
      Therefore, this implies some supernatural being (i.e. God) is necessary.

      ***That is an argument from ignorance, just because you can supply an answer in no way implies it is the right one***

      Which God Did It?
      __ a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time ,
      __ b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
      Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration.

      ***You conflate your book to to dovetail with science but then ignore and obfuscate science where your book and science conflict, it is dishonest***

      Did the Judaism God Do It?
      __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
      __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
      Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.

      ***Once again you claim prophacies as coming true but ignore the ones that didn't***

      Did the Islamic God Do It?
      __ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
      __ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
      __ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
      Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

      ***confirmation bias***

      Did the Christian God Do It?
      __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
      __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
      Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for the answer to how we got here. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the better answer.

      ***More cherry picking and dishonesty****

      January 29, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Eric G : Please provide any verifiable evidence that you are as good an artist as Picasso.

      Live4Him : Here you go, one filled in rainbow brite coloring book, and I didn't go outside the lines once!!

      January 29, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Akira

      "How do you know?"
      Because I know who you are, and if you like, I'll post your name and the place of your employment whose computer you are using.
      If you want to be thought of as male, fine...but it wouldn't be true.

      Carry on.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Eric G

      Why are you changing the subject? You have made a claim that your god exists. That claim has an inherent burden of proof that can only be satisfied through the verification of supporting evidence. You have presented no verifiable evidence supporting your claim. Your claim is invalid.

      You stole fizzy lifting drinks.
      You bumped into the ceiling which now must be washed and sterilized, so you get NOTHING.
      You LOSE.
      Good DAY sir.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : the possibility of an explanation that is yet to be discovered.

      Of course! It is ALWAYS possible. My posit is that based upon the evidence that we have TODAY, the Biblical God is the best answer.

      @ME II : the possibility of a non-intelligent supernatural cause.

      I'm assuming that you meant intelligent non-supernatural cause. However this only pushing the issue of creation backward, leading to the presumption that an infinite series of causes is logical – but it is not. This is known as the logic fallacy of ad infinitium.

      @ME II : the possibility that no creation is needed.

      The leading scientific theory of the creation of this universe includes the creation of matter, energy and time via the Big Bang. So, while your posit is reasonable, it is lacking support. And, as I mentioned above, if / when we find support for this presumption, we would need to reevaluate the issue of the Biblical God being the best answer. But, I'm not holding my breath.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Akira

      Observer,
      Yes, but she supports the Bible that discriminates against women and constantly treats them as inferior."

      Yes, she does, and yes, it does.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Akira : Because I know who you are, and if you like, I'll post your name and the place of your employment whose computer you are using.

      Go ahead. This ought to be interesting. What city do I live in? Where do I work? How old am I? etc.

      However, why bother. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Akira, Cool! I wish you could teach me that

      January 29, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Are you still using those fallacious points? Your entire post starts with an argument from ignorance.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers : That is an argument from ignorance, just because you can supply an answer in no way implies it is the right one

      Ummm... THIS is how science works – by look at the evidence and reaching the most likely conclusion.

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers : You conflate your book to to dovetail with science but then ignore and obfuscate science where your book and science conflict, it is dishonest

      Where?

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers : Once again you claim prophacies as coming true but ignore the ones that didn't

      Not all prophesies are meant to be fulfilled at the same time. Some were prior to Christ to legimatize a messenger of God to the people, while others were at the first coming of Christ, and still others will be at his return.

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers : confirmation bias

      No, the scientific process. Once you falsify a posit, it is dropped from consideration.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Lie4Him
      You did not post anything scientific here. You posted a group of false assumptions that led to false conlusions. What is scientific about that?

      January 29, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • Eric G

      "Of course! It is ALWAYS possible. My posit is that based upon the evidence that we have TODAY, the Biblical God is the best answer."

      So, your entire position is an argument from ignorance. You do not understand evidence that does not support your world view, and so you deny it rather than educate yourself.

      Thank you for clarifying.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "My posit is that based upon the evidence that we have TODAY, the Biblical God is the best answer."
      Best answer, by what standard?
      First, the "Biblical God" does not answer anything about how the universe got here, nor how a supposed God got here, so your "answer" is just pushing the question back another step.
      Second, your argument is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are implying, I think, that a "lack of a natural explanation" is the "lack of evidence to the contrary" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

      "The leading scientific theory of the creation of this universe includes the creation of matter, energy and time via the Big Bang."
      The Big Bang model is limited in that we can't see beyond a certain point in the past. Additionally, you are neglecting other hypotheses.

      "I'm assuming that you meant intelligent non-supernatural cause."
      No, I meant supernatural non-intelligence, if supernatural means beyond our universe, e.g. a multi-verse. There very well could be a "naturalistic" explanation that is beyond our universe.

      Essentially, your argument fails because you don't define what you mean by "best" nor do explain how "the Biblical God" fits that definition.
      It also fails as a logical proof, if that is what you intended, because you fail to eliminate all possible options.

      January 29, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      ""Ummm... THIS is how science works – by look at the evidence and reaching the most likely conclusion.""

      The evidence does not lead to the conclusion you claim. There is no evidence of a being that exists outside of space and time nor is there eveidence such a being interacts in this existence.

      "Where"

      People walking on water, the dead rising from graves, living in whales for three days...the list is LONG.

      "Not all prophesies are meant to be fulfilled at the same time. Some were prior to Christ to legimatize a messenger of God to the people, while others were at the first coming of Christ, and still others will be at his return."

      There are prophacies that never came true and now are impossible to come true, regardless of you mental gymnastics to create loopholes.

      "No, the scientific process. Once you falsify a posit, it is dropped from consideration."

      And your god can be falsified..

      January 29, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
  9. donner

    Ask a Republican if the matter of abortion will ever be settled. They will say no, it's too good for fundraising. Ask a Democrat if abortion will ever be settled. They will say no, it's too good for fundraising. Get it yet??

    January 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • Chuckles

      .... I think I get it.

      You're saying that everyone loves abortion?

      January 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • sam stone

      Abortion is a cash cow to both sides

      January 29, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @sam

      So..... politicans are in favor of cow abortions? That's weird

      January 29, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "cow abortions"

      Mmmmm – pre-baby veal.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
  10. Universe

    Islamic scripture (Quran says)

    “They say (subconsciously), "We live only this life; we will not be resurrected. If you could only see them when they stand before their Lord! He would say, "Is this not the truth?" They would say, "Yes, by our Lord." He would say, "You have incurred the retribution by your disbelief." [6:30]

    “Losers indeed are those who disbelieve in meeting God, until the Hour comes to them suddenly, then say, "We deeply regret wasting our lives in this world." They will carry loads of their sins on their backs; what a miserable load! [6:31]

    “The life of this world is no more than illusion and vanity, while the abode of the Hereafter is far better for the righteous. Do you not understand?! [6:32]

    “Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative (a temporary god) on Earth." They said, "Will You place therein one who will spread evil therein and shed blood, while we sing Your praises, glorify You, and uphold Your absolute authority?" He said, "I know what you do not know." [2:30]

    “They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.”[22:74]

    “If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.” [Quran 6:116]

    “God: there is no other god besides Him, the Living, the Eternal. Never a moment of unawareness or slumber overtakes Him. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Who could intercede with Him, except in accordance with His will? He knows their past, and their future. No one attains any knowledge, except as He wills. His dominion encompasses the heavens and the earth, and ruling them never burdens Him. He is the Most High, the Great.” [2:255]

    Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.

    January 29, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Eric G

      Please provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists. Without proof of existence, your claims of that gods actions, abilities or desires are intellectually dishonest.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • Saraswati

      I've read the Quran cover to cover and found it boring and repeti'tive. You should ask yourself why a religion has to put such strict controls on members converting or criticism? In this case I think you'll find that it's because even in the world of religions, Islam can't compete in an open marketplace, so they have to rig the market in its favor.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • End Religion

      Some more magic words for you...

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfahp4J_-_o&w=640&h=390]

      January 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Universe : Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website

      Perhaps you can explain something for me. In Surah 5:116, Allah identifies the members of the Trinity as Jesus, Mary and God. However, the Christian view of the Trinity is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So, why did Allah misidentify the members of the Trinity?

      And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. Surah 5:116

      January 29, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Pete

      Live4Him, perhaps it was Christians and not Allah who misidentified the Trinity.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • Akira

      "So, why did Allah misidentify the members of the Trinity?"

      Rather an offhand way to completely dismiss someone else's belief system and holy book, n'est ce pas?

      January 29, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • MEI

      Who misidentified the trinity? Xtians or Muslims? Which schixophrenics claims to believe?

      I wish the imaginary trinity could be identified in modern times – they better show up, which they dont coz they cant, and they cant coz they aren't!

      January 29, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
  11. Poltergeist

    Like Beating a dead horse on a mole hill.

    January 29, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • niknak

      Is you mixed sayings sentence in support of the catholic church or against it?

      January 29, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • sam

      This is the highest level of sense fundies ever make.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • Poltergeist

      Neither, I'm pro-mole today.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:30 am |
  12. Doc Vestibule

    "No man is an island — "
    Much as we may feel and act as Individuals, our race is a single organism, always growing and branching — which must be pruned regularly to be healthy.
    This necessity need not be argued; anyone with eyes can see that any organism which grows without limit always dies in its own poisons. The only rational question is whether pruning is best done before or after birth.
    Being an incurable sentimentalist I favor the former of these methods — killing makes me queasy, even when it's a case of "He's dead and I'm alive and that's the way I wanted it to be."
    But this may be a matter of taste. Some shamans think that it is better to be killed in a war, or to die in childbirth, or to starve in misery, than never to have lived at all. They may be right.
    But I don't have to like it — and I don't."

    – Robert Heinlein

    January 29, 2013 at 10:09 am |
  13. the AnViL

    according to the law – and according to the catholic church, who invented xianity.... life begins at birth.

    glad we could get that all cleared up.

    January 29, 2013 at 8:46 am |
    • Science

      Like the talking snake and a bone.

      January 29, 2013 at 8:54 am |
    • BRC

      the AnVil,
      While I don't disagree with your sentement, I don't want credit going where it isn't due. The Catholic church did not creat christianity, it did spearhead and drive teh developement and proliferation of christianity as we (sort of) know it today, but they were not the first Christians, thought they would LOVE to be able to say they were.

      January 29, 2013 at 9:15 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @BRC
      According to Judaic law – (and aren't they the true originators of all the Abrahamic religions?) an unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud says that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

      January 29, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • Chuckles

      @Doc

      Correct! It's the law known as Pikuah Nefesh (butchered that spelling I think) meaning "to save a life". The law that trumps all others. You can break any law to uphold this one, including eating during Yom Kippur, killing in self-defense, etc... or in this specific case if the mothers life is threatened by a baby still in the womb.

      It's interesting that most people ignore this little tid bit and claim that since life begins at conception, it has equal status at 1 day old even though the religion that they're basing this off of doesn't even dogmatically agree to that.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Abortion

      2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

      Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Observer

      Bill Deacon,

      You would have given all the comments from the Bible concerning abortion, but there aren't any.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • ME II

      Bill Deacon
      "What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Abortion"
      Not sure what this has to do with anything. It's just the RCCs policy statement.

      "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."
      Isn't this stating before conception,i.e. "formed"? So, is every dead sperm and/or ovum a case of murder now?

      January 29, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Anvil states that according to law and the Catholic Church that life begins at birth. I'm just providing the catechism as correction. If I'm not mistaken doesn't the pro-choice argument hinge on the fact that the law and the Church are conflicting? Are abortion advocates now arguing that life begins at conception but that the right to arbitrarily terminate that life is granted to women? I can't really see that you have any argument left to make but that. As such you might just as well come out of the closet and admit you support a society in which one segment, by virtue of their gender, is granted authority to commit genocide.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Observer, the teaching in the catechism is philosophically sound and consistent with Scripture. You are free to reject both but you cannot dismiss the catechism as arbitrary nor claim it is what it is not as Anvil has done. Incidentally, can you give me the philosophical construct under which abortion is found to be anything less than profoundly evil?

      January 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
  14. Life begins at conception!

    . (Period) this is NOT a matter for debate.

    January 29, 2013 at 8:35 am |
    • just wondering

      if you have a period do you have conception?

      January 29, 2013 at 8:37 am |
    • BRC

      Why isn't this a matter for debate? Sounds a perfectly rational thing to discuss and try to understand better. I for one disagree with you, conception is the foundation of a life, but not a life in itself. I believe life requires a degree of self sufficiency that is not present in a pair of recently divided cells.

      January 29, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Becaus this is a religious opinion and religious cults do not like to have their opinions challenged.

      January 29, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      The moment where life begins is rooted deep in time...like 3.5 billion years ago. Everything since is merely a continuation of pre-existing life. No life is created.
      But thanks for playing.

      January 29, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • myweightinwords

      [facetious] If you have your period, you have not conceived. You have wasted another precious, almost, could be, maybe life by not having unprotected sex at the opportune moment and your body is punishing you with menstruation. [ /facetious]

      I'll be the first to tell you that I'm not sure when life begins. I will tell you that I do not believe it is at conception.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • sam

      Gosh, that clears it all up, you wandering in and making that declaration! If not for you, there might have been a continuing debate or something....

      January 29, 2013 at 11:13 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Apparently there is a whole lot of people who disagree with you, so by definition it is a matter of debate.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Saraswati

      For the record, we're talking about personhood, not life. if we cared about "life" we'd be jailing people for swatting mosquitos, not to mention torturing farm animals. If you want to put 8 cells that don't contain a neuron between them on some sort of pedestal, go for it. But don't expect a thinking, caring and educated populace to fall in step behind that kind of nuttery.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Russ

      scientifically speaking, new DNA (as distinct from the parents) is formed at conception.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Life begins long before conception. Rights begin after viability. Not before.

      Russ would love to believe otherwise, but the fact that a fetus has DNA that is "unique" does not mean diddly.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Russ,

      DNA is an instruction manual. Calling DNA a person is like calling a blueprint a building. You may be that gullible, but most of us are not.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Saraswati : DNA is an instruction manual.

      You cannot exist without that "instruction manual", but a building can exist without a blueprint. So you're posit is falsified.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • sam stone

      Life may or may not begin at conception, but rights do not

      January 29, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • The Truth

      " a building can exist without a blueprint." It's gonna be a pretty shlty building though...

      January 29, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      With full credit to Tyson Degrasse, kind of like putting a sewer treatment plant next to a playground.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Is God Necessary?
      __ a) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create matter, energy and time (which we know exists),
      __ b) Given the lack of a natural explanation to create life (which we know exists),
      Therefore, this implies some supernatural being (i.e. God) is necessary.

      ***That is an argument from ignorance, just because you can supply an answer in no way implies it is the right one***

      Which God Did It?
      __ a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time ,
      __ b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
      Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration.

      ***You conflate your book to to dovetail with science but then ignore and obfuscate science where your book and science conflict, it is dishonest***

      Did the Judaism God Do It?
      __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
      __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
      Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.

      ***Once again you claim prophacies as coming true but ignore the ones that didn't***

      Did the Islamic God Do It?
      __ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
      __ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
      __ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
      Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

      ***confirmation bias***

      Did the Christian God Do It?
      __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
      __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
      Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for the answer to how we got here. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the better answer.

      ***More cherry picking and dishonesty***

      January 29, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Live4hime,

      "You cannot exist without that "instruction manual", but a building can exist without a blueprint. So you're posit is falsified."

      Not even remotely so. My point is that a building does not equal a blueprint, and likewise a person does not equal their DNA. Exactly what point you are making I'm not sure since I can't find one that makes sense, but let's assume you mean that we're we to remove all the DNA in a person that person would die? This doesn't work against my claim for two reasons. First, we aren't talking about the same strand of DNA that was first created. That strand was replicated over and over and is not required for continued life. Second, if anything that were required for continued life were necessary then you could make the same claim about one's mitochondria, which have a separate and much longer genetic lineage.

      Or did you mean something else my your smug little dismissal?

      January 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
  15. Doesn't almighty science answer that question?
    January 29, 2013 at 8:30 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Doesn't almighty science answer that question?

      Yes, it does. Unique DNA is created at conception. Thus, an individual is created on day one.

      January 29, 2013 at 8:33 am |
    • Primewonk

      Live4Him wrote, "Unique DNA is created at conception. Thus, an individual is created on day one."

      So what happens when (3 times per 1000 pregnancies) when a zygote, after several cycles of cellular division splits into 2 (or more) separate distinct zygotes?

      And since you nitters claim there is ensoulment at conception, which zygote gets the soul? Does you god have a batch of emergeny back-up souls to use?

      January 29, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Science

      Soul on bottom of shoe.

      January 29, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Primewonk : which zygote gets the soul? Does you god have a batch of emergeny back-up souls to use?

      First, God created time, so NOTHING is happening that God didn't know in advance. Second, God has created every soul when He created this universe, so its a simple matter of assigning Soul A to one zygote and Soul B to the other after He splits them.

      January 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • sam stone

      "First, God created time"

      If that were the case, you'd think Jesus would be more prompt on his second coming

      January 29, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • sam stone

      "NOTHING is happening that God didn't know in advance."

      If god knew in advance who would accept his son/himself as a savior, why did he create those who would not?

      Does your god just get off on torturing people?

      January 29, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
  16. Jesus

    "Why would anyone want to live the life that the phony jesus has? Do something for the world phony, leave it asap."

    Since you are a liar, enjoy burning in the fire for eternity.

    January 29, 2013 at 8:12 am |
    • sam stone

      jesus: your daddy is a vindictive, petty pr1ck. apparently, the apple does not fall far from the tree

      January 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
  17. ronvan

    TWO WORDS: HYPOCRITES & MONEY!!! Guess the catholic church really thinks they can have it both ways?

    January 29, 2013 at 8:10 am |
    • Akira

      Funny how they obey God's laws except when it's more expedient to use man's laws...

      January 29, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • Saraswati

      It's pretty funny when people don't think these things through. It they really made every embryo a person imagine the women charged with human smuggling for not getting visas when their kids cross national borders? Census forms and redistributing will be great fun...we should probably introduce a calculation for the estimated number of zygots carried and never known due to spontaneous abortion. It should all keep ever more lawyers employed.

      January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am |
    • Saraswati

      Redistricting not redistributing. #*¥£ autocorrect.

      January 29, 2013 at 10:02 am |
  18. Ronald

    The early embryo is not an individual. Until about 14 days after conception, the embryo can divide into two or more parts. Under the right conditions, each of those parts can develop into a separate fetus. This is the phenomenon known as "twinning." Twinning shows that adult human beings are not identical with a previously existing zygote or embryo. If that were true, then each pair of twins would be identical with the same embryo. This is a logically incoherent position. If A and B are separate individuals, they cannot both be identical with a previously existent entity, C.
    As the early embryo is not an individual, it cannot be the moral equivalent of an adult human. To claim that someone is harmed, there must be "someone" there. We do not and should not grant moral rights to mere groupings of cells.
    The potential of the embryo does not make it a human person. Those who rely on the potential of the embryo to support their claim that it is morally equivalent to an adult human conveniently ignore the important role that extrinsic conditions play in embryonic and fetal development. An embryo in a petri dish is going nowhere. An embryo needs nutrients provided by the mother through the placenta in order to develop into a fetus and beyond. These nutrients regulate the epigenetic state of the embryo. The embryo does not have the inherent capability of expressing its potential on its own.
    Additionally relevant to this discussion is the fact that embryos used in research are spare embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. In other words, they are embryos that are destined for the trash can, unless they are used in research. Therefore, they have no prospect of developing into a fetus. Their potential is no more than a theoretical construct.
    The claim that the embryo is the moral equivalent of a human person is implicitly rejected by everyone. One important fact about embryonic development that is often overlooked is that between two-thirds and four-fifths of all embryos that are generated through standard sexual reproduction are spontaneously aborted. If embryos have the same status as human persons, this is a horrible tragedy and public health crisis that requires immediate and sustained attention. Not only should we abandon stem cell research, but we should reallocate the vast majority of our research dollars from projects such as cancer research into programs to help prevent this staggering loss of human life. Interestingly, none of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research have called for research programs that might increase the odds of embryo survival. Their failure to address this issue is puzzling if the embryo deserves the same moral respect as human persons.
    Similarly, IVF, at least as currently practiced, would appear to be morally objectionable regardless of whether some embryos produced by this procedure are used in research. Those who utilize IVF intentionally create many embryos that they know will be discarded eventually. How can we accept a process that consigns entities that supposedly have the status of human persons to the rubbish bin?
    The moral views of opponents are incoherent.

    January 29, 2013 at 7:59 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Ronald : Twinning shows that adult human beings are not identical with a previously existing zygote or embryo. If that were true, then each pair of twins would be identical with the same embryo.

      Identical in what way? The DNA is the same, and of course an adult is not the same as an embryo. In fact, even an adult is not the same from one day to the next. Life's experiences impact each individual. A child scrapes a knee and their life is different from the day before – they have a scrape.

      @Ronald : The embryo does not have the inherent capability of expressing its potential on its own.

      Neither does a newborn. If a newborn were left on its own in the woods, it would die. If a child were left on its own in the woods, it would die. Only when they are nurtured to the point that they can take care of themselves are they able to express their own potentials.

      January 29, 2013 at 8:21 am |
    • Science

      New education standards created by the majority of states for 2013 called Stem education standards
      Creating heart valves for transplant with pig valves and stem cells, go figure. Ears too.

      Peace

      January 29, 2013 at 8:26 am |
    • Ronald

      "The DNA is the same, and of course an adult is not the same as an embryo."

      1- DNA is chemical compound composed of chain of peptides and proteins strung together in a double helix formation that is like a blueprint in telling the organic chemistry in your body how to build cells, what kind of cells, and where to build them. And chemical compounds can not be considered as a living things, because in realty, all chemical compounds ( e.g enzymes, fats , lipids , proteins , ........... etc ) are non-living things. So, if we said DNA is living, we to say that all chemical compounds are living also.
      2- DNA is non-living, because it is a molecule not an organism, and this molecule is not sharing organisms in any property, even in replication process as it needs co-workers ( e.g. Enzymes, RNA co-factors ) to succeed its replication.
      3- DNA is non-living because it cannot maintain homeostasis on its own. And it does not have a metabolism of its own.
      4- Is water living or non-living? Water is the simplest example of something not living but responsible for maintaining life. So, DNA is not living but responsible for so many important functions related to life as it is the genetic material which control all the vital processes in the bodies of -almost all the organisms.
      5- DNA is non-living because it is not having any growth and it can't grow, and the process of replication is not growth, it is simply " Duplication ".
      6- Firstly, living things are made up of the living material or the protoplasm while non-living things are made up of dead material. And DNA is non-living because it is made up of dead material ( e.g Codons and nucleotides ), in additional to that all the structure of DNA composed of dead materials that are chemical components.
      7- If we defined growth as adding new material to our bodies, then DNA is living, because in the process of replication it add new sequences to its structure, but even in this case we have say it is non-living because DNA is not showing development which is the second part of growth, and simply development is the changes in structure living things undergo as it grow and age. So. no change in the structure occurring after replication process.
      8- Birth and death is one of the characteristics of living thing, DNA appeared in the living and it is not having birth point to have death point. So, DNA is non-living because it never dies.
      9- DNA is not living. It is a chemical – a large fragile molecule – in fact it is a FANTASTICALLY HUGE MOLECULE and for what it is, it is in fact remarkably robust. It contains a series of chemical bonds linked together in a chain, and since not all the links of the chain are the same, it is possible to store information there. Our modern computers use binary – a code made of two digits – 1 and 0 or ON and OFF or MAGNETIZED and NOT MAGNETIZED. DNA uses quaternary code – 4 digits represented by four proteins.
      10- It is non-living; there is no debate in the biological community about this. It is a relatively inert chemical that can now be synthetically made. Considering DNA as living is like considering protein to be living. DNA is part of a living cell, as are proteins, fats and a number of other organic molecules.

      January 29, 2013 at 8:41 am |
    • Observer

      Ronald,

      Thank you for your comments. They are among the most intelligent and worthwhile comments I have ever seen on these blogs. You have educated all of us.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • The Truth

      Well said Ronald. If more people understood the issues I don't think as many people would have "issues"...

      January 29, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
  19. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Pray without ceasing in 2013
    Prayer changes things

    January 29, 2013 at 7:24 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!

      January 29, 2013 at 7:38 am |
    • just wondering

      Why would anyone want to live the life that the phony jesus has? Do something for the world phony, leave it asap.

      January 29, 2013 at 8:05 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...

      January 29, 2013 at 8:07 am |
    • Jesus

      Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn!
      Burnin'!

      To mass fires, yes! One hundred stories high
      People gettin' loose y’all gettin' down on the roof – Do you hear?
      (the folks are flaming) Folks were screamin' – out of control
      It was so entertainin' – when the boogie started to explode
      I heard somebody say

      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno!
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno!
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burnin'!

      Satisfaction (uhu hu hu) came in the chain reaction
      (burnin') I couldn't get enough, (till I had to self-destroy) so I had to
      self destruct, (uhu hu hu)
      The heat was on (burnin’), rising to the top, huh!
      Everybody's goin' strong (uhu hu hu)
      And that is when my spark got hot
      I heard somebody say

      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno!
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down, yoh!
      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno!
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burnin'!

      Up above my head I hear music in the air – I hear music!
      That makes me know there's (somebody) a party somewhere

      Satisfaction came in a chain reaction – Do you hear?
      I couldn't get enough, so I had to self destruct,
      The heat was on, rising to the top
      Everybody's goin' strong
      That is when my spark got hot
      I heard somebody say

      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno! (Aah yeah!)
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno, yeah!
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno! (Aah yeah!)
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burn baby burn! – Disco inferno, yeah!
      Burn baby burn! – Burn that mama down
      Burnin’!

      I just can't stop
      When(till) my spark gets hot
      Just can't stop
      When my spark gets hot

      Burning, burning, burning, burning...

      January 29, 2013 at 8:17 am |
    • == o ==

      The only kind of "trickle-down" that actually works:

      "pervert alert" degenerates to:
      "Taskmaster" degenerates to:
      "Ronald Regonzo" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "just wondering degenerates to:
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      and many other names, but of course it's the
      the disgruntled ex Evangelical Fortune Cookie Co. "writer ".

      January 29, 2013 at 8:18 am |
    • truth be told

      Scratch an atheist find a liar. Thanks to all the bottom feeders that commented and helped prove how useless atheism really is.

      January 29, 2013 at 8:36 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...

      January 29, 2013 at 8:39 am |
    • Observer

      Atheism,

      We haven't seen much of your ignorant blogger name since the massacre of the 20 children.

      January 29, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • Poltergeist

      I've always admired prayer bots ability to channel some of the craziest replies by spamming the same two lines.

      January 29, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
  20. Santi Clause

    What a shock! Catholics will bend the teaching for the almighty dollars.

    January 29, 2013 at 6:52 am |
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.