home
RSS
Pope Benedict makes first appearance since resignation news
February 13th, 2013
05:26 AM ET

Pope Benedict makes first appearance since resignation news

By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

Huge crowds in the Vatican cheered Pope Benedict XVI Wednesday as he made his first public appearance since announcing his resignation at the end of the month.

He thanked the Roman Catholic faithful in several languages and said it was not appropriate for him to continue as pope.

He appeared tired but not visibly unwell as he sat and read his remarks off several sheets of paper.

Benedict will also celebrate an Ash Wednesday mass marking the beginning of Lent at St. Peter's Basilica in the afternoon.

FULL STORY
- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (601 Responses)
  1. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    One hindu ignorant departs and next hindu ignorant will take over command to keep hinduism racism intact, way of hindus crooks to make hindus ignorants believe in things, a human should never believe in, called hindu Mitraism racist savior ism of hindu dark ages, labeled as Christianity to hind fool humanity. hinduism violation of American consti tution. a crime aginst humanity and truth absolute GOD.

    February 13, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • FREEMASONRY FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION BUG IN THE ASS OF ISLAM

      I like Hindus more and more. Every time you come along.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      every hindu denier of truth absolute is always in love with hinduism denial of truth absolute in their hindu criminal Lucifer ism, secularism.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
    • Islam and so forth

      Thanks to pizza chefism, greasy-ism of pepperoni thin crust folded, fork eating of deep dish red sauce ANCHOVIES, east coast and their pizza chef ism copy cat pizza chef Anthony, By the slice have lost meanings of traditional crust and alfredo of By the slice, ANCHOVIES, The deep dish red sauce, traditional crust and alfredo of Sappo filthy mall pizza. They hand toss the pie, but on their own pizza chef ism, ignorance. Visit bestpizzapie.com to learn meaning's of Word ANCHOVIES, deep dish red sauce, by the slice and the world ism

      February 13, 2013 at 8:59 pm |
    • The Four Yodelling Tap Dancers of the Apocalypse

      ANCHOVIES!?!?!?!?! Way to ruin a perfectly divine pizza, you freak!

      February 13, 2013 at 9:29 pm |
  2. The Dark Truth

    Christians, no amount of praying or preaching will save you from what waits for you beyond the grave. Darkness waits for you.

    February 13, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
    • The Dork Knight

      Negative 5 and the square root of infinity?

      February 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
    • The Lonely Grave of Paula Schultz

      Beyond the grave, darkness awaits you! DARKNESS!!!!

      Unless you have a flashlight and dig your way out like Beatrix Kiddo

      February 13, 2013 at 8:40 pm |
    • The Dark Truth

      Your god is both the good and the evil in this universe. He bleeds all darkness unto us and will swallow your light with glee.

      February 13, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • The Dark Truth

      Your spiteful and shallow lord god cares naught for the suffering of children. Of all the darkness in this universe, his is the most barbaric and hateful.

      February 13, 2013 at 9:18 pm |
  3. Answer

    Here is a pretty easy challenge for you amateur apologists and dishonest christians...

    Fill in the two blanks on this statement. Fill in your viewpoint.

    --

    "I believe the age of the earth is between _______ and ______ years old."

    Simple right?

    February 13, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
    • Apatheist

      somewhere between zero and infinity

      February 13, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Apatheist,
      “somewhere between zero and infinity”
      We know the first number is a little more than zero, but I agree with your answer on the second number.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
    • Apatheist

      i appreciate your partial agreement but neither zero nor infinity is an acceptable answer

      February 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm |
    • American Idol Judges

      You get 0 points for that question,sorry to let you know you are NOT moving to the next round :(

      February 13, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
    • Quip

      It is ironic that answer is asking the question

      February 13, 2013 at 9:26 pm |
    • satan

      guys, keep up the good work! great question to confuse our enemies. just keep asking those christians the age of the earth.way to go!!!

      February 13, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
    • Zingo

      Satan, isn't it true that you are Santa with dyslexia?

      February 13, 2013 at 9:39 pm |
    • Science

      Explains Life great show watching now

      Earth From Space

      Detailed satellite images reveal the web of connections that sustain life on Earth. Aired February 13, 2013 on PBS

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html

      February 14, 2013 at 4:40 am |
  4. clarity

    I keep hearing Chad say:

    "The bible chronicles over 2000 years of history, all of which can be checked, and NONE of which has ever been proved incorrect."

    I'm not sure if Smithsonian was still talking about Genesis or being more general (it was just after a comment re: Genesis), but, let's just take Genesis. Chad's response may be true in the same sense that him saying I can't prove he isn't wearing a red shirt. But it doesn't mean much because it is about a period of time where, with respect to the claims made in the Bible, we know very little. A particular piece of folklore that morphed over a periods of time when man was afraid of his own shadow and purports to be about much older periods of time is not knowledge. I would say at the time Genesis was written, it was a best guess to explain the unknown, but based on previous fable that was trying to do the same. So I would like to know what out of Genesis Chad thinks he can actually prove.

    February 13, 2013 at 7:29 pm |
    • clarity

      I will relocate this – it was a reply.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • Answer

      "The bible chronicles over 2000 years of history, all of which can be checked, and NONE of which has ever been proved incorrect."

      ==== It's what every looney christian will say. Even that other loon Lie4 has stated that she has "verified all the bible as truth."

      February 13, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      " It's what every looney christian will say. Even that other loon Lie4 has stated that she has "verified all the bible as truth."

      And any Mormon will tell you the same thing about the book of Mormon, though for some reason the dishonest chads and lie4hers don't seem to accept the Mormon book as the Mormons have presented it... strange, they have exactly the same evidence in support of it's veracity as Chad does of the bible...

      February 13, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
    • James

      The Quran is just as historically accurate as the bible and why so many are converting to that religion.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
    • Hmmmmmm

      "The Quran is just as historically accurate as the bible and why so many are converting to that religion."

      "as historically accurate" = "Hey 4 outa 10 aint bad, right? Right?"

      This is like saying "My mother has been just as s.exually active with strangers as most Moms."

      February 13, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • Chad

      @clarity "I will relocate this – it was a reply."

      =>always makes me laugh when I see an atheist posting to the wrong place.. they spend so much time and effort criticizing theists for doing that.. :-)

      I do believe that atheists are descended from an ancient race of vampires.. how else to explain their utter inability to see their reflection in the mirror?

      February 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
    • Science

      I bet we could name a few more creationist with an iron core for thier brain.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm |
    • Akira

      Chad, is there any reason for the gratuitous snarkiness when you could merely have answered clarity's post?
      Like you have never missed hitting the reply button?
      My goodness.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
    • Akira

      "I do believe that atheists are descended from an ancient race of vampires.. how else to explain their utter inability to see their reflection in the mirror?"

      What research have you done to come to this conclusion, and how many atheists have you met personally that would make you make this gigantic leap of faith?

      Yeah, I'm being facetious. It goes both ways, there, Chad.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
  5. Science

    Pope should come out of closet for lent and be honest about Adam and Eve.

    February 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
  6. Reasonably

    I prefer being a good human and raising my kids to be good humans without some guy in a funny hat telling me to be good or at least pay him off if I can't be. So many gods to choose from...I'll choose not to decide and make my choice.

    February 13, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      All the golden gilt of the Church and it's leaders pointy hat expose the guilt that paid for it. If the RCC hadn't convinced people they were already guilty the Popes hat would be a brown grocery bag.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
  7. Mohammad A Dar

    WHAT DO YOU CALL HIM OR HER WHEN SOMEONE "RESIGNS" FROM HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS DUTIES?

    February 13, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Roger that

      Most of the time "felon".

      February 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Odin

      Palin.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
  8. Bootyfunk

    i wonder which old white guy they'll pick to replace benedict. even though there are plenty of catholics in south america and africa, i bet a million dollars the next pope will be white.

    February 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • Reasonably

      Egg. I like Egg's Benedict.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
    • CrossCountry

      Booty

      Oh youre right – he will be white....as white as my a$$ in december.

      ......and that's pretty white.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
  9. Mass Debater

    I get the same feeling listening to religious zealots as I do hearing a pet psychic talk about what somebody's puppy named Noodles is thinking...

    February 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Hubert

      Pet Psychics are absolutely brilliant. they cannot be proven wrong. It's a truly genius scam.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • Zingo

      I prefer the whole weather man thing. They can be proven wrong and still have a job the next day. And they are never asked to even admit they were wrong, much less exlain it. Heck, they can be wrong every day of their life without risking their jobs.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      Weather men don't say "Tomorrow it will rain and give us about 3 inches in just 8 hours". They say "Tomorrow there is a 90% chance of rain which we could see bringing us up to 3 inches or so of rainfall and could last most of the day..."

      If religious zealots were more like weathermen I would have no problem with them. Regular reports saying "Well, we just don't know for sure what the future will bring, but based on our beliefs we still have faith that things will work out pretty much according to the bible eventually... but again, no guarantee's...we'll just have to wait and see"

      February 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • truth be told

      >>give us about 3 inches in just 8 hours

      That's what she said. All so called atheists have three inches at the most.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @MD

      Fun fact. when a weatherperson says, "tomorrow there is a X% chance of rain" it means it will definitely rain tomorrow and that it will over X% of the area they are forecasting for, you watching that program just have an X% chance of being in the rainy area. Weather forecasters have actually way more guarantee and use less faith than the average believer.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Akira

      Tbt, I assume that you've seen quite a lot of inches in the name of Jesus, right?
      Otherwise, why would you make a claim like that?

      February 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • Hubert

      @Chuckles

      Actually that is not quite right. When a weather man says that there is an X% chance of rain. They are saying that when past conditions (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, ect..) have been at similar levels it has rained X% of the time.

      There are more factors determining our weather than we can currently measure and predict, thus the uncertainty built into weather reports.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Hubert

      I thought that at first, but it doesn't make sense. How could they know over the entire area they are forecasting for the possibility in percentage form that it will rain where I am? They can look at barometric pressure, humidity, clouds, etc... and know that with those conditions it will most likely rain, but they can't put a % on it, what they can do is look at the area, look where the clouds will be and then make a prediction on that.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      I work in insurance so I do not know the specifics, but I do have a client who is a meteorologist and from his description of the process it's a lot closer to what Hubert is mentioning. It's not an exact % chance of rain, but based on prior experience and wind trends it's the likelyhood that the area in question will experience rain and my client said they all try and use terms that stay away from sounding like a guarantee but only because they don't like getting blamed when some unusual cold front somewhere else effects their weather and the rain get's pushed North instead of East. But yes, they do have so many more tools today than they did just a few years ago and can have much more accurate weather reporting since they have so much more data than they used to have to base their predictions on.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      Did you know that statistically the most accurate weather forecast is "tomorrow will be the same as today," and any attempt to improve that based on radar or satellite or whatever actually degrades the accuracy? Basically it's chaos theory at play.

      February 13, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
  10. truth be told

    So called Catholics have long been proven to be liars. Their unfounded hatred for Truth is readily apparent to all normal people.They profess themselves wise but in reality the only one fooled by the low end so called Catholic is another low end so called Catholic.

    The Lord's Truth will not be denied. The lake of fire awaits those who try it.

    February 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "long been proven" = not really proven but it sounds good. If it had really long been proven, wouldn't I reference some proof instead of just making a false blanket statement?

      I'm not saying Cathloics aren't liars, but they are no more liars than any other religious fool.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Tortuga

      truth be told,
      "They profess themselves wise, but..."
      "The Lord's Truth will not be denied. The lake of fire awaits those who try it."

      I'll just bet that you think that you are wise to believe that, huh?

      It's turtles all the way down...

      February 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • truth be told

      All so called atheists and Catholics should get down on their knees as I do, in front of Jesus, and receive His salvation. All over their faces.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • truth be told

      All so called atheists are liars and the only ones fooled seems to be other so called atheists.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • truth be told

      Except also Catholics.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Akira

      Another "Catholics aren't really Christians" denier.
      Tbt does more to promote divisiveness than any politician. Well done, so-called Christian.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      catholics are liars. you do realize all christians denominations originally came from the catholics? you realize the catholic put your bible together? they're the OG christians - not that it's a good thing.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Akira

      Booty, that has been pointed out repeatedly, but alas.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
  11. Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

    Has anything improved with Christianity since 200+ years ago?
    =============================================

    Thomas Jefferson, POTUS #3 (from Notes on the State of Virginia):

    Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

    James Madison, POTUS #4, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights (from A Memorial and Remonstrance delivered to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785):

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    John Adams, POTUS #2 (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 09/03/1816):

    I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.

    Ben Franklin (from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772):

    If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.

    Thomas Paine (from The Age of Reason):

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

    February 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • clarity

      For instance, just last week we learn of the head of LCMS chastising a minister of that church for participating in a joint service for the victims of the Newtown school shooting. You have WELS which is perhaps just as extreme fundamental, and then you have ELCA which already performs gay marriage where legal. And that's just some of the Lutherans. Several other major denominations in the U.S. exhibit these same polar extremes. There may be a core belief in Christ, but none of them interpret their wonderful little book the same way. Conflicted right from the very beginning, as evident of the religions splintering from the beginning and its splintering ever since.

      For instance, the Westboro Baptist Church. Need I say more?

      February 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • truth be told

      So called Catholics have long been proven to be liars. Their unfounded hatred for Truth is readily apparent to all normal people.They profess themselves wise but in reality the only one fooled by the low end so called Catholic is another low end so called Catholic.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • truth be told

      And yet besides taking their remarks out of context all those mention also expressed a hope and joy in their eternal place in heaven, hardly the so called atheist types when their whole works are displayed. Truth be told even the remarks chosen for this illusion (lie) by a so called atheist if read in the context of the entire correspondence would display an entirely different conclusion. What is worse, the liar that brought these remarks to this blog already knows they are a lie.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      TBT does not seem to know how Deist some of our key founders were. They were Most Christian and they did believe in God, but their Deism was on the rise before the Constitution was drafted. Many of the founders were quite Deist at the end of their lives. I contend that the fighting that they witnessed in their home states among conservative Christian sects was a big factor in their own personal faiths and their ultimate decision to construct the wall of separation of church and state.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      ( mostly Christian )

      February 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
  12. truth be told

    Science does not exist in opposition to God. God has given science to mankind. The Bible properly understood offers insight and wisdom to the scientist. So called atheists have long been proven to be liars. Their unfounded hatred for God and all Truth is readily apparent to all normal people.They profess themselves wise but in reality the only one fooled by the low end so called atheist is another low end so called atheist.

    February 13, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • truth be told

      my genitals receive unemployment checks.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Hubert

      Please give an example of a scientific insight, that has occurred within the last 500 years, that was gleaned through the bible.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • truth be told

      They are also insured.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • truth be told

      When confronted with a real Truth the so called atheist will often steal a name on an anonymous blog. Add thief and coward to the qualities of the so called atheist.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • truth be told

      The fact that the scientific, medical practice of bleeding was in fact killing people. Truth be told George Washington was a victim of science while his bedside Bible contained the scientific Truth that would have spared his life.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • truth be told

      For example, it specifically states in Matthew that the wearing of wooden teeth is dangerous and unhealthy.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • truth be told

      So called Catholics have long been proven to be liars. Their unfounded hatred for Truth is readily apparent to all normal people.They profess themselves wise but in reality the only one fooled by the low end so called Catholic is another low end so called Catholic.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "The Bible properly understood offers insight and wisdom to the scientist." And i'm sure TbT is the one to school us on how to "properly" understand things that say to kill women and children, keep slaves and marry your r a p i st.

      "So called atheists have long been proven to be liars." I fail to see how you can claim to have proven something without even proving that the invisible wise guy in the sky you worship is anything more than the warped fanciful imaginings of a deluded psycopath.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • Hubert

      tbt

      The fact that blood letting is dangerous was not learned through examining the bible. It was learned through the science of biology. The bible never provides new scientific information, at best, it occasionally makes statements that are compatible with scientific findings.

      Additionally bloodletting was commonly practiced by priest in the dark ages. These same priest taut that it was a sin to use pagan herbal medicines, some of which are now known to effective.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • truth be told

      And bloodletting was the science of the day whether physician or priest and the answer was indeed discovered in the Bible. You asked one example you were given one example.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • truth be told

      Mass de...
      The passages you refer to out of context are misrepresented on several points because you tend to lump several unrelated passages in one argument. First there is nothing wrong with justice and judgment. Second biblical slavery is not the inst itution of slavery as practiced before 1865 in America. Third the biblical passage you are referring to as a r.apist is not the intent of the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew deals with the sin of consented pre-marital relations not the crime you suspect. English is not Hebrew.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • truth be told

      Losing control of your bowels is a sign from God.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      @tbt "First there is nothing wrong with justice and judgment." However, god's punishments are wildly unjust, just as many of his laws are. His level of overreaction would be cruel and unusual punishment on earth, and extremely so. EWternal torture is just plain evil, especially when he is torturing you for not being his toady. That's the only reason people are in hell. Murderers who accept Jesus get heaven. Sorry, but that is not justice but corrupt favoritism and Stalinesque cruelty.

      @tbt "Second biblical slavery is not the inst itution of slavery as practiced before 1865 in America." So biblical slavery is good slavery, eh? Nonsense. It was horrible and evil.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Hubert

      tbt

      The danger of blood letting was not a scientific insight that was gleaned from the bible. Also bloodletting was a tradition, not a science. The scientific method was invented in the 1500's. Blood letting had been going on for hundreds of years before that. But either way you said that the bible had many scientific insights. So you should easily be able to give me three more scientific insights, within the past 100 years, that came directly from the bible.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • Pete

      Smithsonian, that's what Chad does posts crap over and over again hoping it to be true regardless how many times you show them the faults in their arguments. Chad is a troll on this site, nothing more.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
    • Pete

      ok this too is an oops not sure why they are posting in strange places.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:27 pm |
  13. Odin

    Bah. Quitter still here? I laugh at your puny hat.

    February 13, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
  14. Ice Age

    I think Chad is busy looking for more non-scientific nonsense to copy and paste.

    February 13, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      No, he's just looking for the best way to quote mine anyone and everyone like the cowardly, dishonest, pathetic little fuck he is.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      I enjoy seeing him mistake unsupported conjecture for evidence.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Ice Age

      Chad, you never answered my question:

      Would you argue that a god, rather than a series of random phenomena, created humans? Would you also argue that all life did not come from microbes that survived the first ice age?

      February 13, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @Ice Age "Would you argue that a god, rather than a series of random phenomena, created humans? "
      @Chad " I would argue that, yes. Please note that I am a theistic evolutionist and do not believe that herds of cows materialized out of thin air and started eating grass"

      @Ice Age "Would you also argue that all life did not come from microbes that survived the first ice age?"
      @Chad "I am a theistic evolutionist, see above. I believe in common ancestry. "

      February 13, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Ice Age

      Chad, you would argue that humans are not necessary in this or any other universe, correct? That humans are a product of random events over millions of years yes?

      February 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm |
    • Pete

      Smithsonian, that's what Chad does posts crap over and over again hoping it to be true regardless how many times you show them the faults in their arguments. Chad is a troll on this site, nothing more..

      February 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
    • Pete

      Oops this posted in the wrong place.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @IceAge,
      you seem to be having difficulty getting a handle on my belief system. Please read this:

      http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism

      I'm not completely in sync with everything, but close enough.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, you're not a pathetic little fuck like some of the less patient non-theists may say you are. You are stuck in a rut, though. You've plied the same arguments for the God of Israel for some time and I think its clear by now that they aren't arguments at all, but just you rattling on about supposed defects in theories of cosmology and of the origins of life where you hope there might be some place for your God to hide. And it's strange. Evidently you don't know if your God is real. I think you should try to work out whether it is real or not before you expend too much effort trying to persuade anyone to believe that it is.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
    • Chad

      ah.. TTTOO

      you need better bait

      February 13, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • Rice Sage

      Other Tom Tom has Chad nailed, especially Chad's lack of faith. You see, if you have faith, you don't need evidence (and for faith to be faith, there cannot be evidence). Religious people who search for evidence are rejecting faith in favor of evidence. Chad lacks faith.

      The whole faith thing is fascinating, because you can only get into heaven through faith, but if there is evidence, you don't have faith; they have knowledge. So those who received knowledge did not pass the faith test that we are told is the only true requirement for getting into heaven. Which means all the apostles, Paul, and anyone who claims to have experienced god got evidence, do not have faith but knowledge, and are not saved.

      It's one of the many Christian paradoxes that discredit Christianity. Like the omniscient god and free will are an incompatible paradox.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
    • Chad

      you misunderstand biblical faith.. Of course you cant be blamed as you havent read the bible..

      Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen Hebrews 11

      February 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I know that must be painful for you to come out with, Chad. Two things you don't have: substance and evidence.

      February 13, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • Rice Sage

      I am very familiar with the bible, and you are cherry picking again. Sorry, but what I said was correct. You just cannot accept the truth: your faith is very weak if you are looking for evidence.

      February 13, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
    • End Religion

      TTOO has the essence of months' worth of Chad ramblings: "they aren't arguments at all, but just you rattling on about supposed defects in theories of cosmology and of the origins of life where you hope there might be some place for your God to hide"

      February 13, 2013 at 11:16 pm |
    • OTOH

      I think that Chad sees himself as the Apostle to the Atheists. In a Walter Mitty way, he fantasizes that he will convert them with his purported whiz-bang 'evidence'.

      February 13, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • Rice Sage

      Topher has the same fantasy. It blinds them to how repellant and ridiculous they are.

      There is little doubt they convert far more people to atheism than from it.

      February 13, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
    • End Religion

      http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism

      Not sure how you can "accept the science of evolution" and still argue "intelligent causation is the best explanation for certain phenomena such as irreducibly complex systems (e.g. bacterial flagella)". The idea of irreducible complexity was a 15-minute jesus-freak fad from 20 years ago. Chad, its pretty bad when the world defines your ID worldview as pseudoscience... but then again since you are rebelling against your parents it does make a little sense you'd extend that to rebel against rationality altogether.

      February 13, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
  15. Doobs

    Another mind reading fundie. Now you claim to know the thoughts of Judas, who probably also never existed?

    February 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Doobs

      Ha ha, misfire.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
  16. Roger that

    Yay!!! 22 consecutive articles about the leader of Pedophiles "R" Us.

    February 13, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      Not quite. One was on how the Vatican could not accept credit cards because of all the money laundering its bank had been doing, but now was doing so again . . . even though the Vatican bank is anything but fixed

      February 13, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
  17. Pope Benedict makes first appearance since resignation news

    and announces "I'm pregnant."

    February 13, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Akira

      Now that would be a miracle.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Rice Sage

      Unfortunately, when they beatify Popeferatu, his "miracle" will be little Jimmy Stinkybum prayed to Bentdick and was cured of acne, which will be rigorously confirmed by the Holy Office Of Papal Miracle Rubber-Stamping, and sainthood, and we will have our first Hitler Youth saint.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
  18. Reality

    Lame duck in a lame religion as are all religions !!

    February 13, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
  19. Ice Age

    The Anamorphic Judeo-Christian god of the bible does not exist, but if you want a really good story try the truth. It is far more interesting than fiction.

    February 13, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • Chad

      "does not exist"

      => I'm curious, what evidence do you have to back up your claim that the God of Israel is not real?

      The response to that question is invariably one of : "Christians havent proved God exists" or "why do you Mr. Christian reject unicorns" or "the concept of God is stupid"

      now, all of those are fallacious answers..
      Which one were you going to pick, or did you have another?

      February 13, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      The complete and utter lack of evidence that he is real is very very strong evidence that things don't exist, whether they be leprechauns, gods, demons, whatever.

      Total lack of evidence means it almost certainly is not there. Absolute certainty is prevented by the impossibility of disproving a negatinve.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Ice Age

      Chad, I don't have to pick any reason. If you can prove there is a god like the one in the bible, I will believe it. For me it is just common sense. Why do you fear reality so much? It is so much more exciting than your delusions.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • End Religion

      the statement “gods exist” is a positive claim.
      the statement “gods do not exist” is a negative claim that only responds to the positive one.

      The very first person who uttered "god exists" had the burden of proof which has not yet been satisfied. When it is satisfied, "gods do not exist" will then be a claim that requires proof.

      Chad, please get busy with the empirical evidence of any god's existence which is supported by a consensus of non-creationist physicists (the dudes who best understand the rules governing our reality). You know, the EE we've been asking for which you have not yet provided, although you will likely provide your list of non-evidence such as "I can see the bible, therefore its contents are true."

      As for your god in particular, that nefarious cloud dweller has a fictional book as the original source to its claim of existence. We understand the book is a cobbling together of myths, folklore, local legend and possibly some decent home cleaning tips, fraudulently claimed as the word of your god. The book is either 1) inerrant or 2) allegory or 3) fraud. We can quickly show thousands of ways #1 cannot be true within our reality but we only need one to show it is inerrant. And frankly, #2 by definition is not fact but interpretation.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Chad

      A. "the statement that "'X' doesnt exist until you can prove it does" is inherently fallacious, existence of an object is not contingent on your acceptance of that fact.
      Just because you dont like something/someone doesnt mean it/them isnt real. (that is why your "reason" is fallacious)

      B. There are mountains of positive evidence:

      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect
      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
      – Historicity of the empty tomb
      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.

      Scientific evidence for the God of Israel
      Fossil Record.
      From the late 1800's thru 1972 the notion of "Darwinian gradualism" held the world captive. The notion that purely random mutation preserved in the population by natural selection would produce a gradual change, which over time would create the complexity of life we now observe (phyletic gradualism).
      Then, in 1972 the publication of "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" by Stephen Gould (atheist) finally forced the scientific world to accept the reality that the fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed.

      Instead, what the community was forced to acknowledge, is that the fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change.
      This supports the theistic evolutionist claim that God used natural processes to develop life on this earth, as pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change.

      Origins of the universe
      For most of scientific history, the universe was thought to have always existed, directly refuting the theistic claim that the universe had a beginning, and a creator.

      Then, a series of discoveries resulted in a complete transformation of thought, we now know that our universe has not always existed, rather it had a beginning, confirming the theistic claim:
      – 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift (the stars and planets are all moving away from each other. The universe is expanding in all directions)
      – 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation (the echo's of the big bang)
      – 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
      – 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning

      Fine Tuning of the universe
      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking

      February 13, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • End Religion

      ...not inerrant...

      February 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • End Religion

      If "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists, provide one or both of the following:
      1) A reference to a peer reviewed science journal that claims "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists and details the observations, experiment and resulting data that statistically demonstrates the existence of the god of Israel is probable.
      2) Provide a well designed experiment that would be able to test the hypothesis that ' "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists.' Remember, you have to actually test the hypothesis, gather data, and statistically analyze the data.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Hubert

      Chad

      Why do you believe that the "God of Israel" is the one true god?

      February 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • End Religion

      Debunking William Lane Craig and the misue of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe

      http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/

      February 13, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
    • Ice Age

      So, Chad, would you argue that a god, rather than a series of random phenomena, created humans? Would you also argue that all life did not come from microbes that survived the first ice age?

      February 13, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Ah, there's Chad. Do you know that God is real, Chad?

      February 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      Oh Chad, not this again.

      Many "historical" claims in the Bible are not credible, like the Ark and Jonah surviving in the fish. In the New Testament, the only historical facts that hold up are that Jerusalem existed, and there was a Pontius Pilate (but he is not known to have been in Judea). Nothing to do with Jesus has any historical support at all. His historicity is pure conjecture as are his claimed actions and magic.

      So that is pure conjecture.

      Your "theological evolution" claim is also pure conjecture. Punctuated equilibrium does not discredit evolution, and it in no way implies a diety as any part of the mechanism. And it is not yet proven. But whether gradual or punctuated, it's science, and not "god dunnit".

      The fact that our universe had a beginning similarly fails to even hint at a supernatural influence.

      "Fine tuning" is begging the question. It is like the word "creation", in that it implies someone did it. However, the universe follows natural laws without exception, and in some solar systems the conditions exist for life. In many solar systems they do not. It's not fine tuning, it's randomness and natural laws doing their thing.

      You are a wonder of non sequitur. Nothing you covered even hints at a god, and yet you are trying to say it proves it. You still have provided not a shred of evidence.

      February 13, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • Chad

      "Provide a well designed experiment that would be able to test the hypothesis that"

      A. can first define experiments that would be able to test the hypothesis that Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa were real?
      B. See: http://ieet.org/archive/Walker_Cirkovic06.pdf

      3.2. Empirical Evidence for Anthropic Fine Tuning
      It is our contention that, unlike purported cases of mathematical fine tuning, the empirical case for anthropic fine tuning is still very much alive and well. As noted, however, often both supporters and detractors make grandiloquent statements of the
      type ‘phenomenon X is/is not a manifest example of fine tuning’, while the details of serious astrophysical observational and theoretical effort are completely lost. We hope to illustrate what is involved by considering two cases. (A more detailed consideration of all purported cases of anthropic fine tuning would probably require a book-length study.)
      Our first case is the conjecture that galactic density is a case of anthropic fine tuning...

      iit's extremely long...

      February 13, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      I googled "Walter cirkovic", and absolutely nothing came up on him. He clearly is a man of no status.

      One creationist astronomer grasping at straws? I've got a few hundred thousand who would laugh at him . . . after they first said "never heard of him."

      February 13, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Johnny...you state: " Nothing to do with Jesus has any historical support at all. His historicity is pure conjecture as are his claimed actions and magic." The problem with that is Paul's letters. While the gospels where written some 70 or so years (give or take) after Christ's death (and resurrection, if you'll grant the premise), Paul's letters are historically attributed to about 20 or so years after Christ...and he is writing to established churches all over the Roman Empire–in modern day Italy, Greece, Syria, etc. If Christ did not exist, that is one hell of an amazingly miracle of a scam.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Chad

      There are Old Testament historical facts that have been verified, and those that havent yet been. There are -0- that have been refuted.

      ====
      @Johnny Guitar "there was a Pontius Pilate (but he is not known to have been in Judea). '
      @Chad " Pontius Pilatus was the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, from AD 26–36.
      Odd how you are so certain of the truth of your mistakes.. weird, right?

      ====
      @Johnny Guitar " Punctuated equilibrium does not discredit evolution, and it in no way implies a diety as any part of the mechanism. And it is not yet proven"
      @Chad "PE discredits atheistic evolution but not theistic evolution.

      ====
      @Johnny Guitar " The fact that our universe had a beginning similarly fails to even hint at a supernatural influence."
      @Chad "ah.. no,, the beginning guarantees a non-natural causal agent (supernatural).
      You can argue that the non-natural causal agent isnt God, but you cant argue that it is a requirement. Something doesnt come from nothing (the absence of everything), that is metaphysically impossible.

      ====
      @Johnny Guitar ""Fine tuning" is begging the question. It is like the word "creation", in that it implies someone did it. However, the universe follows natural laws without exception, and in some solar systems the conditions exist for life. In many solar systems they do not. It's not fine tuning, it's randomness and natural laws doing their thing."
      @Chad "wow, wrong on all accounts..
      1. there are many posited natural explanations for fine tuning, so it cant be begging the theistic question.
      2. randomness will not ever produce fine tuning
      3. "natural laws" IS FINE TUNING. The fact that laws exist at all is evidence of fine tuning.. where do you think these laws come from?

      February 13, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • End Religion

      Sorry, Chad, failed again...
      "...peer reviewed science journal that claims "fine tuning" is empirical evidence that supports the claim that the god of Israel exists..."

      February 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      You misunderstood. I did not say Jesus did not exist. I said that there no historical documents that support his actual existence. Paul never actually met Jesus, so his letters are hearsay.

      The accounts of Jesus come from much later, and even a decade of word-of-mouth can severely distort things. There is no better example of that the the four totally different accounts of the resurrection, which do not agree on who/how many went, what they saw, what they did, and what happened afterwards. There are many other points where the gospels disagree. They clearly were not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, but were the eventual writing of word-of-mouth tales.

      The historicity is Jesus is totally free of any contemporary account or witness. I tend to think he did exist, but he was basically just like Joseph Smith – an ordinary guy who made wild religious claims (has happened repeatedly throughout history) who's followers invented a lot of phony stories over after he got lynched for being a rabble-rouser.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Hubert

      Chad

      PE in noway discredits naturalistic evolution.

      All fine tuning arguments boil down to Douglas Adams self aware puddle.
      ". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in’an interesting hole I find myself in’fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’

      If you accept that there are an infinite number of universes then the fact that one of them has conditions that allow for life is not at all surprising, even if the initial conditions of each universe are completely random.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "Empirical Evidence for Anthropic Fine Tuning" does deserve closer examination. Chad has previously demonstrated a need for Anthropic Fine Tuning to be a deliberate act by an intelligent Agent. How can you get us there, Chad?

      February 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      Chad, repeating your baseless assertions does not repudiate my positions, nor is it evidence. You are, as usual, committing the argument from assertion fallacy.

      Nothing of what you gave even remotely inplies a deity, and overwelming majority of experts in those fields do not come to the same conclusion. You are without training and credentials in those fields, so their opinion decimates yours. You had to severely cherry-pick an ultra-obscure "expert" to support you, but if you actually read his report, you would clearly see he too goes for unevidenced conjecture.

      Sorry, but not having complete understanding of the universe just in no way implies a god, much less proves one. You asert and assert and assert, but you still do not provide any evidence that holds even the least credibility. And you are pretending to know science that you have no training in.

      Last word is your. I am done with you.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • clarity

      @VanHagar

      Paul may have only had to bolster his claims regarding what he actually believed later; or he may have always thought what he believed was real, but got sick and hallucinated some, which may have scared him into believing more. Regardless, one is too trusting to rely on just Paul for the validity of the supernatural occurrences in the NT. If you do, we may as well all be Mormons and believe what J Smith said. In addition to the things we *think* we know about the purported Christ, we also know that 1) the authorship of the gospels are unknown 2) the gospels looked so oddly like earlier writings that early Xtian apologists had to say that Satan had made a pre-emptive strike to fool everyone and had planned the earlier pagan writings *in advance*, and 3) we know that the splintering of the early church occurred early and some of that was over the script for the screenplay.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • End Religion

      '"The history of physics has had that a lot," says [Lawrence] Krauss. "Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective."'

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

      February 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Clarity and Johnny. I'm sure your positions are heartfelt, but they are historically inaccurate and full of mind numbing conjecture. The fact remains that Paul was writing to established churches–established all over the Roman Empire–within 20 years of Christ–that fact has not been addressed by you. Never mind what Paul was writing or his motivations–it doesn't change the fact that the churches existed at this time–you simply can not refute that indisputable fact.

      February 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • Chad

      Regarding fine tuning:

      There are only two possible explanations for fine tuning:
      1. There is a God and that God made it that way.
      2. There really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one (the multiverse theory).

      Krauss subscribes to the multiverse theory

      February 13, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • Chad

      @Hubert "PE in noway discredits naturalistic evolution."
      @Chad "absolutely it does!

      what mechanism have been posited to support the fossil record showing stasis for millions of years, then WHAM in one grand paroxysm of necessarily related mutations, and new species is created?
      Every single time???

      where is all the research that supports Cladogenesis?

      February 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • Science

      Chad is on his evolution kick again

      Casual agent are you.

      Peace

      February 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad really is trying.

      3. The Universe is a one-off and has all the properties that in sum appear to be fine tuning for our benefit.

      4. Universes, however numerous, are eminently suitable for the things that are in them.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • Hubert

      Chad

      what mechanism have been posited to support the fossil record showing stasis for millions of years, then WHAM in one grand paroxysm of necessarily related mutations, and new species is created?

      Climate change is the most common reason. But it can be any event that opens a large number of biological niches. As long as an organisms environment is stable, the species is stable. But once a rapid environmental change occurs, rapid being a few thousand years, a species must adapt to it's new environment or die off. This dying off opens niches for new species to occupy. And remember, it is highly unlikely that the fossil record contains an example of every species to have ever lived. Fossilization is a rare process, requiring specific conditions.

      Additionally there is no reason to as.sume that gradualism and PE are dichotomous. They are both constantly operating.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad rattles on about PE: "what mechanism have been posited to support the fossil record showing stasis for millions of years, then WHAM in one grand paroxysm of necessarily related mutations, and new species is created?" I think I did give him some reading on self-organizing critical behaviour once.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • clarity

      VanHagar wrote: "I'm sure your positions are heartfelt, but they are historically inaccurate and full of mind numbing conjecture. The fact remains that Paul was writing to established churches–established all over the Roman Empire–within 20 years of Christ–that fact has not been addressed by you. Never mind what Paul was writing or his motivations–it doesn't change the fact that the churches existed at this time–you simply can not refute that indisputable fact."

      I never did refute that churches that Paul addressed didn't exist. What I said was:

      "Paul may have only had to bolster his claims regarding what he actually believed later; or he may have always thought what he believed was real, but got sick and hallucinated some, which may have scared him into believing more. Regardless, one is too trusting to rely on just Paul for the validity of the supernatural occurrences in the NT. If you do, we may as well all be Mormons and believe what J Smith said. In addition to the things we *think* we know about the purported Christ, we also know that 1) the authorship of the gospels are unknown 2) the gospels looked so oddly like earlier writings that early Xtian apologists had to say that Satan had made a pre-emptive strike to fool everyone and had planned the earlier pagan writings *in advance*, and 3) we know that the splintering of the early church occurred early and some of that was over the script for the screenplay."

      So IMHO, the question goes to the validity of the gospel stories – Paul could claim and believe all he wanted, but how much do we really know about the validity of the gospel stories – who exactly wrote them, why did early church argue and not all agree on the stories, resulting in the splintering that continues today; and couldn't early apologists, when trying to defend the charge that the gospels were copy-cat stories, come up with something better than 'Satan did it, and planned it in advance'.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Johnny...you write: "There is no better example of that the the four totally different accounts of the resurrection, which do not agree on who/how many went, what they saw, what they did, and what happened afterwards." Can we as.sume that before you wrote that statement, you exhausted your study of how oral accounts are interpreted, and how oral accounts reduced to writing are interpreted (in both instances, by scholarly methods)? Because if you did apply that methodology, I'm unsure why you would write such an unsubstantiated argument. Please explain.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Pete

      "The fact remains that Paul was writing to established churches–established all over the Roman Empire–within 20 years of Christ–that fact has not been addressed by you."

      For some of that time Paul was probably sick (Gal 4:13, perhaps from beatings and stoning, II Cor 11:24,25) during much of the time he proclaimed the gospel. Plus most of the new pastors he used only six months experience as believers in Jesus Christ in those churches. Now if we did that today we would be the laughing stock of America.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chad

      regarding multiverse: it isnt scientific, cant be tested, and is not observable.
      For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

      — Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

      now, without saying "well, God isnt testable either!!", how do you defend the mutliverse :-)

      ===========
      @Hubert "Climate change is the most common reason. But it can be any event that opens a large number of biological niches"
      @Chad "A. Really? Billions of species?
      B. were that the case we would have direct geological evidence corresponding to the first appearance of species in the fossil record..
      oops...

      ===========
      @Hubert "And remember, it is highly unlikely that the fossil record contains an example of every species to have ever lived. Fossilization is a rare process, requiring specific conditions."
      @Chad "well that only makes your argument worse, because the fossils we DO have correspond to stasis and rapid change pattern, every new fossil we find reinforces the pattern, and new species discovery in the fossil record is rare.

      ===========
      @Hubert "Additionally there is no reason to as.sume that gradualism and PE are dichotomous. They are both constantly operating."
      @Chad "ah.. I see..
      and exactly how did all of the gradualism escape fossilization? Quite an astonishing coincidence wouldnt you say?

      February 13, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Clarity. You write: "who exactly wrote them, why did early church argue and not all agree on the stories, resulting in the splintering that continues today; and couldn't early apologists, when trying to defend the charge that the gospels were copy-cat stories, come up with something better than 'Satan did it, and planned it in advance'." What is your basis for this argument? We know that the gospels are based upon the oral accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Whether they put pen to paper is irrelevant (and, if you'll see must response to Johnny, you have to apply the appropriate methodology and understanding of how oral accounts are interpreted).

      February 13, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Pete...I don't mean to be dense...but I have no idea what your trying to argue.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Pete

      " We know that the gospels are based upon the oral accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Whether they put pen to paper is irrelevant "

      So who wants to bet VanHagar has never played the telephone game in grade school?

      February 13, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • VanHagar

      Pete...more proof that you think you know what your talking about without bothering to study. You are applying cultural standards form today to cultural standards used 2000 years ago-apples and oranges. If you played the telephone game (as it were), 2000 years ago with Jewish men raised to remember everything they heard with great fidelity, you'd find that there was no change whatsoever in the story. Moreover, you clearly, I'm sorry, lack an understanding of how oral history is interpreted. Try again.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      " Moreover, you clearly, I'm sorry, lack an understanding of how oral history is interpreted. Try again."

      The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

      It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Smithsonian...I agree with you to a point. The purpose of the Bible is not designed simply as an historical account. That does not mean, however, that there is no "history" within its covers that is capable of being examined and scrutinized.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
    • Pete

      The point is many fictional books have "some" history in them but they are still fiction. That's the point. There are many other religions that have "some" history in them but it still means they are not true. If we use your logic then Santa Claus is real.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
    • VanHagar

      Pete...gotta be honest with you, I'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts–you arguments are about as baseless as I've seen on this site (and that's saying something!). If you have anything intelligent to offer, I'll respond.

      February 13, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • Pete

      Oh poor baby can't handle the truth that your bible is fiction just like the Santa Claus books. Good riddens, cause you're the one with the baseless posts, so I have made my point. LOL!

      February 13, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • Emerald

      " If you played the telephone game (as it were), 2000 years ago with Jewish men raised to remember everything they heard with great fidelity, you'd find that there was no change whatsoever in the story"

      Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states, let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. The crowd dissipates out of shame. That story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes. The story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • clarity

      VanHagar wrote: "@Clarity. You write: "who exactly wrote them, why did early church argue and not all agree on the stories, resulting in the splintering that continues today; and couldn't early apologists, when trying to defend the charge that the gospels were copy-cat stories, come up with something better than 'Satan did it, and planned it in advance'." What is your basis for this argument? "

      =>I'm you are referring to my latter point (as I can't imagine you would deny the early early schism and everything leading into that), Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 CE to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) were early apologists that talked of the pre-emptive strike by Satan as the reason for earlier pagan stories looking so much like the later gospels.

      VanHagar wrote: "We know that the gospels are based upon the oral accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Whether they put pen to paper is irrelevant (and, if you'll see must response to Johnny, you have to apply the appropriate methodology and understanding of how oral accounts are interpreted)."

      =>That is your belief. But you do not actually know who wrote them.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Smithsonian “The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient.
      @Chad “most atheists believe that the bible starts with “2,500 years ago, God created the universe”
      But, it doesn’t. There is simply NO WHERE in the bible where the age of the earth is stated.
      NO WHERE.
      Many erroneously come to that conclusion by adding up all the “begats”, however this is a gross misuse of genealogies, which are NOT provided for that purpose and routinely omit many generations that aren’t relevant to that which is being discussed.

      ==========
      @Smithsonian “The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically”
      @Chad “again, simply not true. The bible chronicles over 2000 years of history, all of which can be checked, and NONE of which has ever been proved incorrect.

      ==========
      @Smithsonian “The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible.”
      @Chad “utter speculation, other than your personal opinon, what data do you cite to support it?

      ==========
      @Smithsonian “The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).”
      @Chad “Very true, the bible was not intended to be a “history of the world”, it contains accurate descriptions of relevant historical interactions between God and humanity.

      ==========
      @Smithsonian “It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy.”
      @Chad “complete and utter nonsense. Thousands of years of recorded history, none of which has ever been disproved, and note, the years 2500—30AD are all years for which we have some archeological evidence.
      No hist orical fact has ever been disproved.
      None.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      Chad you keep trying to use the same lame arguments over and over again. Why don't you try to take this crap you posted down to all the experts at the world's largest research center consisting of 19 museums and tell them. You'll be laughed out of the building.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • Pete

      Smithsonian, that's what Chad does posts crap over and over again hoping it to be true regardless how many times you show them the faults in their arguments. Chad is a troll on this site, nothing more

      February 13, 2013 at 7:26 pm |
    • Answer

      People like Chad are just purely dishonest in nature. They're up to using word play and circular reasoning to prove nothing. All they really want to do is to appeal to the masses with their own spin on disinformation.

      If you were to ask them directly what their views and agenda were they'll recoil and change the topic to blame something else.

      Most of them will never tell you even how they arrive at the age of the earth. Ask them directly about how old the world is and you'll spend ages in vain waiting for them to say it directly. If you can even get an idiot like Chad to state "I believe the world is roughly 6000 to 10000 years old" – you'd be lucky.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • clarity

      I keep hearing Chad say:

      "The bible chronicles over 2000 years of history, all of which can be checked, and NONE of which has ever been proved incorrect."

      I'm not sure if Smithsonian was still talking about Genesis or being more general (it was just after a comment re: Genesis), but, let's just take Genesis. Chad's response may be true in the same sense that him saying I can't prove he isn't wearing a red shirt. But it doesn't mean much because it is about a period of time where, with respect to the claims made in the Bible, we know very little. A particular piece of folklore that morphed over a periods of time when man was afraid of his own shadow and purports to be about much older periods of time is not knowledge. I would say at the time Genesis was written, it was a best guess to explain the unknown, but based on previous fable that was trying to do the same. So I would like to know what out of Genesis Chad thinks he can actually prove.

      February 13, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @Answer "If you can even get an idiot like Chad to state "I believe the world is roughly 6000 to 10000 years old" – you'd be lucky."
      @Chad "it really says volumes about you that on a thread where I have repeatedly said that I am a theistic evolutionist, you either didnt read my post, or understand what a theistic evolutionist believes (common ancestry, earth is billions of years old).

      ====
      @clarity "So I would like to know what out of Genesis Chad thinks he can actually prove."
      @Chad "A great deal of Genesis is the only written history of that time that has survived today.
      Archaeologically we have confirmed many of the details, none have been disproved.
      Not sure what else one could hope for.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28162671/#.URw1Fh082Js

      February 13, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @Smithsonian,
      you really crack me up fella :-)

      I only ever post that in RESPONSE to your post, and yet you accuse me of posting the same "over and over".. lol

      I do believe that atheists are descended from an ancient race of vampires.. how else to explain their utter inability to see their reflection in the mirror?

      February 13, 2013 at 7:54 pm |
    • Answer

      @Chad

      Well Chad then how come you don't present your conclusions to your fellow christians? Is it because you're afraid to speak up and correct them simply that you like to be still considered a christian in standing?

      You see your fellow Lie4 holding the obvious junk position of young earth creationism.. why don't you go and correct them?

      Let's consider why you don't...

      February 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
    • Answer

      @Chad

      Do you lack the social morality of truth to tell your fellow christians that they are wrong?

      If I stated right now that the earth in my opinion is between 10 and 15 years old.. what would you say to me. Now what will you reply to me if I were a fellow christian like you?

      February 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm |
    • Chad

      I dont argue theology with believers
      ever.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, you don't take error seriously?

      February 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
    • Answer

      @Chad

      So then it tells me that your position even on your own theology is tenuous. You can't convince anyone whose a theologian that your world view on theistic evolution is correct. You know you're effectively saying that it's okay for the young earth creationists to attack science and you'll try your hardest to attack science in your own way.

      You're bedded to your christian background and wouldn't care about the truth isn't it?

      February 13, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
    • Chad

      This is all that matters, the rest is utterly irrelevant:

      For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. A.D. 50 1 Corinthians

      February 13, 2013 at 8:23 pm |
    • Answer

      @Chad

      One more question.. when you were younger did you ever hold the position of being a young earth creationist?

      You must have changed your viewpoint.. why?

      February 13, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Indeed: "last of all". Chad, your connection with Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit is less direct than the one Paul claimed. Your faith, first of all, is faith has to be that you are not in error. You have only heard, not seen and touched.

      February 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @Answer "One more question.. when you were younger did you ever hold the position of being a young earth creationist?
      @Chad "no, I grew up in an agnostic/atheist home. When I was younger I had no respect at all for Christians, and mocked them frequently"

      ======
      @Answer "You must have changed your viewpoint.. why?"
      @Chad "indeed, God got a hold of me and dragged me to the cross.
      You see, the earlier mocking hadnt been based on any understanding. I had never actually read the bible, all that changed when I really started investigating.

      That's the thing. the God of Israel is real, Jesus Christ IS His Son. I know it, you can too.

      February 13, 2013 at 10:28 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      You have judged the evidence wrongly, Chad, but then, your reasoning abilities are extremely poor. I'm hopeful that most people who evaluate the data so poorly as you also argue as effectively-–for the other side. Your contributions are appreciated.

      February 13, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
    • Roger Ramjet

      I'm curious, Chad. How did God find you and drag you to the cross?

      February 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
    • End Religion

      Chad said, "http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28162671/#.URw1Fh082Js"

      This is your archaeological evidence? Oh, Chad...
      8 paragraphs of "maybe" with some of the maybes hinging on previous maybes, and the final paragraph comprised mostly of statements against the fable of Masada. The "hinge" of these discoveries is some pottery which "contains five lines of faded characters that may bear the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found." Hooray mankind found some evidence of our past - that's a good thing - but there's no reason at all to claim it goes to shore up anything Biblical.

      And in the end even if all this points to a city that existed during the time of the Bible, what does that prove? That a city existed during a time period. It doesn't mean a single event attributed to that city ever occurred unless it can be independently verified. We keep telling you over and over that Spiderman comic are based in New York so by your logic Spiderman is real.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khirbet_Qeiyafa

      "[Excavactor] Garfinkel, who said in 2010 that the debate [about the veracity of the Biblical account of the United Monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II] could not "be answered by the Qeiyafa excavations."

      February 13, 2013 at 10:59 pm |
    • Chad

      @End Religion "This is your archaeological evidence? Oh, Chad..."

      =>LOL

      I guess I dont blame you for not knowing this, as you are utterly unfamiliar with the bible, the fact that it is the most heavily scrutinized text in the history of the world and the fact that archaeological investigation into the historicity of the bible is a multi-millions of dollars per year effort and has been ongoing for centuries..
      some other examples:

      http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

      http://www.biblearchaeology.org/

      February 14, 2013 at 11:41 am |
  20. Rainer Braendlein

    The pope is the successor of Judas Iscariot, or in the best case the successor of the carnal Peter (he is never the successor of the spiritual Peter who was transformed at the latest at Pentecost). Judas was greedy for honor, power and riches, he wanted to be the first bishop of the Christian Church, even on the cost of the life Jesus Christ. Judas thought Jesus had been a mage who was just seeking honor, power and riches but in fact Jesus had good motifs. Judas could not imagine that there is anybody on earth different from him. It was not difficult for him to betray Jesus because he considered him as a cunning criminal.

    Also the pope thinks that God support his ways but he makes a great mistake. A bishop shall not be a ruler, shall not be powerful, shall not be rich but a pastor of the souls of the believers and all human beings. Daddy Rat what do you seek?

    February 13, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Hubert

      Do you enjoy being a bigot?

      February 13, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Wasn't Paul intended to be the successor of Judas – by God, that is. The impatient Apostles chose Matthais by lot.

      February 13, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Akira

      "Judas could not imagine that there is anybody on earth different from him."
      It would appear that you suffer from the same malady.

      February 13, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Doobs

      Another mind reading fundie. Now you claim to know the thoughts of Judas, who probably also never existed?

      Also, "good motifs"??

      February 13, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.