home
RSS
Poll: America losing its religion
The Reason Rally, sponsored by secular organizations, draws a crowd to Washington.
May 29th, 2013
03:06 PM ET

Poll: America losing its religion

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years. A nearly identical percentage says that trend bodes ill for the country.

"It may be happening, but Americans don't like it," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said of religion's waning influence. "It is clear that a lot of Americans don't think this is a good state of affairs."

According to the Gallup survey released Wednesday, 77% of Americans say religion is losing its influence. Since 1957, when the question was first asked, Americans' perception of religion's power has never been lower.

According to the poll, 75% of Americans said the country would be better off if it were more religious.

The poll doesn't reflect Americans' personal religiosity, such as church attendance, but rather how large events and trends shape shared views, Newport explained.

For example, the sexual revolution, the Vietnam War and the rise of the counterculture fed the perception that religion was on the wane during the late 1960s, he said.

Views of a secularizing America peaked in 1969 and 1970, when 75% of Americans said faith was losing its clout in society. A similar view dominated from 1991-94 and from 2007 to the present.

Americans saw religion increasing its influence in 1957, in 1962 and at a few points during the Reagan presidency in 1980. This number also spiked to its highest point ever - 71% - after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The pollster didn't speculate on the contemporary factors that led to the current views on faith's influence.

Still, the poll numbers are dramatically influenced by church attendance, according to Gallup. More than 90% of people who attend church weekly responded that a more religious America would be positive, compared with 58% of Americans who attended church "less often."

The Gallup poll was conducted via telephone from May 2 to May 7. A total of 1,535 people were sampled for the poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • United States

soundoff (6,389 Responses)
  1. jmissal

    Exactly which religion belongs to America? The Founders were VERY explicit that the United States had no official religion and many of them stated outright, referrring to christianity, that she was NOT ever intended to be a "christian nation". Further, people came to these shores originally to escape religious persecution....so again, which religion are you referring to, because I choose the Founder's vision of America.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Alias

      The point of the article is all religions.
      More athiests, more agnostics, less influenc on culture.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • OMG

      Religions I think they are referring to:

      Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Hindu, Jehova's Witness, etc.

      The article didn't say anything about Christianity being the official religion of the United States.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • TDM

      Exactly.
      And religion is losing its influence, which I take to mean that the US is moving closer to the kind of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • TDM

      OMG, there IS no official religion of the United States. The US is a secular country.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • jmissal

      All of you missed my point. The Founders desired NO RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE IN GOVERNMENT. It has no place in a Nation with no official religion.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      TDM, not the kind of government George Washington envisioned. Her's an excerpt from his farewell address:

      Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • OMG

      @ TDM

      I just don't see where the article mentions 'official religion'.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • Vic

      I couldn't get past the filter on this one! Too bad! I'll work it out later!

      😥

      May 30, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • OMG

      Out government seems to be failing us.

      It doesn't seem to be working (unless you are rich).

      May 30, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      jmissal, the founding fathers were discussing the many denominations. They never questioned the truth of Jesus Christ.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • TDM

      I agreed with you, j. What part of "exactly" mystifies you?

      BD, he was but one of the Founding Fathers, and not the most important one when thinking of the Constitution...I suppose I can look for mama k's quotes conxcerning the other FFs, but that doesn't negate the fact that GW's farewell speech doesn't trump the separation of church and state in our SECULAR nation.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • OMG

      Founder's vision:

      One Nation Under God.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Huebert

      That phrase was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. The founders did not want America to even have a pledge of allegiance.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "Founder's vision:

      One Nation Under God."

      Except that phrase was not our countries motto until long after the Founders were dead...ignorance is bliss

      May 30, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • WASP

      OMG: a bit of history, just for you.

      1)Not just that, the phrase “Under God” wasn’t even in the original text of our pledge:
      “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

      2)That’s true, it does and it is. But “In God We Trust” didn’t appear on any currency until 1864. In fact the motto “In God We Trust” wasn’t even adopted into this country officially until 1956 and didn’t appear on our paper currency until 1957. It was only on our coins up to that point.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @Bill Deacon,
      "not the kind of government George Washington envisioned. Her's an excerpt from his farewell address:"

      While George Washington was a great leader and a great American, he didn't actually form the country, that was the continental congress and, eventually, the Consti.tution, which only mentions religion in order to state "no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office..."

      And while many of the founders, including Washington, believed in the Christian God, not all did, and they all agreed to not establish a national religion, nor force anyone into religion at all.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      ME II, that's not my point and I don't think it was George's either. To me he's talking about the proper backdrop which under girds the Republic. The American experiment was, at the time, the distillation of the great thinking from all societies. It includes the codification of laws ala Hammurabi, the inclusion of the Senate from ancient Rome, concepts of direct democracy from Greece, English common law and Judeo-Christian ethics regarding property and natural rights. Washington seems to be cautioning us against too heavy a reliance on politically constructed avenues without due regard to the divine. Later in the same address he urges the abundant dissemination of education and knowledge as a means to duly inform the electorate so that they might make wise choices from that knowledge and those religious ethics. Would you propose that we eliminate education from the American discourse because Washington, being the first elected President was not the most prominent Founder?

      May 30, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      By the way, I support the clause "No religious test..." You understand it cuts both directions don't you?

      May 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • ME II

      @Bill Deacon,
      "The American experiment was, at the time, the distillation of the great thinking from all societies. It includes the codification of laws ala Hammurabi, the inclusion of the Senate from ancient Rome, concepts of direct democracy from Greece, English common law and Judeo-Christian ethics regarding property and natural rights. Washington seems to be cautioning us against too heavy a reliance on politically constructed avenues without due regard to the divine."

      I don't disagree, but his words are those of a citizen, albeit president, commander-in-chief, Founder, etc., but still a citizen, i.e. not the law of the land, and as such does not provide an opportunity to claim this country was "founded on Christian principles" as is often claimed. The first president and a Founder of this country may have encouraged such, but would never, I don't think, have enforced such upon the people, if it were even possible.

      If I misunderstood what you were saying, my apologies.

      "By the way, I support the clause 'No religious test...' You understand it cuts both directions don't you?"

      Absolutely! If, by that, you mean, no one can be barred from office because they don't believe nor because they do believe.

      May 30, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
  2. KF

    It's important to note that religion didn't just 'disappear' during the 1960's onward. People were exploring new ideas around religion and spirituality (and certainly this trend continues). Faith traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islamic Sufism (to name a few) were among the religions that deeply informed how people saw the world. To say that America became less religious is misleading–perhaps it became less formally Christian. It strikes me that this is what some Americans find unnerving.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • Billy Bob

      Well, my favorite color is red and I find it unnerving to see so many people paint their houses blue. It's disgusting and it's not the America I remember growing up so it must be a bad thing. All the red brick houses, the red barns and red bars, thems were the days. Now we have these souless, Godless, cold blue paint supporters and they have been spreading their color around the nation as if it's theirs! Well don't worry! The true believers will cover those houses in red again soon enough! Dey Tuuk Ar Jaaabs!!

      May 30, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
  3. Miles Gerou

    Articles like this are useless in my mind because they miss the core of the issue they are evaluating. We should be focusing on ethics and developing compassion, the core values of world religions. In a world so interconnected (increasingly so with new technology) we need to start seeing past religion and start evaluating people's compassion and ethics. Religion is no longer necessary but the values they teach and urge us to cultivate are. Any religious doctrine that preaches hate is false, humans manipulate religion to create divide, it is now on us to see past this and embrace how interconnected we really are.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Religion does not mean ethical. For the most part, religions themselves are unethical.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Religious texts are no more a guide to morals than a Dr Suess book. PEOPLE come up with morals, not fake gods.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • Brandon

      I agree with what you are saying. I am not a believer in a god but I believe I am a good person, with good ethics and morals. I do not need religion to tell me how to be a good person.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
  4. MathMan

    Can coincidence create a system? Is it possible to create a system by coincidence ? Did you so called atheists miss that part in your math lessons? Do you seriously believe that from a big bang ( where nobody is really sure why it "banged") with a wild mixture of elements , all of a sudden, 12 billion years later, these complex species, plants, animals and humans have invented themselves out of carbon, dust and gas? Why don't you put a piece of charcoal on your desk and wait until it's starts getting legs and walks away. Because that is, basically, what you believe in, right?

    May 30, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Huebert

      GET THEE TO A SCIENCE CLASS!!!

      May 30, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Dave

      "all of a sudden, 12 billion years later, these complex species, plants, animals and humans have invented themselves out of carbon, dust and gas?"

      So you just ignore the fact that we can see stars forming and know the universe is expanding, have fossils and all the other scientific data. We all know that Christians don't like facts that contradict their 2000 year old book of fiction.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      " all of a sudden, 12 billion years"...Do you think before you post? You think that 12( closer to 14.5) billion years is sudden?

      We know what happened after the Big Bang. The evidence is all around, and we know why. Just because you can't understand it, does not mean that we don't know.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      No. That's not what we believe. We believe life evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms. It's a gradual process, not an event.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Veronica

      So instead, your explanation is that there's an invisible man in the sky? Yeah, that's rational.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Its called physics and chemistry. As stated earlier you might want to take a science class, not protest them.

      I don’t understand why religious folk are afraid of things that they just don’t understand.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      No. Atheists don't believe any of that.

      The only thing that an atheist does is DISbelieve in an invisible and undetectable being that others do believe in. The answer "we don't know" is much, much, much better than the answer "invisible and undetectable big, magic, sky wizard did it with magic spellz."

      May 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • BU2B

      "MathMan", then do you ask yourself where does god come from? If you don't believe the complex things you mentioned can evolve over a very long period of time, what about god? Wouldn't "he" be even more complex and require even more explanation?

      May 30, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • meifumado

      truly ignorant.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      To all the unbelievers,

      Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

      Colossians 2:8

      Amen.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Ernest T Bass

      Stenchy! you're back!!!

      May 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • sam stone

      maybe some massengil will make stenchy less stenchy

      May 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
  5. sbeth1

    We have no faith in our elected officials, their abilities to lead a nation, our financial security, our jobs or the education of our offspring. As a whole, we as a nation, have very little faith in anything.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      We have faith in our first responders. We have faith in those who serve or have served in our military. We come togther in times of disaster.
      We have a great deal of faith in humanity.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • sbeth1

      Richard....You have faith in a species who butcher each other on a daily basis? Why?

      Aside: Do you remember the movie "Starman"? I believe he said something accurate about us....."We are at our best, when things are at their worst. I think so too.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      sbeth1
      Yes...of course I do...you seem to want to focus on the 0.00000001 % that do harm instead of the 99.9999999% that do good and help each other.
      Why focus so much on the negatives, pobody's nerfect.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • sbeth1

      Richard, we have "faith" only when it serves our purpose. When that "purpose" is met, we abandon all faith until the next time.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
  6. Boomer in Mo

    I guess that's why the MO Legislature spent five months codifying religious doctrine into law, fund and written by ALEC.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
  7. Mg

    Religion is good for people who need it. The problem is then many if those people feel compelled to wear it on their sleeve and judge others for their beliefs or lack thereof.

    Believe what you want. Keep it to yourself because it is not amazing and who cares.

    And totally keep it out of politics.

    Amen

    May 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • godschild

      Politics is where its needed most. Just look at the shape America's in!!!

      May 30, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Belief without good reason is good for NO ONE. Living your life rationally is the best way to go through life, not delusionaly.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • meifumado

      @godschild

      Are you sure about that?
      Nothing could be worse for any society.
      You are as bad as the fanatic Muslims.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Happy Atheist

      "Just look at the shape America's in!!!"

      Thats right, in just over 200 years we have slid so far down the errant path. We have rid ourselves of slavery, given women a right to vote, taken the children out of the factories and legalized interracial marriage along with continually trying to give civil rights to all. Such a shame to have slid so far... right?

      May 30, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
  8. Jackie P

    The loss of religion is no loss. Organized religion is responsible for most of the world's problems. See the crusades, the inquisition, child and female abuse by religious figure heads, and the poverty in over populated countries and of course the whole Middle East thing. There are much better hobbies available.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Brandon

      I guess I don't see where this is an issue at all. If you believe in religion great, if you don't great. Don't know how it affects the direction this country is going in. It's not like Atheism is the cause of all the crime, job loss, medical expenses in this country.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
  9. William Demuth

    Topher

    We had this debate before

    I have well over 250 direct quotes from Hitler (And several hundred more from his henchman) that clearly indicate he was CHRISTIAN and was doing what he did in the name of Christ

    Stop trying to rewrite history and apologize to the Jews for your faith attempting Genocide against them

    May 30, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • godschild

      Just bc some calls themself a Christian doesnt make them and claims to do something in Christ name doesnt make it true

      May 30, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
  10. MM

    The atheist lawyer was ecstatic to point of ecstasy that the Supreme Court would here his argument. He would be revered, held up and praised for putting those moronic religious nuts in their place. The timing was perfect, deliciously ripe for a victory. And why not have a holiday or a day of recognition for his atheist brethren, the religious nuts have them. Let’s see, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Eid al-Adha, Ramadan, Easter. “Hell, I should ask for more than one” but one will do he thought. Think of the praise, talk shows, I will be like a god, oh wait, I don’t believe in one. The opening arguments were about to begin when the Chief Justice broke the silence and dismissed the case as frivolous. The lawyer gasped, “But your honor, this is not fair, we deserve a day of recognition”. The justice nodded and said “we all agree but you already have one. For it is written in the book that helped define this country in Psalms 14:1 and 53:1, “The fool says in this heart, There is no God. Therefore, you and your brethren may celebrate on April 1st”.
    In all seriousness, I do feel for the poor lost that have no relationship with God. It is very much like speaking with a childless person about the love a child. They have no concept of the bliss that comes from loving a child. Sure, there is heartache and pain but nothing can replace the selfless giving that is required to raise a child. Loving God is much like for me and hope for you one day. But reading through these pages, I see most just want to insult or toot their own horn. I hope you don’t throw your arm out of socket patting yourselves on the back for debunking God, bashing Christ putting those zealots in their place. There seems to be a lot of wasted energy debunking something that does not exist. I personally don’t spend much time sharpening my stakes to kill vampires, traipsing the national parks looking for Bigfoot or watching the sky for a saucer or blogging about those do that stalk the night creatures, hunt the Sasquatch or the UFO folks that search the sky to convince them that they don’t exist. Be safe and yes, I am so sorry, but you know I will, yes, here it comes, pray for you, you cute little adorable atheists.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Answer

      Just take a gander at these pathetic christards:

      " I do feel for the poor lost that have no relationship with God. It is very much like speaking with a childless person about the love a child. They have no concept of the bliss that comes from loving a child. Sure, there is heartache and pain but nothing can replace the selfless giving that is required to raise a child."

      ------

      The christards will try to define for you:

      1) what you believe in
      2) who are your leaders
      3) how lousy you are in society

      and most of all ....

      4) how happy you really are without their delusions

      These are about the most basic of their routines.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • Answer

      "You're poor without my flavor of god."

      "You're weak without my flavor of delusion."

      "You're less than dirt without my delusion's love."

      May 30, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Perhaps if 90% of the people around you believed in unicorns and wanted you to follow their code of rules for unicorn worship and every president was a believer of unicorns and 99% of politicians believed in unicorns you'd go a little blog now and then and discus how stupid it was to believe in unicorns.

      Your god is invisible and undetectable and irrelevant.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Hershey

      bliss is as simple as a kiss

      May 30, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • Hershey

      ( @ M&M )

      May 30, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @MM

      Your joke makes no sense. Why would he want to be LIKE god and then dismiss that in his mind because he doesn't believe in god? How does being famous make you like god?

      Why would an atheist want a holiday to celebrate atheism?

      Why would the supreme court hear a case only to dismiss it just to call a person a fool?

      The country is not founded on the bible nor would a supreme court justice use it as evidence in any trial, under any circu.mstance.

      In all seriousness though, what you believe makes no difference to me. I think your beliefs are on par with my adorable little neice who wants to be a princess when she grows up, that or a dinosaur. The only difference between you and her it seems is that you have a bigger vocabulary.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • BU2B

      MM, the difference between loving my child and loving "god", is my child actually exists. She is not a figment of my imagination.

      Cpt. Obvious, couldn't have said it better myself.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • meifumado

      Please stay away from children. You are not mentally fit to own a firearm, so please seek help npw.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Calvin Snow

      I have children. I would never torture them for not believing in me.

      Human sacrifice is immoral and disgusting.

      Allowing someone else to accept punishment for your crimes is cowardly.

      My morals are better than your Gods and I bet yours are too.

      Do you hate your children? If not, you are not a Christian:

      Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

      p.s. – Don't tell me what it "means", read what it says.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • To MightyMoron

      "ecstatic to point of ecstasy that the Supreme Court would here his argument."

      From his first sentence you can see this is not the sharpest tool in the Christian shed.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
  11. mykel armory

    Good riddance to god's followers. Satan rules!

    May 30, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • meifumado

      Satan laughs! Damnation sinks it's talons deep in to the womb of utopia spilling forth great rivers of virginal purity and bliss.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
  12. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    hindu atheist, ignorant self centered are lot of dumb, deaf and blind, they are unable to recognize truth absolute GOD, foundation of existence for every one and and every thing in existence, proven by science. they call themselves educated, knowledgeable but they are none other then un educated, un knowledgeable of hindu dark ages.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • Answer

      slam, wants, his bomb. Go off. Soon.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • Mohammad Followers Steadily Taking the World Backward

      come on muslaman, stay on your islamic sites, don't crap over here.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Ernest T Bass

      He's mad cauz he wiped with the wrong hand.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
  13. archfiend0

    Religion is useless. Let it die.

    May 30, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
  14. kamarasune

    Surprise...everyone should have known this was coming...its scriptural...guess what happens next?

    May 30, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Vin

      Absolutely nothing.

      May 30, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      "its scriptural"
      That means someone wrote it down, nothing more.

      It is just more evidence that people are accepting reality over myth.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Should we be worried that your Zombie is coming to get us? We've been waiting 2000 plus years and it hasn't happened yet, so I'm guessing it won't happen because NO-ONE returns from the dead.
      Time to grow up and leave your imaginary friends behind.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • Topher

      Tell us!

      May 30, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • fintastic

      "its scriptural".............. oh please........ It's mythology...

      May 30, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Answer

      @Gopher

      It is apparent – we are.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • godschild

      Im ashamed right to be called an American. Rather you believe in God or whatever religion or not some of you take it to far. Disgusted!!! Thats how WE have made america.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • sam stone

      a bunch of people sit around waiting for their savior? annnyyyyy day now, yessir.....annnyyyy day now.....jeebus is coming

      May 30, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
  15. Patel P

    It is long past time to rid the world of the Islamic madness. Remove them from your countries and do not let them escape with the slaves they are hiding. India kicked them out and still survive. We can do it to.

    May 30, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      Right on!

      May 30, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • bobby jones

      india just got a whole motorcade shot up by them, those people didnt survive

      May 30, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
  16. hippypoet

    if one wished to look at the future of these beliefs, the Abrahamic beliefs, they need only go as far as the amount of those practicing judaism, 14 million...they encompa.ss the roots of largest religions in the world – and they are dying. When the roots of any tree die, so does the tree!

    May 30, 2013 at 11:51 am |
  17. STFU

    if America losing its religion then it is a bad news for the rest of the world. American culture influence millions around the world.

    May 30, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • snopes says

      STFU displays a false assumption

      May 30, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
  18. Less

    Americans and humans in general idolize with the same zeal and self-serving vanity everywhere on earth, always have, always will.
    I can go to YouTube and honestly if negatively criticize any current pop or rock idol's video – without profanity, mind you – and immediately be attacked by generic fans with vulgar insults, racist chants, death wishes and threats for daring to not adore their god. Just like your ordinary jihadist.
    This appears to satisfy inner urges and excuses fanatic behavior – be it sports, music, religion.

    May 30, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • Answer

      People find such small comforts in life... " be it sports, music, religion. "

      When people are threatened by someone's words about their "favorites" they will respond negatively towards that person.

      May 30, 2013 at 11:54 am |
  19. Chad

    intolerant: Not tolerant of others' views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own
    actually, it is quite an easy case to make that Christians are far more tolerant than atheists. Agnostics might be a difficult case, but atheism? easily done. Atheists are by far and away the most intolerant people on earth..

    @Saraswati "And there's one of your issues, Chad, there is no "the" definition of a word"
    @Chad "ah, I forgot that you dislike dictionaries..

    @Saraswati "In this case you left out Oxford's example from oxford which would have made your case about the superior tolerance of Christianity comical:. Note that you broke a sentence at a colon to do this. Here's the whole sentence:
    not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own: he was intolerant of ignorance

    @Chad "actually, CNN belief blog atheists continually refer to Christians as ignorant.. right? That's probably the number 1 hurled accusation.

    ===
    @Saraswati "You also picked a very poor definition which referenced "not tolerant" as part of the definition of intolerant which is fairly useless."
    @Chad "I have notified Oxford that you object to their definition, I'm sure they will be in touch with you to remedy it."

    ===
    @Saraswati "To measure this unwillingness to accept you'd need to do a lot more than survey people you've met, as would atheists. However it is not unreasonable at all to point out that Christians (in certain subsets) are the ones unwilling to accept the marriages and behaviors of others, including speech, birth control and abortion. The only thing atheists generally refuse to accept is paying tax dollars to promote other's religions."
    @Chad "I think you are missing the part about "intolerance". The vast majority of CNN belief blog atheists are utterly intolerant of any Christian belief whatsoever.
    It is true that Christians do not want to kill unborn babies, I hardly see that as intolerant.

    Christians are evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage, as you well know.

    so, as stated it is quite an easy case to make that Christians are far more tolerant than atheists. Agnostics might be a difficult case, but atheism? easily done. Atheists are by far and away the most intolerant people on earth..

    May 30, 2013 at 11:47 am |
    • Answer

      Bring out 'Rachel.'

      May 30, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • .

      Gospel of Chad:
      (Updated list derived from history of Chad conversations.)

      Atheism:
      1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say, even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
      2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
      3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
      4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
      5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
      6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).

      Free will:
      7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
      8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.

      In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)

      After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!

      9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
      10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.

      Telling lies:
      11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
      12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
      13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
      14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
      15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
      16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
      17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.

      Science, math and psychology:
      18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
      19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
      20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
      21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
      22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.

      General truths about the CNN belief blog:
      23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
      24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
      25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
      26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
      27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic:
      28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
      29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
      30. Never question another Christian, no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
      31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!

      May 30, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Really-O?

      Chad's trolling.

      May 30, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Pete

      "The vast majority of CNN belief blog atheists are utterly intolerant of any Christian belief whatsoever.
      It is true that Christians do not want to kill unborn babies, I hardly see that as intolerant.

      Christians are evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage, as you well know.

      so, as stated it is quite an easy case to make that Christians are far more tolerant than atheists. Agnostics might be a difficult case, but atheism? easily done. Atheists are by far and away the most intolerant people on earth.."

      Chad's judging all atheists in the world based on a few troll atheists posting here, too funny. Another great example of Chad's poor logic, deceptiveness and lying way to debate.

      Yup, see the gospel according to Chad above for why posts from Chard are hysterical!

      May 30, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • .

      "Chad's trolling."

      He got handed his ass as Toothless Atheist and for stealing handles so now he's posting as Chad.

      May 30, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • Answer

      Chard's routine is to "define you" for you.

      All the christards want to do that. They go off the deep end with trying to corner you into their pre-conceived babble minister's version of "atheists."

      May 30, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Answer

      The christards will try to define for you:

      1) what you believe in
      2) who are your leaders
      3) how lousy you are in society

      and most of all ....

      4) how happy you really are without their delusions

      These are about the most basic of their routines.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • George

      "Atheists are by far and away the most intolerant people on earth.."

      In general, atheists are intolerant of religion, not religious people. Atheists don’t burn churches, assassinate religious leaders. They may write angry articles attacking religious ideas or argue passionately (or sarcastically) against religious practices, but that is not intolerance. That is disagreement. (If you think that’s intolerance, ask yourself, are there other ideas that are out of bounds for public debate, or just religious ones?)

      May 30, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad,
      "CNN belief blog atheists continually refer to Christians as ignorant"

      How else can one describe the willful disregard of established science in defense of ancient superstitions and the logical convolutions required to believe the bible as fact or history.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • Chad

      Interesting
      from http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistsRespect.htm

      religion and theism aren't owed deference and respect... irreligious atheists disagree with religious theism, say it is wrong, argue that it's harmful, and want people to change

      From oxford:
      intolerant Not tolerant of others' views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
      tolerantShowing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Answer

      Chard wants his dictionary. Oh poor baby.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • ...

      Chad is intolerant of all other religions not based on the god of Israel and even a lot of the cults that are based on some interpretation or other of the bible. How can a book of myth have 10,000's of different interpretations?

      May 30, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • .

      "Interesting
      from http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistsRespect.htm

      religion and theism aren't owed deference and respect... irreligious atheists disagree with religious theism, say it is wrong, argue that it's harmful, and want people to change"

      From Chad's site....
      More and more, religious theists are objecting to what they call "intolerance" on the part of irreligious atheists who are critical of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Religious theists insist that atheists are being intolerant and rather than criticizing or mocking religion, atheists should become more tolerant of religion. Liberal democracies place a high value on tolerance, so this sounds at first like a reasonable request but it's not because of how "tolerance" is being defined.

      Tolerance is not a simple concept which either is or is not present; instead, it's a complex concept with a spectrum of possible attitudes. It is thus not only possible for a person to be "tolerant" of some idea, thing, or even person in one way yet not another, but it is in fact the norm. While it might be reasonable to expect tolerance in one sense, it's not necessarily reasonable to also expect tolerance in another. Let's look at some of the definitions which dictionaries give for tolerance:

      A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

      The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

      Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

      Lack of opposition for beliefs or practices differing from one's own.

      The act or capacity of enduring; endurance.

      The act of allowing something.

      Is it reasonable for religious theists to expect or demand any of this from irreligious atheists? The first looks reasonable at first, except for the "and" in the first part. Irreligious atheists should be as fair and objective as possible when dealing with religion and religious beliefs, but what about "permissive"? If that just means not opposing the freedom of religion to exist, then that's appropriate. This is why the 5th and 6th definitions of tolerance are reasonable to both expect and demand.

      Everything in between, though, is problematic. It's not reasonable to insist that irreligious atheists "respect" religion and religious beliefs except insofar as it is limited simply leaving people alone and not trying to suppress their religion. Unfortunately, the sort of "respect" often demanded is more along the lines of high esteem, admiration, and even deference.

      It's not reasonable to expect irreligious atheists to be "indulgent" (humoring, catering to whims, yield to) of religion and religious beliefs they consider false. It's also not reasonable to expect irreligious atheists to "lack opposition" to religion and religious beliefs. To see just how absurd that would be, imagine demanding that conservatives be more "indulgent" of liberalism or that liberals "lack opposition" to conservatism. Does that make any sense? Does anyone expect something like that to happen? Of course not.

      Such "tolerance" isn't expected in other religious contexts, either. Jews aren't expected to "lack opposition" to Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah. Christians aren't expected to be "indulgent" of Islam. No one is expected to "respect" Osama bin Laden's religious beliefs. Few if any people raise any objections to such situations. Why? Because beliefs, ideas, and opinions don't deserve automatic tolerance except in the last two senses.

      French-Arab novelist Amin Maalouf wrote that "traditions deserve respect only insofar as they are respectable." The same can be said for all ideas, beliefs, and opinions and the basic principle can be expressed thus: they do not "deserve" tolerance in the sense of being indulged, not being opposed, and being respected, unless they earn that sort of tolerance.

      I find it very curious how often Christians demand tolerance of their religion even as so many Christians refuse to demonstrate the same sort of tolerance towards others. Some Christians argue that because Jesus made an exclusive claim to Truth, they are obliged to not be "indulgent" or "respectful" of falsehoods — precisely the attitude which some Christians, and perhaps some of the same Christians, want irreligious atheists to cease.

      Other Christians don't support tolerance when it prevents them from asserting social and political superiority over other groups. In the minds such Christians, they have no obligation to be "tolerant" — they are in the majority and therefore should be permitted to do whatever they want. Only minorities have an obligation to be tolerant, which basically means allowing the majority Christians to do as they will. If they stand up to challenge this and demand that the government treat everyone equally, this is basically the same as oppressing Christians and failing to show them "tolerance" (in other circumstances, the correct word would be "obsequiousness")

      This, then, seems to be the position which irreligious atheists are in. They are obliged to be "tolerant" in the broadest sense towards Christianity in that they shouldn't challenge Christian demands, question Christian claims, object to Christian positions, mock Christian beliefs, or resist Christian power. Christians, on the other hand, are not obliged to be any more "tolerant" than in the narrowest sense towards irreligious atheists — and even that might be withdrawn if atheists get out of line and refuse to be appropriately submissive.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      I don't have to tolerate you or any christian believing in something that is completely ridiculous. If a person chose to believe 2+2=3 and then demanded that you must respect his belief just as he respects your belief that 2+2=4, how would you react?

      PS, an atheist might be more intolerant than the average christian, but you Chad, take the cake as being very intolerant towards pretty much everyone on this blog.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      I am glad to see so many folks talking ABOUT chad rather than TO him in this thread.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • fintastic

      @CHAD..................... Delusion = "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."

      May 30, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • TDM

      Chad states:
      "It is true that Christians do not want to kill unborn babies, I hardly see that as intolerant."

      Chad, in this country, Christian women "kill unborn babies" (untrue; fetuses) than any other religion and agnostic/atheists combined. So I suppose one could say that Christian women are very tolerant of abortion.

      May 30, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Rachel tell chad to do what ?

      May 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles “I don't have to tolerate you or any christian believing in something that is completely ridiculous”
      @Chad “agreed, you are intolerant.

      ==========
      @Fantastic “Delusion = "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."
      @Chad “I completely agree
      "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars - Sir Fred Hoyle

      May 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • JMEF

      A test Chad.
      How tolerant are you of fellow Christian groups on a scale of 1 to 10....
      Westboro Baptists
      Mormons
      Jehovah Witness'
      Apostolic Church
      Branch Davidian
      Celestial Church of Christ
      Christian Science
      Could list many more but are you tolerant of those listed?

      May 30, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @JMEF

      I allow the existence of their opinions or behaviors even though I dont necessarily agree with them.

      May 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      But what I am trying to get out of you is how far do you allow your tolerance to go in relation to radical Christian cults? Existence of their opinions and behaviours is a slippery slope. Many radical Christian cults have committed crimes against humanity throughout history. How can you just simply say, well that is what they do even though I disagree with them, is that not a cop out?

      May 30, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      But what I am trying to get out of you is how far do you allow your tolerance to go in relation to radical Christian cults? Existence of their opinions and behaviours is a slippery slope. Many radical Christian cults have committed crimes against humanity throughout history. How can you just simply say, well that is what they do even though I disagree with them, is that not a cop out? Please explain.

      May 30, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Chad

      Legal prosecution for anyone breaking the law.
      I will witness to anyone that will listen.
      God allows people to hold all kinds of crazy views, should I be any different?

      May 30, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      "@Chuckles “I don't have to tolerate you or any christian believing in something that is completely ridiculous”
      @Chad “agreed, you are intolerant."

      Hmmmmm well that depends. You see I just because I don't have to tolerate your belief in something does not make me generally intolerant. It makes me intolerant of your beliefs. Without the qualifier you imply that my intolerance towards your religion is uniformed bigotry.

      For instance are you intolerant? Yes, specifically of every other religion other than yours. Regardless of your reasoning why, you are in the same ship as me pally. If you don't mind being called intolerant, then go nuts.

      May 30, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles “I don't have to tolerate you or any christian believing in something that is completely ridiculous”
      @Chad “agreed, you are intolerant."

      @Chuckles "Hmmmmm well that depends. You see I just because I don't have to tolerate your belief in something does not make me generally intolerant. It makes me intolerant of your beliefs. Without the qualifier you imply that my intolerance towards your religion is uniformed bigotry.
      @Chad "if you believe you "I don't have to tolerate your belief in something
      then you are intolerant.that's the definition.
      intolerant: Not tolerant of others' views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own

      pretty clear cut..

      ======
      @Chuckles "For instance are you intolerant? Yes, specifically of every other religion other than yours. Regardless of your reasoning why, you are in the same ship as me pally. If you don't mind being called intolerant, then go nuts."
      @Chad "no.. I am not intolerant, because I do not hold the view that "I don't have to tolerate your belief in something "

      I DO believe I have to tolerate opposing religious views. I dont have to agree with them, but I have to tolerate them.
      again, that's the definition

      tolerate Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

      I am tolerant towards other religious views.
      You are intolerant towards religious views.
      QED

      May 30, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
  20. Reality

    More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States,...."

    And why is that? Let us count the ways, #5: (see pp. 1, 9, 37, 46, and 50)

    o WHERE WAS YOUR GOD(S) WHEN THE FOLLOWING TOOK PLACE:

    The Twenty (or so) Worst Things GOD'S CREATURES Have Done to Each Other:

    M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)

    The Muslim Conquest of India

    "The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "

    Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*

    1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")

    2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)

    3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)

    4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)

    5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)

    6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)

    7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)

    8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)

    9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C

    10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)

    11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)

    12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)

    13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C

    14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C

    15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C

    16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)

    17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)

    18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)

    19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)

    20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C

    May 30, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Charles Darwin

      How true, and still the "sheeple" or the "fleeced ones" will still believe it's god's will.
      Unbelievable!

      May 30, 2013 at 11:47 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Unbelief is the culprit due to listening to satan's lies.

      Jesus warned,

      Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

      Matthew 7:13

      Amen.

      May 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Ernest T Bass

      @HeavenStench / / / Oh stenchy! Still talking about the red pointy horned debil dude with the pitchfork on the paint can?....

      It's only your imagination..... just like young children that have imaginary friends...

      May 30, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Reality

      Matt 7:13 is simply another historically-inauthentic passage made up by Matthew or something formulated by the
      early Christian Community. See the studies posted at earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm, http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb163.html and
      Professor Gerd Ludemann's review and conclusions in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 152-153.

      May 30, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
    • AG

      That's about 0.005% of the historical world population.
      People continue to get worked up about the dramatic negatives while utterly ignoring the amazing natural beauty in this world that is far superior than anything man-made.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:13 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
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.