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. Alias

    It will take a very long time before everyone sees the light. There are still religious schools that do a good job of sheltering children from ideas they don't agree with. Brainwashing in an environment where is is socially unacceptable to think for yourself can have a long lasting effect.

    May 31, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      And homeschooling is the worst. That is doing a disservice to those students who may go to a real school some day and know nothing about real science.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:12 am |
    • Chad

      Consider reading
      There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind - Antony Flew

      are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads?

      May 31, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • Al

      That is doing a disservice to those students who may go to a real school some day and know nothing about real science.

      But they will be ahead on literary folklore.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • Daniel

      "are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads?"

      If you found a pocket watch with hundreds of small parts all moving in unison you would not think "This happened by accident". No, you would logically conclude that the watch had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the watch he created, so logic would dictate that the watch maker had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the watch maker had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the maker of the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the maker of the watch maker had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the maker of the maker of the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the maker of the maker of the watch maker had a designer...

      May 31, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Sorry Chad.
      Faith is belief in spite of the evidence, not becuase of it.
      Religious faith is the willing suspension of critical thought. It is not a virtue.
      Of all the questions mankind has asked throughout history, never once has a supernatural answer been correct.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      Alternate title: One Flew Too Close to the Cuckoo's Nest, and Fell In

      May 31, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • lol??

      doc sayz,
      "...........Religious faith is the willing suspension of critical thought............."

      No wonder yer in a spot.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Brother Maynard

      He [Antoney Flew] later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with contributions from Roy Abraham Varghese. This book (and Flew's conversion itself) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew had mentally declined, and that Varghese was the primary author

      May 31, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Daniel

      "willing suspension of critical thought" = throwing your hands up when you come to a question you cannot answer and saying "Fvck it! I'll believe anyway!"

      May 31, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • Chad

      @Daniel "it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the watch maker had a designer"
      @Chad "interesting fact that Christian/Judeo doctrine states that God always existed, having no beginning or end."

      ====
      @Doc Vestibule "Faith is belief in spite of the evidence, not becuase of it. Religious faith is the willing suspension of critical thought. It is not a virtue."
      @Chad "you'll be surprised to find out that Christian doctrine states exactly the opposite.. Which means that either you simply didnt realize it, or were purposefully constructing a straw man?

      ==============
      Faith:
      A. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
      B. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

      ==============
      Faith has essentially two accepted usages in the English language; atheists In this case discard ‘A’ over ‘B’, then attack Christians in that context only, making a further critical and purposeful redefinition of the word “faith”, claiming that proof obviates it.
      Atheists claim that faith and knowledge of, or evidence of the existence of that which faith is being placed, are incompatible. This is patently nonsense in both current secular usage and biblical context.
      Secular usage: “faith” is an accepted concept in modern law. “Good faith”, fiduciary duty is ingrained in contract law, and nowhere does it require a lack of knowledge about the object in which faith is being expressed. “I have faith in John, he will do what he says”, it does not require that one has no knowledge of the true existence of John. Indeed it is nonsensical to have a faith in something you don’t know exists.

      Biblical context: “ And without faith it is impossible to please God Hebrews 11
      Which faith is being discussed? A faith for which there is no proof? Does proof obviate faith?
      Throughout the bible it is crystal clear that people, whom are commended for their faith, had ample proof of the existence of God PRIOR to their faith being commended.
      Abraham commended for his faith (Hebrews 11) had ample proof (God speaking to him).
      Moses commended for his faith (Hebrews 11) had ample proof (multiple miracles in Egypt, God speaking directly to him, etc, etc).
      In fact, NO WHERE in the bible is definitive proof of the existence of God EVER shown to obviate a person’s faith. Quite the contrary in fact, God promises to reveal Himself, and make Himself known to you if you search after Him. The biblical pattern is ALWAYS the same, God reveals Himself, then asks for a person’s trust in Him. That is biblical faith.

      There is simply no biblical support for proof obviating faith, or the faith that God desires requires a lack of proof as to His reality.
      None..

      That atheists attempt to make this case is clear evidence of their utter lack of familiarity with the bible, and their complete willingness to suspend objective critical thought when it comes to criticizing Christians.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Pete

      Well if Anotney Flew (never heard of him) believes in god then I suppose everyone else should too. Seriously who is the Flew character, and why should anyone care what he believes?

      May 31, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Consider reading

      The God Delusion – Richard Dawkins

      Are you willing to follow the evidence, and lack of evidence, where it leads?

      May 31, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • Science

      Or chad crawled into his shell on the ark and finally found his way out .............you know chad ?

      The mystery of how the turtle got its shell has finally been solved by scientists studying a 260-million-year-old fossil.

      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-have-figured-out-how-the-turtle-got-its-unique-hard-shell-2013-5#ixzz2UspYoTOm

      May 31, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Daniel

      "fact that Christian/Judeo doctrine states that God always existed, having no beginning or end."

      So you use logic to get you to the designer and then suspend logic when you give this new creature the ability to never have had a beginning and thus never having had a designer. This means that your ability to use logic in the first case has been revoked so go back to bible school and try another tact.

      Just admit that you do not use logic or reason and have come to your conclusions based on wild leaps of faith mixed with a strong personal desire to be more important than you are. The desire is so strong in fact that it generates and sustains your faith. But don't try and reason your way to God, it just doesn't work, so stop trying to debate with atheists who refuse to use anything other than logic and reason.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "The God Delusion – Richard Dawkins"

      =>read it..
      I was actually shocked at the contents.. "Religious institutions have done terrible things therefor God doesnt exist"

      I heard that "The Selfish Gene" at least had some logical thought in it.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Of course, there are other sources for definitions of "faith" that could be considered less favorable if you are a delusional, such as:

      Collins Concise English Dictionary © HarperCollins Publishers::

      faith /feɪθ/
      n
      strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
      a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
      trust in God and in his actions and promises
      a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
      complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
      allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)
      bad faith ⇒ insincerity or dishonesty
      good faith ⇒ honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith)

      May 31, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Just as delusionals love to say (something like) "You have to open your heart to god to understand The Babble!" you have to open your brain to understand Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, etc.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Science

      Chad how old is the turtle fossil ?

      May 31, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad, @HotAirAce,
      I found the God Delusion a bit preachy (just my opinion, no one else's). I think, "The Greatest Show on Earth" was much better. IMO

      May 31, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      We are talking about RELIGIOUS faith.
      To believe a supernatural explanation, you must must suspend rational thought and all concept of falsifiability and accept that magic is real.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I found The Babble to be a lot preachy, and a load of shit as well. . .

      May 31, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • Pete

      I followed the evidence in the bible, and it led me back to the bible, and at that point I realized there really wasn't any evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • Really-O?

      @ME II & HotAirAce (I'd include Chad, but what's the point)-

      I found that God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger presented a more compelling argument than The God Delusion.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • ME II

      @HotAirAce,
      No argument here

      May 31, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Try "Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science and Bad Relgion in A World Without God" by Dr. Greg Graffin.
      There's another book that is basically a collection of communications between Dr. Graffin (who is a professor of evolutionary biology as well as frontman for a seminal punk rock band) and Preston Jones, a professor of Christian theology called "Is Belief in God Good, Bad, or Irrelevant".

      May 31, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • Chad

      @Doc Vestibule "We are talking about RELIGIOUS faith. To believe a supernatural explanation, you must must suspend rational thought and all concept of falsifiability and accept that magic is real."

      =>strawman, please provide chapter/verse supporting your contention 🙂

      see above post completely enumerating biblical definition of faith.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      Oh, I see, Chad, not physics, but "spooky" physics. Like the difference between a Nat. Geo show and an episode of Ghost Hunters.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Daniel

      Religion is the Ouija board social game that billions of people are playing. They sit around saying "Did you feel something?" "Yeah, I think I did feel something" "Was That you?" "No" "Was that you moving it just now?" "No" "Whats it spelling?" "I don't know.." "You're sure that wasn't you?" "Yes" "But it just spelled the letters 'S' 'T' 'A' 'M' 'O' and it feels like it's moving back to the 'S'..." "Yes, God wants us to worship John Stamos..."

      May 31, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Daniel –

      I'd be more likely to join your cult if the board spelled 'R' 'O' 'M' 'I' 'J' 'N'.

      Cheers

      May 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @Daniel

      What investigation have you done into Christianity that has lead you to that conclusion?
      none?

      May 31, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Really-O?

      =====
      Chad posting as "Rachel" –
      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/richard-dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-10/#comments
      Starting ~September 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm
      Busted – September 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm
      ====
      Nonsensical Chad-bites:

      "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."

      "Every book that purports to accurately record history needs to be examined critically for internal consistency and for its accuracy in detail. The bible succeeds on all accounts [sic]."

      "The Genesis account stands alone amongst all creation stories of the time, a fact universally acknowledged...We are only know [sic] beginning to scientifically discover how accurate it is indeed."

      'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'

      May 31, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Daniel

      "What investigation have you done into Christianity that has lead you to that conclusion?
      none?"

      Well, it only took 5 posts for Chad to get to the center of his flawed logic tootsie pop. At the core of Chad's belief is his belief that no one else has ever done any study into the bible. This is a terribly flawed position to take as it just makes him look like an ass making a wild assumption. Most atheists like myself have studied your bible voraciously but now have belly aches from all the pig swill it contains. Incest, slavery, condones r a p e, treats women as second class citizens and just in general says were right, your wrong and we have the right to kill you if you don't accept it. What a horrible anti-human compilation of bronze age chauvinists.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • Chad

      @Daniel "Most atheists like myself have studied your bible voraciously "

      =>help me understand what you mean by "voraciously", have you actually read the entire thing, as in, read every verse of every chapter?

      May 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Indeed, Chad. Many atheists have been to seminary. Some are priests or other clergy.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I wonder if Chad has read "every verse of every chapter" of the works on Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard (listed below for Chad's convenience) before concluding that Scientology is false? Oh, that's right, the standard Chad applies to non-believers, with regard to knowledge of Christianity, does not apply to him, with regard to other religions because –

      ">I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real." [ CLOSE MIND HERE ]

      Dianetics: The Original Thesis (1948)
      Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (May 1950)
      Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science (April 1950)
      Science of Survival (June 1951)
      Self Analysis (August 1951)
      Advanced Procedure and Axioms (November 1951)
      Handbook For Preclears (December 1951)
      A History of Man (July 1952)
      Scientology 8-80 (November 1952)
      Scientology 8-8008 (December 1952)
      The Creation of Human Ability (July 1954)
      Dianetics 55! (December 1954)
      Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought
      These books are not part of the Basics and are either written directly by or compiled from other works by L. Ron Hubbard.
      All About Radiation (1957)
      Have You Lived Before This Life (1960)- no longer published
      The Book of E-Meter Drills (1965)
      Introduction to Scientology Ethics (1968)
      The Way to Happiness (1981)

      May 31, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Daniel

      Yes Chad, every word of every line, more than once, as well as the greek septuagint side by side with a literal english translation. What makes it so hard for you to believe others might not come to the same conclusions you do Chad? You might try considering if you have come to your conclusions BECAUSE you want to believe so badly that you are special, and not because of the actual text creating some real relationship with an all powerful creator. If you start with a preconcieved position it's not hard to take a book as contraversial as the bible and make it say whatever you want it to say. Ignore this, apply that, make excuses for those, shrug off the critics and ta da!! You have yourself your brand of religion tailored just for you.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Chad

      "Many atheists have been to seminary. Some are priests or other clergy."

      =>I'm sure that does happen, however the vast majority of CNN blog atheists have almost no familiarity with the bible, and astonishingly have absolutely no desire to change that situation..

      May 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      Chad

      @Daniel "Most atheists like myself have studied your bible voraciously "

      =>help me understand what you mean by "voraciously", have you actually read the entire thing, as in, read every verse of every chapter?
      ................................................

      Yes, and some of us were going to be preachers,,,as in me. Your posts reveal that you actually lack much faith. Your self serving biased facts give you comfort, rather than the Holy Spirit. Your ego is greater than your God.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      Round and round we go.
      The Bible says that faith is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1).
      Religious faith is assurance that the intagible, ineffable, unprovable, unseeable things you hope are true are actually true.
      Faith is the emotion that precedes thought.
      Please refer to HotAirAce's posting about the dictionary definition of faith.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Astonishingly, Chad never considers the possibility that it is contemporary Christians exactly like him that put people off from Christianity.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      Chad

      "Many atheists have been to seminary. Some are priests or other clergy."

      =>I'm sure that does happen, however the vast majority of CNN blog atheists have almost no familiarity with the bible, and astonishingly have absolutely no desire to change that situation..
      ........................
      The bible first has to be recognized as an authority or be considered credible

      May 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad doesn't admit to a personal relationship of love and dialogue with his God, John. What you see may be all there is to Chad's religion.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • .

      Gospel of Chad:

      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 31, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      What kininvestigation have you done into the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, or Revelation X to make you reject those doctrines?

      May 31, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • UhOh

      ""Many atheists have been to seminary. Some are priests or other clergy."

      =>I'm sure that does happen, however the vast majority of CNN blog atheists have almost no familiarity with the bible, and astonishingly have absolutely no desire to change that situation..
      ........................
      The bible first has to be recognized as an authority or be considered credible"

      Oh look another Christian lying for their God, how typical. You are actually wrong there are several former ministers and Sunday school teachers who are now atheists posting on this blog. They actually do know the bible better than you which is why you're lying for your God.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      LRH wrote too many books to list here but you should have included his other fiction book(s) Mission Earth.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @John Stemberger "Yes, and some of us were going to be preachers,,,as in me.
      @Chad "what caused you to reject the reality of the God of Israel?
      anything specific?

      ====
      @Doc Vestibule

      =>you are cherry picking, see complete analysis above

      ===
      @Doc Vestibule "What kininvestigation have you done into the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, Quran..."
      @Chad "A. You just cut and pasted that, not realizing that the first three (Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash) are Jewish texts which of course as a Christian I would not reject 🙂
      B. The belief in the God of Israel is mutually exclusive with the belief in any other god
      C. As such, I have a reason for rejecting other gods.
      D. Further, even IF the God of Israel was false, that would not provide you with an excuse to exercise your own due diligence, it would just mean that I no longer had an excuse for failing to investigate the others.
      E. The atheist has no such reason, so why do YOU reject the existence of the God of Israel specifically?

      May 31, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad: "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real." [ CLOSE MIND HERE ]

      May 31, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad is incapable of understanding that many, if not most, non-believers simply do not currently accept any god hypothesis because there is a lack of necessary and sufficient evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? Chad: "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real." [ CLOSE MIND HERE ]"

      =>kind of a weird post.
      If you feel it is close minded to reject the existence of gods WITH an excuse, what would you consider your rejection WITHOUT an excuse?

      May 31, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Chad

      what would you consider "necessary and sufficient evidence"?

      or, do you just want to not define what would be necessary and sufficient evidence, instead just screaming at Christians all day that whatever is presented, isnt necessary and sufficient evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Really-O?

      To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad is incapable of understanding that many, if not most, non-believers simply do not currently accept any god hypothesis because there is a lack of necessary and sufficient evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? "non-believers simply do not currently accept any god hypothesis because there is a lack of necessary and sufficient evidence.

      @Chad "what would you consider "necessary and sufficient evidence"?"

      @Really-O? "To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. "

      @Chad "please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      You usually just bail out at this point.. Not wanting to define what would be "necessary and sufficient evidence" or what "acceptable empirical evidence" would be.

      Instead just screaming at Christians all day that whatever is presented, isnt necessary and sufficient or empirical, evidence.

      right?

      May 31, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Things that are neither necessary nor sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis that the god of Israel exists:

      1) Origin of the universe
      2) Origin of life
      3) Fine tuning
      4) Fossil record
      5) Empty tomb

      These are simply evidence of the fact that Chad does not understand the nature of evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad: "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real." [ CLOSE MIND HERE ]

      'Nuff said.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Chad just holds to his apriori beliefs at any cost and uses any argument that most easily addresses the issue for HIS own thinking. So, if someone puts forth the meaning of a bible verse that's painfully obvious to everyone but yet causes him cognitive dissonance, Chad will just claim that that person does not understand the bible verse to the degree that he does and subsequently put forth whatever nonsense or completely backwards viewpoint of that scripture and claim that he, by the authority of his belief, has the more accurate view and that you are ignorant of the scripture because you have not put as much effort into understanding as has he.

      It's just pride. Chad's ego is his god. He holds to his belief and performs any mental gymnastics he has to in order to worship at the false idol of his preconceptions. That's why the veracity of his arguments don't matter; as long as they are convenient and "hold" for his own use and biased evaluation, he has no problem. Chad's real blindness is in not recognizing that just because he finds it so easy to cling to any pathetic argument that "will do," we who honor reason and logic have no such silly motivation.

      Just because his posts do his own perspective a disservice and bolster the position of the skeptics doesn't mean he's above being pitied.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Chad

      Instead just screaming at Christians all day that whatever is presented, isnt necessary and sufficient or empirical, evidence because you have never actually defined what WOULD be necessary and sufficient, nor what you would consider empirical.

      QED.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Necessary and sufficient? I would need to see that God interacts with this Universe in ways that only God, as I understand the concept of God, can. If God establishes what is possible within physical laws, then I would expect God to be able to do something that is physically impossible. If God establishes what is logically possible, I would expect God to be do something that is logically impossible.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Sorry, that should be "I would expect God to be able to do something that is logically impossible."

      May 31, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      A god who desires to be treated in a certain manner should make himself and his will obvious. He should be discoverable by verifiable, repeatable methods. He should be obvious and present in all disciplines, and his will and nature should emerge with discoveries in mathematics, chemistry, and physics, and indeed, any field of study that directly deals with the predictable nature of reality.

      The god of the bible may exist, but if so, he allows so much confusion over his nature and will that he should be indifferent to receiving proper worship or he is an azzhole for expecting proper worship. Gravity is obvious, though we do not understand it and utilize the force; evolution is not obvious, though we understand it and categorize its effects. The mathematics of physics imply other dimensions of existence, though we do not understand them and cannot verify them.

      God, on the other hand, is invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant. Anybody can make hasty conclusions born of desire. Myths are stories of convenience.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      No screaming involved...

      Empirical evidence that directly points to the existence of the god of Israel (which could be attributed to that specific god and no other cause, including any other god or supernatural force) would be considered necessary evidence.

      Empirical evidence that, in total, supported the existence of the god of Israel, specifically, with a sufficient degree of probability, would be considered sufficient evidence.

      I wonder why someone who claims to have "several master's degrees" doesn't understand that.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Hmmmm.....

      "=>I'm sure that does happen, however the vast majority of CNN blog atheists have almost no familiarity with the bible, and astonishingly have absolutely no desire to change that situation.."

      U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey – Pew Survey 2010 – The three groups that perform best in this survey are atheists and agnostics (who get an average of 20.9 out of 32 questions right), Jews (20.5 questions right on average) and Mormons (20.3 questions right). Looked at another way, 27% of Jews, 22% of atheists and agnostics, and 20% of Mormons score in the top 10% of all respondents in overall number of correct answers to religious knowledge.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Please state your "God of Israel" hypothesis and such evidence that supports said hypothesis.

      "Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence )

      May 31, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...I actually overstepped on the necessary evidence bit...you would not have to demonstrate that the evidence could only be attributed to the god of Israel, only that there is a causal link to the god of Israel...but it would still need to be empirical.

      Now, let's watch Chad confuse the use of "necessary" and "sufficient" in science and logic.

      May 31, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      Chad

      @John Stemberger "Yes, and some of us were going to be preachers,,,as in me.
      @Chad "what caused you to reject the reality of the God of Israel?
      anything specific?
      ...........
      First define "reality"

      May 31, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      "observation or experimentation"
      ...
      Impossible when talking about gods....this is where faith comes in

      May 31, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and still I'm not quite precise (which we know is essential when dealing with Chad the Equivocator) –

      "...only that the evidence is necessary for the existence of the god of Israel...but it would still need to be empirical."

      May 31, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Just as I thought...hold Chad's feet to the fire of empirical evidence and he disappears. Typical.

      May 31, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      Yes, that list is a cut and paste job from my own archives (ie: stuff I've written myself).
      Becuase religionists spew the same arguments over and over, I've a number of "canned" responses and questions.
      Are you familiar with the principle of falsifiability?
      Perhaps the best analogy is the Celestial Teapot.
      "Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my a.ssertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my as.sertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and ent.itle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
      – Bertrand Russell

      May 31, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Alias

      @John Stemberger
      It is only impossible because your god (if it exists) chooses to stay hidden.

      May 31, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Joey

      I have decided to let Chad do my investigation into the bible. So I have been reading his posts, but all that has happened from reading them is that I am even more convinced that god is not real. So it is up to you, Chad, to save my soul. Do you have even one compelling argument?

      May 31, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • Joey

      I guess not.

      May 31, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O "Empirical evidence that directly points to the existence of the god of Israel (which could be attributed to that specific god and no other cause, including any other god or supernatural force) would be considered necessary evidence."

      @Chad "Somehow.. I cant imagine how, but somehow, you missed the earlier question, namely: "please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      ====
      @ME II ""Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.""
      @Chad "How is the existence of the laws that govern the universe not empirical evidence?"

      ===
      @Hmmmm.....
      =>that pew survey had less than 50% judeo/christian content.

      ====
      @John Stemberger

      =>what caused you to think that the God of Israel was not real?

      ===
      @Doc Vestibule

      =>you forgot to answer the questions 🙂
      1) even IF the God of Israel was false, that would not provide you with an excuse to exercise your own due diligence, it would just mean that I no longer had an excuse for failing to investigate the others.
      2) . The atheist has no such reason, so why do YOU reject the existence of the God of Israel specifically?

      ====
      @Joey

      =>God is real.

      May 31, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      God is real, if only made of the stuff of imagination. Chad's running on about the God of Israel, but really should confess that his God of Israel deserves a subscript that identifies it as uniquely his.

      May 31, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      What is your hypothesis that we are evaluating?

      "How is the existence of the laws that govern the universe not empirical evidence?"

      You mean the existence of a rational universe? The "laws" are just our description of how the universe works, they don't "exist" by themselves as independent enti.ties.

      A rational universe does not lend any more support to a GOI then it does to nearly anything else, including fictional things like FSM.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • ME II

      then -> than
      (hate it when I do that)

      May 31, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "A rational universe does not lend any more support to a GOI the.."

      =>Existence of the laws need to be explained by something
      they are consistent with the theistic claim
      they are evidence of the theistic claim.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad, I see your sophistry hiatus is over. You have as much evidence to accept your god as any other i.e. none. You have the same evidence to reject your god as you have all the other gods. You then ask what evidence is acceptable when you have already accepted your god and rejected others with exactly the same evidence for each (your myths are in the bible, theirs are in different texts but essentially the same validity). Then you'll say "but I know my god is true" when you don't know that any more than the other gods or even unicorns or leprechauns, etc.
      Slip and slide. Dodge and swerve.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Things that are neither necessary nor sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis that the god of Israel exists:

      1) Origin of the universe
      2) Origin of life
      3) Fine tuning
      4) Fossil record
      5) Empty tomb
      ...
      6) Existence of the laws (of science)

      These are simply evidence of the fact that Chad does not understand the nature of evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O

      =>I didnt realize what a terrifying question this was for you!!
      "please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      amazing thing is, I'm the one continuously accused of dodging ! 🙂

      May 31, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad is incapable of understanding that many, if not most, non-believers simply do not currently accept any god hypothesis because there is a lack of necessary and sufficient evidence.

      ...and then there's this little ditty...

      To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.

      Wouldn't things be so much easier and more tidy if one was able to wrap them up with a bit of circular logic as Chad does when he states –

      "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real." [ CLOSE MIND HERE ]"

      May 31, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • Really-O?

      "please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed unsurreptitiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested. Let's see, that would probably do it. Why can't Chad determine that for himself? Dishonest? Obtuse? Both?

      May 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Really-O?

      And, once again, because it cannot be said enough –

      Things that are neither necessary nor sufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis that the god of Israel exists:

      1) Origin of the universe
      2) Origin of life
      3) Fine tuning
      4) Fossil record
      5) Empty tomb
      6) Existence of the laws (of science)

      These are simply evidence of the fact that Chad does not understand the nature of evidence.

      May 31, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • Chad Apologetics!

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c&w=640&h=360]

      May 31, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      @Really-O? "Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed unsurrept itiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested. Let's see, that would probably do it.

      @Chad "you lost me..
      You want to be able to test, now, in 2013, if Jesus turned water into wine in ~30AD?
      Or if Lazarus was raised from the dead?
      Or if the girl in Mark 5 was raised from the dead?

      At the time, those were all certainly non-surrept itious and easily testable. But How do you propose to observe and test those things now?

      so confusing.. why is that question so terrifying for you to answer?
      "please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      May 31, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad Apologetics!

      The Chad apologetic corollary –

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3mxVjB4aqI&w=640&h=360]

      May 31, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "At the time, those were all certainly non-surrept itious and easily testable.

      Couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe do any or all of them again in 2013? HAAAAAAA! You slay me, Chad, really you do.

      May 31, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I hope all on this forum will read Chad's May 31, 2013 at 6:17 pm post – it is a glaring example of what a punk ass he really is...and he doesn't seem to be afraid to expose it to all. As I said, Chad really slays me.

      May 31, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      @John Stemberger

      =>what caused you to think that the God of Israel was not real?
      -------------------
      There was no outside force or being involved. The more I held your god accounable and the same standards, the more my eyes were opened. Faith lost, of course...The core of any faith is in man. What is the answer to everything? I don't know. What happens after I die? I dont know. I have found no reason to believe your god is real. I have found no reason to fear what men say.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      Chad

      At the time, those were all certainly non-surrept itious and easily testable. But How do you propose to observe and test those things now?
      ------------–
      Okay you made the claim, prove it.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:03 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      @Really-O? "Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed unsurrept itiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested. Let's see, that would probably do it.

      @Chad "you lost me..
      You want to be able to test, now, in 2013, if Jesus turned water into wine in ~30AD?
      Or if Lazarus was raised from the dead?
      Or if the girl in Mark 5 was raised from the dead?

      At the time, those were all certainly non-surrept itious and easily testable. But How do you propose to observe and test those things now?

      so confusing.. why is that question so terrifying for you to answer?
      "please define what acceptable empirical evidence would be"

      May 31, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @John "The more I held your god accountable and the same standards, the more my eyes were opened. "

      =>But the bible says we arent to put God to the test..
      What the bible DOES say, is that if we search for Him, He will be found.

      I get frustrated when He wont do what I tell Him to do either, but that doesnt mean He doesnt exist..

      May 31, 2013 at 7:32 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed again in 2013, unsurreptitiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested. Let's see, that would probably do it.

      How's that, Chad? Does that make it past your obtuse-knucklehead goggles? Bring on the flailing!

      May 31, 2013 at 7:43 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Hey, Chad...when you're exposed as an idiot or a liar...just double-down!

      May 31, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "Existence of the laws need to be explained by something
      they are consistent with the theistic claim
      they are evidence of the theistic claim."

      1) Consistency is not evidence of, i.e. correlation is not causation.
      2) Many claims would be consistent with a rational universe with "laws", your GOI is no more validated than any other. In fact, what claim would not allow for a rational universe?

      June 2, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad and Really-O? – a dialogue (fictional, just barely)

      ====
      Chad: I have a 1980 Yugo that can hit 200 mph.

      Really-O?: I find that hard to believe.

      Chad: What would you consider necessary and sufficient evidence that my Yugo can go 200 mph?

      Really-O?: Let's go out to a track and, under controlled conditions, with anyone interested in attendance, get your 1980 Yugo up to a speed of 200 mph. That would do it.

      Chad: Well, look at this...I have a Yugoslavian magazine from 1984 in which this guy says his 1980 Yugo went 200 mph. You see, it says, "And as we passed the hour of noon, we traveled two hundred miles"...or something like that...I had to have it translated into French, and then Spanish, and then Old English and then modern English, but see, right there, plain as day.

      Really-O?: Sorry, but that doesn't suffice as necessary or sufficient evidence that your Yugo can go 200 mph. I want to observe your Yugo hit 200 mph.

      Chad: I've driven my Yugo 200 mph...I already told you that. You expect me to do it again on demand?

      Really-O?: Well, yes. You asked what would suffice as necessary and sufficient evidence and I told you.

      Chad: Well, the speed limit is 65.

      Really-O?: What does the speed limit have to do with whether or not your Yugo can hit 200 mph?

      Chad: You clearly have not investigated Yugos. You need to spend some time reading the Yugo manual and this 1984 Yugoslavian magazine. Then we can have a serious conversation about the issue.

      Really-O?: Chad, you asked what would suffice as necessary and sufficient evidence that your 1980 Yugo can hit 200 mph and I told you, clearly and concisely. I don't know what more I can do.

      Chad: Well, you see, the real question is, "What would you say if I told you my radio goes really loud?"
      ====

      Gee, Chad, I guess those silly imaginary dialogues are fun.

      For context, please refer to these threads:

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/comment-page-71 @ June 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm
      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/comment-page-69 @ May 31, 2013 at 6:33 pm
      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/comment-page-67 @ May 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      June 2, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
  2. Heretic

    It may be diminishing but it will be decades before all the religitards are cured, especially in the bible belt.

    May 31, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      if God keeps sending those F4 tornados through the Bible belt, they could be thinned out a lot quicker!

      May 31, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Arnold

      Can you abstain from such language?

      May 31, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      I believe that the word "retard" is completely appropriate in this instance, and is in alignment with the dictionary definition. The faithful have willfully retarded their mental abilities in order to accept the fantanstic – because they WANT to believe, not because they have any reason to believe.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Very unfortunately, "God" apparently chooses to kill innocent children who are the more likely to shed foolish myths. Maybe that's "his" plan to sustain the bullsh!it.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I'm actually pretty shocked by the use of "retard" and similar derogatory terminology related to developmental issues. There has been an education campain going on about the inappropriateness of such language for almost 20 years and somehow the few people who seem to have missed it apparently gather on this site.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      Agreed, not very pretty is it?

      May 31, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @MEII, No, it's pretty ugly. I tend to take the use of such language as a tip that the writer is too uneducated and hateful for any sort of conversation and normally won't bother to engage. These people, at best, have been living under a rock. More likely they lack both a desire to learn and the basic human facility for compassion. It's really pretty disturbing.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Must we retire "retard" and "retarded" from the English language? When applied to religiosity, they need not refer back to what is now meant by "mentally challenged", "developmentally delayed" etc.

      Definition of retard
      verb
      Pronunciation: /riˈtärd/
      [with object]

      delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment: his progress was retarded by his limp

      So it is accurate, and not really insensitive, I think, to say that some people are retarded by their religion.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • ME II

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One,
      "Retarded by their religion" does have value as a statement, however the common understanding and usage is still seen as "mentally retarded", and as such, is little more than fallacious name-calling. IMO

      May 31, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Tom, Tom, you are talking about a verb. What we're looking at here is a derogatory noun that has no other meaning in standard US English than as an insult to a person by comparing them to someone with developmental disabilities. Ditto for the variants like "religitard" that every 14 year old on this site seems to think so witty. It's no different in intent than calling. someone que.er or a fa.ggot as an insult. If you want to use the proper verb and adjective forms by all means go ahead. If you want to discuss a fa.ggot of wood or use the term for a cigarette I doubt anyone will object either.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Reposted

      I completely agree.

      The persistent use of variations on the theme of 'tard here applied to the religious or to anyone else is juvenile and unnecessary.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      Agreed. Calling the religious retarded is not appropriate, just as the religious calling atheists Marxists is inappropriate.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      What, did I miss the jump on the politically correct bandwagon? Apparantly so... I refuse to eliminate a perfectly acceptable word because someone thinks it's offensive to mentally handicapped people. Well, let it be known that as hypocritical as a christian as it may be, I would never call someone with Down Syndrome, etc... retarded, their handicap is totally out of their control. However, I will not refrain from calling christards, well... christards. As others have stated, "The faithful have willfully retarded their mental abilities in order to accept the fantastic – because they WANT to believe, not because they have any reason to believe." So, get your panties untwisted...

      May 31, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      That's the problem with Lucifer and apparently his evil twin. WE might all decide on a better standard of behavior but he isn't quite so willing to turn loose of the baser instincts.

      May 31, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • fred

      TomTom
      In which case would you be considered a spiritual retard?

      May 31, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • fred

      Is it an insult to call atheists "godless"? At one time that was considered derogatory.

      May 31, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      I am not insulted by being called godless – but I am offended when I am called immoral or evil. As far as the "word" goes – I have found Down's Syndrome individuals to be much more spiritually advanced than most religious people. They can actually grasp the basic concept of "be a good person" while throwing away all of the dogma. They also have no desire (mostly) to convert you.

      PS – I also am offended by the assumption that all atheists are politically correct (or even liberal).

      May 31, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      I can't speak for all atheists, but I doubt many would be offended by the term "godless". It doesn't seem to imply anything except a lack of god(s).

      May 31, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Alias

      @Evil Twin

      May 31, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      fred, I am happy to say that the progress of spirituality and religiosity has been retarded in me. I am symptom-free.

      May 31, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
  3. Alias

    It is really not that complicated.
    The bible has flaws. That is why there are so many interpretaations of it.
    Yoiung people have more access to information that past generations, so they are looking into the bible and its different interpretations more than past generations.
    Young people are rejecting the flawed book and the flawed organizations that try to tell people how to live their lives. Young people are too informed and smart to acept the word of immoral establishments selling salvation.
    Religion is losing its members and influence.

    May 31, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      You say young people are too informed and intelligent but on another page a different atheist cites a study showing that intellectual prowess is diminishing generationally. Which is it?

      May 31, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Here's the citation:

      A provocative new study published in Trends in Genetics suggests that human intelligence has been slowly deteriorating since societies moved away from hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Study author Gerald Crabtree, of Stanford University, discusses the controversial work.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • tallulah13

      Since you want a comparison, please site the name the study of which you speak, Bill Deacon, and where to find it.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • tallulah13

      Ah, you beat me to it. Thank you.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • Alias

      AS usual Bill, your logic fails.
      I am not responsible for every other post made by athiests.
      It is stupid to suggest that just because we are both athiests we have to agree on everything we think/post.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • Vic

      I believe the Bible has scribal, translational and interpretational errors regarding certain details! However, I believe the general narrative about God is clear enough in support of our senses!

      May 31, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • tallulah13

      I have to go to work, and I don't have time to read it, but as the comment itself said, the study is controversial. I'll try to read it when I get home from work.

      The fact remains that humans in developed nations have more access to information now than at any other time in history. It follows that those who avail themselves of this information will find it increasingly difficult to believe that the bible is what christians claim it to be.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:11 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Bill Deacon
      The study you're citing refers to long term changes – not a few generations, but dozens or hundreds of generations.
      Alias is talking about recent history.
      The relevant point is that this generation's ubiquitous access to instant information from all corners of humanity means that the realities of moral relativism are much harder to hide from them.
      It is becoming increasingly difficult for parents to keep their children insulated from cultures and opinions that differ from their own.
      Interaction with people of a different religion and culture means that kids won't be so ready to believe that anyone not of their own faith is evil.
      Kids who have questions about their religion now have resources other than their parents and preachers for answers.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • JMEF

      Bill Deacon
      I know you like to keep up with the news. March 27, 2013 story by Brigid Anderson, ABC, Australia.
      "Cardinal Pell says he recently learned that former Ballarat Bishop Ronald Mulkearns had destroyed docu.ments to hide cases of abuse and he admitted that in some cases members of the clergy were placed above the law."

      May 31, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • midwest rail

      C'mon JMEF – destroyed doc/uments here, redacted doc/uments there, a little interference with a sovereign nation's internal study....what's a bit of inconsequential conspiracy among friends ?

      May 31, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • JMEF

      midwest rail
      Agree, but the holier than thou BD manages to disregard the corruption in the RCC and sweep all the dirt under the rug and continues to pontificate as if his delusion holds the moral high ground. Hypocrite that he is.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • Daniel

      This time the Catholic priests weren't just r a p i n g children, they were r a p i n g the justice system.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • JMEF

      Daniel
      That is also right, they managed to sign a sweetheart deal with the authorities before the sh!t hit the fan that victims would only be compensated at the rate of $75,000 per abuse case. The object of the RCC has always and only been to protect their reputation and wealth; the victims were just collateral damage.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Science

      http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church_se-x_abuse_cases/index.html

      Take dash out of se-x for url to work

      May 31, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Catholics not so bad

      Hey, people spend way more on s e x in Nevada then the Catholic Church has. It's only spent a mere $6 billion paying victims to keep quiet, thats a drop in the bucket compared to Vegas numbers... of course in Vegas you pay consenting adults for s e x instead of bending 12 year old alter boys over a pew...

      May 31, 2013 at 10:54 am |
    • lol??

      Alias has a flaw problem.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • JMEF

      Bill Deacon
      Interesting that you would lump all atheists into one group by one statement. So I guess you would agree with the Rainman, a professed Christian, that sees your Pope as the anti-Christ. Try playing games you can win, Bill.

      May 31, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • Saraswati

      The thing is, Bill, we aren't interested in what has happened to intelligence since hunter gatherer societies, but since Christianity began to decline in very recent times. What repeated studies have found is that across societies IQs have increased steadily since the 1930s (the Flynn effect) – the same period over which we've seen a steady decline in religiosity (and no, I don't think we can claim causation). The only clear declines we've seen are per academic level (in part because we are now much less restrictive about who goes to college and in part because on average students study less) and in arithmetic skills (corresponding to the rise of use of the calculator). Overall knowledge, however, has increased as the population in general now has more education than previously. This is very basic stuff that's been published repeatedly for over 30 years and your attempt to grasp at a theory about a trend from cave man days when we are interested in at most a few hundred years is so flawed you wouldn't pass it off in a freshman term paper.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      That's funny Sara because you are the other atheist I'm quoting as saying intellectual prowess is declining. Here's another reference:

      Other research has suggested an apparent rise in I.Q. scores since the 1940s, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. But Dr. te Nijenhuis suggested the Flynn Effect reflects the influence of environmental factors - such as better education, hygiene and nutrition - and may mask the true decline in genetically inherited intelligence in the Western world.

      This new research was published in the April 13 issue of Intelligence.

      My question is, whether you relate it to the decline in religiosity or not, is human intelligence increasing as Alias says or declining as Saraswati and other researchers say? If it not clear which direction it is moving, perhaps it would be wiser to refrain from giving it credit or debit on the religious dynamic.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Hmmmm.....

      "Dr. te Nijenhuis suggested the Flynn Effect reflects the influence of environmental factors – such as better education, hygiene and nutrition – and may mask the true decline in genetically inherited intelligence in the Western world."

      What exactly explains this decline? Study co-author Dr. Jan te Nijenhuis, professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Amsterdam, points to the fact that women of high intelligence tend to have fewer children than do women of lower intelligence. This negative association between I.Q. and fertility has been demonstrated time and again in research over the last century.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Bill, you're pulling a blatant chad. Please quote, with a link, where I said intellectual prowess is declining? I said exactly what I have said here which is that there are declines in some areas but that general knowledge has increased and that at best we are three steps forward for every two back (really, do try to interpret that as decline, go ahead). I will paste below exactly what I said and challenge you to come up with any other quotes that support your false claim. This is exactly the kind of crap Chad and HeavenSent were pulling and if this kind of intentional misquoting is a standard Christian practice taught somewhere these days (i very much hope it is not) it's no wonder people are fleeing your churches as fast as they can.

      Saraswati
      With the exception of a temporary IQ boost during a nations development (Flynn effect), people are not really getting as much smarter as each generation would like to believe. More students go to college now, so some basic information is better shared, but students at all levels also study far less and know less than they did in the 1970s. Intellectual laziness is ignored by younger generations that, like their parents before them, want to believe they are superior and have unique new insights. Sure there are advances, but at best it is 3 steps forward, 2 steps back...and that is the most generously optimistic scenario.

      May 30, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |

      Saraswati
      Bill, it's not an overall decline of intellect since we have more people studying at each level and actually see an increase since the early 20th century in both IQ and general knowledge. What we do have, however, is a decrease at each academic level on average and a flattening of general knowledge. We do see an increase in critical writing skills, however, likely thanks in large part to word processors, so that is a plus that would increase rational thought capabilities. We're looking at some pretty complex data here and I think the most we can say is that increases in certain very specific areas of knowledge in biology, physics and psychology have led to a decrease in the power of Christianity, but that has also been replaced by a weakening in some populations (such as all college graduates) of knowledge in other broader categories such as history or mathematics (the only general intelligence area to drop, likely in relation to the rise of the calculator).

      May 31, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    The system of rewards and punishments that religion depends on is increasingly in doubt – transparently false to people who see the same systems being used to support contradictory ideas. Also, catastrophes in this life always seem to occur without God as a cause. Eternal damnation is a threat only if we are eternal and there is a hell, no evidence for either. Eternal rewards in heaven have the same problem. Rewards or good fortune in this life have obvious causes that are not God. So religion has lost much of its support. Now people are trying to keep it alive by looking into all the creases and crevices in history and science hoping to find things explainable only by or through God. That's not going well. In sum, there isn't much holding religion up beyond the fact that most people have believed. People willing to examine their beliefs often don't find that sufficient.

    May 31, 2013 at 9:27 am |
  5. faith

    Len
    faith
    Isn't lightening electricity that you can see?

    microsoft, ever see a lightening bolt?

    u cannot c electricity u uneducated morons

    May 31, 2013 at 9:24 am |
    • Vic

      Lightning is basically a flash emitted during atmospheric electrical discharge that takes place when positively and negatively charged particles in the clouds collide!

      And, no, you can not see electricity!

      May 31, 2013 at 9:30 am |
    • Science

      faith................AC or DC your choice.

      May 31, 2013 at 9:32 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Vic
      So you're saying that an electrical discharge is not electricity?

      May 31, 2013 at 9:32 am |
    • Vic

      Electrical Discharge is electricity that converts into another form of energy that is radiation/light in this case!

      May 31, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • Science

      Transformer blows cool light show....................sure can see that.

      May 31, 2013 at 9:45 am |
    • Pete

      That aside, you can still detect, measure and experiment upon electricity, which is why it's valid to say it actually exists. You can lump "air" in that as well as all the rest of the "invisible" things that Christians like to put out as some kind of proof that atheists have faith "in things unseen." It really is a silly argument, you know?

      May 31, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • Vic

      You can intuitively detect that there is a designer behind a system/construction of any sort when you see one!

      May 31, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      That's why scientists like microscopes and telescopes. Can't believe in anything they can't see.

      May 31, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Vic

      ... even if you don't see the designer!

      May 31, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Pete

      Vic
      "... even if you don't see the designer!"
      And the famous "Giants Causeway" in Ireland must have been designed by real giants, I suppose? People use to believe that river stones were smoothed by water nymphs too, but most people today accept that lots of things that appear to be made by intelligent hands actually had were created by natural processes.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • bill

      intuition tells people that heavier than air craft can't fly, time is constant, continents don't move and many many other things proven to be counter to the intuition.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:05 am |
    • Pete

      Bill Deacon
      "That's why scientists like microscopes and telescopes. Can't believe in anything they can't see."
      They didn't have those things back in Bible times, which is why the book doesn't mention microscopic life, or galaxies, correct? The authors were limited to what they could see with their bare eyes, even for a book supposedly "inspired" by an all-knowing God.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • Vic

      Natural Processes are the design and work of intelligent hands!

      May 31, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • Vic

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/25/for-oklahoma-a-balm-after-the-storm/comment-page-5/#comment-2371647

      May 31, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Pete

      Vic
      My point is that the products of natural processes like erosion have appeared to be the design and work of intelligent hands in the past. We have more knowledge about such things these days, but there are people in more primitive areas, or whimsical people telling stories to their children, who still hold on to these beliefs. That's how creationists are viewed in our culture.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • midwest rail

      " Natural Processes are the design and work of intelligent hands! "
      Opinion.

      May 31, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • Pete

      Vic
      Didn't CERN announce that it has detected the Higgs Boson particle?

      May 31, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • Vic

      The Higgs Boson latest discovery: it may be a Higgs Boson with a spin! It is not yet proven to be the Particle Physics Standard Model Higgs Boson (Spin-0, a Scalar!)

      The Particle Physics Standard Model can ONLY be completely proven by a Spin-0, a Scalar Higgs Boson Particle which is a manifestation of the Higgs Boson Field!

      May 31, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • faith

      it seems impossible that anyone could b so stupid that she could look at our universe and think nothing created it, but they abound. they r fools.

      god is spirit. he never began. he will never end. he is the alpha and the omega. he lives on a different plane than we do. he is mysterious and beyond complete comprehension. he joined us as a human being 4 a spell 2,000 years ago. he spoke and walked and slept and ate and hurt and had his diaper changed. he said he was god. he performed impossible deeds. he healed sick people. he walked on water. he made additional food from a small supply. he spoke and nature obeyed him. he was brutally murdered in a travesty of justice. he never sinned. he helped thousands of people. he said he was the light of the world. he said he was the good shepherd. the door, the vine, life, light, way, truth, one with the father, son of man, the resurrection, all men would be drawn to him, that he himself would answer our prayers, that to live, we must die, that to give away our lives was the only means of keeping them. he warned us how difficult it would be to follow him. few would make it. he explained the law was given out of the hardness of man's heart but man didn't understand the true nature of their purpose. he said he ushered in a new way, a way of grace, through him, so that we could grasp the depths and heights of his love. he commanded slave owners to regard their slaves as family, as brothers and sisters, which is all he wanted in the first place, until the slaves could make it on their own.

      he commanded his chosen people to destroy, utterly, men, women and children in specific situations because he was enraged by their conduct, hurting his people and one another. god hurts. he created us to fellowship and to enjoy us and that we could enjoy him. knowing all along what would happen, jesus has existed always and always 4 the purpose of breaking down the barriers, sins, that block us from intimacy. he is HOLY. HE HATES SIN.

      he stands at the door and knocks. if anyone hears him and opens their lives to him, he will receive that person and fellowship (dine) with her. if this is not true, he will not make himself real. he cannot. he doesn't exist. if this is true, no one can encounter him and not know it.

      he is not a church or a building or theology or theory. he is not a statue. he is not hymns and steeples and ceremonies. he does not force anyone to worship him. there is a good chance he is nothing like u perceive him to b, but just the opposite

      May 31, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Daniel

      "it seems impossible that anyone could b so stupid that she could look at our universe and think nothing created it, but they abound. they r fools."

      If you found a pocket watch with hundreds of small parts all moving in unison you would not think "This happened by accident". No, you would logically conclude that the watch had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the watch he created, so logic would dictate that the watch maker had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the watch maker had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the maker of the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the maker of the watch maker had a designer. Now, it would follow that the designer would be more complex than the maker of the maker of the watch maker he created, so logic would dictate that the maker of the maker of the maker of the watch maker had a designer...

      it seems impossible that anyone could b so stupid that they could look at God and think nothing created it...

      If you use supposed logic to get you to the first conclusion, don't drop the ball there and give up, keep using that logic!

      May 31, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • faith

      being silly doesn't cut it, clown. but, u r closer than u think. a watch is a good analogy. the "watch" in this case is so large that it is breath taking. the laws by which it functions r beautiful. the fact that there is something at all is profound. to believe it got here out of nowhere is ridiculous.

      and some guy claimed to be the son of that being who is behind everything and some wrote in great detail that he hung out here for a few years. he was unlike any man. and though he's been dead 4 thousands of years, he managed to revolutionize people like korn and dylan and jimmy carter and reggie white and amelia jackson and c.s. lewis and malcolm muckridge and b. j. thomas and kirk cameron and his beyond gorgeous wife, chelsea noble (who played george costanza's love interest on seinfeld) and millions upon millions more.

      you found a pocket watch with hundreds of small parts all moving in unison you would not think "This happened by accident". No, you would logically conclude that the watch had a designer.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • faith

      and tomorrow, hopefully, we will witness an event so remarkable words fail to describe the wonder of it. if we are fortunate, some time early 2morrow morning we will observe a star give birth to a brand new day as it climbs in the sky and lights the world.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • faith

      just as we no electricity is real, though never seen, god is real, though invisible most of the time. if u can observe a sunrise, u've witnessed his reality. the earth and the oceans and mountains and the moon and a baby born. do u believe in each new creation of a day? do u? then believe in him.

      May 31, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
  6. lol??

    Jesus said, "Jhn 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also."

    Watch out hating the bride, too, A&A's. That won't work out, either.

    May 31, 2013 at 8:53 am |
    • Science

      Someone is not happy a fake poster...........is that you lol ??

      Scientists Recover Wooly Mammoth Blood ..................cloning could happen maybe

      Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday May 29, 2013 @01:52PM
      from the wooly-mammoth-vampires-very-excited dept.

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/29/1712242/scientists-recover-wooly-mammoth-blood

      May 31, 2013 at 8:59 am |
    • Science

      lol?? .............and another link to the red planet.

      The University of Sydney.........................geology..............the dirt guys.

      Precious opal veinlets in a sandstone from central Australia.

      News

      Answer to opal mystery shows Red Centre's links to Red Planet

      31 May 2013

      The dramatic geological events that created opal, Australia's national gemstone, have been described for the first time by a University of Sydney researcher.

      http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11678

      May 31, 2013 at 9:17 am |
    • Creationist

      LOL

      May 31, 2013 at 9:23 am |
  7. TheTruth

    “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my religion.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln

    May 31, 2013 at 8:47 am |
  8. TheTruth

    “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my religion.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln

    May 31, 2013 at 7:57 am |
    • sam stone

      seems to me that this is the way it should be

      May 31, 2013 at 8:05 am |
    • lol??

      Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:19 am |
    • Creationist

      @lol??

      Scare tactics again? LOL.

      Many religions have their own versions of hell. You better believe hell is not real, or one day you will be in one, and another one, and another one, ...

      May 31, 2013 at 8:45 am |
    • lol??

      Scare tactics, Creationist?? Lincoln's ways led to a great slaughter in the war.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:55 am |
    • Creationist

      @lol??

      Slaughter in the name of god and religion, that's the worst in human race.

      May 31, 2013 at 9:15 am |
    • sam stone

      lol??

      jeebus is waiting......got a sidearm?

      May 31, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • faith

      report this black mamba

      sam stone
      lol??
      jeebus is waiting......got a sidearm?

      May 31, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • sam stone

      Come on, Filth, you are only one click away from being on your knees, pleasing Jeebus the savior in heaven, rather than Hay-zoos the landscaper behind your trailer.

      May 31, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
  9. TheTruth

    “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my religion.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln

    May 31, 2013 at 7:56 am |
  10. DAVID

    Heavenly father We know that the people are losing their faith in GOD there will be a generation that hate GOD Forgive those people for they did not know what they are saying GOD is a spiritual , cant be seen but he came here in the flesh of Jesus Christ

    May 31, 2013 at 7:10 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      It's not people hating god; it's simply that people are not seeing evidence to support your god or any god and in turn see no reason to believe in it. People see the dangers, the hypocrisy, the bigotry and the hate that comes from the buybull/any other book of doctrine and those things alone are enough to turn people away.
      You don't believe in Santa-do you hate him? You don't believe in the tooth fairy-do you hate it?
      See, it is hard to hate that which you do not believe in.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:23 am |
    • Science

      Hey DAVID..................to bad so sad.............but the fairy in the sky and partner, the red horn-y devil

      DID NOT create US.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:26 am |
    • In all fairness

      It's pretty hard to believe in something you can't see. I don't think that's unreasonable.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:53 am |
    • slrman

      How can we "hate god?" How can you hate something that does not and never has existed? Do environmentalists hate Paul Bunyan for chopping down all those trees?

      You religious reich people always make the same tired, blatantly false statements. Then you like to include the threats, "You'll regret you lack of faith when you meet god." Or simply, "You're going to hell!"

      If your religion is so great, why do you need the carrot and stick to get people to believe? Why can't you only tell the truth? Oops, awkward moment for you. Truth and rational thinking are always fatal to any religion. Keep on lying, it's amusing to rational people and acceptable to the gullible.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:54 am |
    • lol??

      TP sayz,
      "...............See, it is hard to hate that which you do not believe in."

      But you manage to give it the ol' college try.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:55 am |
    • faith

      prove it

      Science
      Hey DAVID..................to bad so sad.............but the fairy in the sky and partner, the red horn-y devil

      DID NOT create US.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:57 am |
    • lol??

      slrman sayz,
      "How can we "hate god?" How can you hate something that does not and never has existed?...................." Easy.

      "Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you." That's the Creator speaking.

      So I found you in the Bible and yer covered, heh heh.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:00 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      lol??: Sorry, I'm not of the same set of delusions you are...I don't hate anything, least of all your imaginary friend.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:02 am |
    • sam stone

      David: Restating a myth doesn't prove the myth

      May 31, 2013 at 8:08 am |
    • faith

      In all fairness
      It's pretty hard to believe in something you can't see. I don't think that's unreasonable.

      TELL me about it. u no, there r people who blieve in electricity?

      May 31, 2013 at 8:10 am |
    • sam stone

      while we are at it, david, get off your knees and stop being such a snivelling little b1tch

      May 31, 2013 at 8:10 am |
    • Mirosal

      David, to which "god" of the 10,000+ that have been worshiped are you praying?

      May 31, 2013 at 8:19 am |
    • Len

      faith
      Isn't lightening electricity that you can see?

      May 31, 2013 at 8:20 am |
    • Mirosal

      Faith, study basic electronics, ok? Electricity can be seen. Ever see a bolt of lightning?

      May 31, 2013 at 8:21 am |
    • nclaw441

      Sirman, your position assumes one of the major points that is in dispute– whether God exists. God either exists or He does not. Both can't be true. Whether I believe in God's existence, which I do, does not create God or confirm His existence. Whether you do not believe in God's existence, which apparently you do not, does not confirm His non-existence. To date, no one has been able to scientifically prove either position. But the lack of proof of something does not establish its non-existence.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:26 am |
    • Evil Church

      Anyone that feels that way is heavy into religion. I see it as people finally being freed from religious oppression and getting in touch with their internal truth. Religion is going away and that is a good thing for us. A religion based on a made up god is no faith. The New Age is coming whether these old timers are ready or not. It is unstoppable and it scares them. The people are hungry for the truth and it also scares them. Anything that sees a separate god outside will be gone. Anything that sees a God inside will survive it.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:34 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It's true that one doesn't ordinarily see electricity in the same sense that we see photons of a particular range of wavelengths (exception: heavy and energetic charged particles can directly excite the retina). We see the effects of movement of electric charges in lightning, glow discharges etc., and static electric charges through a perceptible force. If God left traces of its presence in the world it would be easier to believe in it. Nothing we've yet seen requires anything like God to explain it.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:37 am |
    • faith

      well moron, obviously he exists

      slrman
      How can we "hate god?" How can you hate something that does not and never has existed?

      May 31, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • faith

      excellent answer

      Tom, Tom, the Other One
      It's true that one doesn't ordinarily see electricity in the same sense that we see photons of a particular range of wavelengths (exception: heavy and energetic charged particles can directly excite the retina). We see the effects of movement of electric charges in lightning, glow discharges etc., and static electric charges through a perceptible force. If God left traces of its presence in the world it would be easier to believe in it. Nothing we've yet seen requires anything like God to explain it.

      May 31, 2013 at 9:00 am |
    • faith

      lol

      good point

      Evil Church
      Anyone that feels that way is heavy into religion. I see it as people finally being freed from religious oppression and getting in touch with their internal truth. Religion is going away and that is a good thing for us. A religion based on a made up god is no faith. The New Age is coming whether these old timers are ready or not. It is unstoppable and it scares them. The people are hungry for the truth and it also scares them. Anything that sees a separate god outside will be gone. Anything that sees a God inside will survive it.

      May 31, 2013 at 9:03 am |
    • Pete

      DAVID
      The Bible has stories about God coming here in the flesh just like Greek myth has stories of Zeus coming to Earth as a swan, bull, a woman's husband, and a bunch of other "fleshy" forms in order to get what he wanted. Why should we trust your story and not these?

      May 31, 2013 at 9:55 am |
  11. 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, #7 (see also pp. 1, 9, 37, 46, 50, 53, 58 and 64)

    From the studies of Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson and Bayhaqi----–

    The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

    ( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)

    Are you ready?

    Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

    The First Five of the 77 Branches:

    "1. Belief in Allah"

    aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your self-cleansing neurons.

    "2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

    Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".

    "3. To believe in the existence of angels."

    A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.

    "4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

    Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

    Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.

    Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

    "5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
    be upon him) alone."

    Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

    Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

    Unfortunately, there are not many Muslim commentators/readers on this blog so the "two-minute" cure is not getting to those who need it. If you have a Muslim friend, send him a copy and help save the world.

    Analogous steps are available at your request for deprogramming the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism..

    May 31, 2013 at 7:02 am |
    • Reality

      من الدراسات من أرمسترونغ، رشدي، هيرسي علي، ريتشاردسون والبيهقي ----–

      في خمس خطوات لأبطل تأثير 1400 سنة من الأساطير الإسلامية:

      (-خطوات اتخاذ أقل من دقيقتين لإنهاء-ببساطة مدهشة، دقيقتين لإحلال السلام والعقلانية إلى أكثر من مليار فقدت النفوس لا تقدر بثمن!)

      هل أنت مستعد؟

      استخدام "الفروع الإسلامية 77 من" الإيمان "مجموعة الإمام البيهقي المترجمة كنقطة انطلاق. في ذلك، وهو ما يفسر الفضائل الأساسية التي تعكس صحيح" الإيمان "(إيمان) من خلال الآيات القرآنية ذات الصلة، وأحاديث نبوية." أي ملخص لطيفة من المعتقدات القرآن والإسلامية.

      الخمسة الأولى من الفروع 77:

      "1. الإيمان بالله"

      كما يعرف أيضا باسم الله، الرب، زيوس، الرب، الطبيعة الأم، وما إلى ذلك يجب أن تضاف إلى الخلايا العصبية التطهير الذاتي الخاص.

      "2. إلى الاعتقاد بأن كل شيء غيرها مما كان الله غير موجود. بعد ذلك، الله سبحانه وتعالى خلق هذه الأشياء، وبعد ذلك جاءوا إلى حيز الوجود."

      التطور والانفجار الكبير أو "غي ب G-NAB" (عند بدء الكون لإعادة تدوير) هي أكثر ترجيحا وينبغي أن تدرج في "المندرجة" في سبيل الله إذا كنت لا تزال تشكل "بجمعية العقارات، tionist".

      "3. إلى الاعتقاد في وجود الملائكة."

      A بندا رئيسيا لتطهير الخلايا العصبية. الملائكة / دي VILS هي الإبداعات الأسطورية من الحضارات القديمة، على سبيل المثال HITT خائبي، لشرح / تعريف الأحداث الطبيعية، والاتصالات مع آلهتهم، والطيور الكبيرة، والرياح المفاجئة، وحماة خلال الليالي المظلمة، وما إلى ذلك لا "ثينجيس افسح المجال ل جميلة / UG-LY" بزيارة أي وقت مضى أو تحدثت إلى محمد، يسوع، مريم أو يوسف أو جو سميث. اليوم سوف نصنف الملائكة كما F-airies و "القصدير كير تكون LLS". تصنف الحديثة دو VILS مثل دي مونس هيئة اجتثاث mented.

      "4. إلى الاعتقاد بأن جميع الكتب السماوية التي تم إرسالها إلى الأنبياء مختلفة صحيحا. ومع ذلك، وبصرف النظر عن القرآن، كل الكتب الأخرى ليست صالحة بعد الآن."

      ومن البنود الرئيسية في حذفها. لا يوجد كتب في ولاية روح السماء (إذا كان هناك واحد) فقط حيث لم تعد هناك ملائكة لكتابة / نشر / توزيعها. القرآن، OT، NT وما هي ببساطة الكتب التي كتبت من قبل البشر للبشر.

      اخترعت الأنبياء من قبل الكتبة القديمة عادة للحفاظ على الجماهير غير المتعلمة في الخط. اليوم ونحن ندعو لهم فرز الأصوات للتناغم.

      النبوءات كما invali مؤرخة من قبل الطبيعية / الله / الله الهدايا من الإرادة الحرة والمستقبل.

      "5. إلى الاعتقاد بأن جميع الأنبياء صحيحا. ومع ذلك، ونحن مأمورون اتباع النبي محمد (عليه الصلاة والسلام
      صلى الله عليه وسلم) وحده ".

      قضى محمد ثلاثين يوما "الصيام" (أسطورة رمضان) في كهف الساخن قبل أول اتصال له مع الله الملقب الخ الله عبر "ممتزوجات افسح المجال ل جميلة". الحس السليم يتطلب حذف الخلايا العصبية من # 5. # 5 هو أيضا المصدر الرئيسي للالاسلامي VI-olence أي تحول محمد "سريع، يحركها الجوع" hallu-cinations إلى واقع فظيع لغير المؤمنين.

      المشي هذه خمس خطوات، ونحن نضمن الانتعاش الكامل من الطرق الإسلامية الخاصة بك!!

      للأسف، لا توجد العديد من المعلقين مسلم / القراء على هذا بلوق لذلك "مدة دقيقتين" العلاج هو عدم الحصول على لأولئك الذين في حاجة إليها. إذا كان لديك صديق مسلم، ترسل له نسخة وتساعد في إنقاذ العالم.

      تتوفر خطوات مماثلة في طلبك للحصول على deprogramming الأساطير المسيحية واليهودية والبوذية والهندوسية والوثنية .

      May 31, 2013 at 7:03 am |
  12. Science

    Poll: America losing its religion

    Numbers.................work !

    72,500,000 results Any time ................Bing

    About 52,400,000 results (0.19 seconds) ............Google

    May 31, 2013 at 6:55 am |
  13. Science

    Hey creationists...........Chad too...............bite the silver bullet and take the DNA test ........Game over !

    Easy to do ............shows you that there is NO red horn-y thingy. Creationists.............Chad too.

    For all creationists and ID believers...............IT only takes minutes to figure IT out. No fairy in the sky needed !

    New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes

    May 6, 2013 — Take a swab of saliva from your mouth and within minutes your DNA could be ready for analysis and genome sequencing with the help of a new device.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506132100.htm

    May 31, 2013 at 6:17 am |
    • JMEF

      I don't think Chad can take the chance, it could turn out that he is more Rachel than Chad. It could explain a great deal about Chad if it turned out that he had XXY chromosome or a defective Y chromosome, in any case a limp dick to be sure.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:25 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      "Hey creationists...........Chad too"

      Yes Chad is in category all by himself :-)...an extremist in the greatest way, with maybe a little bit of a case of religious psychosis.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:25 am |
  14. Mirosal

    Not a single "god" in the 200,000 years that our species has been on this planet has ever been shown to exist. This current "god" is no different. Maybe people are finally starting to wake up and realize what a hoax any and all religions have been for untold millenia.

    May 31, 2013 at 5:49 am |
    • lol??

      200k years?? sounds like a hoax. source??

      May 31, 2013 at 7:13 am |
    • Science

      lol??.................you know 338,000 years.................at the Y...................do you have one ?

      You HAVE SEEN the source how many times ................but do you reply ?

      May 31, 2013 at 7:19 am |
    • Science

      Crickets...................... lol??...............Chad too ?

      May 31, 2013 at 7:45 am |
    • Mirosal

      Apparently lol?? does not understand anthropology, paleontology, or geology. Hey lol??, tell us why, after decades of world-wide digging, not a single shred of evidence has been found to suggest that litttle flood in your big book of fables?

      May 31, 2013 at 8:15 am |
    • nclaw441

      There are many many things that have not ever been proven to exist. Some have very few doubters, and others almost no one believes exist. Green martians have not been proven to exist, but there are those who believe in them, for example.

      But scientific proof does not exist (yet?) to establish the existence of things almost all of us agree DO exist. Love, for example. Few people deny its existence, but how would you go about proving that love exists? Or courage? Or compassion?

      Whether we have proved the existence of something does not mean that it does not exist (or that it DOES exist). For now, some believe, and others do not– fair enough.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:33 am |
    • lol??

      200k years?? sounds like a hoax. source????

      May 31, 2013 at 8:34 am |
    • faith

      liar. 17 gods showed up at my place 4 lunch on wednesday

      "Mirosal
      Not a single "god" in the 200,000 years that our species has been on this planet has ever been shown to exist. This current "god" is no different. Maybe people are finally starting to wake up and realize what a hoax any and all religions have been for untold millenia."

      May 31, 2013 at 9:07 am |
  15. david lulasa

    if this is the scenario since the world was created,then america is loosing its faith..but if its at a particular time only,its some generation in the line who have had no faith..praise be to GOD,in jesus name,amen.

    the president

    May 31, 2013 at 5:24 am |
    • david lulasa

      every individual carries his or her own cross.

      the president

      May 31, 2013 at 5:26 am |
    • Daniel

      "if this is the scenario since the world was created,then america is loosing its faith..."

      America has been "loosing" it's faith on everyone in contradiction to the constltution for far too long. That time is coming to and end thank goodness.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:36 am |
    • mykel armory

      The cross I carry consists of you other people. I'd rather use it as firewood.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:40 am |
  16. Post a comment

    Job is one of the best books in the bible. Tip of the hat to God on that one.

    May 31, 2013 at 5:17 am |
    • mykel armory

      You accidentally capitalized the word "god." You look like an idiot when you do that. Actually, every word you've typed betrays your lack of eloquence, or intellect. Maybe you should give up. Ask god to call you right now, on the phone and give you one good reason why you shouldn't hang yourself tonight. If he doesn't call, then it's his will that you do that.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:38 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Mykel
      If you're going to try and be a grammar troll, you should at least get your facts straight.
      Becuase he is using "God" as a proper noun, addressing the deity by name, it should indeed be capitalized.

      The actual error is that he failed to capitalze "Bible".

      May 31, 2013 at 8:19 am |
    • Len

      Post a comment
      Yup! Job shows Satan as just another angel, either following God's orders like a good little soldier, or actually manipulating God into allowing him to test Job. Every enlightening, indeed!

      May 31, 2013 at 8:30 am |
    • red devil troll

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmn605UKI1E&w=640&h=360]

      May 31, 2013 at 10:58 am |
  17. R.M. Goodswell

    Mark,

    As Jimmy said, that number is going to be higher. And you talk like priest is just another job....Supposedly it isn't, these are supposed to be God's agents on earth....what bloody moron would risk the wrath of an all powerful God with anger management issues who likes throwing ghosts in a flaming pit for far,far less heinous crimes?.......unless ...the clergy themselves know the only risk is in this life.

    No...your God is a scam.....one that has been all too successful.

    Religions divide people, demonize each other and any demographic group they think they can safely attack.

    Humanity has run out of room to expand, we are running out of resources and we are just about out of time,
    if we are to survive we need to get off this rock – to do that we need to learn how to survive in hostile/nonexistent environments – we need to accelerate our scientific progress greatly.

    Religions have historically stood in the way of science – stifling advancement by hundreds of years, frowning on education,
    any birth control methods. They need the uneducated, unquestioning masses in order to survive and do not care one bit about the misery they cause.

    If we do 'make it' so to speak, it sure as hell wont be because of religion...it ll be in spite of it.

    May 31, 2013 at 5:11 am |
  18. Post a comment

    Job said blessed be the name of the Lord.

    That is how hard Satan lost.

    May 31, 2013 at 5:04 am |
    • mykel armory

      No, charlie, Job was simply a masochist and an idiot, a bit like you, in fact. You're out of your league here, best accept that your religion is dying and your children will hate you. They come unto me. Your message is worthless. You are worshipping a book that is dying of AIDS, just like Jesus actually died. You know he was defecated onto Earth by the pig Mary, until 33 years later, we flushed him. Jesus was AIDS-infected excrement. Nothing more.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:11 am |
    • My Name?

      And which name was that?

      May 31, 2013 at 5:12 am |
    • Proof please

      Hey here's an idea...just because your two dieities are fighting you two doesn't mean you two have to fight.

      May 31, 2013 at 7:33 am |
    • nclaw441

      Mykel–

      So I guess, from your posts, that you are not a believer in God. I get that. It is a logical position to take, even though I believe otherwise. But your vitriol toward those who do believe, and who have done you no harm, is bothersome. Why would you assert your position in that way? What benefit do you derive from it, and what effect are you trying to have on those who read your ugly statements?

      It is your right, of course, but I'd like to know why you say things the way you say them.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:39 am |
  19. Post a comment

    Satan vs. Job, an old guy praying to God.

    Satan lost.

    That is the reality of it.

    May 31, 2013 at 4:56 am |
    • mykel armory

      No. Job lost. god murdered his family to prove a half-assed point to Satan. Satan will rule your children's lives. You have no say. You are powerless, as is your senile god, who committed suicide, anyway. Enjoy the Satanic Age.

      May 31, 2013 at 4:59 am |
    • mykel armory

      You like naked men with holes in 'em, eh? You're religion is dead. Your faith isn't strong. Give it up. You are Satan's, forever.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:01 am |
    • mykel armory

      I am your master, now, you pig. I curse you with unconquerable doubt, sadness and self-hatred.

      May 31, 2013 at 5:03 am |
    • Job

      While "there is an intentional editorial unity with a cohesive purpose and message in the canonical form of the book," Job contains many separate elements, some of which may have had an independent existence prior to being incorporated into the present text. Scholars agree that the introductory and concluding sections of the book, the framing devices, were composed to set the central poem into a prose "folk-book", as the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia expressed it." – Gerald H. Wilson, "Job" (New International Biblical Commentary; Hendrickson, 2007) p.11

      May 31, 2013 at 5:11 am |
    • Len

      Post a comment
      Either Satan was simply following God's orders, or he manipulated God into allowing him to test Job. Either way, Satan comes out looking pretty good in that book.

      May 31, 2013 at 8:35 am |
  20. mykel armory

    I have won this comment section. I curse ChrisA to loss of faith, despair and eventual depression. Nema!

    May 31, 2013 at 4:52 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.