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. faith

    bill ni, sum up ur rambling posts 4 me wood ja? 1 2 3 lines at most

    thanks babe

    June 1, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • JR

      Don'tknow about bill ni, whoever that is, but these two words sum up the majority of people's thoughts here: fuck off.

      June 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
    • faith

      blessed r u 4 so persecuted they me

      alleluia

      June 1, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
    • JR

      You are out of your mind. Seek help.

      June 1, 2013 at 11:41 pm |
  2. faith

    Tom, Tom, the Other One
    If an idea has no utility, why consider it?

    as moron spends her life trying in vain to refute "a no utility idea," she often loses control, longing instead to perform oral seccks on fs monsters

    June 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Get out of faith, LEGION. I CALL ON THE BLOOD.

      June 1, 2013 at 7:26 pm |
    • JR

      faith
      as moron spends her life trying in vain to refute “a no utility idea,” she often loses control, longing instead to perform oral seccks on fs monsters

      cnn will suffer 4 promoting this sick animal, as well as each and every sponsor. not one nazi god-hating fascist demon possessed punk rebukes her either.

      BOYCOTT ALL CNN SPONSORS

      June 1, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
    • Austin

      Topher, is that me?

      June 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm |
    • Science

      Evolution gave you your brain faith................use it and shake the made up red horn-y devil from your thoughts

      June 2, 2013 at 6:49 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Chad? Chad? is that you?

      June 3, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
  3. Vic

    John 14:6
    "6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.""

    The content of this verse is cited throughout the Bible as opposed to contrary claims! You need to use concordances to cross reference it!

    Here is a cross reference:
    http://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=John+14%3A6

    June 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
  4. Chad

    @Dan "What lead you to reject Judeo/Christianity? The violent vindictive jealous God described in the bible."
    @Chad "have you ever actually read the entire bible?
    violence isnt wrong or right until you understand the motivation.
    impossible to claim you understand the motivation unless you have read the bible

    Impossible to say "violence is always wrong", because it isnt always wrong.

    ======
    @Dan "What level of investigation have you done into it's claims? Read it several times, studied it for decades."
    @Chad "I have a hard time reconciling this statement with your first.
    What does the bible say was the reason the Amelekites were to be wiped out?

    ======
    @Dan "What would you consider acceptable evidence for the existence of God? Any substantial geoligical, fosil or DNA evidence of anything described in Genesis from Adam being the first human to the supposed global flood."
    @Chad "Does the bible claim that Adam was the first human being?
    When did the flood happen?
    You are aware of geological support for a local flood(see Ballard) and a global flood(see Masse)?

    ======
    @Dan "As an atheist, how do you explain free will? I am what I am."
    @Chad "that's not an explanation, that's just willfully ignoring a reality that doesnt coincide with your world view"

    ======
    @Dan "Consciousness? I am what I am.
    @Chad "that's not an explanation, that's just willfully ignoring a reality that doesnt coincide with your world view"

    =====
    @Dan "How do you explain the origin of the universe? I cannot, though we have quite a lot of evidence as to what happened after the big bang 14.5 billion years ago, we have no evidence as to what preceded it so all I could do is hypothesise."
    @Chad "that's not an explanation, that's just willfully ignoring a reality that doesnt coincide with your world view"

    ===
    @Dan "The fact that the universe obeys laws? The universe does not "obey" laws, it is law, universal law, though we are really just scratching the surface of what we know about it and how there are things that break that law like "sp oo ky action at a distance"."
    @Chad "you are willfully ignoring reality that doesnt coincide with your world view again...

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

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

    : "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop." Dr. Dennis Scania, Cambridge University Observatories

    "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all." - Dr. David D. Deutsch, Insti tute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

    "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a 'put-up job.'" - Dr. Paul Davies, Adelaide University:

    "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars - Sir Fred Hoyle

    "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quanti ties had slightly different values." - Dr. Gerald Schroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T.

    beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. - Professor Steven Weinberg

    The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side." - Michael Turner, astrophysicist University of Chicago

    the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment." - Roger Penrose University of Oxford

    June 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad has never grasped the truth that his God, is just that: his God. It is not rejected, it is just not considered as a thing of any utility for the rest of us. It shouldn't considered at all without necessary and sufficient evidence that there is a God of any kind that interacts with our world. Let it be his own special thing.

      June 1, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • Chad

      A. Gods "utility" doesnt determine His existence/non-existence
      B. what would you consider "necessary and sufficient evidence"?

      June 1, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One –

      Don't fall for Chad's question "B.". I answered this for him yesterday and he ran away like a little bitch. I'll post the link if you'd like to read it.

      June 1, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @TTtOO –

      ...before Chad ran away, he offered a response so nonsensical that, even for Chad, it's a classic.

      June 1, 2013 at 4:57 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" )'

      June 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      If an idea has no utility, why consider it?

      Regarding conditions, what are your God's defining attributes? Is it why there are physical laws? Is it why there is order? Is it why there are things that are real?

      June 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Chad

      @TT ""If an idea has no utility, why consider it?"
      @Chad "God isnt an idea, He is a "person".
      Gods existence isnt defined by what you consider to be His usefulness, no beings existence is. That's a really silly contention on your part..
      Right?

      =====
      what would you consider "necessary and sufficient evidence"?

      June 1, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O,

      ===
      @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"

      @Really-O? "Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed again in 2013, unsurrepti tiously 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 "A. Jesus came, He isnt coming back until the second coming at which point it's (probably) to late.

      B.At the time when those miracles were performed, doubters demanded the exact same thing (miracles on demand), it was denied them then, what makes you think God would do that now?

      C. God invites YOU to experience Him now. Why do you refuse that invitation to find out for yourself if He is real?
      Remember, the Bible DOES NOT demand a "faith in the face of evidence against", that is not biblical faith.

      Why would you not take God up on His promise and seek Him?

      June 1, 2013 at 6:06 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.

      Can't be any more simple or clear.

      June 1, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ....couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe do any or all of them again in 2013?

      June 1, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Really-O?

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

      June 1, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, it's silly to consider the idea that your particular God may exist if there is no evidence that there is any God that interacts with our world – unless there is some utility associated with doing so. What do you propose?

      I asked you to give defining attributes of your particular God, Chad. I don't know what necessary and sufficient evidence of its existence independent of your imagination might be since its definition is still confined to your imagination.

      June 1, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O

      @Chad "A. Jesus came, He isnt coming back until the second coming at which point it's (probably) to late.

      B.At the time when those miracles were performed, doubters demanded the exact same thing (miracles on demand), it was denied them then, what makes you think God would do that now?

      ======
      @TT "that your particular God may exist if there is no evidence that there is any God that interacts with our world – unless there is some utility associated with doing so. "
      @Chad "what's truly absurd, is your seeming belief that your view on the utility of a "persons" existence defines their existence.
      That's ridiculous.
      right?

      June 1, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad –
      1) You asked what would serve as necessary and sufficient evidence supporting the existence of the god of Israel and I told you...and you immediately start backpedaling...flail, flail, flail...surprise, surprise, surprise.
      2) Couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe do any or all of those miracles again in 2013?
      3) What difference does it make if or when Jesus is coming back? I said any of the miracles from the bible – that includes the old testament.

      Get on your wheel and run, Chad
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c&w=640&h=360]

      June 1, 2013 at 8:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      You just have a reading comprehension problem, Chad. That's OK. We can work on that. I maintain that the question of whether your particular God exists outside of your imagination (it may exist in your imagination) has no utility as far as anyone except perhaps yourself is concerned. That's not a statement about whether any God or gods exist. Work on it a bit, Chad. I've seen you catch on before.

      June 1, 2013 at 8:06 pm |
    • Really-O?

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

      June 1, 2013 at 8:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      You're going about God as a person, Chad. Perhaps you mean naturae rationalis individua substantia. Can you justify belief that your God has substance or an intellect, independent of you, that is.

      June 1, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @TT "I maintain that the question of whether your particular God exists outside of your imagination (it may exist in your imagination) has no utility as far as anyone except perhaps yourself is concerned"
      @Chad "A. you are demonstrating a willingness to ignore reality if it doesnt coincide with your world view.
      B. Claiming the question of Gods existence is meaningless since you have no use for it, is utter nonsense reasoning.

      right?
      =======
      @Really O "Couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe do any or all of those miracles again in 2013?"
      @Chad "demanding a repeat performance..
      A. Why refuse to take God up on His method of demonstrating His existence
      B. Here's the real question for you, what would you have said to Jesus Himself?
      What would you have demanded from him?

      June 2, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad: "Claiming the question of Gods existence is meaningless since you have no use for it, is utter nonsense reasoning."

      I did say that the question that need not be considered is the existence of your particular God, Chad. That's because there is no evidence of what people usually mean by God or gods interacting with our world.

      As a bit of an aside, you have a problem that you need to address. Since your God has no apparent reality, you need to identify your God by coming up with its defining attributes. You can't point to it, so you have to say what it is in a way that uniquely identifies it. If you list attributes, you have to be able to show that they all belong to a unique individual. So this won't work, at least not without a lot of help:

      Chad's God is that which spoke to Abraham.
      Chad's God is that which resurrected Jesus from death.
      Chad's God is that which was the sole cause of the origin of the Universe (you still believe the Universe has an origin and a cause, I think).

      June 2, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • Rachel

      You tell 'em Chad. Don't let them pin them down on that pesky evidence thing. Keep on dodging. That's me boy 🙂

      June 2, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Boris

      Chad good efforts putting up all those straw men but none of them can stay standing. You are a fool and an idiot.

      June 2, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • Science

      More water..................where chadie.................even out there chadie and the big one that flattened Mars

      Water-Rock Reaction May Provide Enough Hydrogen 'Food' to Sustain Life in Ocean's Crust or On Mars

      May 30, 2013 — A chemical reaction between iron-containing minerals and water may produce enough hydrogen "food" to sustain microbial communities living in pores and cracks within the enormous volume of rock below the ocean floor and parts of the continents, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530132541.htm

      June 2, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Really-O?

      Chad and Really-O? – a dialogue (imaginary, 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.

      June 2, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @TT " is just not considered as a thing of any utility for the rest of us"
      @Chad: "Claiming the question of Gods existence is meaningless since you have no use for it, is utter nonsense reasoning."
      @TT "I did say that the question that need not be considered is the existence of your particular God, Chad. That's because there is no evidence of what people usually mean by God or gods interacting with our world."

      @Chad "actually, you rejected the consideration due to the lack of "utility"
      you're backtracking... 🙂

      June 2, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O

      @Chad "demanding a repeat performance..?
      A. Why refuse to take God up on His method of demonstrating His existence
      B. Here's the real question for you, what would you have said to Jesus Himself?
      What would you have demanded from him?

      June 2, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad

      -"demanding a repeat performance..?"
      -No, a debut, as there we currently have no necessary or sufficient evidence that any of the "miracles" actually occurred.

      -"Why refuse to take God up on His method of demonstrating His existence"
      -Because "His" method of demonstration is unfalsifiable and easily explained by psychology. If you know of a falsifiable means "He" uses to demonstrate his existence, let me know.

      -"what would you have said to Jesus Himself? What would you have demanded from him?
      -The same thing I would demand of the god of Israel...essentially, "Put up or shut up". Actually, provide necessary and sufficient evidence that you are in some way unique (i.e. the savior / son of god) or admit that you are just a moral philosopher.

      June 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "what would you have said to Jesus Himself? What would you have demanded from him?
      @Really-O "The same thing I would demand of the god of Israel...essentially, "Put up or shut up". Actually, provide necessary and sufficient evidence that you are in some way unique (i.e. the savior / son of god) or admit that you are just a moral philosopher."

      @Chad "A. so, that approach was completely rejected by Jesus Himself (with one exception) 2000 years ago, do you think He has changed His mind since then?
      B. The exception was the resurrection of Jesus

      If you had met Jesus Himself as physically resurrected, would you have believed it?

      The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
      2 He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ 3 and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.[a] 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.
      Matthew 16

      June 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, the question of your particular God's existence as something independent of your imagination has no utility, except possibly for you.

      You have not come up with any defining attributes. Because of that, your God is not well-defined – not really defined beyond "that which Chad runs on about and calls the God of Israel".

      June 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @TT "question of your particular God's existence as something independent of your imagination has no utility, except possibly for you"

      @Chad "this notion that you can ignore the reality/non-reality of God based entirely on the usefulness of the concept to you.
      is
      complete
      nonsense..

      The reality of everything is completely independent of it's utility to you. That is an astonishingly irrational statement...

      June 2, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The reality of your God, even if it were well-defined (it's not), is most likely something we can't know, Chad. The utility of addressing the question of your God's existence as something independent of you and your imagination comes naturally from that – not sufficient for it to merit consideration.

      June 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Science

      You to the peachy one faith...................BIG SPLAT chad

      Earth’s timeline ................chad remember this long ago..........L4H but me on the list for this.

      Trace our planet's geological and biological ages............better than the bibles timeline.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33184839/ns/technology_and_science/

      Church Refuses to Host Troops Over Scouts' New Gay Policy
      NBC News·16 hours ago

      See also: More stories ·
      Top stories

      Big circle here chadie...................

      look what shows up on Bing 16 hours ago

      June 2, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
  5. John Stefanyszyn

    America is NOT losing its "religion"....America is showing its true religion (way of life), that of freedom of self-rights.

    But it is ONLY Christ that will rule.

    June 1, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • EVOLUTIONisTruth

      ef your christ

      June 1, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
  6. Elcoguy

    This is a good thing. For thousands of years religions have tried to hold back the forward march of progress.

    June 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
  7. Bill

    Its about time.

    June 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
  8. lol??

    Watch out for the bully Beasties like the one that blew off my comment. Might makes right for them.
    lol??
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    The West is sooo proud of its educratists. Somebody should have warned the high unholy priest of educratism, Allan Bloom, about Freud's foul up with wet nurses. Now Bloom's Taxonomy has laid some serious eggs of taxes on the Masters, err taxpayers. Wiki:

    "In the preface to Giants and Dwarfs: Essays, 1960–1990, he stated that his education "began with Freud and ended with Plato."

    "As Morshead[13] pointed out on the publication of the second volume, the classification wasn't a properly constructed taxonomy, as it lacked a systemic rationale of construction."

    Yer gubmint bought into it when it thought its wealth would never end. Rational thought is cool. Rationing isn't.

    June 1, 2013 at 12:47 am |

    June 1, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Science

      Hey lol??

      Remember chad/faith........... the talking donkey you like so much might of chewed on that BONE.............that created eve...

      Ne se-x there faith/lol??

      OR pounding sand does not work !

      June 1, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • lol??

      Science, your comment lacks a systemic rationale of construction.

      June 1, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Science

      Go pound sand in the sand box lol??...........fixed it !

      June 1, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
  9. Stephen

    Much of what "religion" offers today is quite boring and really a turn off to many. However, having a relationship with God Himself is anything but boring, it is life itself, for God is life. Yeshua/Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" Having received Yeshua as Savior, Messiah of Israel and Lord of my life, I know what He said is true. Shalom

    June 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Reality

      Hmmm, "I am the Truth........" i.e. John 14:6. This passage was not said by the historical Jesus but was wishful thinking and an embellishment by John to make Jesus more like the ancient and local gods of first century Palestine. Said passage is a single attestation found no where else in the NT making it historically nil. e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=210_Place_of_Life

      See also Professor Gerd Ludemann conclusions in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 535-540.

      Actually, all of John's Gospel is of questionable historic value.

      To wit:

      From Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Jesus,

      "Conventionally, scholarship has accorded priority to the first three gospels in historical work on Jesus, putting progressively less credence in works of late date. John's Gospel for example is routinely dismissed as a source......

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

      "Since "the higher criticism" of the 19th century, some historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[3][4] "[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous,"[5] and date it to 90-100."

      "The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle."

      And from Professor Gerd Ludemann, in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 416,

      "Anyone looking for the historical Jesus will not find him in the Gospel of John. "

      See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

      June 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • lol??

      Reality, does Ludemann know about your Hinckley-style obsession with him?? Looks LEWD.

      June 1, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Reality, “Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me’.” ― John 14:6

      Since you didn't quote it correctly, nor probably ever will
      .

      June 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Reality

      Crossan and Ludemann

      June 1, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Reality

      For those who do not want to peruse a rather short synopsis of the Resurrection Con, a shorter version:
      From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

      "Heaven is a Spirit state" as per JPII and Aquinas i.e. there can be no bodies. i.e. there was and never will be any physical resurrection/ascension of human bodies."

      And is it not ironical that JPII along with Aquinas are the ones who put meaning to the words "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless."

      June 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • Reality

      You will have to read the studies of contemporary historians and NT scholars to see how they decide the authenticity of historical events and passagess. Rigorous conclusions rely on the number of independent attestations, the time of the publications, the content as it relates to the subject and time period, and any related archeological evidence. Professors JD Crossan and G. Ludemann's studies are top notch in this regard.

      Some others:

      H.S. Reimarus
      R. Bultmann
      E. Kasemann
      Earl Doherty
      Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
      Alvar Ellegård
      G. A. Wells
      Gregory Riley
      Robert Eisenman
      Robert Funk
      Burton Mack
      Stephen J. Patterson
      Marcus Borg
      Stevan Davies
      Geza Vermes
      Richard Horsley
      Hyam Maccoby
      Gerd Theissen
      Bart Ehrman
      Paula Fredriksen
      John P. Meier
      E. P. Sanders
      Robert H. Stein
      Karen Armstrong
      Albert Schweitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus)
      Mahlon Smith

      June 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
  10. .

    the best way to load dead atheists into a cart is still pitchforks

    June 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • ?

      wait you have to dump all those dead qu eers first

      June 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • ;

      Your mind needs to grow up. No, the earth is not flat. No, you can't do those things without going to jail.

      June 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • EVOLUTIONisTruth

      your religion is mythology

      June 1, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • fintastic

      Religious nut case much?

      June 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
  11. .

    the best way to load dead qu eers on a cart is still pitchforks

    June 1, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Isn't that what Hitler did?

      June 1, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • .

      hitler as an atheist would have had the qu eers killed then burned at a state of the art facility not picked up in carts

      June 1, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • fintastic

      Hitler was a christian

      June 3, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
  12. TheTruth

    For them, faith = Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. (Definition 1.)

    June 1, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • Reality

      Having Faith in what the contemporary experts say resulting in:

      The Apostles'/Agnostics’ Creed 2013: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

      Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
      Jerusalem.

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
      and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

      Amen
      (references used are available upon request)

      June 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Ida Lula

      Faith is a noun.

      June 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Reality, having faith in contemporary experts isn't going to save you from the eternal flames. Only Jesus can do that.

      June 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • Reality

      Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that his god does not tolerate imperfection in god's spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.

      I will pass away and be recycled but my words will haunt deity believers for eternity (or at least until the Sun destroys us all in 3 billion years). 🙂

      June 1, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • fintastic

      Stenchy! you are deluded!...... hearing voices in your head again?

      June 3, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
  13. TheTruth

    Faith doesn't always mean religious belief.

    Definition of Faith :
    Noun
    1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    June 1, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • TheTruth

      For that matter, non-religious people do have "faith".

      June 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • TheTruth

      For them, faith = Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. (Definition 1.)

      June 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Yes and believers love to conflate the 2 definitions.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • danielwalldammit

      Okay, words mean different things, but when they mean different things they really do mean different things. No more and no less.

      June 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
  14. faith

    Science
    Ancient life...............3.5 billion years ago.............NO god(s) or horn-y red devil never has been

    billy girl
    prove it
    i'll hold my breath

    June 1, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Science

      Remember chad/faith........... the talking donkey you like so much might of chewed on that BONE.............that created eve...

      Ne se-x there faith.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
  15. TheTruth

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

    June 1, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
  16. TheTruth

    All men and women were born equal, regardless race or religion.
    No one race is above another. No one religion is above another.

    June 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • danielwalldammit

      Shift! ...and a dark night where all cows are grey.

      June 1, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
  17. ScienceAndReligion

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

    June 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
  18. TheTruth

    Some believe they're better because of their religion.
    That is not just an opinion; it's a prejudice.

    Teach your children well. Teach them to be free of prejudice.

    June 1, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      ...and some feel they are better because of their Atheism.

      They should teach their children the same lessons that the Faithful should teach their children about prejudice.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • TheTruth

      Faith doesn't always mean religious belief.

      Definition of "Faith":
      Noun
      1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
      2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • PresbyMike

      Some people believer they're better – or smarter – because of their lack of religion.
      That's not just an opinion; it's a prejudice.

      Teach your children well. Teach them to be free of prejudice.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Teach your children to think for themselves. Teach them to understand why they believe, and to learn the truth about what they believe. That way, they will not follow blindly.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • LinCA

      @PresbyMike

      You said, "Some people believer they're better – or smarter – because of their lack of religion."
      There is a correlation between intelligence and atheism. But just because the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist, doesn't mean that being an atheist means that you are smarter. It just increases the likelihood.

      You said, "Teach your children well. Teach them to be free of prejudice."
      Agreed. Teaching them well should also include separating fact from fiction.

      June 1, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
  19. Hank Hill

    Seems to me that the comments from all sides show that these changes are anything but progress toward a better future...and that internet comment boards too often prove t be a huge contributing factor to the end of respectful discourse.

    You'll never win respect for your point of view through mockery and derision.

    June 1, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • Bob

      Might not turn out how you think, Hank. Maybe the derision will fall aside as noise. Topics involving belief often get heated. That might be unavoidable even if it isn't ideal, but examining religious claims is probably a good thing if, eventually, unsupportable claims get looked at and hopefully, tossed out. That really will mean putting Christianity into the same bin as the old Greek god myths, and that is how it should be.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Hank Hill

      You said, "You'll never win respect for your point of view through mockery and derision."
      Some positions are simply not suited for a reasoned response. Some are so fucking moronic that mockery is the only appropriate response.

      The people that hold these positions show, by holding these positions, to be beyond the reach of reason and rational discourse. The mockery is rarely aimed at winning respect of the ones mocked. It's aimed at highlighting the idiotic position. The target audience is the non-participating reader.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
  20. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things,

    June 1, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Science

      Hey cap'y.....................is that you chad ?

      Hey all creationists ...........chadie too....the truth below !

      The fairy in the sky DID NOT create US !

      Ancient life...............3.5 billion years ago.............NO god(s) or horn-y red devil (666 the beast) never has been

      Disappearance of Stromatolites, Earliest Visible Manifestation of Life: Ancient Enigma Solved?

      May 28, 2013 — The widespread disappearance of stromatolites, the earliest visible manifestation of life on Earth, may have been driven by single-celled organisms called foraminifera.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130528143756.htm

      +

      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

      + the damn fossils ..............works better than the BIBLE !

      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

      New study restores famed fossil to "bird" branch

      Wednesday May 29, 2013 | Alicia Chang for The Associated Press

      http://www.newsdaily.com/article/04243837283ffd8f533a0cf41d35cd27/new-study-restores-famed-fossil-to-bird-branch

      AND chadie has a link on Bing

      Quarterback's next play: Going long with the Bible – CNN Belief ...

      religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/01/quarterbacks-next-play-going...

      Feb 01, 2013 · Since we've got Chad buybull ... Jurassic Park came out. Now that it has been found, ... You have nothing but a 2000 year old stone age book written ...

      AND

      All creationists...............a turtle.............but is it to old to have come from the ark ?

      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

      Prehistoric Park : T-Rex Returns – Episode 1

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

      Remember chad........... the talking donkey you like so much might of chewed on that BONE.............that created eve.

      Chomp Chomp.............make sure to look up creationists for the next big chondrite !!!

      June 1, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Corinthians 7:5

      Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

      Amen.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • TheTruth

      Some believe they're better because of their religion.
      That is not just an opinion; it's a prejudice.

      Teach your children well. Teach them to be free of prejudice.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      science, not to worry, Jesus has it all under control.

      Revelation 21:1-7

      1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
      2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
      3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
      4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
      5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
      6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
      7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (KJV)

      Amen.

      June 1, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Bob

      HS, since you insist on dumping quotes on us from your Christian book of nasty, let's have a closer look at what else is in there, both testaments:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      June 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • Science

      Hey HS and.....

      Remember chad/HS........... the talking donkey you like so much might of chewed on that BONE.............that created eve.

      No se-x needed ?

      June 1, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • danielwalldammit

      Murnphy-targalarg Habbinisbamooty-Bumpo-wump!

      June 1, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      LOL Bob. Still haven't learned the lessons to those scriptures?

      June 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Science, Chad is his own person.

      June 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • fintastic

      @heavenstench........... confusing mythology with reality again stenchy?......

      June 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
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.