home
RSS
May 12th, 2014
10:05 AM ET

Update: Harvard's satanic 'black Mass' cancelled

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor

(CNN) - A Harvard club's plans to stage a satanic "black Mass" were abruptly cancelled Monday after drawing fire from the Archdiocese of Boston and condemnation from the president of the Ivy League school.

Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the New York-based Satanic Temple, told the Boston Globe late Monday that the event was called off because no venue was available.

“Everyone involved, outside of the Satanic Temple, got really scared,” Greaves told the newspaper. “And I don’t necessarily blame them, because I understand that they were getting a lot of vitriolic hate mail, and I don’t think they expected it."

Greaves was not immediately available for further comment.

A petition to stop the black Mass had garnered 60,000 signatures, according to Aurora Griffin, president of the Harvard Student Catholic Association.

The Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club had planned host the two-hour ceremony at the Queens Head pub in Memorial Hall in on the school's campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is unclear why the building was no longer available.

The history of black Masses is murky, but Catholics say the intent of such ceremonies is obvious: to mock their rituals and beliefs. The Masses often parody Catholic sacraments, such as Communion, and liturgical vestments.

“Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes," the Harvard student group had said in a statement, "but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices.”

The cultural club said it also plans to host a Shinto tea ceremony, a Shaker exhibit and a presentation on Buddhist meditation.

But Harvard University President Drew Faust called the plans to reenact a black Mass "abhorrent."

"It is deeply regrettable that the organizers of this event, well aware of the offense they are causing so many others, have chosen to proceed with a form of expression that is so flagrantly disrespectful and inflammatory," Faust continued.

The Harvard president said she would allow the black Mass to continue, citing the value of free expression on campus, but planned attend a prayer ceremony Monday night at St. Paul's Church in Cambridge. The Boston archdiocese scheduled the event as a protest to the black Mass.

The Satanic Temple, which announced the Harvard club's plans last week, is also behind an effort to place a satanic statue next to a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of Oklahoma's state Capitol.

The temple does not believe in a real devil but advocates for religious tolerance and pluralism.

Greaves said black Masses began as a protest by people who felt oppressed by their local religious cultures.

But some Catholics say the "black Mass" is more sacrilegious than satirical.

Faust, a noted historian, said:  "The 'black Mass' had its historical origins as a means of denigrating the Catholic Church; it mocks a deeply sacred event in Catholicism, and is highly offensive to many in the Church and beyond."

A Harvard Divinity School professor who is also a Catholic priest said none of cultural club's other events include the "blaspheming of Catholic sacramental practice."

"What’s next?" asked the Rev. Francis X. Clooney, in an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson.

"The endeavor 'to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices' might in another year lead to historical re-enactments of anti-Semitic or racist ceremonies familiar from Western history or parodies that trivialize Native American heritage or other revivals of cultural and religious insult."

The Archdiocese of Boston, in a statement, had expressed "deep sadness and strong opposition" to the ceremony.

Satanic worship "is contrary to charity and goodness, and it places participants dangerously close to destructive works of evil," spokesman Terrence Donilon said.

Donilon had also called on Harvard to disassociate itself from the event.

Robert Neugeboren, dean of students and alumni affairs at the Harvard Extension School, said Harvard did not endorse the student group's decision to stage the black Mass.   The school provides evening and online continuing education courses.

"While we support the ability of all our students to explore difficult issues, we also encourage them to do so in ways that are sensitive to others," he aid.

Neugeboren said the Harvard Extension School worked with students to defuse some of the controversy surrounding the ceremony.

For instance, he said, a consecrated host - known by Catholics as the Eucharist and believed to be the actual body and blood of Christ - would not be used, he said.

Some Catholic bloggers had expressed outrage at the initial plans to use a consecrated host, calling it "sacrilegious to the highest extent."

Clooney had said the university's reaction is insufficient, adding that Harvard's "spiritual sensitivity" is at stake.

"Since there is no empirical way to show that one host is consecrated while another is not—consecrated hosts do not glow in the dark—there is also no way for anyone but the organizers to know whether a host used in a black mass has been consecrated or not," Clooney said.

"Catholics at Harvard should not have to be worrying about where Monday’s host comes from."

Satanists unveil design for OK statehouse statue

As the archdiocese notes, Pope Francis warned Catholics about the devil recently.

"Maybe some of you might say, ‘But, Father, how old-fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ " the Pope said during a Mass in April.

"But look out, because the devil is present! The devil is here … even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naive, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.”

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity • Mass • Pope Francis • Satanism

soundoff (1,080 Responses)
  1. truthfollower01

    Do skeptics/atheists/agnostics believe that something can come from nothing (no thing / not anything)?

    May 14, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
    • observer

      In my opinion, NO. That's why I think it's hard to believe that God came from NOTHING and then created EVERYTHING from NOTHING.

      May 14, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        "In my opinion, NO.

        At least you are on the side of science in this.

        "That’s why I think it’s hard to believe that God came from NOTHING and then created EVERYTHING from NOTHING."

        Again, God didn't 'come' from anything. He has always existed. There was never a moment when He didn't exist.

        May 14, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • observer

          It's just as easy to argue that matter always existed.

          Christians believe that God created EVERYTHING from NOTHING. You've defeated your own argument.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "It’s just as easy to argue that matter always existed."

          This doesn't work. An actual material infinite doesn't exist. We can talk about abstract notions, such as numbers, as being actually infinite, but this does nothing to establish an actual material infinite.

          Let me ask you. If material has existed forever, then why didn't our universe suffer heat death forever ago?

          May 14, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          "An actual material infinite doesn't exist."

          Prove it.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          My question to you shows the absurdities of actual material infinites.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          Prove that our universe HAD to suffer heat death forever ago.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Do you believe that our universe is eternal? I hope not as this would go against science.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          You were the one who said material could not have existed infinitely.

          Why can't you answer questions about it? Stumped?

          May 14, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Its a little difficult because I think you are having a difficult time understanding the argument of an actual material infinite. If material existed forever ago, why would our universe have not already come into and went out of existence forever ago? It's because an actual material existence doesn't exist.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          SAME ridiculous argument:

          If God existed forever ago, why would our universe have not already come into and went out of existence forever ago? It's because an actual God existence doesn't exist.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "If God existed forever ago, why would our universe have not already come into and went out of existence forever ago? It’s because an actual God existence doesn’t exist."

          Because God chose to bring the universe into existence a finite time ago.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          So for a very long time, there was nothing but God and then he decided to "poof out" a universe?

          May 14, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "Do you believe that our universe is eternal? I hope not as this would go against science."

          - Science has nothing to say about the matter at this point. Religionists try to make it appear science says things it doesn't. The fact is there are various camps and they do not agree. Listen to what Dr. Carroll says. He destroys your point of view.

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8&w=640&h=360]

          May 15, 2014 at 12:03 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "Science has nothing to say about the matter at this point."

          Science has much to say on the matter (it's amazing you even say this!) evidencing a Big Bang and beginning of the universe (microwave radiation, red shift, etc.). You are aware of the expanding universe? Scientists have been postulating models for years to try and avoid a cosmic beginning but alas, all have failed to this point.

          Do you not subscribe to the Big Bang?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:12 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Are you claiming that from an infinite time ago nothing existed but God and then maybe millions of years ago, he suddenly decided to create a universe?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:17 am |
        • realbuckyball

          I know what you're trying to do. You didn't bother to listen to the tape. Science thinks there was a Big Bang, and we observe it's aftermath. That is NOT the same as "the universe coming into existence". Science says nothing about "the universe coming into existence". I'm not surprised YOU don't get that, as all you know is fundie nonsense about what you have been told that means. Science talks about what is observed AFTER the Big Bang, not the "cause" of it, or anything "before" it (which is meaningless as I have told you)... "before" presupposes time. There was no spacetime until the Big Bang. Saying anything about "cause" (which requires absolute time, and Causality, among other things), is meaningless. There is no "before" time started.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:21 am |
        • realbuckyball

          "Creating a universe" is the same as saying "god is not eternal". The "before" the creation came to a halt at creation, and the after began at creation. Double refutation of "eternal". Creation is an action. Actions require time, (thinking about creating, beginning creation, ending creation). The priors are unexamined. It's all meaningless BS without a priori time. "Existence" requires time. A deity who requires anything is not a real god.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "I know what you’re trying to do. You didn’t bother to listen to the tape."

          I had actually watched some of the video on YouTube and read some of the transcript on reasonablefaith.com before you even posted the video.

          Science thinks there was a Big Bang, and we observe it’s aftermath. That is NOT the same as “the universe coming into existence”. Science says nothing about “the universe coming into existence”.

          What do you think the Big Bang is?
          According to Wikipedia, "In particular, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."

          "There was no spacetime until the Big Bang."

          Hey, something we agree on!

          "Saying anything about “cause” (which requires absolute time, and Causality, among other things), is meaningless. There is no “before” time started."

          It is certainly not meaningless. Especially with the Cause being outside of time.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Are you claiming that from an infinite time ago nothing existed but God and then maybe millions of years ago, he suddenly decided to create a universe?

          Why are you so CLUELESS about what you are claiming?

          Looks like it's time for you to hide again and claim you have to go to bed.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:47 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "Existence” requires time."

          Why would an eternal Being, who exists outside of created time, require time to exist?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • realbuckyball

          "Outside" of spacetime is utterly meaningless. "Outside" what if spacetime does not exist ? There is no "outside" anything without space. A "cause" requires time. A "cause PRECEDES the effect. That requires TIME. Therefore it IS meaningless drivel. The only way around it, is to Special Plead your deity. And if the many worlds theories are true, or the "re-banging" theories are true, no "cause" is necessary even in your world. You may have watched the video, you obviously didn't get what Carroll was saying. How could you ? You don't even get that "outside" space in incoherent.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • realbuckyball

          You refute yourself. You use a temporal reference to describe your deity, THEN deny the very term YOU used.
          "Why would an eternal Being, who exists outside of created time, require time to exist?"
          "Eternal" is a word which references time. Without time, (besides Special Pleading Fallacy), it is meaningless.
          Define "existence" and in doing so use NO WORD that has any temporal reference.
          You can't.
          There is NOTHING coherent that can be said or claimed about any deity.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:55 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "“Outside” of spacetime is utterly meaningless. “Outside” what if spacetime does not exist ? There is no “outside” anything without space."

          Says who? God is an immaterial spiritual Being who created space-time. God is the Cause behind the creation of space-time. What do you propose on a skeptical view as the cause of the universe or singularity?

          "A “cause” requires time. A “cause PRECEDES the effect. That requires TIME."

          Why does the Cause require time if the Cause created time?

          The only way around it, is to Special Plead your deity."

          This is certainly not special pleading. In fact, it is logical. I'm still waiting to hear from you as to the cause of the universe or singularity.

          "And if the many worlds theories are true"

          No evidence at all for a world ensemble.

          "or the “re-banging” theories are true"

          Again, what model are you referring to?

          "no “cause” is necessary even in your world. You may have watched the video, you obviously didn’t get what Carroll was saying. How could you ?"

          In the debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll, "In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to show that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a beginning.[9] In 2012 Vilenkin showed that cosmogonic models which do not fall under this condition, including Professor Carroll’s own model, fail on other grounds to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”[10] “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”[11]

          "You don’t even get that “outside” space in incoherent."

          For a Christian, it is not. You are probably exclusively confined to a materialistic or naturalistic view.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:05 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Eternal is timeless. It has no beginning nor end.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:10 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Bucky,

          I'm off to sleep for the night. Thank you for the conversation.
          I want to leave you with the Gospel message.

          Answer a few questions for me if you would.
          1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
          2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
          3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
          4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
          If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and follow Jesus as Lord. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:40 am |
        • realbuckyball

          "eternal is timeless" ...thank you. Then "creation" is meaningless also. Creation is an action. Actions require time. If you are not going to use the English language in the way it's normally used, then your dishonest Special Pleading makes you impossible to have a discussion with. Everything you posit concerning your deity require time : "loving", "getting angry", "sending his son" etc etc etc. You can't have your Special Pleading and eat it too.

          "“Outside” of spacetime is utterly meaningless. “Outside” what if spacetime does not exist ? There is no “outside” anything without space."
          -– Says who? Says me. I use English in it's normal way. Inside/outside are spatial references. YOU used one, yet now try to evade your own reference and YOUR own language. "Outside" has no meaning without space.

          "God is an immaterial spiritual Being who created space-time. God is the Cause behind the creation of space-time. What do you propose on a skeptical view as the cause of the universe or singularity?"
          -–Prove it. Asserting something does not make it true. Without you Special Pleading (fallacy) you have demonstrated your definition is worthless and meaningless. "Created" requires time. You cannot use words that have temporal references AND claim they don't. Your god can't "cause" something unless the Principle of Causality is in place already. How did your deity "cause" Causality, without causality in place already ? "Causing something" REQUIRES an order. Orders require time, OR the word is meaningless. You use words, and then try to exempt yourself from their meanings. Your assertion is illogical, requires (non-existent) a priori specetime, and has not a shred of evidence to support it, AND you have not demonstrated that there is anything "immaterial". Until you do, everything you say has the equivalent value as "The moon is made of green cheese".

          "Why does the Cause require time if the Cause created time?"
          -–You really are unable to reason, I see. "Creation" in an action. Actions require time. Show me one that does not. It's a PROCESS. You do know what a process is, I hope. Processes require time. The "cause creating time" answers nothing". THAT also is another action process. You really need a class in Linguistics. Do you people EVER THINK about the words you use ?

          There actually may be evidence for many worlds, (see Dr. Roger Penrose, ..Hawking's friend "The Cycles of Time" ). Just more proof you have no clue what you are talking about.

          "For a Christian, it is not."
          Christianity has nothing to do with it. It's either incoherent, (which it is), or it is not. You should have said, "A Christian REFUSES to admit" it's meaningless. You use words ALL which have temporal references, THEN refuse to acknowledge that in a timeless-spaceless environment, they are meaningless. That IS Special Pleading. Evern WL Craig gets that. It's why he has wasted so much time on "tenseless time". Apparently you don't even get that.

          "I want to leave you with the Gospel message."
          Keep your gospel in your pants, and to yourself. I know what the hundreds of gospels are, and I've seen your failed attempt at a half-baked moral argument. It's as incoherent as the rest of your incoherent meaningless nonsense. You can't even demonstrate that Jesus ever existed, mush less was who you claim he was. A "holy god" that *must* do anything is SUBJECT to reality and cannot be it's creator. A deity that is SUBJECT to anything is no deity.
          "Salvation" as a paradigm was cooked up by Hellenistic members of the Way cult. It's a very non-biblical idea. No Jew buys into "salvation". Jebus never said "just wait until I die, and I'll save you" Your entire system is built on the nonsense that your deity HAD to do something as Reality required it. THAT is no real god. Keep your preaching to your self until you demonstrate that you particular deity (the 70th son of El Elyon form the Babylonian myth system, called Yahweh Sabaoth, the war god, the Jews chose for themselves so he would help them in their expansionary land endeavors) is both real and the god you're talking about. You can't. You won't.

          May 15, 2014 at 7:17 am |
        • fintronics

          "God is an immaterial spiritual Being who created space-time. God is the Cause behind the creation of space-time. "

          Strictly your opinion based only on your imagination. There is ZERO evidence to support your claims.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • hotairace

          This thread is only possible, and gods remain invisible, only because of believers' assertions needed to keep their myths alive. They are engaged in the world's oldest and biggest fantasy role playing game, with heavy emphasis on fantasy, where they can make up any definition or rule they like. They are not fully engaged with reality.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          truthfollower01, you wrote "A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just....Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go." Are some actions inherently good or wicked or are they only good or wicked depending on the whims of the god/gods? E.g., is the slaughter of children an inherently wicked action or is it good when the god does it or commands his followers to do it? In Genesis, the Christian god Yahweh in a fit of anger drowned all humanity, including babies, sparing only 8 people. In the legends of Exodus he overrides Pharaoh's free will and hardens his heart so that he won't let the Jews leave Egypt then slaughters all of the firstborn of every Egyptian household, killing even the firstborn children of slaves and others who in no way control the Pharaoh's decisions. He often metes out horrible punishments to people because he is angry with the actions of someone else. E.g., he kills 70,000 Israelites with a plague because David conducts a census (2 Samuel 24) that the god caused him to conduct. If your boss ordered you to take some action, you took it, and then he killed 70,000 people in your city, but spared you, would you consider him a just man or a madman?

          Of course, in many other instances, he doesn't do the slaughtering directly, but, instead, commands his followers do it as in Deuteronomy 20 when he commands his followers to commit genocide: "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."

          Most people are horrified when they hear stories of how the Korean dictator Kim Jong-un imprisons and kills the families of those who offend him. E.g., from one news article:

          *** begin quote

          In the video, Kim Young-soon said she spent nine years in Yodok prison camp along with her parents and her four children for "gossiping" about an affair her friend had with Kim Jong-il, North Korea's former ruler and the father of the regime's current leader.

          “The guilt-by-association system applies to the family members. I may be the culprit, but the other six members of my family are forced to go with me to the prison camp without knowing the charge,” she said.

          Kim’s parents, 9-year-old daughter, and three sons – ages 7, 4, and 1 – all died from starvation in the camp, she said.

          *** end quote

          In the Bible we found many references to Yahweh punishing not just those who have offended him, but their children, their children's children, etc. E.g., Numbers 14:18.

          "The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

          And Exodus 20:5.

          "You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected–even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me."

          Though, not as extreme as 1 Kings 2:33.

          "May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever."

          Of course, there's also the story of "The Fall" in Genesis, in which Yahweh punishes not only the first couple for eating of the fruit of the "one forbidden thing" he placed in the garden with them, but their descendants through countless generations who, we are told, inherit the sin of Adam and Eve. And, we are told, it is because of this ancient curse he placed on mankind that a human sacrifice was required as atonement. But, thankfully, the god sacrifices himself, in the form of the "Son", to himself, in the form of the "Father". And, if we will only believe this to be true, your "judge" will spare us from the eternal torment he would otherwise visit upon us.

          Even many early Christians, such as the Gnostics and Marcionites, viewed the petty, vengeful Old Testament creator god as an evil deity, a demiurge, not the ultimate god. The Mariconites were once quite numerous, threatening even to eclipse the followers of the branch of Christianity that became the Roman Catholic Church. But, in the end, they did not prevail in the contests among the various conflicting early Christian sects. It is that wrathful deity, Yahweh, one particular god among thousands invented by mankind, you invite others to worship as you worship. It is that god you seem to view as the ultimate god, as a "First Cause".

          Like many theists, you take the position that everything must have a cause, but allow for one exception, your god. If everything must have a cause that god must have a cause, too. If there is something that doesn't require a cause, applying the term "God" to that "First Cause" tells us nothing about it. One could say as the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright did, "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." It could be a brute force of nature, fluctations in the quantum foam, etc.; calling it "God" is the same as saying "I don't know." Once, when people had less understanding of the causes of natural events, they imagined they were the actions of a god. Lightning was Teshub, Taranis, Yahweh, Zeus, etc. throwing thunderbolts. That tendency to fill in the unknown with a god or gods still persists in the equating of a first cause with a petty, anthropomorphic, Middle-Eastern deity whose paramount concern seems to be that humans worship him and, at least for the Old Testament version of the deity, offer him the requisite animal sacrifices in the manner he demands.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • midwest rail

      I'm not aware of anyone, except for a pair of theoretical Physicists, who have ever made that claim.

      May 14, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        So what do you propose as the cause of the Big Bang? Oh, and there are many who claim the possibility of this including Quinton Smith. Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, Quinton Smith indicated that the most rational thing to believe is that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.

        May 14, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • midwest rail

          There is a significant difference between suggesting it as a possibility and asserting it as a fact.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          1. So you would say its possible?

          2. So what do you propose as the cause of the Big Bang?

          May 14, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • midwest rail

          1. By no stretch do I qualify as a physicist, much less a theoretical one, so I have no idea whether it's possible or not.

          2. I don't know – no one does.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          1. "By no stretch do I qualify as a physicist, much less a theoretical one, so I have no idea whether it’s possible or not."

          To admit its possible for something to come from nothing is to go against science and everything we observe. Are you concerned that an elephant could come into existence in the room next to you and destroy your residence? I hope not.

          2. I don’t know – no one does.

          The Christian proposes that in the beginning, God created.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " To admit its possible for something to come from nothing is to go against science "
          You may wish to speak with Stephen Hawking about that.
          As to number 2, I'm aware of what they propose. But they do not know.

          May 15, 2014 at 5:58 am |
        • alonsoquixote

          truthfollower01, you wrote "To admit its possible for something to come from nothing is to go against science and everything we observe." For physicists like Stephen Hawking ("The Theory of Everything") and Victor J. Stenger ("Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe"), it isn't the case that something came out of nothing, but rather that we have always had zero energy. I.e., the negative gravitational energy of the universe exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter, so the total energy of the universe remains at zero. According to the Hartle-Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Beginnings are things that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless.

          Some, of course, don't find such an answer satisfying. They would much rather imagine a god forming the universe. Our ancestors thousands of years ago had the same question as we do today regarding the origin of the universe. For them, the only explanation they could imagine was that the universe and the world in which they found themselves must have been created by a god or gods, much like themselves, but much more powerful, which is why we have thousands of creation myths, including the two biblical ones in Genesis 1 and 2, the one in Genesis 1 written by the Priestly Source and the older one in Genesis 2 written by the Yahwist, which borrow from Sumerian mythology.

          May 15, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      The total energy of the universe is zero. (Gravity can have a negative value). So first you need to define "something", (from nothing). Then demonstrate it's validity. Secondly "coming from" as it applies *externally* to this universe is a meaningless phrase, and well as invalid logically. You think you know what you know as it applies the universe you think you know. In fact THAT universe has been proven to be "non-intuitive". Relativity, Uncertainty and some maths (Dirac) are non-intuitive, yet proven true. So your premise is false. What appears to be logical is not necessarily so, even INSIDE this universe. Your statement attempts to say something *external* to this universe and apply what appears to be true INSIDE it. You have not demonstrated that is coherent, or valid. "Coming into" is meaningful ONLY if time exists already. You don't know that time exists external to this universe. So, all in all, that (Kalam) nonsense, is meaningless.

      May 14, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        BTW, since we don't know much about Dark energy and Dark matter, and what we see is only 5% of what this universe is made of, to make ANY sort of generalization about it at this point, or the nature of Reality when we know so little, is WAY premature. We simply don't know (yet). Sticking a god in the mix, is not helpful. It's alll just "god of the gaps", a place-holder for an explanation we lack at this point. Not satisfying, but thems the breaks. Those with low ambiguity tolerance, and a need for cognitive closure *need* to cook up a god to explain that for which there is no present explanation.

        May 14, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          I understand that dark energy and dark matter make up the vast majority of the universe but dark energy and dark matter are "something". They aren't "nothing". My question to you is, do you believe that "something" (atoms, sub-atomic particles, planets, etc.) can come from nothing (not anything / no thing)? Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, Quinton Smith indicated that the most rational thing to believe is that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower,

          If you want to throw out comments, here's one from a genius, not just a PHILOSOPHY professor:

          “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish supersti-tions.”
          - Albert Einstein, letter 1/3/1954

          May 14, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I didn't say there were not "something". But to say something *about* 95 % of the universe which is unknown is nonsense. I don't care what professors of philosophy say about physics. It's the Argumentum ad Vericundiam. Plent of other would say that's crap.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Quinton Smith is a skeptic. Also, your quote is off subject concerning something coming from nothing.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          And you still have not answered the point that the total energy of the universe is still zero. How is that "something" ?

          May 14, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          No it isn't. You just can't answer it. YOU started it. You can answer none of the points I made, I doubt you even know what they mean.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Quentin Smith's opinion (whatever his stance) is irrelevant. HE is not an authority in Physics.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Bucky,

          "But to say something *about* 95 % of the universe which is unknown is nonsense."

          But here's the thing. It "is", not "is not"! It exists. It's something!
          You do believe in the Big Bang, at which our universe came into existence, correct?

          May 14, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          No. I told you the phrase "come into existence" is meaningless. You obviously don't know why. At a singularity time comes to a halt from the perspective of an observer. "Come into existence" presupposes time. "Coming into" is meaningless without time. You cannot demonstrate time pre-universe.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "I told you the phrase “come into existence” is meaningless."

          Do you not believe that our universe came into existence a finite time ago?

          May 14, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          We do not know. There could have been an infinite number of bangs and collapses, or many other possible events.
          You asking that question PROVES you do not understand the problem. A universe cannot "come into existence" unless Reality, Causality, time, space, exist already. It explains NOTHING.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • realbuckyball

          We know there probably was a singularity. We know nothing else at this point.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "There could have been an infinite number of bangs and collapses"

          This runs into the problem of an actual material infinite. If this went on forever, then why wouldn't our universe have came into and went out of existence forever ago? Also, what accepted model are you referring to?

          "A universe cannot “come into existence” unless Reality, Causality, time, space, exist already."

          Why not? The creation of the universe is the creation and beginning of time and space. God is the Cause.

          "We know there probably was a singularity. We know nothing else at this point."

          Would you postulate that the singularity existed eternally?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Are you claiming that from an infinite time ago nothing existed but God and then maybe millions of years ago, he suddenly decided to create a universe?

          Don't you have a CLUE what you are claiming? STUMPED?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:32 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "Are you claiming that from an infinite time ago nothing existed but God and then maybe millions of years ago, he suddenly decided to create a universe?"

          No, that's not what I'm claiming.

          "Don’t you have a CLUE what you are claiming? STUMPED?"

          Uh-oh. Here we go again.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:46 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Did anything else besides God exist when he created the universe?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:49 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "Did anything else besides God exist when he created the universe?"

          I'm not sure. He may or may not have created angels by this point.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Did God create angels out of NOTHING?

          May 15, 2014 at 12:55 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Do not know. He certainly has the ability and power to do so. He could have created them from something else He created (see the description of the creation of man from the earth in Genesis).

          May 15, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          As I said originally, you are claiming that God created EVERYTHING out of NOTHING.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:26 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I believe God created the universe ex nihilo. What is the issue?

          May 15, 2014 at 1:37 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Since you believe that SOMETHING can come from NOTHING, what was your original point? Is it that non-believers are foolish to think that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING?

          May 15, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • fintronics

          @truth "I believe God created the universe ex nihilo. What is the issue?"

          Are you suggesting it's the Christian god? You "believe" but you have no evidence to support your claim.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Nor evidence to reject Zeus.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:39 am |
  2. Reality

    kevinite,

    Your religions were "kiboshed" below with significant details. Where is your rebuttal with cited studies???

    May 14, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
    • kevinite

      Actually Reality,

      I just checked below on your "kiboshed" claims to my replies. From what I saw they didn't look kiboshed at all. As to why it took so long in order for me to reply, like i said below in may last afternoon reply that I had to go to work, because I do have a job to go to and do other things besides commenting on this blog, so patience deary patience.

      May 15, 2014 at 3:06 am |
  3. His Panic

    Is quite clear that someone had a Panic attack. Either the Romanists or Harvard with this very messy situation.
    That happens because they do not really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son. They try their best to fake it but it just does not works that way. Those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic all others, including the Romanists church and Harvard will indeed Panic

    May 14, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      those who trust in god trust in nothing.
      they'd do better to trust in their brothers and sisters of this world.
      you don't need god to be a better person.

      May 14, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        Booty...true. Many times, the need for a god makes you a worse person

        May 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Your atheism is a delusion of your own mind! Break away from your delusion!

        May 14, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          but which god/dess to choose?
          i mean, Odin, Ra or Zeus...

          May 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I suggest the god named "Sin", one of the other son's of El Elyon, (and brother of Yahweh). The Hebrews were often scolded for worshiping him, (as much as they were Baal ... if you look into why the Southern Kingdom hated Baal so much it opens a trove of political shenanigans and exposes a lot about why the Babble was really put together the way it was). He eventually morphed into Allah, He had three daughters that were simply "divine", (oops ... which is why the Satanic Verses were eventually removed from the Quran). But we do have a lot to pick from.

          May 14, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      It is quite clear that your one-trick pony (the panic attack) is the ONE way your simple-minded brain is able to work, and that in fact you don't even know the definition of a "panic attack". But do keep posting, and with every post make yourself look even more foolish than you already do.

      May 14, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
      • His Panic

        You may be having a Panic attack right now. If you do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son you will Panic, but by then it may be too late. Panic has been the main cause of stampedes among both animals and people. Also these stampedes among people, are the result of or have precipitated rebellions, revolutions and riots. Once you get involved in or caught in the middle of a riot it may be too late. You may end up in a place called Hell. That will happen to ALL who do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son.

        May 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          God had lots of sons. Are you not a child of god ? Now don't get all panicky.

          May 14, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • fintronics

          Obsession = "a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness"

          Obsessed with PANIC

          May 15, 2014 at 10:56 am |
    • fintronics

      Obsession = "a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness"

      Obsessed with PANIC

      May 15, 2014 at 10:56 am |
  4. bchev

    The ignorance of some of the parties in this story is stunning to me. It is hard to wrap my mind around how some of these people don't see just how ridiculous they're being.

    A group of Christians is mad. Their mad because another group wants to observe a ceremony that they don't like and don't agree with. they also don't understand it, and are fundamentally mistaken about what it repressents; but that doesn't matter to them. They don't like what another group of people wants to do, and because they don't like something that they don't actually understand, they believe that the people doing the ceremony are being offensive. That is mind boggling.

    "I hate green cars, everyone around here hates green cars. Green cars are green because they give foff radiation, how dare you choose to drive a green car around here, how insensitive gcan you be. You should be ashamed for bringing your green car around, when you know we all like to drive blue cars" - That argument has jsut as much weight as whats' coming out of the complaining parties around Harvard right now.

    May 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      well said.
      it's a tool of modern religion - they cry they are being disrespected, but it's really a cry for censorship. religions try to shutdown any and all criticisms.

      May 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
  5. James XCIX

    I'm not sure I understand why someone cares if something they think their god will consider blasphemous is done by someone else. After all, it's only the blasphemer who will suffer any potential consequences... right?

    May 14, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      not really. since there is no god, there is no punishment for "blasphemy". so no worries.

      May 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
  6. Dyslexic doG

    Why won't any of your gods show themselves and put an end to doubt? Why the childish games?

    May 14, 2014 at 11:22 am |
    • realbuckyball

      She works in mysterious ways.

      May 14, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
  7. kevinite

    Bostonola,
    "I said a simple thing, if something always existed, it wasn't created. You came back with an analogy that completely didn't fit, clay turning into pottery. That analogy doesn't qualify for the reason i stated, neither clay nor pottery have always existed. I didn't miss your point, you made a point that didn't apply."

    You didn't get my point in the first place which is that just because if somethng is made from somethng else, it is still considered to be a "creation". If there is material or energy that has always existed in one shape form or another and then it is possible that the transformation could be the result of creation.

    "You keep saying that not all religious rituals are man made. I claim they are. You want a proof. That is silly. You only need to provide a single example of a ritual that was not man made to disprove my assertion. You can't."

    When you make the claim that all religious rituals are completely man made, then guess who has the burden of proof?

    " My assertion is based on observable data. Every ritual traced back has human origins."

    Really...So, all you have to do is provide the irrefutable proof, and just simply saying that every ritual has human origins doesn't really cut it. Since many who perform those rituals claim that they have divine origin, you have to prove what they are claiming is false, so where it come to those who believe that those rituals come from a God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our own faith in said God, how do you provide proof that irrefutably defies that notion?

    " You want to exploit the "gaps" in the historical record to say one of them that hasn't been traced may have been provided supernaturally. Just provide 1 and my assertion will be proven false."

    I don't need to that is unless you can provide the irrefutable proof for all the currently-existing beliefs that all their rituals are completely human made in origin, and that there was no God whatsoever in the process.

    May 14, 2014 at 12:38 am |
    • bostontola

      kevinite,
      I don't know how many times I have to state that I got your point. It is obvious. Everyone knows that things can be created by living beings. Beavers create dams. My point, the OP, is different and is as stated. You are clearly desperate to preserve your belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. Sleep tight in your warm bed.

      There is no burden of proof, as I already stated (multiple times) there is no proof that there is no God. As to the assertion that all religious ritual is man made, there is no proof since we don't even know all the rituals in history. The assertion all religious ritual is man made is like saying all buildings or bridges across rivers are man made. Until there is a counter example, it is obviously correct. There are thousands of rituals, I've never even heard a person claim one of them is not man made. Provide me with a counter example, you will make history if you do.

      May 14, 2014 at 7:40 am |
      • kevinite

        Bostonola,

        When one thing changes into another thing that change can be considered a creation even though they have always existed prior to that change.

        May 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • kevinite

          As I've stated (multiple times) that my religious beliefs are just that beliefs. I never asserted that they were established fact.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Congrats Kevin.....you are the only one to say your beliefs are not established facts.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • kevinite

          Bostonola,

          When you however make a positive claim that all religious rituals are man made you do have the burden of proof.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • kevinite

          I'll give you a a couple of examples. Prayer and communion.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          if you wish for proof that a god(s) did not create rituals, that is really simple.

          why don't you just ask the god(s) to explain which rituals they created; now mind you humans created the written word, thus books of any kind can't be used as "godly inspired" seeing they themselves did not pen the words.

          i'll wait for your gods to establish which rituals they truly created.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • kevinite

          Prayer and communion may have different takes by different churches but they do believe that those rituals originated from deity.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....no ritual was ever created by deity's, as they have not been proven to exist

          May 14, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          that would be the key word right there, kevin; "they believe". that isn't fact, it's faith which truly means "no proof".

          they just say it's important because they don't wish to become unimportant.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • kevinite

          Wasp,

          How does men being divinely inspired to write down scripture mean that they were not divinely inspired? Because those writings turned out to not be perfect so many centuries and translations down the road? How does that mean they they were not divinely inspired to begin with keep in mind that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • kevinite

          Gullible,

          Those rituals have also not been proven to not have been originally from a deity, especially since for Christians were talking about a deity who does not want to be made known but rather have us develop our own faith in said deity.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....you can't prove a negative. I can't prove the Easter Bunny does not really exist. I look at the data and make my best guess. Since there is no evidence of any deity, I'm guessing there were no rituals started by deity's.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • kevinite

          So Bostonola,

          What irrefutable proof do you have that that those rituals of prayer and communion ultimately did not originate from deity?

          May 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kevinite – Surely you recognize that arguments of the type that say something like "I know I don't have any evidence to support my assertion, but since you don't have irrefutable evidence against it my assertion must therefore be true" are the weakest possible arguments?

          May 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          I don't need to prove that statement any more than I would need to prove the statement; "our solar system has 8 planets". It is a fact. Scientists can't prove it, but it is an accepted fact. If someone finds another planet, that statement will be disproved and the number will change.

          Prayer existed long before Christianity so it wasn't created by your God. Communion is not performed the same in different denominations so it must be man made. No there are many rituals and no one has shown a single one to be anything but man made.

          I'll go further.There may be a divine God, but all religions/denominations are man made.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • kevinite

          James,

          I never said that since I believe that it therefore must be true. All I said that is that I believe and that's basically it. My main point is that when it comes to the God question or the Christianity question is that ultimately there is no irrefutable proof one way or the other and that it is all a matter of belief or opinion.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • kevinite

          Bostonola,

          The guidelines regarding prayer in Matthew are given by Jesus son then Christian prayer can be considered that it originated from God and since Christianity to some is not really a first century invention but rather a branched continuation of a belief system such as from Judaism and Judaism from earlier belief practices supposedly originated from Adam it's therefore also considered divine in origin.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          kevin;

          writings can not be proven to be divinely anything because a god did not write them, humans did.
          humans started from simple pictographs to hyroglphs to the eventual written word.

          a prime example of how all religious texts aren't inspired by a god is that i can claim the words i'm writing are divinely inspired; regardless of how much you doubt it there is truly no way for you to prove these words aren't inspired by a god.
          the reason being, the words are still physically manifested in this world using a human body to create them.

          thus no written text can be used to prove any religious ceremony is truly created by a god because it all comes from the hands and minds of humans.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • kevinite

          Bostonola,

          When it comes to communion there are different takes on it but just the point is that they all claim to have originated by deity, and just because there are different takes on it doesn't automatically mean they all are false. There is a distinct possibility that one of those takes is in fact the original take. All you have to do is prove irrefutably that each and every one are not divinely inspired.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin...you can't prove a negative.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          There is historical evidence of prayer to gods before the jews. The history of Egyptian prayer goes back further than Judaism.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • bostontola

          There is a distinct possibility that there are 20 more planets orbiting our sun, but until they are found, we have 8.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kevinite – "... I believe and that's basically it."

          Fair enough as stated, but you can't follow that with arguments about lack of irrefutable evidence having anything to do with why you believe.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          kevin; "prayer in Matthew are given by Jesus"

          the key words in this are:
          1) matthews which is a chapter in a human written book that doesn't prove godly inspired......well except for the followers of said book
          2) jesus- being the son of man is correct however the son of a god.......well again is only true for the believers of said religion.

          long story short your above statement proves nothing more than that you are a follower of said religion; none of it prove prayer is "godly inspired" any more so than your religious text is inspired by said god.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • kevinite

          Wasp,

          Of course I can't prove that other religious texts are not divinely inspired, but the point is that neither can you nor Bostonola, nor anyone else for that matter. That still doesn't ultimately prove irrefutably that there in fact there is no religious ritual that is for certain not divinely inspired. That it all boils down to regarding the issue is that it is all a matter of belief or opinion.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          kevin:

          we can go back 30,000 years and see cave paintings from neanthrals and what they "prayed" to in their pictographs; doesn't mean their ceremonies were inspired by a god(s).

          religions build on the bones of the older religions, they learn and adapt to the changing world according to what is required for that religion (namely those in charge of that religion) to remain in power.

          if you want to understand how monotheism has adapted through the years, look up "banned from the bible 1 & 2".

          May 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • kevinite

          Bostonola,

          And how far back does Egyptian prayer go to? Is there conclusive proof that it predates Jewish or even Jewish ancestral belief including say any oral-based traditions? Since your on the Egyptian take can you even prove that the Egyptian form of prayer was not claimed by the Egyptians to have been supernatural in it's origins since you claim that all religious rituals are man made in origin.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • otoh2

          kevinite,

          A case in point against "divine" transmission of a prayer ritual is the fact that Paul of Tarsus did not know "The Lord's Prayer" (he even said "we do not know how to pray"). That prayer allegedly came right from the lips of 'Jesus', with whom Paul allegedly had direct contact.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • kevinite

          Again Bostonola,

          I'm not the one who is making the assertive claim that all religious rituals are completely human in origin; you are. Therefore you have the burden of proof.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          You keep going back to proof no matter how many times I say there is no proof. I go by objective evidence. All the evidence says Egyptian prayer predates jewish worship. All the evidence says religious ritual are man made. All evidence says there are 8 planets orbiting our sun.

          You are happy to base your belief on the lack of proof, even though so much evidence is to the contrary. That is your choice of course.

          The base of your belief rests on a tiny area where there isn't proof. That base gets smaller every day.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • kevinite

          otoh,

          Paul's case is yet another example of Paul believing to have received a religious ritual from deity. So can you prove that what Paul claimed was in fact his own invention or is it just your opinion?

          May 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....Joseph Smith said he read golden tablets from his hat. I can't prove he didn't, but I am pretty d-amn sure he did not.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • kevinite

          So Bostonola,

          Is your objective observation based on all possible variables? There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that there is missing information or missing evidence that could possibly effect your observation? The absence of evidence isn't evidence in of itself. What you are going on is in fact your own opinion or belief.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • otoh2

          kevinite,
          "...Paul believing to have received a religious ritual from deity."

          I think you'd better read my post again.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • kevinite

          Well, it's been fun but I need to get ready to go to work, so toodles.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • kevinite

          Well there is one more thing for otoh,

          Where is it it that what Jesus put on to the lips of Paul was not in fact the same type of guidelines that were given in Matthew?

          May 14, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          You just asked the same question a different way. Asking if there is any chance, is the same as asking if there is proof. Just as I sad before, there is a chance there could be more planets orbiting our sun. There is no objective evidence for more planets, or non-man made ritual. Your beliefs rest on the miniscule chance that while all the current objective evidence conflicts with supernatural sources and none confirms it, it is still true. That is your choice. I side with all the objective evidence and consider 8 planets a fact, religious ritual being man made a fact, religions themselves being man made a fact. There may be God(s), but the religions are man made.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • otoh2

          kevinite,

          We are talking about a prayer/ritual coming directly from a deity... not "guidelines". Paul did not know that prayer/ritual... and he was purportedly a spokesman for that deity.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "The absence of evidence isn't evidence in of itself."

          Of course it is. The god claim is extremely far-fetched and completely lacks evidence, so I conclude it's BS. Similarly, the possibility that I can fly is extremely far-fetched and completely lacks evidence, so I'm not going to jump off any buildings.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • kevinite

          Bostonola

          "You just asked the same question a different way. Asking if there is any chance, is the same as asking if there is proof. Just as I sad before, there is a chance there could be more planets orbiting our sun. There is no objective evidence for more planets, or non-man made ritual."

          You mean that you know of.

          "Your beliefs rest on the miniscule chance that while all the current objective evidence conflicts with supernatural sources and none confirms it, it is still true."

          Really, just what is the percentage you are referring to when it comes to "miniscule" and how did you come to that percentage? Apparently you have an exact idea, so how do know then you have all the variables in making your conclusion since you know well, how miniscule the chances are that my beliefs may be correct. You never said how you took into consideration of providing evidence that can overcome the belief that there is a God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our faith in said God.

          "That is your choice. I side with all the objective evidence and consider 8 planets a fact, religious ritual being man made a fact, religions themselves being man made a fact. There may be God(s), but the religions are man made."

          Really, for someone who claims to rely on objective evidence, you didn't provide any actual objective evidence proving irrefutably that all religions are man made.

          May 15, 2014 at 2:37 am |
        • kevinite

          Gullible,

          Of course Bostonola was asserting positively that all religious rituals are man made. Also, of course you are right in that you can't prove a negative. So, if you can't prove a negative then how can you objectively conclude a negative to be a fact? You can believe a negative, but as you said you can't prove a negative.

          May 15, 2014 at 2:45 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....I didn't say it was a fact there is no god. Just like I said it is not a fact there are no leprechauns. I don't care for people that claim the positive on either side of the question. Regardless of what you say....you do not know for sure there is a god. If you knew, you would be able to produce the proof...and you can't.

          May 15, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • kevinite

          Gullible,

          So, if you can't prove a negative then how can you objectively conclude a negative to be a fact? You can believe a negative, but as you said you can't prove a negative.

          May 15, 2014 at 2:45 am |
        • kevinite

          Sea Vik,

          "Of course it is. The god claim is extremely far-fetched and completely lacks evidence, so I conclude it's BS. Similarly, the possibility that I can fly is extremely far-fetched and completely lacks evidence, so I'm not going to jump off any buildings."

          The problem with your scenario is that it doesn't apply to every situation. Just like since there is no evidence to prove something is red doesn't mean it is blue, or that since there is no evidence that something is made of chocolate doesn't mean that it is therefore made of vanilla, and just like there is lacking proof of a certain deity doesn't mean that there is no such deity, especially if it is a deity who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our faith in said deity.

          May 15, 2014 at 2:57 am |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          "You mean that you know of."
          That is what evidence is, things that we know of. Your position is like a lawyer making a case that their client should win because of evidence that might exist and the opponent can't prove it doesn't exist. The opponent has a mountain of evidence against his client, you have no objective evidence but you claim there may be undiscovered evidence.

          Minuscule chance comes from the fact that you have no objective evidence, but rest on potential evidence that may be discovered some day, even though as time goes on all new evidence has eliminated more and more of traditional religion. Your chances become even narrower because yours is but one of thousands of religions/denominations. Every one claims truth. Again, you fall back on, what is the exact percentage chance. I don't know, I don't care enough to even estimate it. I don't know the chance that we find another planet orbiting the sun, it's small, minuscule, just like your chances of finding objective evidence that a ritualistic not man made.

          May 15, 2014 at 7:10 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Wrong. The "extraordinary claim" (requiring extraordinary evidence) is that any human ritual which obviously is perfectly natural,has ANY origin other than human, and the burden of proof on on anyone claiming anything we see has any origin other than natural.Nice try to shift the burden, by Little Key, you failed again, just as you did in the NT/OT thing you claimed about about what was true and false. You REALLY are desperate, aren't you ?

      May 14, 2014 at 7:42 am |
      • kevinite

        Guess what luckyball,

        I didn't claim for a fact that there are certain religious rituals that originated from deity, I "believed" that there are divine in origin. It was Bostonola who made the assertive claim for a fact that all religious rituals are completely human in origin. Therefore, it is Bostonola who has the burden of proof.

        May 14, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Nope. There is not a shred of evidence to support any nonsense that they originated with the gods. IF you actually knew anything about human archaeology and the history of religions you would know what the evidence is. (See Dr. Robert N. Bellah's "Religion in Human Evolution". The presumption for any rational person is that every human custom had human origins. IF NOT then ANY other source cannot also be ruled out, and the concept that they were invented by flying pink ants is JUST as RATIONAL as the gods theory. So guess what ? You failed again. Nice try though. Tell Biola College you want your money back for the nonsense they taught you in Apologetics for Dummies.

          May 14, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
    • Reality

      In support of Bostontola:

      Putting the kibosh on all religions and their gods in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

      • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

      • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e. the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

      • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

      • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

      • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

      • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

      • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

      Added details available upon written request but also given many times on this blog.

      A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

      e.g. Taoism

      "The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

      Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "

      May 14, 2014 at 7:42 am |
      • kevinite

        Yes, that puts the kibosh on everything. Because you said so, or that you cite "certain" scholars who say "probably this" or "probably that". That certainly puts the nail in the coffin.

        May 14, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • Reality

          Obviously, you did not read the details the last time I answered your comments. Might want to go back a few day and review again. When finished get back to me with your rebuttal citing studies to support your case.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Reality

          Just in case you are computer challenged:

          Only for the those interested in a religious update:

          1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

          “New Torah For Modern Minds

          Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

          Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

          The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
          prob•a•bly
          Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

          2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

          The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

          earlychristianwritings.com/

          For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

          Current RCC problems:

          Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

          2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

          Current problems:
          Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

          3. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

          This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.

          And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

          Current crises:

          The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

          4. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) – "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

          The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

          Current problems:

          The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.

          5. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

          "However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

          Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

          Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

          Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace and religious awareness in the world!!!!!

          May 14, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
    • alonsoquixote

      kevinite, you wrote " those rituals come from a God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our own faith in said God". The god could provide irrefutable evidence of his existence so he wouldn't have to condemn most of the human race to everlasting torment, but doesn't want to do so? You worship a god who insists that the only way humans can enter the gated community of heaven, at least according to the sacred text he supposedly inspired, though he chose not to preserve the original copies of the books of that sacred text, since apparently leaving only a number of conflicting copies of copies of copies, etc. containing different material better serve his aim that humans must believe in his existence on "faith" rather than reason, is to believe he incarnated himself as a human being in the 1st century and sacrificed himself in the hypostasis of the "Son" to himself in the hypostasis of the "Father" to ameliorate an ancient curse he put on the first humans he created, but also their descendants for countless generations, because a talking snake induced the woman to eat of the "one forbidden thing" he placed in a garden with them, thus gaining knowledge of good and evil for which he had to punish them, and all of their descendants, and kick them out of the garden lest they also eat fruit of another tree to make them immortal like himself? So that makes sense to you and the only way you will stop believing it is if someone proves your particular god, Yahweh, doesn't exist? Did you demand similar proof for the non-existence of Ahura Mazda, Brahman, Coatlicue, Dagon, El, Freyr, Jupiter, Odin, Zeus or any of the thousands of other gods mankind has invented before rejecting their existence and the rituals associated with them?

      May 14, 2014 at 7:58 am |
      • kevinite

        Actually I believe all will have the chance to learn of the gospel and therefore make their own accountable choice. I beleive that opprotunity will happen either in this life or afterwards so then all will have the opprotunity to either believe or not believe.

        May 14, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I believe the moon is made of green cheese. There is as much evidence to support that as there is your beliefs.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      If something "always existed" then it can't be the creator of Reality, and is subject to it. As long as it existed, "non-existence" also was part of Reality, and time ("always") was a concurrent element of Reality. A deity can't "exist" (as a necessary subset) of the very Reality it requires for it's own existence and coherent definition. So sad. Too bad. Kevy looses again.

      May 14, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
  8. bostontola

    Humans have a social mental capability called theory of mind. It is our ability to recognize that others are thinking and imagine what they are thinking in a given situation. The advantages of this are many, enabling both strong cooperation and competi.tion. Other animals may have weak forms of this, but none as developed as humans.

    Human theory of mind is so strong, that we project thinking/feeling to animals that they don't have. It is so strong that we project thinking/feeling to fictional characters in books. Humans can feel for fictional characters and feel like they "know" the fictional characters.

    Combine this theory of mind with empathy and humans can develop relationships with characters from books. This can explain how people develop relationships with Gods. People had relationships with Greek Gods, Norse Gods, Egyptian Gods, etc.

    This theory of mind plus empathy allows humans to develop strong cooperative groups much more powerful that weakly bonded groups. This capability provided a competi.tive advantage. It can also go overboard and enable relationships with imaginary beings.

    May 13, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      And your dumb childish theory also explains why you atheists suffer from a delusion you created! ^_^

      May 13, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
      • bostontola

        No need to fear ideas different than yours. There are people who can help you be more social with others and not live in fear. Please get help from them.

        May 13, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Live in fear of what? Your atheism is extremely weak. Everything you believe is a delusion of your own mind. Grow up manchild. Time to start facing the facts.

          May 13, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • bostontola

          There is help for you. Please take the opportunity to improve your life.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • thefinisher1

          Take your own advice, kid.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • observer

          Yes, mental health professionals can help you find why you enjoy anti-social behavior and are so desperate for attention. Most mentally healthy people want positive attention from others while you sadly require negative attention. Please seek help.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:42 am |
  9. thefinisher1.1

    Your complete lack of understanding of my lack of atheism is your own stupidity. But that doesn't stop you from feeling the need to believe in something that is not even real, which is a proven false fact!

    May 13, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      LOLOL You're hilarious!

      May 14, 2014 at 11:21 am |
  10. thefinisher1.1

    Atheism is not even a real thing. Your emotional response to my lack of atheism is proof!

    May 13, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      Awwwww! I have an admirer of my work! I feel so honored! ^_^

      May 13, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
      • thefinisher1.1

        Get lost kiddo.

        May 13, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Lol! Clever. "Kiddo". I will give you credit. You have dedication.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • Alias

          @thefinisher1
          I think three time should be enough-
          It may be childish of me to enjoy this so much, but I don't really care. When you set up your account you reserved a name all to yourself. When you post under your name it comes up BLUE and it links to a page that you could have created. So, when you post as 'thefinisher1' and we all have a blue link that leads to your page, we know that it is you.
          See how that works? They kind of did that on purpose so honest people could be identified.
          This is obviously news to you, as you have been claiming that someone stole your name. However, we can all see that the link to your page is intact, and you have been responding to your own posts.
          THIS is why I still log on here. I love showing trolls to be liars and idiots. Childish of me? Maybe. Or I just may be an honest man who enjoys seeing an occasional bit of justice on the Internet.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
  11. thefinisher1

    Atheism is false. Get over it.

    May 13, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
    • Alias

      The bible is false.
      Wake up to reality.

      May 13, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        That's your opinion and belief not a fact.

        May 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • kudlak

          WOW!!!

          I think that comment just busted my irony meter.

          May 13, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          My OP wasn't an opinion. It's a known fact. Big difference, kiddo.

          May 13, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I'll probably regret this as the only answer I can think of is the bible, but do you have anything to support your statement?

          May 13, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          What does that have to do with anything? It's literally your opinion if you think the bible is false. Most atheists will base it on their emotions from what happened during their childhood. In fact, your reasons for claiming the bible is flawed is also based on your emotions. Are emotional are you atheists? Are you like adult emo's who want attention all the time?

          May 13, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I was right. The bible. Well the creation story is proven incorrect, so it is not an opinion. It has everything to do with it – your whole idea of a god came from the bible. Your ramblings about atheists and emotions are pure nonsense. If you don't trust science – don't use a computer, or the internet, or have a vaccination, or use GPS, or drive a car, etc. etc.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • otoh2

          finisher,
          "Are you like adult emo's who want attention all the time?"

          No... and it would seem that is the state of most theists, who constantly want (and think that they actually *have*) the attention of some Almighty Creator of the Universe – now, and for eternity!

          May 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Lol!!!! Your atheism didn't "invent" anything and your pathetic atheism has nothing to do with science. This isn't high school where you boost yourself past the people you don't like. Grow you manchild. It's time to stop thinking you're better than everyone else.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "Most atheists will base it on their emotions from what happened during their childhood."

          --Post the proof of that, or shut up.

          Now.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Must have stuck a nerve! Awww! Get help if you can get over what happened. Stop taking your problems you aren't willing to face out on others. Shut up or leave.

          Now.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Why is anybody bothering to post anything to this azzhole? If we don't stop answering his banal statements he will simply continue. Daniel is obviously not going to ban him, so we will just have to do it ourselves. Come on, please stop answering this jerk! His rants are pathetic!

          May 14, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • realbuckyball

          Just as I thought. You made it up, and can't support it with anything.
          Thanks for demonstrating you are a blatant liar who will say anything to appear to be right.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          When you hear about the flood, what is your general action? You become increasingly emotion. You only look at one part ignoring everything else. You atheists are infants. Grow up.

          May 13, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • otoh2

          thefinisher1
          "When you hear about the flood, what is your general action?"

          In general, I think that evidence shows that no such thing ever happened on Earth.

          What's your reaction? Googly-eyed emotion at the "power" of some deity?

          May 14, 2014 at 12:00 am |
        • hotairace

          Finished, there is not one single actual piece of evidence to support The Babble's divine claims. Not one. In the absence of supporting evidence, the default and logical position is to remain skeptic. In other words, The Babble is a pile of steaming sh!t until its supporters prove otherwise.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:13 am |
  12. guidedans

    Hey all you rational folks out there.

    I know I have said this before in other posts, but I just want to really stress the point that, while Pascal's Wager does not prove Christianity, it most definitely demonstrates that atheism and agnosticism are inferior positions when compared with a belief in Heaven and Hell.

    Here's why:

    Imagine there are an infinite number of beliefs, some believe in multiple gods, others believe in a single God with certain characteristics, some just believe in nature, etc. An infinite number.

    Within this set of beliefs there are some that posit that belief in their religion will result in eternal bliss.

    Also within this set of beliefs, there are those that posit that, after you die, you no longer exist.

    To put this into mathematical terms:

    Believers in a religion that believes in heaven have the following expected value for their belief:
    (1/infinity)*infinity, which equals: infinity/infinity, or an undefined positive number.

    That is, the chance that they are correct in 1/infinity, but if they are correct, their payout is infinity

    Atheists, Agnostics, and those who do not believe in life after death have the following expected value for their belief:
    (1/infinity)*0, which is equal to 0

    That is, these folks still have a 1 out of infinite chance of being correct, but if they are correct, they get no payout, thus their expected value is 0.

    In conclusion, belief in an eternal afterlife for believers results in an expected value of a positive, undefined value, while belief in death's finality results in an expected value of 0.

    Because an undefined positive number is always greater than 0, the believers hold the superior position compared to the atheists.

    I honestly cannot see why any of the above logic is incorrect, so please let me know if you see any errors.

    If you cannot, then I suggest you abandon your inferior position in exchange for a more dominant one.

    May 13, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Pascal's Wager was refuted immediately and does not provide any superiority for christianity – except maybe smugness.
      Off the top of my head, the other cases it ignores – there could be a god but it's not yours and sends you to hell, there could be a god and it is yours but it knows you were insincere and sends you to hell, there could be a god and it is yours but as long as you led a good life it allows you into heaven regardless of belief.

      May 13, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
      • guidedans

        Santa,

        You ignored my argument completely. I was not arguing for Christianity's superiority. I was arguing for Atheism's inferiority. If you can refute my argument, please do so.

        May 14, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dans....I can't argue for Santa, but in my case, the object of disbelief is much better than living in fear of retribution upon any illogical misstep. If on the very small chance there is a god, I can make a pretty good case for not believing. I am not worried and do not have to account for the BS on a daily basis as you do. I see no downside to atheism at all.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Theoretically the number of gods could be infinite, in practice it is fewer than 7 billion – presuming one per person alive. Ignoring that there is no evidence for any god which significantly lowers the likelihood, and presuming each had equal merit each person has the same probability – 1/n.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
    • kudlak

      There are many possible gods offering damnation in the afterlife for not believing in them. So, aren't I in a better position in not believing in a potential rival to a possible real god than those who do?

      Besides, belief in such things is never a choice. You might as well be asking people why they choose not to believe that 2 + 2 = 5?

      May 13, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        guidedans....I don't for one second believe that there is any god, but, on the Pascal off chance that one does exist, and I am forced to make an account of myself, I am extremely confident that I can lawyer up and make a good case.

        My only question that I really need to ask is....Why did you make your existence so difficult for logical and reasonable people to believe, and why did you only make personal appearances to a select few and not everybody so that we could easily believe. Simple.

        May 13, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
        • James XCIX

          gulliblenomore – "...and why did you only make personal appearances to a select few and not everybody so that we could easily believe."

          Right, and then for some reason the people to whom the god does appear and speak are praised as especially "faithful", just for doing what the god says to do (seems far more accurate to describe them as naturally fearful of the consequences of not doing what they believed a god with punitive powers told them to do). That's always seemed like backwards thinking to me, as it would require very little faith to do something you believe a god directly told you to do, but a huge amount of faith to do something just because some other human tells you a god told them about what you need to do.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • guidedans

          Gullible,

          My post is about math showing the inferiority of the Atheist's position. It is not about demonstrating why God does not reveal himself publicly to everyone. I would like to know if your could refute my argument, which I am confident is pretty full proof.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dans....it is only fool proof to you.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          You forgot to factor in the possible fact that the atheist belief of what happens after death could be the most amazing incredible peace for the universe and the joy of being a part of everything as the bits of our matter are being reused to make new life. You call that a "0" when I call it glorious infinity, so right away your entire premise falls on its face. You are only limited by that lazy bit of gray matter between your ears, get it outside of the echo chamber that is religion and you might just learn something.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • guidedans

          Gullible,

          Then show me that it is not.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dans...you are dealing with too many variables to make your math even useable.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • guidedans

          NBHA,

          The scenario you described as your "afterlife" is not an atheistic belief. It is a weird religion that you invented where, even though you are no longer conscious of anything, you still get to enjoy decaying and returning to the matter of the cosmos.

          It is not even a very good religion because the matter that your body is made of now will not be the matter that it will be made of when you die. You really have no claim over the matter that makes up your body and therefore, should not feel that, when it disperses after you die, you should still have some connection to it.

          Disprove my math and we can talk about it.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          The joy I get here and now for not believing in your Galactic Hitler who torments people in his ovens for eternity and the fact that I believe none of my friends, family or loved ones will ever be treated like that is immeasurable.

          I do not believe in any consciousness after death but I think one can find joy in the knowledge that we got this moment to exist and it's completely up to us as to how we want to spend it. Only fools and suckers get bamboozled into giving their lives away in the service of some universal prlck all for the promise of luxurious accommodations in an afterlife no one can prove exists.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          NBHA....bravo! Those are the variables that his math was missing. And, there are many more. His math is incomplete.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
      • guidedans

        No Kudlak, you are not in a better position. My math clearly demonstrates that not believing in any god is an inferior position than believing in a God with Heaven and Hell.

        The believer and the non believer have the exact same chance of being wrong and being sent into Hell, the non-believer just has nothing to gain by being right while the believer is eternally rewarded.

        If you can refute my argument, please do so.

        May 14, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • G to the T

          Easy – there's no way to know what criteria and/or god is actual and will give you that benefit so ANY choice you make could potentially put you at odds with it. Therefore the net result on all is zero.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • guidedans

          honestly, G to the T,

          The net result, if you account for all the potential options of belief versus disbelief is not 0, it is a negative expected value for both belief and for disbelief. However, the atheist's expected value will always be a greater negative value that the theists, because the Atheist, if he is correct, gets nothing.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dans....you are using absolutes. I can go with the assumption that if there truly is a god, I can argue my point and end up the same as you without having to do any of the work.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • Alias

      Four obvious flaws in your argument:
      1) There sre not an infinite number of gods
      2) The chance of salvation if you guess wrong is not zero
      3) The changes of salvation if you guess right are not 100%
      4) Some gods are more likely than others, so you shouldn't choose randomly.

      May 13, 2014 at 9:32 pm |
      • guidedans

        Hi Alias,

        My argument is simplified to its foundation, to the point where it is as general and conservative as possible.

        If you are correct about your 1st claim, then the atheist's position just weakens because the math becomes"
        (1/10000000)*infinity for the believers' expected value (which equals infinity) and...
        (1/10000000)*0 for the atheists' expected value (which equals 0).

        You are correct that the believer could be wrong and then could be sent to Hell, but the atheist might also be wrong and will be sent to the same Hell for believing the wrong thing. The difference between the believer's chance of going to Hell and the Atheist's is that the believer has one less Hell that they could potentially go to than the Atheist does (The believer won't go the Hell if he is right).

        Your third claim is wrong. If you are right in your belief, and you believe in salvation, then, because you are right, then you are 100% certain that would will be saved.

        Your fourth claim is correct, but that does not have anything to do with my argument. I am arguing that Atheism is an inferior position to belief in a God with Heaven and Hell. I am not advocating for random choice in a particular belief (in this post).

        May 14, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Since there is no evidence to support the existence of some place of torment such as heII, I think any sane human would choose to believe heII does not exist. The premise behind it is beyond horrible and unjust and if said place exists then the other premise many theists have of a loving Godis completely discredited and thus creates a paradox. Either God is love so heII does not exist, or God isn't love and heII exists so any good person wouldn't worship such a horrible alien entlty anyway, or what you want to define as God doesn't exist at all and the idea of heII is just a manmade construct used to control stupid people. The third option makes the most sense to me and seeing as how I don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of controled simpleton sheep I decide to make up my own mind after an examination of each proffered ideology. I have read the bible several times, i've read the bhagavad gita and even the book of mormon. It is not as if I disregard them without examination as some do, but I certainly won't accept them without examination which sadly is par for the course for most Christians I know. For many Christians "critical examination" is a display of a weakened faith so instead of building their faith up based on actual study they resort to ad hominem attacks on people of other faiths or no faith.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Alias

          Let me ask for clarification of #3,
          So if the bible were corect, every christian would be on their way to heaven?

          May 14, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • guidedans

          NBHA,

          While I respect your rationality for not believing in Christianity, it is not really appropriate to the content of my post. I am arguing that atheism is an inferior belief (from the point of view of expected value) than belief in God an Heaven and Hell.

          I have not heard one argument that would refute my argument or show that Atheism is the superior or even equal in expected value to the believer's expected value, so I am left to believe that I am correct in my assertion.

          May 14, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dans.....actually, you heard many arguments, none of which you liked. But....you are right, if you are talking only about EXPECTED value, then you are right. You expect an eternal award from your belief. Nothing will beat that....and if it were true, would be great. But, there is absolutely no reason for you to expect that....it is just what you want to believe. So....if it makes you feel better....believe away. That doesn't make you right, just very hopeful.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • guidedans

          Alias,

          I am not commenting on the correctness of the Bible, I am commenting on the correctness of a person's belief. If a person has a certain belief in the Bible, and they are correct in their belief, then it stands that their belief of being rewarded eternally would come to fruition.

          It does not matter what belief they have about the Bible. What I am saying is that, regardless of what belief someone has, as long as it contains God, Heaven, and Hell, they are in a superior position than the Atheist when it comes to expected values.

          May 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • Alias

          @guidednas
          Your assumptions are wrong. Your math is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong.
          There is a chance that if you pick the wrong god, and I pick no god, that I will see heaven and you will not.

          May 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • guidedans

          Alias,

          I would like to see some backing for your claims that my assumptions, math, and arguments are wrong.

          Your claim is correct that a believer may end up in Hell if he is wrong while the atheist may end up in heaven, however, the atheist will only end up in heaven if he is wrong about heaven (assuming he is asserting that heaven does not exist).

          For every scenario you can think of where the atheist goes to heaven and the theist goes to hell, there is an opposite scenario where the theist goes to heave and the atheist goes to hell. That is why I chose the chance of being correct as 1/infinity for both classes of belief.

          My assumptions, math, and conclusions are not wrong. You are just choosing to ignore them because they do not fit your beliefs.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • Alias

          guidedans
          Firstly, according to the bible worshipping the wrong god is a one way ticket to hell. However, according to the pope atheists may have a chance. So, if the biblical god exists, and if you choose the wrong god and I choose no god, there is a probability between zero and 1 I will be saved but you have no chance at salvation. That does not appear in your calculation.
          Also, not all christians will be saved even if they have the right god. I didn't see that in your math either. So even though I left the christian faith there is a greater than zero chance of my salvation.
          So by my math, i have some chance at salvation no matter which god exists, but you have to guess the right one to have any chance. That could make my odds better than yours.

          May 14, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
    • kudlak

      " but if (atheists) are correct, they get no payout"
      I would strongly disagree. There would be vindication that our reasoning was indeed correct if we cease to exist after we die just as we suspect. There would also be no unjust torture for those who simply used their intellect. All-in-all, very satisfying.

      May 13, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
      • guidedans

        Kudlak,

        At the time you would realize you are correct, you would be dead, and therefore unable to realize that you are correct.

        There is no vindication if you are dead.

        May 14, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      "I honestly cannot see why any of the above logic is incorrect, so please let me know if you see any errors."

      I find this to be the most disturbing aspect of his comments. So sad.

      May 14, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • guidedans

        NBHA,

        If it is so clear to you that my logic is flawed, please share with the group what those flaws are.

        I would be very happy to see them.

        Unless of course, my logic is not flawed and you are just ignoring it because it does not align with your beliefs. Then you can remain silent on the issue.

        May 14, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          It is quite simple. You have provided no evidence that your God will honor the bet, so your entire premise is flawed as it rests on the condition that he will. You want me to play the game with my money (time/life/energy) and claim that if you bet on your God you will win when in actuality there is no evidence of any bet ever having been paid.

          Regardless of the number of religions and gods all effectively eliminating your mathematical advantage but you are making the assumption that everyone would prefer your proffered outcome when in reality that is far from true and I posit that a vast majority would despise your promised payment and throw it back in your face as insufficient to what they were promised by some other God. The atheist simply accepts things as they are and does not try to invent fantasy that may seem wonderful and incredible to some but does little to add weight to its veracity.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • guidedans

          NBHA,

          This is not a bet, and it does not require evidence. It is a concept that I am asserting is logically sound. My assertion is that, if you believe in Heaven, Hell, and God, then you have a higher expected value than someone who has no beliefs or believes in death's finality.

          I have asserted the following claims:
          The Atheist's expected value in his beliefs is 0
          The believer's expected value in his beliefs is a positive number
          0 is less than a positive number
          Therefore the believer's expected value is greater than the atheist's

          You will have to attack one of those premises if you want to refute my conclusion.

          May 14, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dan....The Hindus believe in reincarnation...they get to keep living and living....Sounds like a good concept to me. And....how about the Muslims promise of 72 virgins? Silly nonsense, just like yours. Carrots on a stick, that's all.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      A mathematical "limit superior" is not semantically equivalent to "superior" in a more literary or colloquial sense.
      It's like saying that the "superior vena cava" is a more awesome and all around better quality blood vessel than the inferior vena cava.

      May 14, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • guidedans

        Doc,

        Your analogy is flawed. I understand that infinity divided by infinity could be any number greater than zero but less than positive infinity; however, just because you cannot know exactly what number it is between those two limits does not mean that you cannot compare it to another number. We know that, if x is equal to a number greater than zero, but less than infinity, then we can assuredly say that x is greater than 0.

        The believer's expected value, although it is undefined, is still greater than the atheist's expected value.

        May 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      @guidedans,
      Cute, but how exactly do you arrive at a statistical probability of 1/infinity, when the "chance that they are correct", almost by definition, unknown.

      A roulette wheel has odds of 1 / 38 for obvious reasons. What yours?

      May 14, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
      • guidedans

        Hey Ken,

        I chose infinity as a kind of "worst case scenario." If the odds are any less than infinity than it only serves to weaken the Atheist's expected value even further. If, say there were only 10000000 different beliefs out there, then the math becomes:

        (1/10000000)*infinity for the believers' expected value (which equals infinity) and...
        (1/10000000)*0 for the atheists' expected value (which equals 0)

        Infinity is much much greater than 0, so the argument still stands that the Atheist has the inferior position.

        May 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans,

          How about working in some statistics about the case where it turned out that Christians were wrong and they had HYPOCRITICALLY used their religion to make the lives of gays much worse?

          May 14, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @guidedans,
          1) that is not the worst case scenario, 0 / 1 is.

          2) statistics and "expected values" work with known values and probabilities, hence the roulette reference. You have no idea what the possible value are let alone the chances of on particular value 'hitting'

          May 14, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • guidedans

          observer,

          I know you know I am a Christian, but my argument does not even talk about Christianity, just belief in God, Heaven and Hell.

          I would be unable to use my argument to support a single religion. I am using my argument to demonstrate the inferiority of atheism when it comes to expected values.

          The reason why I chose the 1/infinity metric is because there are countless scenarios where God punishes one group for something while saving another group for something else. In the end however, you have just one shot at being right and the expected value of atheism is 0 while the expected value of belief in God/Heaven/Hell is positive.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • guidedans

          observer,

          I know you know I am a Christian, but my argument does not even talk about Christianity, just belief in God, Heaven and Hell.

          I would be unable to use my argument to support a single religion. I am using my argument to demonstrate the inferiority of atheism when it comes to expected values.

          The reason why I chose the 1/infinity metric is because there are countless scenarios where God punishes one group for something while saving another group for something else. In the end, you have just one shot at being right and the expected value of atheism is 0 while the expected value of belief in God/Heaven/Hell is positive.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans,

          Your statistics are faulty. The expected value of atheism, although unknown, is NOT equal to 0. Maybe both sides are wrong. Maybe there exists a different God who is much kinder and "smarter" than the one in the Bible. Maybe he believes that every person should be judged on what KIND of a person they are rather than if they believe in something that cannot be proven and they pass off their due punishments on someone else. Maybe that God would give far more credit to someone who lead a "good" life rather than someone who used their religion to make other people's lives worse.

          May 14, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
    • Alias

      After re-reading this, I have two thoughts:
      1) You cannot choose what to believe.
      2) Pythagoras didn't die so you could be bad at math

      May 14, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
  13. ddeevviinn

    Without a doubt, still my favorite commercial. What I find most intriguing is that apart from a very brief shot, there was no use of C G I

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyh19A6CmBw&w=640&h=360]

    Everything, and I do mean everything, testifies to this design/designer relationship. There is not a single object in the man made world that does not bare this out. And yet, when it comes to the human body and every other form of biological life on the planet, not to mention every non biological structure in the universe, all of which require a far greater degree of intellectual engineering skills, this creator/creation dynamic disappears. It now becomes the magical mythology of randomness and long periods of time.

    Whether the product of Honda engineers or God's creation, design is irrefutable.

    May 13, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      There's no evidence of supernatural design – humans et al were designed by evolution with all the flaws – easily sprained ankles, spine poorly suited for bipedal motion, etc.

      May 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        As I mentioned, mythology.

        May 13, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          You need to learn what a myth is then if you think a mountain of evidence and the support of the majority of scientists falls into that category.

          May 13, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          You need to comprehend what I'm commenting on and then perhaps you can formulate an intelligent response.

          I have no issue with micro or macro evolution, I was addressing the issue of creation, you know, First Cause. The " majority of scientists", actually all scientists, have no " mountain of evidence" for First Cause. They don't even have a mole hill.

          May 13, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Ddeevlin....just because science does not have all the answers yet doesn't mean you get to claim that an invisible sky wizard did it. You have no proof either.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:12 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          "... magical mythology of randomness and long periods of time." is normally used as a supposed argument against evolution. If you're referring to creation of the universe, there is a lot of evidence and none of it points to design and yes apparent randomness and a lot of time did play a part. 9-10 billion years after the Big Bang our Solar System forms, a random collision provides the Earth with a moon and conditions for life. No evidence there of a designer.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • G to the T

          Snowflakes = appearance of design but process that creates them is completely natural.

          Remember, gravity isn't random, chemistry isn't random, physics isn't random and selection isn't random. A lot of apparent order can be explained by an interrelationship of these forces creating emergent properties.

          I believe you are confusing the appearance of design with items that are actully designed.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          GT

          " process that creates them is completely natural"

          Naturaldoes not mandate lack of design or designer. I can take a can of paint, drop it from a 10 ft. ladder and it could readily produce an "appearance of design" in the splatter pattern. Was there something intrinsic in the paint that produced this appearance of design? No. Is it more than obvious that "something caused the paint to be splattered on the ground and in turn produces a pattern? Without question.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Natural does not mandate lack of design or designer. "

          In the most common usage, I would say it does, but that's not really the point. Unless you believe god hand-crafts snowflakes, they are evidence that apparent design can emerge without outside input (i.e. design). All crystals behave this way, because of chemistry and physics. We can even copy the process and make our own, but we aren't required for the process to work.

          The point is, design may require a designer, apparent design does not. I believe you are confusing the two. I believe mechanism exist that (over a very large amount of time) may give appearance of design, but are actually the result of natural processes blindly doing their thing.

          If you can provide an example that could NOT occur in this manner, I might believe what you say. I have yet to encounter such an example.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          "Natural does not mandate lack of design or designer"

          Yes, after I typed that I thought it could be misconstrued. My belief in first cause design is predicated upon the belief in a supernatural designer, so in that sense I made a poor choice of words. My use of "natural" was intended in a different direction.

          No, I don't think I'm confusing the issues at all. Where are difference lies is in the acknowledgement of source. Chemistry and physics. are tools which in the case of your snowflake allow for an apparent pattern of design. It is my contention that those branches of science and in turn their products, are not self existent. That it to say they were not formed as a result of long periods of time without any outside influence.

          For me, the bottom line is that there ULTIMATELY is no such thing as " apparent design."

          "Example of something that could not occur in this way"

          Pretty much anything without a designer. Again,a simple toothbrush. No amount of time would be adequate to produce such a simple implement with having a designer.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Pretty much anything without a designer. Again,a simple toothbrush. No amount of time would be adequate to produce such a simple implement with having a designer."

          You say you understand, but in using the toothbrush again, you seem to be missing the point. A toothbrush is a static object. A lifeforme isn't. A toothbrush cannot pass on information nor is it subject to enviornmental pressures as living beings are.

          If you can name one object in nature that could ONLY exist because it was designed, that may mean something, but that's not what you are doing.

          As for "First Cause" – there's a huge difference between arguing design and first cause. I could initiate a chain reaction and be the first cause, but all the other results would not necessary be to a design. A god of somekind could have created the laws of gravity, physics, etc. but that isn't what was being asked, the question was does the natural world require a designer. The key word (for me) is require. Yes a god of somekind could have initiated events but all evidence points to natural forces over a very long period of time resulting in the complexity and apparent design we see today. To say there is no apparent design in the world is saying something very different than Spinoza's god.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • kudlak

      Incredible complexness is not the hallmark of design; simplicity actually is. Biological structures are enormously convoluted and, even then, are plagued with examples of poor design. Why do we have blind spots in our vision while creatures with simpler eyes do not? Why do we only have one pipe for both food and air, making choking a real hazard? Why do mammals like us have laryngeal nerves that run from our brains, down to our hearts, and then back up to the neck? It's a stupid design, yet explainable by evolution. Would your perfect creator design creatures this dumbly?

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0&w=640&h=360]

      May 13, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
    • kudlak

      And this is "proof" of giants, I suppose?

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

      May 13, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        " Would your perfect creator design creatures this dumbly ? "

        The astounding computational and memory abilities of the human brain alone leaves even the most elite neurobiologists shaking their head. The collective intelligence of every mensa member from the beginning of time would not even be a drop in the bucket towards creating a human body. And you call it "dumbly".

        May 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You clearly know NOTHING about health care. The human body was very stupidly "designed" if it was designed. Post the list of "dumbfounded" neurobilogists, NOW, or stop lying.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/04/01/neuroscientists-we-dont-really-know-what-we-are-talking-about-either/

          " You clearly know nothing about healthcare"

          I needed that laugh.

          May 13, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • G to the T

          "The collective intelligence of every mensa member from the beginning of time would not even be a drop in the bucket towards creating a human body. And you call it "dumbly"."

          To be fair, evolution has had a couple of billion years for a head start over Mensa, so I'm not too surprised. The fact that we've come so far so fast though leads me to believe that the answers you seek will be available in the near future.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          An infinite amount of time would still not be sufficient to produce a human body without an initial designer. It is simply not feasible.

          The hunk of molded plastic that I used to scrub my teeth this morning was unquestionably fashioned by someone for a specific task. No amount of time would produce such a simply object unless there was initial intelligence guiding its creation.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Deevlin.....people a lot smarter than you would disagree with your position. World renowned scientists seem to think it very possible. I think I will side with them

          May 14, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          gull

          " People a lot smarter than you would disagree with your position"

          That is an excellent point and one that I would readily acknowledge, much in the same way I would acknowledge the fact that there are also MANY people significantly smarter than myself that would concur with my conclusions.
          This is why I have always made the claim that intellectual acuity is not the criteria for determining truth in this matter.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin... I agree with you to a point, if 97% of engineers told me that a particular bridge was not safe to drive over, I would not drive over it

          May 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • G to the T

          "An infinite amount of time would still not be sufficient to produce a human body without an initial designer. It is simply not feasible."
          This is an opinion, not evidence. Just because you don't find it feasible, doesn't mean it's not true (argument from incredulity).

          "The hunk of molded plastic that I used to scrub my teeth this morning was unquestionably fashioned by someone for a specific task. No amount of time would produce such a simply object unless there was initial intelligence guiding its creation."

          Correct! Because, and here's the important part, there's no mechanism for the transmission of information from one generation to the next nor a mechanism to weed out the population based on environmental factors.

          Apples and oranges in other words.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          " there's no mechanism for the transmission of information from one generation to the next"

          We have agreement !!! This is my point precisely, when taken back to the issue of intelligent first cause. There absolutely must be a mechanism of action that has initiated this existential reality that something exists as opposed to not existing.

          May 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • G to the T

          "We have agreement !!! This is my point precisely, when taken back to the issue of intelligent first cause. There absolutely must be a mechanism of action that has initiated this existential reality that something exists as opposed to not existing."

          No, not really... Arguing that evolution requires a mechanism for information transferance and environmental pressures is very different from arguing a first cause. Are you referring to ambiogenesis (the beginning of life, separate from evolutionary theory) or are you speaking at a cosmic level (something like Spinoza's god)?

          All three (cosmology, evolution and abiogenisis) are very different fields of science, each with there own theories and evidence.

          Can we at least agree that a tootbrush is a bad example? There's no theory that would ever state that something like a toothbrush could be anything other than designed.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          " we have agreement"

          That was somewhat tongue and cheek.

          My argument is strictly cosmological. It has no similarities with Spinoza's God. Let me spell it out simply and clearly. I am referring to the cause and effect action of an intelligent being ( for me this is the judeo/chrisitan God, but that is of no concern here) who has engineered all the mechanism in place that produce mass. That certain mass is composed of greater amounts of carbon atoms does not exclude it from the need of first cause design. This is why I cannot agree that the toothbrush example is deficient, although I'm not certain you are fully understanding the analogy

          I simply disagree with the notion that there is a huge difference between design and first cause within our context. I don't know how to make it any clearer: without first cause there is no design. I honestly don't think you have answered or even addressed the " before that" question in reference to evolutionary processes.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          My apologies. In reading back my last reply it comes off as somewhat accusatory. It was only meant as inquiring.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          People who are smart get into Mensa. People who are really smart look around and leave. James Randi

          I believe this references his own personal experience with being invited to become a member of Mensa, and then discovering that the people there were just as likely to believe in astrology and such. Intelligence is no automatic cure to gullibility.

          May 15, 2014 at 8:46 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          kudlak

          Your last sentence, truer words were never spoken

          May 15, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Sorry, Dev. All you have is "I don't know". There still remains no evidence that any god exists.

      May 13, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        But the issue here is design and designer.

        Someone please address my premise: Everything in the man made world is undeniably a product of design. Even the most intricate fabrication through human ingenuity pales in comparison to the engineering design required to operate the human thumb. It is ludicrous to assume that such complexity is not the product of an infinitely intelligent being. It goes against every evidence from common sense and reality. Intellectual honesty will lead to no other conclusion.

        May 13, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Yet humans are not particularly well designed. We are very fragile and have body parts (like our coccyx and wisdom teeth) that have no use now, but were very useful in our evolutionary path. What humans are is the culmination of millions of years of survival. An estimated 99.9% of all life forms ever to live on this earth are extinct. If there was a designer, it did not do a very good job.

          You look at complexity and ignore the flaws because you want to believe in a designer. But in the end, there is no honest reason to believe in a designer.

          May 13, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          I am not ignoring the "flaws" I am saying that is your definition.

          What you are basically saying is that because the creator did not make a human body according to your specifications and standards of perfection, and that furthermore He allowed things into the world that are not "perfect" i.e. disease, suffering , death etc... , therefore he does not exist. Pretty much sum up your position?

          May 13, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
        • tallulah131

          When most people design stuff, they try to do it right. One would expect a perfect being to be competent and not leave evidence of evolution in our very DNA. Indeed, why should I believe in a designer when our bodies are exactly what you would expect as the result of evolving on this planet, flaws and all? You are simply adding an unnecessary creator when there really isn't room for one.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:38 am |
        • hotairace

          Paraphrasing Neil dGT, no competent designer puts a playground in the middle of a sewer treatment plant.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:42 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          tal

          Not really sure why you consider " leaving evidence of evolution in our very DNA" to be a point of contention. It is not for me.

          You are making a false assumption that the mechanisms of human evolution negates the necessity for a designer. It does not. As I've stated more times than I care to remember," I cannot PROVE the existence of a creator " as you cannot prove that all this stuff ( you, me, all the material world ) is a result of natural processes ( whatever that even means). So while I can not prove my contention, the burden of proof is clearly upon those who would posit an alternative answer. Clearly that alternative answer has not satisfied the burden of proof.

          May 14, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          devin:

          imagine for a second you are a perfect being; how exactly would you be able to create anything that is imperfect?

          answer: you couldn't. you as a perfect being wouldn't understand what it would mean to "make an imperfect product".
          machines produce exactly identical products from number one to number one thousand; why because the only reason they make flaws is due to the fact that a machines creator is flawed.
          we as humans are imperfect thus we create imperfect products, a god being perfect couldn't have created humans because we are imperfect, we have parts we don't need and lack parts we do need.

          humans just like all creatures on this world evolved according to our enviroments that we inhabited. that would be why humans have hiccups, yet no gills. we are truly a messed up jumble of things, however far from what a terrain based mammal requires to truly survive.

          we lack fur, yet have varying climates.
          we can't run very fast on two legs, yet we are soft and crunchy.
          we can't see any better thatn any other creture, namely we see worse than they do seeing we lack night vision.
          we can swim effeciently, the main reason sharks take a "test bite" out of us. we only flail through the water.
          our pigment only makes us weak to the sun and highly visible to other creatures.
          we lack the ability to smell......well almost anything that would aid us in surviving. i.e. phermones, faint smells
          our hearing is sub-par, we can't hear clear for more than a few yards and forget determining direction if we are in the woods.

          May 14, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          zhil

          Your entire premise is based upon the presupposition that you, as a finite being, know what the standard of perfect creation is and what purpose such creation should serve in the universe. No offense, I'm quite sure you are a bright fellow, but i simply cannot ascribe to you the intellect capable of making those calls.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          devin, All the evidence points to natural processes so your position really is the alternative one.

          May 14, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @ddeevviinn,
          You are confusing the appearance of design via billions of years of trial and error with your own experience of human design. I think this is a form of argument from ignorance or incredulity.

          May 14, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          trail

          What your are missing is my contention that no amount of time will produce the results you observe without an intelligent designer. Time + chance does not equal first cause.

          May 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Ddvee....if you really believe that first cause idiom, how were you effectively able to eliminate Zeus or Vishnu as the first cause?

          May 14, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          santa

          I would consider the U.S, to be one of, if not the most, highly developed and educated countries on the planet. Almost 85 % of the population sees evidence for an intelligent creator. Now before you send the accusation of " argumentum populam" my way, I'm am not stating this is proof, what I am stating is that yours is BY FAR the "alternative" perspective.

          May 14, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          gul

          I eliminated them on the basis of cognitive reasoning.

          May 14, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Ddeev....that's what we use to eliminate all gods, so I hope you can understand that the motion of any god can be eliminated through cognitive reasoning.

          May 14, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @ddeevviinn,
          It's ken actualy, not rail. Understandable though.

          How exactly do you back up such a specious "contention"?

          May 14, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          devin,
          If you're using "argumentum ad populum" I suppose you have a point although I doubt that it is 85%. However, if you follow the science then there is no basis for that belief and the vast majority of scientists accept Big Bang and evolution as the natural processes responsible for the universe and species; there is no evidence that either were guided by supernatural beings.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          devin
          "I eliminated Zeus and Vishnu as the first cause on the basis of cognitive reasoning."

          Please show your working. And why that same cognitive reasoning would not eliminate your god.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          Sorry about the wrong id there Ken.

          Actually, I think the onus falls on you to "back up" your contention that this design/designer relationship ceases to exist when biological and all other non man made structures come in to play.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          santa

          It is 83 to 85%. Statistics are from Gallup and Pew, not my own.

          I thought I clearly indicated that I was NOT using the argument from popularity? I've never once indicated that I reject evolution or the Big Bang.. I would, however, outright reject the idea that all this came about independent of a super natural being. And let me save you the time: no, I don't have proof, proof is not possible from either sides perspective. It's about evidence, and the evidence I find brings me to the conclusion that all this "stuff" is the result of an infinitely superior intellect , or as we theists like to call Him, God.

          May 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          santa

          Zeus – there is a reason it is called Greek MYTHOLOGY. The God's of Greek mythology are virtually non existent, and have been, in the last 1500 years. They are universally accepted as fict itious. The Judeo/Christian God on the other hand, is embraced by one third of the worlds population. The other 2 Abrahamic religions only increase this percentage.

          Vishnu – This is just a matter of personal preference. I prefer a God with only 2 arms.

          " Please show your work"

          My son just finished his final exam in Calc III. He did very well because he followed his profs. advice and " showed all his work". Apart from crunching out a few vector function equations, I 'm not sure how you want me to do this.

          May 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @ddeevviinn,
          " I think the onus falls on you to "back up" your contention that this design/designer relationship ceases to exist when biological and all other non man made structures come in to play."

          What design/designer relationship are you referring to?

          As to backing up "my contention" of biological structures I would refer you to the 100+ years of evolutionary biology research by nearly every insti.tute of higher learning.

          May 14, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          devin, i meant that tongue-in-cheek, but there was a serious point – there is no more evidence for your god than any other, in fact

          May 14, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          devin, i meant that tongue-in-cheek, but there was a serious point – there is no more evidence for your god than any other, in fact no evidence for any god.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • tallulah131

          dev, you talk about the wonders of design, then make excuses when people point out how utterly flawed, and obviously evolved the human body is. I'm sorry. You do not make a compelling argument. You are simply attempting to shove a designer into a situation where there is no need of a designer, nor room or evidence for one.

          May 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
        • tallulah131

          By the way, dev: Fact is not a popularity contest. People in this country believe in an "intelligent creator" because this is still primarily christian nation. Take that poll in a country where most of the population does not believe in gods, and the poll results will be very different.

          May 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          tal

          A couple of points:

          First, I have clearly stated that I am not making an argument from popularity and yet the accusation persists. But in that you have brought it up, I've enclosed a link that displays the breakdown of theism worldwide. You will note that 80+ percent of the world's population are theists, that is to say they believe in a God who has designed this universe. I mention this to correct the false notion that this is a " Christian America" phenomenon. And remember, my entire context in this post is theistic design, not christianity.

          Secondly, your premise of flawed is flawed. The human body is an absolute marvel of complexity , the likes of which have never been replicated. The implication of your logic is that there cannot be a creator because if there was he would have created a human body free of defect, disease, and one that would never experience death. And not only would he have created the perfect, eternal body, he would have ensured that no external force ( sin for instance) could influence or change that perfect, eternal body. I reject this logic.

          Finally, I fully realize that my argument is not compelling from your perspective. As neither yours is from mine. That is just the nature of where we are. We have divergent philosophical and theological presuppositions, and barring a radical departure of postion by one of us, we will never agree. But, we can still be ideologically combative friends.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          Forgot the link

          http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

          May 14, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Devin, I'm well aware that theism is popular the world over. Cultural habit is among the hardest habits to break, and gods are how our ancestors explained the unknown. Religion has it's strongest hold in nations where education is not a priority, which sadly includes the United States these days. As I said, should they conduct the same poll in a nation where the majority of the population was not religious, you would have completely different results.

          And again you are making excuses for your god. Yes, the human body is amazing. But it's not at all perfect. Were an airplane designed with as many inherent flaws as the human body, it would never get off the drawing board. The human body is exactly what you would expect from the results of evolution.

          You see a designer because you are looking for a designer. Because you believe in a designer. And like those guys who believe in bigfoot, you will claim that even the most mundane, explainable thing is proof. But if someday you allow yourself to look at things objectively you will realized that there is no evidence of any designer.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          tal

          No. I believe in design because there exists a designer. You do not believe in design because you reject the natural revelation that has been made available.

          May 14, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Deevlin...tallulah defined her position very nicely and your retort is that you believe there was a designer because there was a designer.

          What is wrong with you Christians, really? You have no leg to stand on, and no proof or evidence of any such god, and you still stick to your outlandish beliefs. Produce the proof....that is all we ever asked for, or admit that you don't really know any more than science has already concluded. You do not know! You only believe. You do not know!

          May 15, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • fintronics

          " I believe in design because there exists a designer."

          How utterly ridiculous....

          May 15, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fin.....I agree. That may be one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen on here.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • hotairace

          devin, I think you believe in design because you want a designer to exist. You don't have any actual evidence for design or a designer. You are pretending to know things you do not.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          gul

          Your error is in thinking it was an "argument". In my previous reply I had made the conclusive statement to tal that we would never agree because of basic presuppositional differences. It was my "bottom line" statement of what I believe is factual, no argument involved. Believe it or reject it, your call, but I have no interest in trying to prove it.

          May 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Ddeev....good decision, as there is no way you can prove a belief.

          May 15, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          fin

          " Ridiculous" but true, which in the end is all that really matters. The irony is, is that one day this "ridiculous mentality" will be exposed for what it really is.

          May 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          hotair

          Simply not true. I believe in a designer because the evidence from natural revelation is overwhelming, and it is overwhelming, no matter how hard an individual kicks and screams to the contrary. It is why only a mere 2 percent of the world's population embraces atheism. The vast majority clearly recognize that the denial of a creator/designer is the ultimate, to borrow another posters wordage, ridiculousness.

          May 15, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          gul

          A common thread that has run through many of my posts is that " proof is not even on the table". I CAN"T prove my belief in exactly the same way you CAN't prove yours. If you want to argue and debate on the basis of proof I'd suggest you spend your time dialoguing with some other poster. It is about evidence, and the evidence I find is in the natural revelation that has been made know to all people, and it is irrefutable. Note I said irrefutable and not undeniable.

          May 15, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ddeev....first, it hasn't been made known to all people. There are millions of people on this planet that will never know this story. Secondly, the story is just a story. With no evidence that it was divinely inspired, you simply must go on gut feeling. You have nothing whatsoever to base your faith on but the written words of men that you have no idea actually experienced what they were writing about. That may be good enough for you, but it is hardly enough evidence for me to change my life even one iota. It's just too thin......

          May 15, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          gul

          Please stay in context. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not arguing the specific case for christianity in this post. I am stating that the universe is the result of a designer, one who is infinitely superior to ourselves. This designers creation itself glaringly testifies to His existence. Through creation his existence is self evident.

          Again, the christian narrative is a separate argument. Issues of divine inspiration through a written form come into play. But for this notion of a supernatural creator, his creation speaks for itself, and it is why everyone is "without excuse"

          May 15, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • hotairace

          So where is this overwhelming evidence? You will be the first to present any.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
    • snuffleupagus

      Here ya go dweebviinn: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579547673907525130?mg=reno64-wsj

      May 14, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
  14. Reality

    Added mocking details>

    An illiterate, mamzer son of a god and 12 year old virgin, trouble- making magic man from Nazareth s summarily crucified (the Good Friday fiascos), descends into hell or was it limbo, rises again in three days (the Easter Sunrisers and once a year Easter "bunnies" going to Mass), travels about the country side for forty days visiting old friends and then ascends to some Disney-like wonder-world called heaven (and Ascending we shall go).
    .

    May 13, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
  15. Robert Brown

    Another answered prayer. More proof of God.

    May 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
    • observer

      Yes. Maybe they can move on to a study of the Salem witch hunts.

      May 13, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
    • harlow13

      Exactly. In fact, answering this prayer has bumped the prayer requesting a cure for cancer right down to the bottom of the list. hE works in mysterious ways.

      May 13, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
    • sam stone

      You have a pretty low standard of proof, Robert

      May 13, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
    • sam stone

      If god is omniscient, and has a plan, isn't prayer blasphemous, Robert?

      Do you purport to know more than god?

      May 13, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
      • Robert Brown

        No, prayer isn't blasphemous & I don't know more than God. Prayer is how we learn his will.

        May 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • sam stone

          No, prayer is your way of reconciling what you want with what you think your god wants

          May 13, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
        • fintronics

          Prayers is how you hear the voices inside your head...........your IMAGINATION.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:21 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Let us pray: Dear Lord, thank you for the hundreds of murders today and all of the many murders yet to come in the days ahead. Your lack of compassion for human life inspires us all to ponder your ineffectiveness. Heavenly Father, we gather in the shadow of your careless disregard for us. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.

      – Concert in an Egg

      May 13, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
    • Alias

      maybe you should convert. Satanists allow themselves credit when hard work results in rewards.

      May 13, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It's funny. When HGTV decided not to air a program featuring christians who displayed behaviors HGTV found repulsive, christians called it censorship. Now, when a church stops a group from performing a program they found repulsive, it's an answer to a prayer. Christian hypocrisy at it's best.

      May 13, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
      • fintronics

        I've said it before and I'll say it again... Christianity is all about hypocrisy.

        May 14, 2014 at 8:24 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          No less stupid a statement the second time.

          May 16, 2014 at 4:45 am |
        • ssq41

          Ahhh, dev...it's a badge of honor these days to be called a hypocrite as a Christian.

          What fin should have said, and is much more befitting, is that Christians lack character, integrity, compassion, kindness, caring, honesty and humility.

          May 16, 2014 at 4:53 am |
    • hotairace

      Whose prayer was (some alleged but never proven) god listening to when a couple hundred girls were kidnapped recently?

      May 14, 2014 at 6:14 am |
      • hotairace

        Jesus Christ Almighty! The question wasn't that hard!!

        May 16, 2014 at 5:07 am |
  16. unsername1

    Next thing these Churchgoers would do....oppose movies like Paranormal Activity.

    May 13, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
  17. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    It's time for this:

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3WQpjF6Beg&w=640&h=360]

    Oh how people railed against Ozzy back in the day for destroying our youth. Now they play Crazy Train at football games.

    May 13, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "Generals gathered in their masses
      Just like witches at black masses ...

      May 13, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Every vehicle I ever rode into a combat zone... I named 'War Pig'

        May 13, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        The Janes Addiction version is also pretty good

        May 13, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • G to the T

          Yeah, I think Faith No More did a decent cover as well.

          May 14, 2014 at 10:45 am |
      • fintronics

        Government Mule does a great live version also.

        May 14, 2014 at 8:25 am |
  18. joeyy1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=360]
    `

    May 13, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Thanks for sharing this crap...

      May 13, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
    • toleranceofall

      Ah, Coldplay.

      The official music for men who sit down to pee.

      May 13, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I wish there were a like button to hit for this.

        May 13, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
  19. Bootyfunk

    my fairy tale is real!
    no! my fairy tale is real!
    no! my fairy tale is real!
    ad infinitum...

    May 13, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  20. Salero21

    JAJAJA... oops... pardon me please... I meant to say HAHAHA. At Harvard they don't like to be told the Truth. And the Truth is that Idolatry as well as atheism/evolutionism/cultism/paganism and now satanism are all one and the same Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE [stupidity]. However in Harvard the NONSENSE have a Diploma and a PhD. Which BTW goes very handy with the old proverbial "Azz with a book".

    May 13, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
    • snuffleupagus

      Sally-go-round and round. Get you head out of jebus's butt, boy, you're oxygen starved. ("Boy's as sharp as a bowlin' ball." Foghorn Leghorn).

      May 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
      • Salero21

        Keep squealing.

        May 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • fintronics

          "dumb as a stump"

          May 14, 2014 at 8:27 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      BLA BLA BLA... oops... pardon me please... as a Christian I meant to say BAA BAA BAA ...

      May 13, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
      • Salero21

        Are you barking howling or squealing?

        May 13, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
    • Salero21

      Your Absolute, Complete and Total Absurdity/NONSENSE is unequivocal proof of what I've been saying. FYI EVOLUTIONISM is an accepted word look it up in a Dictionary. However, you being a classic example of the azz with a book may not be able to find it. JAJA

      May 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
    • harlow13

      that's right sal. I hates smart people. i gots to go and watch the duck dynasty. catch you later

      May 13, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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.