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. onebadmamajama

    If these kids are all about truth and transparency and honesty they should publish their names so that future employers can know and understand the kind of people they are hiring into their firms. I suspect their job prospects would not be so bright then...

    June 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
  2. chintokey

    Harvard University President Drew "Faust" .....how ironic.

    June 2, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
  3. robcosystems

    "Harvard's Black Mass" was not cancelled, rather a re-enactment of a Black Mass by members of a student club at Harvard was postponed.

    May 23, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
  4. iowasundevil

    The event should not have been cancelled. Too bad scared christians allow fear to dictate their actions.

    May 23, 2014 at 8:29 am |
  5. ziggynobutzforewe
    May 22, 2014 at 11:37 am |
  6. ziggynobutzforewe
    May 22, 2014 at 11:37 am |
  7. ziggynobutzforewe

    [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/guEZ7rT.jpg[/IMG]

    May 22, 2014 at 11:36 am |
  8. thesamyaza

    how dear these Christians stop people from holding a religious ceremony at school. we need more prayer in are schools not less.

    you know what Christians want see this one their blinded by Yahwehs light and just to stupid to see their own hypocrisy.

    May 19, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
    • live4christ777

      lol i find it quite ironic, but not surprising at all that such anti-theistic jargon is coming from a username name SAMJAZA... which is a name mentioned in the Book of Enoch as one of the fallen archons that rebelled against the Most High.

      June 1, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
      • chintokey

        I find the Harvard presidents last name even more ironic in the case of this story

        June 2, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
    • jonathanlk

      I disagree. We need more studying, and less praying. I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious, but I can't think of a more useless movement than a satan cult. I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of people dedicated to evil and making things worse even living near me. If they want they can go to hell, but don't bring it to our decent secular, diversified human community. I believe is secular, selective diversification. Eliminate the bad and cultivate what is good. You don't have to be religious to possess that one most fundamental grain of common sense. There is too much evil. If you want to make youself useful, then counter it with goodness. These satanic worshippers are needy, self destructive, and are known to commit an above average number of crimes, as with all kinds of religious worshippers. I would also be against a great enthralling white mass hailing the tooth fairy. I wish people would give up their imaginary tooth faires, angels and demons and just try to become decent humans. That would be a difficult change for most people, including specifically good and bad deists alike, but it would eliminate a lot of these totally unnecessary conflicts that plague the world. Such a waste of time.

      June 18, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
      • jonnyd88

        Nothing about true Satanism is evil, bad, or negative. It's all about expression of the self and embracing life as we know it on Earth as opposed to subduing natural desire for the sake of an afterlife whose existence has yet to be proven.

        July 2, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
  9. Salero21

    The most "bright, brilliant, educated, illustrated, informed, and trained" in Harvard and everywhere else, say and do all sorts of stupid things often here and there.

    Some, have even committed crimes.

    However, the problem of atheism/evolutionism and idolatry is, that is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE, anywhere and everywhere, ALL the time, any time, every time and FOREVERMORE. Now that's a difference worth noticing even by the descendants of apes!!

    May 17, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
    • thesamyaza

      Monotheism is total nonsense

      May 19, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
      • Salero21

        Nope.

        Polytheism = Idolatry = worship of demons, is Absolute, Complete and Total Absurdity, NONSENSE [stupidity].

        May 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          being a monotheist is kinda like being the guy you know that you tell him something like Obama is in the democratic party,. and he just goes nope no his not not at all I'm not listening to you lalalalallala. if their were not multiple gods then who do i pray to,. demons?

          you say its just your god and mine is a demon. listen to your self its nonsense.

          Yahweh walked into a room of gods and said i'm the only one god.
          imagine for a moment if a man walked into a room and said im the only one who speaks the truth every one else is a lier,..you would call him a lair right.

          May 20, 2014 at 4:07 am |
        • tomskorupski

          God sending an innocent man to be brutally beaten and crucified so that he can forgive mankind which he created is total nonsense. Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." is total craziness. The parts of the Bible that talk of how much man or woman slaves are craziness (Leviticus 27:3-7. The parts of the Bible that give instructions on how to sell your Daughter are craziness (Exodus 21:7).

          June 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
    • robcosystems

      If you plan to mock the Theory of Evolution, at least get it right: rather than "Now that's a difference worth noticing even by the descendants of apes!!", you should write, "Now that's a difference worth noticing even by the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and apes!!"

      Now, of course, you know that believing in faerie tales is usually considered childish nonsense, but agreeing with observable and measurable physical processes is how the world actually works–your car is motivated by observable and measurable physical processes, reliant upon tried-and-true principles of physics, and not by dreams or prayers or incense. I may easily say to you that your contention that there is an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unknowable red Toyota Camry in my driveway is 'nonsense'; you cannot tell me that my disbelief in that invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unknowable red Toyota Camry is 'nonsense'.

      May 23, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
    • tomskorupski

      God sending an innocent man to be brutally beaten and crucified so that he can forgive mankind which he created is total nonsense. Psalm 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." is total craziness. The parts of the Bible that talk of how much man or woman slaves are craziness (Leviticus 27:3-7. The parts of the Bible that give instructions on how to sell your Daughter are craziness (Exodus 21:7).

      June 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
  10. Salero21

    The most "brilliant, bright and educated" in Harvard and everywhere else, do stupid things sometimes here and there. Some have even committed crimes. However the problem of atheism/evolutionism and idolatry is, that is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE, anywhere and everywhere, ALL the time, any time, every time and FOREVERMORE. Now that's a difference worth noticing even by a descendant of apes!!

    May 17, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
    • Keith

      No matter how many times you say it only the believers believe you. You are too ignorant to convince those that do not believe.

      May 21, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
  11. johnstefanyszyn

    A Harvard's club 'black mass"...an expression of "religious freedom", an expression of "speech freedom", an expression of "freedom of self-rights"..
    .....but the Catholics say no to this "black mass" and Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope Francis") gave warning about the devil.
    .....they believe that this "black mass" is not right.

    However...Jorge Bergoglio (and the assembly of general values of Rome) has proclaimed and confessed that it embraces and defends the way of freedom of religion....freedom of all religions...to be good and righteous.
    ....for it also turns to this freedom to justify its "religion".

    As you can see, this FREEDOM in reality is really only concerned with one's own self-interest...in its desire to serve and magnify oneself (XES).

    And this FREEDOM , this freedom of all religions, also dictates that it is RIGHT (a right) to be free to worship any 'god'...for in reality their 'god' that they LIVE by is FREEDOM... a self-proclaimed 'god of / above all fortresses'.

    However, the One Creator, who gives existence to all creation around us, gave man the fruit of all the good trees but He forbid man to take of the tree of self- knowledge, self-justification of "good and evil" as per his self-serving desires.
    Man disobeyed His Creator so as to be free to do his own will...but as a disobedient creation he is not free to do his own will for he still belongs to his Master and Creator...and judgement-punishment is coming.

    The Son of the Only Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, said that we are to worship the One Lord Creator and Him Alone, His Will Alone to serve in obedience and love.

    The return of Jesus Christ is soon, and He will return to rule the earth in power according to and in obedience to the Will of YWHW, and NOT according to man's first love for "his freedom"...for there is no "religions" in the kingdom...there is Only the One Creator.

    John Stefanyszyn
    ...a bondman of the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Only Creator.

    May 17, 2014 at 10:55 am |
  12. Alias

    Forgive me if I use an analogy twice in one day.
    If a child has a dream that there is a boogie man in the closet, and other children at school have had similar dreams, the child may start to think there really is a boogie man, and he lives in closets. If parents and teachers tell the children that they have had the same experiences, it will be very easy to accept that there is a boogie man in the closet because everyone believes it and most people have had a personal visit from the boogie man. Given the number of children who have had bad dreams about closets, it would be stupid to not believe it even if the boogie man hasn’t been seen by you in your closet yet.
    As soon as you really believe in the boogie man, you will have a dream about him and you can have proof that he exists too.
    Never mind that everyone describes the boogie man differently. Obviously he is telling different children different things. Once you all compare stories you dreams will be more alike. It doesn’t matter how carefully you search the closet and find nothing, you had a personal experience and everyone else believes it, so you must be right and you know the truth.

    May 15, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
    • zhilla1980wasp

      that's the great thing about the human mind. we can fill in the gaps of information and formulate why we see the boogieman at night but can't find him when the lights are on.

      i believe this is the reason certain fears and religious indoctrination are so difficult to over come. our minds complete the puzzle and to the observer what they see as real becomes real.

      everything humans have ever created at one time or another was simply an idea. houses, etc etc etc never truly existed, we thought them into reality then used our hands to make them real. the mind is man-kinds greatest advantage over other creatures and our greatest weakness.

      our minds are prone to "jumping to conclusions" or taking a "leap of faith" when the data presented according to our minds is lacking the information we require to be sated. a single story can evolve depending on the situation the teller is dealing with.
      example: hitler became the anti-christ to a lot of religious people, even though the man was having put to death anybody that opposed him not merely the religious.

      May 16, 2014 at 7:06 am |
      • nclaw441

        Your assumption is that man created God. That assumption is, of course, disputed by very many people, not all of whom are stupid or ignorant, as many suggest.

        May 16, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • hotairace

          Whether or not they are stupid, ignorant or mentally ill does not get around the fact they have no actual evidence to the contrary. In the absence of supporting evidence, The Babble is merely a bad bit of fiction.

          May 16, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          nc....I don't think they are necessarily stupid.....but, because of no proof, I'd say deluded. Do you believe Joseph Smith read golden tablets out of his hat? Golden tablets that only he ever saw? Do you believe that Xenu (the space lord) dropped frozen captured space aliens into a volcano in Hawaii? Well, the Mormons and the scientologists believe those stories. They are deluded as well.

          May 16, 2014 at 9:16 am |
        • Alias

          @hptair
          The point is this does not require stupid or flawed people.
          Human Beings can be convinced to believe things without seeing any proof for ourselves, if people we trust all teell us the same thing. I've never seem germany, but I believe it is there.

          May 17, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
        • gruphy

          Hotairace,
          Explain why Moses' Tabernacle is a perfect representation of how our brain works. How do you explain away the fact that psychology is beginning to converge on the Bible's truths. Not just that Bhuddhism etc have all had glimpses into human psychology which we are yet to fully investigate. What you do not fully understand do not condemn. I have had the privilege of visions, premonitions and dreams. Let us keep learning rather than close our minds.

          May 18, 2014 at 6:29 am |
  13. bostontola

    Theists: God exists, therefore God is something.

    If God is something, either:
    1. something has always existed, or
    2. something came from nothing.
    3. time is not as we experience it and the notion of 'always' is meaningless.

    If 1 is correct and something has always existed, then there was no universal creation.
    If 2 is correct and something came from nothing, then the observable universe came from nothing.
    If 3 is correct, then causality no longer exists so neither God nor anything else 'created' the universe.

    If God is something and caused this observable universe to come into existence, then God is just the precursor. Just like a big enough cloud of Hydrogen will become a star. Just like that cloud of Hydrogen, it doesn't even need to be sentient, never mind desirous of relationships with life forms that didn't come into existence until 13.8 billion years after the observable universe started.

    If people want to call the precursor of our observable universe God, OK. All the rest of the pomp, ritual, etc. (i.e. religions) has never been shown to be anything but man made and should be treated as contingent, non-unique, not absolute and evolving.

    May 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
  14. joeyy1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=360]
    ..

    May 15, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
  15. zhilla1980wasp

    i truly don't see the issue here.
    if i was going to be upset at anyone it would be god.

    lucifer wanted humans to stop being god's little playthings and truly understand what and whom we are.
    i don't see how lucifer can be made the villian in the story when he was helping humans, and how exactly did god(mind you no name) become the great guy?
    everything he did to humans was far worse than what lucifer ever did.

    May 15, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
    • Alias

      Don't hold your breath waiting for the christians to educate themselves or let facts change their minds.

      May 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
  16. Reality

    kevinite,

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

    Still waiting !

    May 15, 2014 at 7:04 am |
    • kevinite

      It's only your opinion that what you are saying is the case.

      May 15, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • Reality

        My opinion? Again you failed to read the specific details. Still waiting for your rebuttal with cited reputable studies to make your case.

        May 15, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
  17. kevinite

    "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 3:00 am |
    • kevinite

      That was in reply to Seavik

      May 15, 2014 at 3:01 am |
      • SeaVik

        What are you talking about? Of course there is evidence that something red is red. I can see it's red, you can see it's red, it reflects light with a red wavelength, etc. Of course if something is made of chocolate, there is evidence. It tastes like chocolate, it looks like chocolate, it smells like chocolate, it reacts to heat like chocolate, it has the chemical construct of chocolate, etc.

        There is no legitimate evidence to support the belief in the existence of a god, however. Unlike your examples, we can see, taste, smell or observe in any way any evidence of a gods existence.

        May 15, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • SeaVik

          That should have been, we CAN'T see....

          May 15, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • kevinite

          Sea vik,
          What are you talking about? It's not about identifying red or chocolate, it's concluding if something is NOT red then it automatically means blue or that if something is NOT chocolate then that automatically means it's vanilla, and with that logic then if there is no proof that there is no God who does not wan't to be made known but rather have us develop our faith in that God, then that automatically means that there is no such God? We're talking about belief in a God who does not want to be made known in the first place. To say that just because there is no obvious proof that there is no such God is actually quite inconclusive.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:30 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....faith Must be based on something, otherwise it is blind faith. A 2000 year old unproven, highly susceptible, very ambiguous book does not count as proof.

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

          I never said it was blind faith. All I said that was there was no obvious proof. If there was obvious proof there wouldn't be the need for faith. For me there is some basis such as trying out for yourself the principles of the gospel. That includes studying the gospel, praying and even asking God if something is true or not, and of course actually trying to practice those principles. I do not believe that you always get instantaneous faith.

          I believe that faith requires work. It takes time and dedication like physical training or like farmer raising a crop. That having faith isn't always easy and I have had tendency to falter every now and then. I do believe that God surely tries our faith I guess it's like if what doesn't kill your faith can make your faith stronger. But after going through all of that thus far I've so far have decided to take that leap of faith and so I believe.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin...I know you never said it was blind faith...I said it. You are totally having faith that your bible is divinely inspired, and not written by charlatans like Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. But, since you don't know the answer to that question (for sure), that makes it blind faith.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • hotairace

          As Peter Baghossian (sp?) says, faith is merely pretending to know things you do not. Believers do a lot of pretending. . .

          May 15, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • kevinite

          So then gullible I take that you have done what I've done and exercised that faith through study, prayer, even asking God if he is even out there and whether or not his teachings are in fact true, and practicing the teachings to see how they result so then you figure that doing those things are in fact bogus? To put it other words how do you explain to someone who has never tasted salt before what salt tastes like that is more accurate than actually having that person taste it first-hand?

          May 15, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....I was a catholic for 25 years. No god ever made any type of appearance or difference in my life that was not attributable to what was going to happen. And now, I am way too intelligent to have an ecclesiastical experience in my bathroom mirror.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • otoh2

          kevinite,
          "... I take that you have done what I've done and exercised that faith through study, prayer, even asking God if he is even out there and whether or not his teachings are in fact true, and practicing the teachings to see how they result so then you figure that doing those things are in fact bogus?"

          Yes - for nearly 50 years, kev.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • kevinite

          Otoh,

          If that is your claim then that is your claim. The point is there are some things that can only be found out first-hand and not through any other means, so that still doesn't answer the question for everyone else. For everyone else they really cannot go by on just what I'm saying or by what everybody else is saying. It is knowledge that has to be obtained through first-hand experience.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Alias

          @kevinite
          just so you understand our poiont of view,
          that sounds to me exacly like saying that you KNOW the boogie man exists, and lives in your closet, because you have seen him in your dreams.
          No matter how many times we search your closet, you will still believe he is in there.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • kevinite

          The thing is Alias is how often and how well have you searched your closet? You cannot look into my closet and I cannot look into your closet. Only you can look in to your own closet and it is up to you to make that determination.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Tell us Kevy,
      Which deity in your pantheon DOES "want to be made known" and would not "rather have us develop our faith in said deity."
      If that is a special quality of YOUR deity, where are all the others ?
      The fact is your point, as usual, is pointless. You really need to look up "Special Pleading", (among many other things).

      May 15, 2014 at 6:39 am |
      • realbuckyball

        Actually most of all Kevy, at what point in your life did you actually wake up, and decide for yourself :
        "Ok today, and from now on, I get to speak for, and act as though I (one of billions of believers, all with different notions), actually *know* what the deity wants and thinks, (and that is not just a teensy weensy arrogant) ?
        Tell us that Kevy.

        May 15, 2014 at 8:11 am |
        • kevinite

          To actually know for a fact in comparison to others beliefs? I don't know for a fact I only believe, of course that is the point about taking a leap of faith in the first place. To say that why would mine experiences true compared to other's experiences, I really don't know if they really are truer or more accurate than others, especially since I wasn't there for their experiences and they were not there for my experiences, so neither party has a full grasp of the other's experiences. All I can go by is with my own experiences . I believe that is part of the test of faith. That there are some things out there that can only be known on a personal level just like in order to know what salt tastes like that knowledge can only come about through personal experience and through no other way.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:52 am |
      • kevinite

        In this case I was referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I'm also referring to the three who act as one; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe few have seen in full glory and in the gospel faith is an essential principle. As far as to the other deities, I don't know. I guess you can ask them and find out for yourself.

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

          The trinity was not the same as the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The idea of a "trinity" was cooked up by humans during the Council of Nicaea. Read the Proceedings. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt
          You can see humans invent the notion, and then argue about it. Abraham Isaac and Jacob never existed. They have been debunked by archaeology. So I see you really have no clue what you really worship or call your deity, or the origins of those ideas. That's what I thought. How bizarre.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • kevinite

          Where did I say that I believed in the Trinity?

          May 17, 2014 at 9:53 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Kevinite
      If it isn't chocolate, it must be vanilla? No, Kev.
      What the atheist is saying is that there is no evidence for any kind of cake at all, so don't expect dessert.
      A believer's faith in the unseen, hoped for cake won't fill up their plate...

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

        What are you talking about? It's not about identifying red or chocolate, it's concluding if something is NOT red then it automatically means blue or that if something is NOT chocolate then that automatically means it's vanilla, and with that logic then if there is no proof that there is no God who does not wan't to be made known but rather have us develop our faith in that God, then that automatically means that there is no such God? We're talking about belief in a God who does not want to be made known in the first place. To say that just because there is no obvious proof that there is no such God is actually quite inconclusive.

        May 15, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If God doesn't want to be known, why does He demand obedience and adoration?
          A deistic, "blind watchmaker" God wouldn't issue commandments on stone tablets, smite the unrighteous, answer prayers or speak through prophets or flaming foliage.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • kevinite

          "If God doesn't want to be known, why does He demand obedience and adoration?"

          Well, for someone who demands obedience and adoration, it is rather odd then that we are not forced then to do it. Yes, God requires obedience, but God does let us have our own free will. God does not make it so that we obey merely because we have to. It puts that whole doubting Thomas thing into perspective that God certainly blesses those who do not see and yet believe.

          "A deistic, "blind watchmaker" God wouldn't issue commandments on stone tablets, smite the unrighteous, answer prayers or speak through prophets or flaming foliage."

          Really, how do you conclude that I believe in a blind watchmaker?

          May 15, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You're the one who said that God doesn't want to be known.

          If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select "The Truth" out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment.

          God is commonly said to be:
          Omnipotent = all powerful
          Omniscient = all knowing
          Omnipresent = exist everywhere simultaneously
          Anthropocentric = primarily concerned with humanity

          These are the attributes most commonly attributed to Abraham's God.
          If such an enti.ty did indeed exist at the Prime Cause of all the Universes, then there is nothing that humanity could do that would be outside of the Creator's explicit wishes.
          Everything done by humanity would be in accordance with the express wishes of the all-seeing, all knowing, all powerful Creator.
          Free will cannot exist in such a scenario.

          But even so – we wind up with the coercion that is inherent in the idea of Hell.
          "But you have free will! You can choose not to go to Hell!"
          Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
          It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti/tudes and counter-revolutionary actions.
          This was not Stalin's plan at all.
          He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise and it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him.
          But he will not force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes.
          He respects their free will.
          If you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin.

          Sound familiar at all?

          May 15, 2014 at 11:32 am |
      • kevinite

        Doc,

        "If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous."
        So then I take it you know what an all knowing God is supposed to behave like? From my take if a God is in fact all-knowing there might be a chance that there are certain variables of which I or anyone else didn't take into account. That perhaps God does not want to make it easy for us to learn. That there is certain knowledge that can only be found out through testing and trial, like a professor I had that kept telling the class his principle of "consistent pressure consistently given". Again it is a matter of faith but then again God may have a purpose behind that. That God may want us to believe and follow him because we choose to and not merely because we have to.

        " Expecting people to select "The Truth" out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment."

        Actually, that seems to me to be a way of obtaining knowledge through achievement, which is like a greater knowledge that cannot be obtained through other means. I also believe what it says in 1 Peter that those who didn't have the chance to have the chance to learn of the gospel in this life they will get that chance after this life. and that even though those who choose to not follow will not get to return to live with God, they do not all necessarily get eternal suffering. For most in that camp they will receive "eternal punishment" meaning that it is punishment coming from God and it does not refer the duration of the punishment since "Eternal" is also one of the names for God like "Alpha and Omega". Only the ones who commit the most egregious of violations, like those who happen to truly know with complete certainty of God and his commandments and still so willingly defy, they they may in fact receive "eternal punishment" to not only mean that it is punishment coming from God but that it also means the duration of the suffering.

        "God is commonly said to be:
        Omnipotent = all powerful
        Omniscient = all knowing
        Omnipresent = exist everywhere simultaneously
        Anthropocentric = primarily concerned with humanity

        These are the attributes most commonly attributed to Abraham's God.
        If such an enti.ty did indeed exist at the Prime Cause of all the Universes, then there is nothing that humanity could do that would be outside of the Creator's explicit wishes."

        That also includes wishing us to decide for ourselves on whether to follow him or not, which is where the whole faith thing comes into play and therefore free will does come into play.

        "But even so – we wind up with the coercion that is inherent in the idea of Hell.
        "But you have free will! You can choose not to go to Hell!"

        Just like we are given the choice to not go prison if we follow the laws of the land. Just because we are given free will to make our own choices it does not mean that we do not have to suffer the consequences for willingly making the wrong decisions.

        "Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
        It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti/tudes and counter-revolutionary actions.
        This was not Stalin's plan at all.
        He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise and it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him.
        But he will not force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes.
        He respects their free will.
        If you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin.

        Sound familiar at all?"

        You mean like that our U.S. justice system wants to protect our rights and our freedoms. That the justice system does not want to administer punishment for us, it 's just that justice has to be served for the benefit of all if you happen to choose to violate the law that you have to pay the consequences for your actions.

        Does that concept sound familiar?

        May 15, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....your professor was not promising banishment to a life of fire for all eternity if you did not learn what he was trying to teach you. And....your professor actually existed.

          I have no idea why it is so hard for Christians to grasp simple concepts. No proof – why believe? I would guess that most Christians adopt Pascal's wager as their mantra for their belief. I'm guessing that is why churches are occupied by so many elderly people. Silly nonsense.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          There aren't thousands of different interpretations of multiple translations of the Consti/tution or the penal code, nor do courts mete out a life time of torture as punishment for minor infractions.
          Also, unlike in Christianity, there are no incantations that can absolve a criminal of wrongdoing.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • kevinite

          Gullible,

          To recap from what just said above regarding eternal punishment, which you quite apparently overlooked.

          Actually, that seems to me to be a way of obtaining knowledge through achievement, which is like a greater knowledge that cannot be obtained through other means. I also believe what it says in 1 Peter that those who didn't have the chance to have the chance to learn of the gospel in this life they will get that chance after this life. and that even though those who choose to not follow will not get to return to live with God, they do not all necessarily get eternal suffering. For most in that camp they will receive "eternal punishment" meaning that it is punishment coming from God and it does not refer the duration of the punishment since "Eternal" is also one of the names for God like "Alpha and Omega". Only the ones who commit the most egregious of violations, like those who happen to truly know with complete certainty of God and his commandments and still so willingly defy, they they may in fact receive "eternal punishment" to not only mean that it is punishment coming from God but that it also means the duration of the suffering.

          May 17, 2014 at 9:57 am |
    • kudlak

      kevinite
      That same argument can apply to numerous, fringe beliefs, correct? Elves, fairies and leprechauns are all said to have this exact same ability. Maybe there isn't any good evidence for the ana.l-probing aliens because they are advanced enough to remain hidden, and maybe Bigfoot is just clever enough to hide in its ever-shrinking environment and buries their dead? And maybe Santa really does live in a hidden land up in the arctic, just down the lane from Superman's Fortress of Solitude?

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

        To actually know for a fact in comparison to others beliefs? I don't know for a fact I only believe, of course that is the point about taking a leap of faith in the first place. To say that why would mine experiences true compared to other's experiences, I really don't know if they really are truer or more accurate than others, especially since I wasn't there for their experiences and they were not there for my experiences, so neither party has a full grasp of the other's experiences. All I can go by is with my own experiences . I believe that is part of the test of faith. That there are some things out there that can only be known on a personal level just like in order to know what salt tastes like that knowledge can only come about through personal experience and through no other way.

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

          As the author and former preacher Dan Barker states in his book "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists":

          " Faith is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith, you don't have to put any work into proving your case or overcoming objections. You can just believe. ... If faith is valid, then anything goes. Muslims believe in Allah by faith, so they must be right. The Hindus are right. The Greeks and Romans were right. More people claim to have seen or been healed by Elvis Presley than ever claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. With faith everybody is right. "

          As Friedrich Nietzsche put it:

          “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

          May 15, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • kevinite

          Alonsoquixote,

          You might believe faith is foolishness, but without faith there is also no trust, and there going to be times where trust and faith in something or someone will need to be applied. If not faith and trust at least belief such as believing that there is no God out there who does not want to be made known when there is no evidence to back that up.

          May 17, 2014 at 10:10 am |
    • harlow13

      If the goD isn't making himself known, as you suggest, how do we differentiate hiM from a non-existent goD?

      May 15, 2014 at 9:26 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        It's hard to dispute the similarities of invisible and non-existent.

        May 15, 2014 at 9:29 am |
        • Science Works

          The art work above should give people a clue on the truth of the issue.

          May 15, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • kudlak

          Non-detectable is perhaps a better term than "invisible". Apologists love to use examples like "the wind", atoms, magnetism and even "love" to demonstrate invisible things that we nevertheless still believe in, ignoring the fact that we can detect them in ways other than visually.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kudlak....thanks....I have seen them do that before. But, they will still make stupid analogies with non-detectable as well, no doubt.

          May 15, 2014 at 10:34 am |
      • kevinite

        Have you tried what I explained above about study, prayer, and trying those principles first-hand. That like in order to know what salt tastes like to know about the gospel has to be done through first-hand experience?

        May 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • hotairace

          Ah, the old "you have to believe to believe" and "you're not doing it right" excuses for an invisible, alleged but never proven, god, for which there is not a bit of actual evidence. Believers will do or say anything to keep their delusions alive.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • kevinite

          Actually, I really have no idea whether or not one has done it right or not. After all, Otoh claimed to already have done it to no effect. The point is that there are certain things that can only be known through first-hand experience and not through any other means like knowing what salt tastes like; it can only be done through first-hand experience.

          May 15, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kevin....once again, salt is real

          May 15, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • harlow13

          It seems to me like anyone could say that about any claim; 9/11 conspiracies, alien abductions, astrology, Mormonism, dieting plans, political systems, "A Course in Miracles," and on and on. With a little study and faith, Bingo!, I too could be a believer.

          May 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • kevinite

          Gullible,

          So then if salt is real then tell me what salt tastes like?

          May 17, 2014 at 10:12 am |
        • kevinite

          Harlow,

          True, so with all of those beliefs out there how is one going to know then? Again you are going to have to taste the salt for yourself.

          May 17, 2014 at 10:16 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      kevin. If your deity does not want to be made known – how do you know what it wants?

      May 15, 2014 at 10:26 am |
      • kevinite

        For one thing it's not through established fact it is through faith. To obtain that knowledge through faith it can only be done on a personal level like knowing what salt tastes like can only be done through first-hand experience. To know through faith isn't always easy. It is really more like obtaining knowledge through achievement such as through study, prayer, even asking God if he is really there or that whether the teaching you have been studying are in fact true, and also tying to practice those teachings for yourself, so you can know through that first-hand experience.

        May 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Psychotics are convinced they know and have experienced the "truth". "Experiencing" something, then interpreting it, is no sure way to truth, Kevy. : "Faith" is just as bad as psychosis. Believing in things that are not true.

          May 16, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • kevinite

          Luckyball,

          The problem is that there some things out there that in order to find the truth it requires a leap of faith?

          May 17, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • igaftr

          kevin
          How do you know that the bible wasn't actually inspired by Satan, and you are doing his bidding, that you feel Satan's presence and just believe it is "god"?

          The fact is, you don't..so it is just as likely you are following Satan's word, as gods. Since neither can be shown to exist, it is far more likely you are just imagining things.

          May 17, 2014 at 10:24 am |
    • kevinite

      Well, any who it's been fun but once again I need to get ready for work, so TTFN.

      May 15, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      By that reasoning, just because there is evidence that there are no pink unicorns does not mean there are no red unicorns.
      What an idiot.

      May 15, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
      • kevinite

        Just like that does not mean that there aren't any flying tigers, and so on and so on? Just by saying what something is not does not clearly define what something is, which is also goes into why just merely having a lack of evidence to prove one thing does not automatically mean that it always have to very specifically something else.

        May 17, 2014 at 10:29 am |
  18. 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 2:59 am |
    • zhilla1980wasp

      kevin; "Of course Bostonola was asserting positively that all religious rituals are man made."

      all rituals are man-made, meaning came from the minds and hands of man.
      which rituals were created by gods?
      now remember you just stated this;"especially if it is a deity who does not want to be made known"
      if a deity doesn't wish to be known, that is another word for it's hiding and seeing it has all the power you wouldn't even have a single idea that it existed.
      the deity would prevent humans from even having the idea of itself.

      so long story short you have faith (aka no proof) thus you decided that your god is in hiding from the world; however it interacted with humans enough to show itself to bronze age sheepherders?
      do i have that correct?

      May 15, 2014 at 7:03 am |
      • kevinite

        Yes, just like you don't have any proof whatsoever that there is no such God who does not want to be made known and yet you conclude anyway there is no such God. It is all a matter of belief.

        May 15, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          no that is where yourself and i differ kevin. if there isn't proof of something, then it doesn't exist.
          now how can i say this with such certainty? simple until someone can show me that their gods are anything more than just words written on paper, then truly they do not exist, because they are just an idea.

          it's not opinion, it's a fact. a tornado doesn't exist until the right conditions are present to create one.
          the tornado isn't hiding and wanting those that it's about to destroy to "have faith" that it's real.
          the tornado simple relocates your house.

          gods aren't real because no god has ever come to earth and done a single thing themselves; it's always "inspired by god".
          which basically means i did this and i want you to think it's worth more than the paper it's written on.
          until your god does something itself, then just as that tornado that doesn't exist neither does your god.

          May 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • kevinite

          Well, if your comparing God to a tornado then of your reasoning does apply. But the thing is that I do not believe God to be a tornado that is unless God is revealing himself to Job through a whirlwind, of course that doesn't mean your typical whirlwind is actually comparable to God,. Since in this case we are talking about a God who intends to not be made known in the first place, so how does the mere fact of having a lack of conclusive evidence have any actual application in this instance?

          May 15, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • bostontola

      The fact is no ritual has been shown to be anything but man made. Until objective evidence is provided that a ritual was not man made, the fact stands. Neither Hypothetical possibilities, nor assertions are evidence or facts. Nothing is simpler than finding one counter example. That is the lowest bar possible to disprove the statement that rituals are man made. Just provide objective evidence for one example. You tried with prayer and communion but failed, no objective evidence for and I provided objective evidence against.

      May 15, 2014 at 7:54 am |
      • kevinite

        The problem is Bostonola is that you really haven't proven that all religious rituals are in fact only man made. You only keep saying that is the case without having anything to actually back that up. In other words it is just your belief.

        May 15, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • kevinite

          So what is your counter argument proving that there is no God who does not want to be made known but would rather have faith in said deity? You haven't actually produced any counter proof either. Again it's all a matter of belief.

          May 15, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If God doesn't want to be known, how could He instruct His follows how to perform rituals that are pleasing to Him?

          May 15, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          you consistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the difference between evidence based beliefs and facts, and blind faith belief. Your belief in God has no objective evidence, it is blind faith. If ytou want to call my assertion that rituals are man made, I'm ok with that. They are beliefs based on objective evidence, so much that they are recognized as fact. Just like the assertion that there are 8 planets in our solar system. It hasn't been proved, but it is a recgnized fact. Your beliefs are based on no objective evidence. Much of religion is in conflict with scientific fact.

          May 15, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • kevinite

          Actually Bostonola,

          What you are claiming that your assertions being based on hard evidence isn't as hard of evidence as you claim it to be, especially since you didn't present any evidence that proves that there is no God out there who does not want to be made known.

          May 17, 2014 at 10:43 am |
      • kevinite

        Doc,

        You mean like through other than given by telling or showing a prophet who then relays that out to whomever he is able to relay that to? It may not get to everyone but I do believe that like it says in 1 Peter that to those who may not have heard from that prophet about the gospel in life that they will still have that chance to learn and make their choice on whether to follow it or not after this life.

        May 15, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
    • kudlak

      kevinite
      However, every other god and goddess that mankind has ever worshipped is also a "negative" that cannot be proven, but that never stopped people from not believing in them anymore.

      May 15, 2014 at 8:35 am |
  19. 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 t

    May 15, 2014 at 2:47 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 7:13 am |
      • kevinite

        Bostonola,

        "That is what evidence is, things that we know of."

        The problem is that incomplete evidence can lead to a false conclusion.

        " 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."

        Actually what I'm showing is that you really do not have the irrefutable proof that overcomes reasonable doubt.

        " The opponent has a mountain of evidence against his client, you have no objective evidence but you claim there may be undiscovered evidence."

        That mountain of evidence isn't really such mountain and frankly since you are the one who is making the positive assertion that all rituals are for sure only man made and that there is no possibility whatsoever that they may have come from a God who does not want to be made known, that means that you are the one who has the burden of proof to overcome the reasonable doubt.

        "Minuscule chance comes from the fact that you have no objective evidence,"

        The problem with that is that you really don't have anything actual objective evidence to the contrary, because you think you have proof that seems to defy the notion that there is no such deity who does not want to be made known in the first place when such evidence doesn't actually conclude that whatsoever. It's all just your belief.

        ".. even though as time goes on all new evidence has eliminated more and more of traditional religion."

        Such as what? What advances in scientific discovery keep proving that there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place?

        "Your chances become even narrower because yours is but one of thousands of religions/denominations. Every one claims truth."

        It doesn't really matter how many denomination and religions are out there. If there is a God who does not want to be made known peoples varied perceptions really don't effect the probability of such a God's mere existence.

        " 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."

        So, if the chances are "miniscule" as opposed to "impossible" that there is a possibility that there may be God inspired religious rituals then that means you cannot claim with absolute certainty that all religious rituals are in fact only man made in origin.

        May 15, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • hotairace

          I suppose that no actual evidence for any god might be characterized as incomplete evidence. . .

          May 15, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • bostontola

          kevinite,
          Since i told you many posts go and many time, that there is no proof, you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between proof and evidence, nor what consti.tutes a scientific fact. Again, there is no proof that there is only 8 planets orbiting our sun but it is a scientific fact. There is no objective evidence to the contrary, and lots supporting it. Same for the fact that riligious rituals are man made. Apparently, you hate that so much, that you keep going in circles, stating things already addressed multiple times.

          You are exactly like that lwayer I madse up. Your only evidence is imagined things that I can't prove false, that aren't flasefiable. My assertion is easily falsified. Provide 1 example with objective evidence (not one of those lawyer imagined evidences), and my statement is falsified.

          May 15, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • kevinite

          Bostonola,

          You haven't actually presented any evidence to support your case in the first place. All you have presented is inconclusive evidence that could actually go either way and your conclusion on that inconclusive evidence is just your belief.

          May 17, 2014 at 10:36 am |
  20. observer

    truthfollower01

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

    Nope. It takes a Christian to do that.

    May 15, 2014 at 1:11 am |
    • rogerthat2014

      A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, some people made up a bunch of crap and called it the Bible.

      May 15, 2014 at 1:16 am |
    • Keith

      Gods, angels, fairies, demons, devils: one and all are something from nothing.

      May 21, 2014 at 7:47 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.